Fair question. First of all, if I thank you for your service you’ll probably think I’m being insincere, but I’m not. I do thank you for your sacrifices. I too am a veteran and my son is a veteran.
As to your question as to what I consider a patriot, here’s the simple answer. A patriot does not look for ways to undermine the moral integrity of their country during a time of its utmost peril, during a time of war. No matter how you chose to rationalize this, to do this is undeniably aiding and abetting our enemies, and to me, that is simply unconscionable. And a patriot does not do this. Further, a patriot does not merely repeat popular opinions about the supposed immoral acts of their country, but does his own careful research to see how much validity these attacks might actually have, to see what the circumstance really were at the time, and — most importantly — what the alternatives would have been. In short, a patriot thinks long and hard before adding his voice to that chorus of American-bashing leftists.
A patriot’s main concern is in defending America against such disingenuous assaults on her character, not advancing them. And don’t use the excuse of your right to free speech, a right that you fought for. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t wash with me anymore. Your right to free speech doesn’t oblige you to use it to the detriment of you own country. You consider that you are speaking for the truth, and in that way you are helping America. But you haven’t even bothered to do you homework before speaking out. I’m sorry, but I have no respect for this kind of intellectual laziness. You have, as I stated earlier, just totally ignored all of the carefully researched and substantiated facts of the arguments in that article and just continued defending your personal opinion.
You are, as I said earlier, exactly who this article was written for.
Let me try this. I think we should not use torture as a government policy. I don’ think there is any doubt that some of the terrorists we captured were tortured (assuming waterboarding is torture). I was even one of those who thought it was perfectly legitimate, and given the reasonable fear we had of further 9/11 attacks it was totally understandable. But now that we have had a chance to look back I think we need an honest debate about it. My problem with torture is that if it is done to our POWs we will lose a great deal of our moral right to denounce it if we have done the same thing. I also think, and many interrogators agree, that there are better, albeit slower, means of getting information. That does not mean that if a US soldier puts a gun to prisoners head and demands information to save his men, he should be found at fault.
My point about the Japanese internment camps is not to condemn those who did it or supported it. It’s to simply point out that in hindsight it was most definitely unconstitutional and should not have been done. The only time a president has a right to suspend habeas corpus with a US citizen in the US, is when he declares martial law. Roosevelt didn’t do that. If he had deported all non us citizen Japanese in the US, it would have been a totally different issue.
I feel the same way about treatment of the American Indians. American Indians were not all spiritual people always acting in self defense, but that doesn’t justify what was done to them after 1876.
I agree with everything else you wrote in your article. I get truly fed up with people finding fault with things we have done in the past simply because based on today’s more pacifist views some people might consider them wrong. I think it is one of the failings of our teaching of history in high school and college.
Anyway, I thank you and your son for your service as well.
Was it a great decision? No. Was it a necessary decision? Yes, given that they had neither the abilities nor the manpower we have today to monitor suspected subversives.
Today, even that is derided by the PC groups who think everything and everybody is okay.
As the article mentions, 80% to 85% were loyal to America, but again, that is in pure hindsight. Also ignored, and not a good reason to have interred them, was the very real possibility of what we call today “Hate Crimes” against them for their ancestry.
Those that fought in Europe distinguished themselves in ways rivaled by few.
In the early 80’s I worked with one who was in the camps and went on to fight in Europe and who was severely wounded in battle. He expressed no anger at the country for being interred, held no bitterness for his wounds. He understood it as a security measure, as nearly any Veteran would.
When the talk of reparations was beginning, he would just shake his head at it all.
If an argument about this should continue, it should be done from the prospective of the times with full consideration given to the abilities and the very real threat we faced then, not looking back from today upon every misstep of it. We cannot change it and should not use it as an example to allow potential or known subversive groups free reign throughout the country today.
Our freedoms are being distorted to seek the end of our freedoms by some groups and too many bleeding hearts place an impossible task upon those who protect us by burdening them with unnecessarily restrictive and dangerous delays in acting against or even monitoring those with known intentions of destroying our society.
**putting soap box away now**