ADVERTISEMENT

FDR's Concentration Camp for American Citizens vs. Gitmo for enemy combatants. Which is worse?

Which of the two things do you think is a bigger black eye in American History?

  • Gitmo under Bush

    Votes: 11 11.6%
  • Internment Camp for American citizens under FDR

    Votes: 88 92.6%

  • Total voters
    95

YellowSnow51

HR King
Aug 14, 2002
62,402
4,327
113
Hard not to notice that a lot of the people who think Bush is terrible for having a prison in Gitmo for people suspected of siding with terrorist organizations, also think FDR is the greatest ever while ignoring the fact that he put American citizens in prison camps simply for having slanted eyes and having hard to pronounce last names.

Quite a messed up reality those folks live in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IMCC965
Lincoln trumps both. Not only did he authorized pillage and rape against Southerners. He also fired upon and arrested countless Northerners, some for simple speaking their minds and exercising their Constitutional right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. No president or act in American history comes close to the atrocity that was Lincoln.
 
Needless to say, most lefties admire FDR but criticize that episode (and a few other things FDR did). But righties seem unable to do that when it comes to Gitmo and Bush.

I find it interesting that even though the poll allows people to pick BOTH answers - as I did - almost no one has exercised that option.
 
Needless to say, most lefties admire FDR but criticize that episode (and a few other things FDR did). But righties seem unable to do that when it comes to Gitmo and Bush.

I find it interesting that even though the poll allows people to pick BOTH answers - as I did - almost no one has exercised that option.
So, they are both worse?
 
The left also turns a blind eye to FDRs vehement opposition to public sector unions.
 
Lincoln trumps both. Not only did he authorized pillage and rape against Southerners. He also fired upon and arrested countless Northerners, some for simple speaking their minds and exercising their Constitutional right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. No president or act in American history comes close to the atrocity that was Lincoln.
Love it or leave it. Too bad Ricky Stanzi wasn't around to tell you morons that in 1860.
 
Love it or leave it. Too bad Ricky Stanzi wasn't around to tell you morons that in 1860.
Seriously? Call me crazy, but the South was trying to leave it.

Regardless Lincoln was a tyrannical piece of crap to not only the South but also the North. Wether you think the South had the right to secede or not he was a horrible blight on our history.
 
Seriously? Call me crazy, but the South was trying to leave it.

Regardless Lincoln was a tyrannical piece of crap to not only the South but also the North. Wether you think the South had the right to secede or not he was a horrible blight on our history.
They were trying to secede and not leave. Hell they all could have packed up and moved to Mexico. We would be better off for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
For those of us who were not alive on 12/7/1941 it is unfair for us to judge objectively. In hindsight what FDR did to the Japanese is unforgivable. Which act is "worse" is strictly personal opinion. Both acts were deemed necessary at the time and "we the people" allowed them both to occur.
I voted for the internment camps but in FDR's defense the stakes were much, much higher then.
 
I voted for the internment camps but in FDR's defense the stakes were much, much higher then.

Important point. I hate it but what would I have done? Sure, I'd like to think I would have done something better. Or at very least done the same thing with more humanity. But the truth is that FDR could have handled it MUCH worse. And, as you say, the stakes were astronomical. Nor did we have the comfort of satellites and surveillance to make us think we had the luxury to act differently.

It's like those Milgram experiments where people administered (what they thought were) shocks of increasing severity to test subjects even after they were audibly screaming in pain. We'd all like to believe we would have refused to keep going. But most people didn't refuse, and we are probably kidding ourselves to think that we would have done better.
 
Lincoln trumps both. Not only did he authorized pillage and rape against Southerners. He also fired upon and arrested countless Northerners, some for simple speaking their minds and exercising their Constitutional right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. No president or act in American history comes close to the atrocity that was Lincoln.



not_again_616.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
What is /was bad about Gitmo?

I have always wondered the same thing. President Bush was confronted with a very ambiguous situation and did not make the decision to set up the Gitmo camp lightly. These were clearly POW's, and yet they were likely to be held for a very very long time. Congress authorized Gitmo and also authorized military tribunals to deal with the guys who landed there.

Everyone considered it absolutely essential that the terrorists not be allowed on U.S. soil or allowed to in any way mix with regular criminal inmates. Government lawyers seemed to understand from the start that there would be attempts to end-run the military law and to apply U.S. criminal law to these characters who were rounded up on the battlefield. Certainly, we did not want them to spread their belief system to American criminals, so it was imperative that they be kept apart. Additionally, we controlled the operation of Gitmo and had no dependence on either Afghan or Iraqi guards/prosecutors or risked reprisals from the locals.

The courts seem to have accepted this set-up as legal and yet President Obama appears to be Hell-bent on closing the place. He went out on a limb with a campaign promise without even knowing that there had been ongoing efforts to get these folks out of our hands. He acted surprised that in many cases, their native countries had already rejected them.

I am waiting for the Castro brothers to demand a repatriation of Gitmo to Cuba in return for allowing their pictures to be taken with Obama.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: icu81222
So you think we should have remained British?
Do you think the British, had they won the war, would have let Washington off with a slap on the wrist like Lincoln gave to Lee and Davis? Was the treatment from the British any less than that during the Revolutionary War? Why do you clowns blame Lincoln when he was barely in office when you started the war?
 
Do you think the British, had they won the war, would have let Washington off with a slap on the wrist like Lincoln gave to Lee and Davis? Was the treatment from the British any less than that during the Revolutionary War? Why do you clowns blame Lincoln when he was barely in office when you started the war?
The South did not start the war. Fort Sumter is in the South and the Union had no right to be there doing what they were. If you invade my house and I shoot at you, you are still the invader.

And regardless of wether you support the right to secede, both the revolutionary and civil wars are identical in purpose. You cannot say honestly that they were different. If you truly believe people should tuck tail and run rather than protect their land, then you must think America was wrong to revolt against the British.

Finally, read my posts. Lincoln was a tyrant because of his actions during the war. He authorized atrocities against both the Confederacy and the Union. He ignored both the Constitution and international agreements. He should not have started the war, but even if you support the war in cause, you cannot ignore his illegal and immoral actions during the war. He was every bit as bad as the "evil dictators" we try to remove in modern times. He suspended both Habeas corpus and the first amendment. Sending not only Southerners, but also Northerners who simply disagreed with him to concentration camps. He shut down Northern newspapers that criticized him and did all of this despite lacking authority and being admonished by both Congress and the SCOTUS.

The man was quite simply the worst tyrant in American history.
 
For those of us who were not alive on 12/7/1941 it is unfair for us to judge objectively. In hindsight what FDR did to the Japanese is unforgivable. Which act is "worse" is strictly personal opinion. Both acts were deemed necessary at the time and "we the people" allowed them both to occur.

You never cease to amaze me. Would you take such a cavalier attitude if AMERICAN citizens were imprisoned on American soil for opposing Obama's policies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pablow
The South did not start the war. Fort Sumter is in the South and the Union had no right to be there doing what they were. If you invade my house and I shoot at you, you are still the invader.

And regardless of wether you support the right to secede, both the revolutionary and civil wars are identical in purpose. You cannot say honestly that they were different. If you truly believe people should tuck tail and run rather than protect their land, then you must think America was wrong to revolt against the British.

Finally, read my posts. Lincoln was a tyrant because of his actions during the war. He authorized atrocities against both the Confederacy and the Union. He ignored both the Constitution and international agreements. He should not have started the war, but even if you support the war in cause, you cannot ignore his illegal and immoral actions during the war. He was every bit as bad as the "evil dictators" we try to remove in modern times. He suspended both Habeas corpus and the first amendment. Sending not only Southerners, but also Northerners who simply disagreed with him to concentration camps. He shut down Northern newspapers that criticized him and did all of this despite lacking authority and being admonished by both Congress and the SCOTUS.

The man was quite simply the worst tyrant in American history.
Judging decisions of historical figures thru the prism of the present we can find plenty that we would do differently.

What we don't know is what we would do without the benefit of knowing the results before we had to make a decision in their time. For example do you believe Lincoln would have done what he did during the war if he knew he was going win in 5 years without doing it. A northern victory was not the sure thing in 1860 like it was in 1865. There was no Google that Lincoln could use to see how things were going to turn out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Judging decisions of historical figures thru the prism of the present we can find plenty that we would do differently.

What we don't know is what we would do without the benefit of knowing the results before we had to make a decision in their time. For example do you believe Lincoln would have done what he did during the war if he knew he was going win in 5 years without doing it. A northern victory was not the sure thing in 1860 like it was in 1865. There was no Google that Lincoln could use to see how things were going to turn out.
You could use that logic to rationalize anyone's actions. I don't subscribe to it though. There are quite compelling arguments that man does not possess free will, which effectively means none of us are morally responsible for our actions, but instead are merely victims of our own genetics and environment. I don't buy into that though. The ends do not justify any and all means. I would rather lose rightly then win wrongly. But that's me.
 
You could use that logic to rationalize anyone's actions. I don't subscribe to it though. There are quite compelling arguments that man does not possess free will, which effectively means none of us are morally responsible for our actions, but instead are merely victims of our own genetics and environment. I don't buy into that though. The ends do not justify any and all means. I would rather lose rightly then win wrongly. But that's me.
I'd like to see what you come up with if you judge the south's actions by this standard.
 
You could use that logic to rationalize anyone's actions. I don't subscribe to it though. There are quite compelling arguments that man does not possess free will, which effectively means none of us are morally responsible for our actions, but instead are merely victims of our own genetics and environment. I don't buy into that though. The ends do not justify any and all means. I would rather lose rightly then win wrongly. But that's me.
Nice words but you did not carry the fate of a nation on your shoulders based on your decisions without knowing what the outcome would be. Being president is hard enough in peace time but in a time of war the pressure would be so much more.
 
The common denominator in all these is WAR. War is the biggest promoter of immorality and uncivilized behavior that the species will ever experience. It's a shame that those who profit from it never actually experience the suffering, loss, pain and injustice it brings every time. It's even more tragic that average people put their trust in those people!
 
Nice words but you did not carry the fate of a nation on your shoulders based on your decisions without knowing what the outcome would be. Being president is hard enough in peace time but in a time of war the pressure would be so much more.
Do you apply that to all world leaders past and present?
 
This is an excuse. Ambiguous at best.


"Which act is "worse" is strictly personal opinion. Both acts were deemed necessary at the time and "we the people" allowed them both to occur."
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT