The Village BBS
General Category => The Political Forum => Topic started by: Baiter on February 04, 2017, 08:01:44 PM
-
I'm sure most of you heard that a Federal judge temporary blocked Trump's immigration ban, and as expected the judge found himself in the crosshairs of social media backlash from the President, who has also tasked the DOJ to un-block it again. The article is a bit extreme, but it has some interesting points:
(CNN) On Saturday morning, President Donald Trump may have unleashed his most bone-chilling tweet -- at least to those who believe the United States should not become a Trump-led dictatorship. And I don't make that comment simply to be provocative or without giving it a great deal of thought. Our democracy is far more fragile than some might grasp and Trump is engaging in a concerned effort to undermine the workings of it.
Here is Trump's truly jaw-dropping tweet from Saturday morning: "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"
Why is this so concerning? It's OK to argue about whether the judge should or shouldn't have issued this order. But Trump is apparently attempting to delegitimize our federal judiciary by calling Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush-appointed judge, a "so-called" judge while arguing that his decision is "ridiculous."
Let's be blunt, because the stakes demand it: An independent federal judiciary is our last, best hope at preventing Trump from violating the US Constitution and illegally grabbing power. And Trump has to understand that, hence his attempt to undermine it.
The President truly appears to be leading a master class in transforming the United States into a dictatorship. Trump -- and it's fair to assume it is by design -- has sought to undermine anyone or anything that tries to counter him.
First, Trump has made the media -- which is a watchdog of our presidents -- a focus of his attacks, calling them "dishonest," claiming they peddle "fake news" and even recently labeling them "the opposition party." The practical result is that when the media calls out Trump's lies and presents objective facts to counter him, his followers will likely dismiss the media reports and instead side with Trump.
Then Trump went after our intelligence agencies because he didn't agree with their views on Russia's involvement in our recent election. Trump lashed out, calling these agencies, charged with gathering information for our national security, "disgraceful" and accusing them of leaking information, comparing it to "something that Nazi Germany would have done."
Trump has clearly begun the process of destroying their credibility so if they come forward in the future to oppose his views or offer facts to undermine his position, he will tell his followers they also aren't to be believed.
And now Trump, who attacked a judge during his campaign, citing his Mexican heritage, has turned on our judiciary again. But this time it's far more disturbing given Trump is not a candidate, but president of the United States. The rationale must be assumed to be the same, namely that Trump wants to delegitimize the judiciary so that court decisions Trump disagrees with will be viewed by his followers as at the least horribly partisan, or at worst invalid.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/opinions/donald-trumps-most-bone-chilling-tweet-obeidallah-opinion/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/opinions/donald-trumps-most-bone-chilling-tweet-obeidallah-opinion/index.html)
-
Yep, I agree... i don't like how he takes attacks personally and returns them the same way. I do think he has cause to respond though and most of his complaints have merit.
I haven't heard the specifics of the Judge's order, but my limited understanding of the law, the roles and responsibilites of each branch of Govt, and the history of immigration policy leave me perplexed on why the EO wouldn't be valid. Is this simply continuing the trend of the Judiciary Branch legislating from the bench on their own political views or is this actually based in real law? Does the Legislative Branch need to clarify the law giving the President the authority to make these decisions? How is this recent EO different than when previous Presidents had issued similar orders? I guess we'll see as this plays out. Let's hope we don't have a future terrorist from one of these countries make his or her way in during this stay on the EO.
-
Part of this stems from the fact that most agencies tasked with enforcing the ban were confused as to how to enforce it, particularly exactly to whom it applies and doesn't apply. In addition, part of this federal ruling questioned it's constitutionality indicating that further research was needed before it can actually be enforced. The acting attorney general was fired for the same concerns.
-
She was fired because she she made a political and philosophical judgement call to order the Agency she had agreed to lead to not follow a legal order. If she made a legal case, that would be different.
All this talk about banning Muslims, but the vast majority of Muslims in the world are not restricted by this order. So who is restricted? Tell me which of the 7 countries was a mistake?
Iraq - Elements of Civil War, Sectarian Genocide, Terrorist bombings/attacks common.
Syria - Dictatorship in open Civil War, home of ISIS, center of Radical Islam, Genocide common.
Iran - Theocratic Govt openly hostile to US/West, State sponsor of regional and global terrorism.
Libya - Failed state in Civil War, terrorism common, Radical Islamic elements in control of half.
Somalia - Warlords, International Piracy, Radical Islam, terrorism... 20 years of failed state.
Sudan - Warlords, child slave soldiers, "Sudan's killing fields" Terrorism as a way of life.
Yemen - Failed state in civil war, Sectarian proxy war by Iran and Saudi Arabia, USS Cole.
These are among the most dangerous countries to travel in and the radical elements destabilizing them are openly hostile to the US and the West and have been effective in carrying out terrorist attacks. While it is noble to want to help innocent people escape that horror, how do you ensure that we're not importing it here? Under the Obama administration, they weren't able to create an effective screening system. Congressional testimony by the previous administration department heads confirmed that - I've watched it. The Trump EO was put in place for the new Administration to have time to create a new screening system or to make a decision to permanently ban immigration from those countries if they couldn't creat one. Where's the problem?
-
Honestly that list of countries is a bit of a ploy as people from most of those countries pose little threat to the U.S. other than the influx of refugees seeking freedom from oppression. They are too consumed with their own infighting to organize cross-Atlantic terrorism. In fact...
Experts told us no fatal attack has been attributed to nationals from those countries, but that there have been a few non-deadly acts by individuals from two of those countries.
Increased homegrown terrorism
According to New America, a think tank compiling information on terrorist activities in the United States since 9/11, 94 people have been killed by jihadists in the past 15 years.
But in its overview of who are the individuals committing the attacks, New America says the majority of attackers come from within.
"Far from being foreign infiltrators, the large majority of jihadist terrorists in the United States have been American citizens or legal residents. Moreover, while a range of citizenship statuses are represented, every jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident," the New America study says. "In addition about a quarter of the extremists are converts, further confirming that the challenge cannot be reduced to one of immigration."
"It's certainly the case that none of the major, deadly attacks carried out in the United States were carried out by people from these countries," said Erin Miller, who manages the Global Terrorism Database for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.
Other experts agreed.
"Since 9/11, no one has been killed in this country in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from any of the seven countries," added William C. Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law.
However, there have been at least three non-deadly attacks in which the perpetrators were from Iran or Somalia, said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, expert on terrorism and a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Nadler said in a CNN interview Jan. 28. "If you really want to protect this country, why are Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey left out of the order? Most of the 9/11 conspirators came from Saudi Arabia."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/)
-
Really? The article is pretty dismissive of the threat and then goes on in the highlighted portion to talk about the majority of attacks being committed by citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The whole purpose of the EO and review of the screening process is to prevent the bad guys from those countries from coming here legally and obtaining citizenship or a green card.
Beyond large scale terrorism attacks, the screening process is supposed to make judgements on who a person is and if they've ever conducted criminal activity. How do you do that for someone from a failed state? Again, the screening process is currently inadequate, and they need to design a new one if possible.
Edit - here's a good video to my point.
http://youtu.be/iQ3KZ6B7OSU (http://youtu.be/iQ3KZ6B7OSU)
-
Beyond large scale terrorism attacks, the screening process is supposed to make judgements on who a person is and if they've ever conducted criminal activity. How do you do that for someone from a failed state? Again, the screening process is currently inadequate, and they need to design a new one if possible.
The point I question is this: Is it worth all this effort to prevent 6 deaths per year? 6 deaths out of the 140,000 accidental deaths we have in the U.S. per year is barely a measurable statistic.
-
Now that the ban on the travel ban has been upheld, it appears Sally Yates, former acting attorney general, was right in her refusal to defend the travel ban, and thus her firing should come under question at this point. Was it technically legal? Sure... but ethics and morals are a much more slippery slope.
-
Sally Yates was fired because her policial views prevented her from faithfully carrying out her duties. What legal argument did she make in opposition to EO 13769?
I have read the courts decision, and while not surprised, I am disappointed. Courts should be apolitical, but they are not. Ask yourself this... If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, is this ruling likely be overturned? If this had been heard by them 2 years ago, would it also have likely been overturned? If this Executive Order had been signed 2 years ago by President Obama, would it have even been challenged in court?
-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152)
“no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.â€
Had Trump not blown his horn for a year about how he was going to ban an entire religion from entering the us, create a muslim registry, etc, there would probably be little to challenge the above law, and it could have been positioned as nothing other than a "Safety" travel ban.
-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152)
“no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.â€
Had Trump not blown his horn for a year about how he was going to ban an entire religion from entering the us, create a muslim registry, etc, there would probably be little to challenge the above law, and it could have been positioned as nothing other than a "Safety" travel ban.
He was schmoozing the "so called Evangelical Right" and it paid off in spades......they don't like mooselambs.
-
Honestly that list of countries is a bit of a ploy as people from most of those countries pose little threat to the U.S. other than the influx of refugees seeking freedom from oppression. They are too consumed with their own infighting to organize cross-Atlantic terrorism. In fact...
So we have had 72 convicted terrorist come from the countries Trump wants to ban since 9-11 (just think how many have not been caught or convicted yet). Look what just 1 terrorist did in Orlando. But you think they "pose little threat". :roll:
Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.
According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.
The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582)
-
How many deaths have been caused by terrorist attacks from the Travel Ban countries since 9/11? I am pretty sure it is zero.
The Orlando shooter was an American, born in New York. His parents were from Afghanistan. Another country not on the Travel ban.
Trump might want to take a look at Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, UAE, Egypt- These countries have produced terrorist attacks on US soil, with high death counts (... 9/11). He might also want to take a look US-born and led terrorist attacks, which again, this ban would not have prevented.
-
I'm curios if Trumps 90 day hold and review process included those countries if you'd support it? Wouldn't that just open him further to the charge that "this is really just a muslim ban?" Are you really asking him to look at banning those countries or are you creating a straw man?
I see this as 4 separate questions....
1. How do you screen those who only wish to come here for a better life from those that want to do us harm.
2. How do you screen those who will abide by American laws, values, and integrate into our melting pot of culture from those who would self segregate or seek to impose their previous cultural norms on us.
3. How do you check the backgrounds of people when they come from a Country that is either unable to aid us in that process or from one that is openly hostile to that process.
4. What skills and level of self sufficiency do we require vs how much in welfare are we willing to give out.
Those are my 4 top priorities, and as long as they can pass all of them, I really don't care if they're White, Brown, Black, Yellow, or Blue. I don't even care if they speak English as long as they're willing to learn.
-
Good questions, but I really only see one- similar to Baiter's about the great wall of Mexico.
What problem is the travel ban on those 7 countries solving. "Make America Safe Again?" A little too vague for me. The engineer in me says, "if you want to stop terrorist attacks in the US, find out where the terrorists are coming from, and focus on those countries. Not "we pocked these countries because Obama did."
Or if they are already here, i.e. born here/citizens, make it more difficult to get weapons. How about extreme vetting for people trying to buy guns? That's a much more defined group, and easier to manage then the loosely defined pool of all mexicans, because they are rapists, and all muslims, because they want to do us harm.
-
I'm curios if Trumps 90 day hold and review process included those countries if you'd support it? Wouldn't that just open him further to the charge that "this is really just a muslim ban?" Are you really asking him to look at banning those countries or are you creating a straw man?
Trump spent a year campaigning about doing a Muslim ban, and in the actual ban he went as far as to exclude those from minority religions in those countries. As the judges ruled, there is overwhelming evidence that this order was directed at Muslims, regardless of the inclusion of other countries. The missing countries are the real eye opener, right? We can be fairly certain there would be political ramifications from those countries that Trump et al. doesn't want to deal with.
-
-
How many deaths have been caused by terrorist attacks from the Travel Ban countries since 9/11? I am pretty sure it is zero.
Got it, you have no problem that we have 72 convicted terrorist from those countries. Let's keep letting them flow in until we get a competent one.
-
Got it. We'll just sweep the fact that many of the post 9/11 terrorist attacks were committed by US citizens born in the US, and blame the 7 countries for what may happen in the future. I am not sure how we can improve on "Zero Deaths caused by terrorists from those countries." Seems like the system may have been working already, before Trump decided to fix it with his muslim ban.... er "travel restriction."
I wouldn't go fishing in a pond that nobody has ever seen a fish in. I would go to one that is stocked.
Happy fishin'!
-
More to the point, would you go fishing in a pond you knew was polluted? That's really what we're talking about... countries that are failed/hostile states that have widespread terrorism - or do you deny that there is a lot of terrorism associated with each of these countries?
-
More to the point, would you go fishng in a pond you knew was polluted? That's really what we're talking about... countries that are failed/hostile states that have widespread terrorism - or do you deny that there is terrorism associated with each of these countries?
Thanks for the segue......did you know that the Trump administration is "hell bent" on dismantling the EPA!
Say bye bye to unpolluted ponds,clean air and water.Remember Love Canal and the numerous EPA Super fund clean up sites ? Our tax dollars
paid for them and continues to do so.
-
Thanks for the segue......did you know that the Trump administration is "hell bent" on dismantling the EPA!
Say bye bye to unpolluted ponds,clean air and water.Remember Love Canal and the numerous EPA Super fund clean up sites ? Our tax dollars
paid for them and continues to do so.
Speaking of Super, did you know that Trump rigged the Super Bowl so that the Patriots would win? :o
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C39BYMMWMAAUDce.jpg)
-
Got it, you have no problem that we have 72 convicted terrorist from those countries. Let's keep letting them flow in until we get a competent one.
It's a bit ludicrous to justify banning 212 million people over 72 non-lethal convictions, particularly when the justification for the action leaves out the countries where the 9/11 terrorists actually came from. It's like the Iraq war justification all over again.
By the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, pm me for details.
-
Speaking of Super, did you know that Trump rigged the Super Bowl so that the Patriots would win? :o
ya...how else can you explain that Atlanta beat down for 3.25 quarters?
fuck the bradys. fakest football team in NFL history. just look at how they became "the greatest team"...after 9/11.
if you don't think football, basketball, and baseball are rigged for "sales"...I present to you...boxing. :o
-
I am still looking for some sort of confirmation on the claims of 72 arrests.... Hannity isn't talking about it... pretty much nobody, NOT EVEN TRUMP, is talking about it. He calls attention to nordstrom dropping his daughters foreign made goods, but 72 supposed arrests from his terrorist factory countries are not Trump tweet worthy? His chance to say "F-you courts, press, see, I was right, told you so, told you so," and he passes? Yeah.... right....
Researching a bit more about the "center for immigration studies," where this "study" originated, produces some interesting results. Words like, Fake News, Hate Group, etc.
They are about "immigration reform," i.e. reducing it.
Here is a bit more information on the source of this study:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studies-cis/
Sorry, I am calling Bullsh!t here.
-
It's a bit ludicrous to justify banning 212 million people over 72 non-lethal convictions, particularly when the justification for the action leaves out the countries where the 9/11 terrorists actually came from. It's like the Iraq war justification all over again.
By the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, pm me for details.
So what is the magic number then before it would become too much of an risk? Where is the benifit to our country when there is even minimal risk? If given the choice between an immigrant from country A where there is a very slight risk of terrorism and one from country B where there is no risk, why is this even a decision?
I WANT immigration, but we don't NEED immigration. So why take the risk with countries that we can't do a proper background check, especially when Billions of people from other countries are available that come from societies without a religious and cultural civil war against western values? That simply makes no sense to me. Why are Muslims from these countries so special that we need more of them at the expense of say... Chinese or Guatemalans who wouldn't pose the same risk?
-
So what is the magic number then before it would become too much of an risk? Where is the benifit to our country when there is even minimal risk? If given the choice between an immigrant from country A where there is a very slight risk of terrorism and one from country B where there is no risk, why is this even a decision?
I WANT immigration, but we don't NEED immigration. So why take the risk with countries that we can't do a proper background check, especially when Billions of people from other countries are available that come from societies without a religious and cultural civil war against western values? That simply makes no sense to me. Why are Muslims from these countries so special that we need more of them at the expense of say... Chinese or Guatemalans who wouldn't pose the same risk?
What you are stating is the opposite of freedom... One might think we are in the new Christian crusades, except that Bishops and The Pope himself have criticized the wall and this ban. The White House wouldn't even give justification to the federal courts for this appeal, so they just flat out denied it, calling it unconstitutional.
So what really the motive behind this, because it's definitely not terrorism. In 16 years we have *zero* deaths from terrorists from the banned countries, yet Central Florida has about 3200 homicides in that time. Should we quarantine Central Florida from the rest of the world to save lives? Taken to the extreme it sounds like an attempt to quarantining all travel for everyone everywhere based on unspecified fears, but I can't believe you think that, so I'd like to hear more of your thoughts as to the real motives.
-
So what really the motive behind this, because it's definitely not terrorism. In 16 years we have *zero* deaths from terrorists from the banned countries, yet Central Florida has about 3200 homicides in that time. Should we quarantine Central Florida from the rest of the world to save lives? Taken to the extreme it sounds like an attempt to quarantining all travel for everyone everywhere based on unspecified fears, but I can't believe you think that, so I'd like to hear more of your thoughts as to the real motives.
More people died by homicide in 1941 than were killed in Pearl Harbor. Should we not have entered World War II? ???
-
More people died by homicide in 1941 than were killed in Pearl Harbor. Should we not have entered World War II? ???
Both situations involve significant actual homicides, which is not the case with the 7 country muslim ban. Keep trying though.
-
Both situations involve significant actual homicides, which is not the case with the 7 country muslim ban. Keep trying though.
You're right; we should wait until some innocent Americans die first before we do anything about it.
-
You're right; we should wait until some innocent Americans die first before we do anything about it.
Good for you! Common sense gun control is something we can all get behind!
-
You're right; we should wait until some innocent Americans die first before we do anything about it.
Angling for that job as a Precog are you?
-
You're right; we should wait until some innocent Americans die first before we do anything about it.
If a situation doesn't exist then what problem is being solved? I've given all the statistics can find no justification to ban over 200 Million people on the basis of "well someday one of them might do something crazy" because 4th generation Americans do something crazy in every city every day. At best the order is fear mongering, and at worst it's government sponsored hate against a single religion and multiple nationalities. Tell me how you think the order is justified, because even the White House won't do it.
-
If a situation doesn't exist then what problem is being solved?
The threat from Islamic radicals doesn't exist; repeat it until you believe it.
-
The threat from Islamic radicals doesn't exist; repeat it until you believe it.
Trumps having an "Ego Masturbation" Rally on this Saturday in Melbourne FL,if you need an Islamophobia recharge that's
the place to be!Tickets are free get em while you can.
-
Trumps having an "Ego Masturbation" Rally on this Saturday in Melbourne FL,if you need an Islamophobia recharge that's
the place to be!Tickets are free get em while you can.
I assume you already have yours.
-
The threat from Islamic radicals doesn't exist; repeat it until you believe it.
The possibility of a threat does not justify banning 212 million people.
-
The possibility of a threat does not justify banning 212 million people.
It's not justified until Americans are dead and, even then, you'd come up with some excuse that it still isn't justified. That's clear and that's all I need to know.
-
The possibility of a threat does not justify banning 212 million people.
If the President thinks so, then yes, it does.
-
If the President thinks so, then yes, it does
The President thinks a lot of things- many of which are not justified. Because I dont want to type a long text, I will provide keywords: birth certificate, 3-5 million illegal, Putin not Ukraine, murder rate highest, landslide victory, cruz lee harvey, and so on.
-
If the President thinks so, then yes, it does.
Seriously? You can't make your own decisions?
-
Can't help but to roll my eyes when i see people talking about immigration and especially garbage about Mexico, central and south american immigration to this country when it comes to Trumps ideas; Which are literally nothing new.
Clinton started the wall initiative back in 1994 with operation gatekeeper and Obama has deported more immigrants than all other US presidents that came before him combined. His figures still don't even include the last year of his presidency which are going to be very interesting to see in the least.
Yet, today we are marking a movement by the far-left to have immigrants sit out work today to protest some "unprecedented" policies made by Trump? The wall and deportation numbers are a prime example of how the mainstream media has held up lies for the far-left for literally decades.
So can anyone on the left please explain to me what this is and how long its been there?
(http://thehilltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/image.adapt_.990.high_.border_fence_073014.1447285468870.jpg)
-
Its a wall. Doesn't look like we need to spend 21B more, since its already there.
today we are marking a movement by the far-left to have immigrants sit out work today
Which is concerning. I am supposed to be eating at a fantastic cuban restaurant tonight, and I will not be happy if I can't get my ropa vieja, because this place is very authentic ;)
-
That wall reminds me of Trumps press conference today........rambling and convoluted.
-
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a40/Yosho1626/0eb6efc85f09409e30c5a7c34cf5659f.jpg)
-
crap. does this mean trump is going to deport my Arabian Nights and my Cue Ball Wizard (you know that Mexican cowboy is not legally here). :-X
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
LOS ANGELES (KABC) --
Sunday will mark 75 years since the signing of a presidential executive order that sent nearly 120,000 innocent Japanese Americans to internment camps.
Executive Order 9066 was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Feb. 19, 1942, and showed an incredible display of a president's power.
"Roosevelt with a stroke of the pen, with his signature, changed the history of a people in the United States, most of whom were citizens, forever," Jennifer Jones with the Smithsonian Institution said.
It was an executive order that, to borrow a line from Roosevelt himself, "will live in infamy." The anniversary of its signing is now referred to as the Day of Remembrance.
With the current political climate, many famous Americans who have a deep understanding of Executive Order 9066 are explaining why it should never be forgotten.
"This country was swept up in war hysteria and racism. And we were seen as equal to the enemy just because of our face," said actor George Takei, who was 5 years old at the time.
Even though there wasn't a single act of espionage, thousands were rounded up. Many were taken by truck first to the Santa Anita Racetrack in Arcadia and forced to sleep in horse stalls.
"Each family was assigned a horse stall to sleep in," Takei recalled. "For my parents, they told me later, it was a degrading, humiliating thing to be told to sleep in that horse stall. It still stank of horse manure."
"My mom would tell about living in horse stalls that had been cleaned out, but you could still tell that obviously it was a horse stall," explained Judge Lance Ito, who presided over the O.J. Simpson murder trial.
Sen. Alan Simpson was 10 years old at the time in Cody, Wyoming, where one of the communities was built. The government called them internment camps, but in reality, they were prisons.
"The thing that made us all concerned was the barbed wire fence and the guard towers and the guards and the guns and the tower. All aimed inside. It wouldn't matter who was out there. That would spook you up," Simpson said.
Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta recalled seeing the devastation on his father's face.
"As the train was pulling out of San Jose, I looked around and looked at my dad and all these tears were coming down," Mineta shared.
Both strong and resilient, many adjusted to their situation, no matter how demeaning the circumstances may have been.
"I adjusted to living in imprisonment. It became normal for me to go to school in a black tar paper barrack and begin the school day with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I could see the barbed wire fence and the sentry towers right outside my schoolhouse window as I recited the words 'with liberty and justice for all,' too young to really feel the stinging irony of those words," Takei said.
"The fact that you could take a whole group of people identified only by national origin, order them from their homes and hold them in a very desolate place for an indefinite period of time, is a violation of due process of law. It's a violation of your right to have a trial. It's a violation of so much of our constitution," Ito said. "And somebody needs to stand up when those rights are violated."
In 1988, the U.S. government admitted that serious injustices were done to Japanese Americans during World War II.
A special commission called it the result of "race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership."
"Out of this tragedy comes this great lesson, and to me, when I think of that legislation and it says, 'And on behalf of the American people, the Congress apologizes to those of Japanese ancestry for the gross violation of their constitutional rights,'" Mineta said while holding back tears.
"Hate, there was hate here," Simpson said. "And hatred corrodes the container it's carried in."
That hate and imprisonment would have a lasting impact on the Japanese American community.
"It changed how they thought of themselves, not just as Americans, but now isolated as looking like the enemy as being Japanese, and yet it also moved them to make sure that this never happened again to another minority group in the United States," Jones said.
Most of the families forced into the camps lost everything, including their homes, jobs and possessions. Even after the war ended, it took many Japanese Americans more than a generation to earn it back.
-
Sunday will mark 75 years since the signing of a presidential executive order that sent nearly 120,000 innocent Japanese Americans to internment camps.
Executive Order 9066 was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Feb. 19, 1942, and showed an incredible display of a president's power.
"Roosevelt with a stroke of the pen, with his signature, changed the history of a people in the United States, most of whom were citizens, forever," Jennifer Jones with the Smithsonian Institution said.
It was an executive order that, to borrow a line from Roosevelt himself, "will live in infamy." The anniversary of its signing is now referred to as the Day of Remembrance.
What sort of sick, sad individual could ever bring themselves to even consider voting for a candidate of the party of the president who signed that order...? ???
-
George W Bush had some interesting things to say about the Muslim ban (posted parts of the article in the Press topic as well)
Bush, who was president at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, also pushed back at the Trump administration's controversial attempt to halt migrants from seven mostly-Muslim countries from coming to the U.S.
"I think it's very important, for all of us, to recognize one our great strengths is for people to worship the way they want to or not worship at all," he said. "I mean the bedrock of our freedom-a bedrock of our freedom is the right to worship freely."
Asked point blank if he favored a Muslim ban, Bush said "I am for an immigration policy that's welcoming and upholds the law."
Bush won worldwide praise in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks for stressing that the teachings of Islam are "good and peaceful."
"This was an ideological conflict and people who murder the innocent are not religious people," he said. "They want to advance an ideology and we have faced those kind of ideologies in the past."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-w-bush-free-press-indispensable-democracy-n726141 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-w-bush-free-press-indispensable-democracy-n726141)
-
George W Bush had some interesting things to say about the Muslim ban (posted parts of the article in the Press topic as well)
Why should we listen to him when everything bad that happened in the last eight years was his fault...? ???
-
Why should we listen to him when everything bad that happened in the last eight years was his fault...
C'mon now. You know that's not true. Everything bad that has happened was because of Hillary's emails. Did you see that crazy face she made when she sipped that coffee! :o
-
C'mon now. You know that's not true. Everything bad that has happened was because of Hillary's emails. Did you see that crazy face she made when she sipped that coffee! :o
Who ever said that? I'm just going by what Obama said numerous times...
-
Who ever said that?
Every person that voted for Trump. Hillary's emails are the downfall of the civilized world. Chant after me, "Lock Her Up. Lock Her Up."
-
Every person that voted for Trump.
That sounds like a generalization. :o
-
More of a stereotype :)
-
Why should we listen to him when everything bad that happened in the last eight years was his fault...? ???
Generalizations, generalizations. :)
Bush's interview was like a breath of fresh air... spoken like a man with experience and the country's best interests in mind. Even with the black marks on his foreign policy, I was far more comfortable with Bush as President than I am with Trump's "leadership" at this point.
-
I suppose it's worth mentioning that there is a revised travel ban. It excludes Iraq this time for several reasons, eliminates the minority religion clause that made it obviously a ban on a religion, excludes green card holders and those with visas.
Ultimately it seems this may help it stand up in court, but as I've outlined in detail, there is no actual evidence that this will make America safer considering most terrorist crimes on U.S. soil are performed by U.S. citizens.