I went back and  re-read that portion of the Wiki, and I'm shocked that 
the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional the way the Japanese American's 
civil rights were violated.  I certainly don't think this could happen 
today except in the undeniable presents of the gravest threat to the 
American people.  I simply misread the below except thinking the Supreme 
Court ruled the treatment of Japanese American people as 
unconstitutional.  The Supreme Courts upholding of President Roosevelt's 
Executive Order 9066 is also one of the most shameful ruling ever handed 
down by the Surpeme Court in the history of the US.  These were 
decisions based on FEAR.  The Fear.

#------------------------------------------
President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive 
Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate 
"military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons 
may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of 
Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including 
all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in 
internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that 
it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when 
there is a "pressing public necessity."

#-------------------------------------

Regards,

LelandJ


President Franklin Roosevelt 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Roosevelt> authorized the 
internment with Executive Order 9066 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066>, which allowed local 
military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", 
from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to 
declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the 
entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and 
Washington, except for those in internment camps.^[4] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#_note-korematsu_roberts>
 
In 1944, the Supreme Court 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States> upheld 
the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing 
that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group 
when there is a "pressing public necessity."^[5] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#_note-korematsu_majority>
 




Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:09 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> <snip>
>   
>>>> Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. <g>
>>>>         
>>> <g> to you as well! It worked in WW II. If it hadn't worked the libs and 
>>> Ds would be favoring it now.
>>>       
>> Muslim men could be shot on sight if they did not surrender for placement 
>> into US Gulags
>>     
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> You are starting to twist people's words the way Ed does. I didn't say Gulag. 
> What I was talking about was this: Leftist darling F.D. Roosevelt's executive 
> order.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
>
> Gulag indeed. Assigned to the discression of the military to determine 
> exclusion zones. And only a few casualties.
>
> I suppose today's commanders would keep the 'slims away from population 
> centers, large highways, ports, rail, airports and the like. If so, the 
> disloyal or cowardly 'slims could live free way out in the sticks, if they so 
> desired. The brave, loyal 'slims would fight beside us, and wear our uniform.
>   



_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to