Answer the question.
Are you in favor of concentration camps. To put in prison those you do not happen to agree with.
Your ilk did it before..one, simply for the shape of the eyes and two, because others were of a religious view that was in opposition to war and had German sounding names.
Your little ditty about the Bund was cute. But you also failed to mention that Churchill put the Jews into concentration camps that fled Germany and he did that for nefarious reasons.
Then you failed to account for..a legal declared war.
So answer the question..are you in favor of concentration camps and putting into prison those you do not agree with.
Crz must realize I share with him equal freedom of thought and expression.
My freedom allows me to choose to respond to Freepers that treat all others, regardless of shared political opinion, with respect such as: without abusive comments name-calling, taunting, trolling, stalking, flame-baiting.
Nor, do I choose to respond those Freepers that comment with: insults, religious insults, flames, threats, ill-wishes, harassing & annoying posts, unwanted posts & FReepmail, etc, etc, etc”
Crz does not qualify for a response from me.
You are moving those goalposts with a Lambo.
I do not think a government should imprison its opponents, under normal circumstances. In very rare cases you can make a case for that (rebellion, say). Peru under Pinochet did so, under imminent threat of guerilla war. I would have cut Pinochet a lot of slack.
I say that in a state of war - a state of war, specifically, however that is legally defined in a given country, and the matter of a “just war” comes into play - it is legitimate for a government to detain, imprison or otherwise deal with those who aid or sympathise with the enemy. What measures a government in such a state of war decides to take on this matter depends entirely on specific circumstances and their judgement. I would cut that government a lot of slack.
Under a state of war a vast range of civil liberties can be suspended, including property rights (production mandates, contracts, condemnation, seizure), free association (rationing, travel, etc.), free speech (censorship), you name it. Every government in a state of war is effectively a dictatorship.
And the US was certainly like that in WW2. And WWI, and the US Civil War, and the Revolutionary War. And rightly so.
Inter arma enim silent leges
To be specific, in your case, if the US declares war on Russia, or vice versa, and the US Congress passes the relevant legislation, it would be perfectly legitimate for the US government to hunt you down, and your friends.
Whether it actually does or not (dealing with a hypothetical) depends entirely on the judgement of the government.
The US certainly did put the Japanese in concentration camps in WW2, and plenty of Germans and Italians. And that was without any of them actually aiding the enemy.
That was permitted, given the broad wartime powers granted the President.
The only questions are about soundness of judgement, and whether postwar judges ruled compensation was due. While the war was on legalities were moot.