I stated that Congress passed a law criminalizing any failure to comply with the internment order. Pauliac claimed there was no legislation, and that the executive order criminalized failure to comply, and he posted this cite:

Congress hurriedly sanctioned the president's order when, with little debate and a unanimous voice vote, it passed Public Law No. 503, which incorporated the procedures of 9066, criminalizing the violations of military orders, such as the curfews and evacuation directives outlined in the order.

I'm sorry Pauliac, but your own cite confirms my claim that it was Congress, not Roosevelt, who criminalized a failure to comply with Roosevelt's internment order. Read your own cite: "...it passed Public Law No. 503...criminalizing the violations of military orders, such as the curfew and evacuation directives...".

You assume a very hostile posture for someone who apparently has difficulty reading.

Try this:

"Oops! My bad. Thanks!"

There, that wasn't so difficult, was it? It won't kill you to admit you were wrong, even if Bush thinks it does.

Pauliac, your own cite confirms that it as Congress, not Roosevelt's executive order, that criminalized failure to comply with the executive order. Do you know what a "Public Law" is? Here's some Civics 101, Paulie: Congress legislates, not the president.

@ adnoto

That's not what omooex is saying, not from my perspective anyway. What he's calling attention to is a centuries-old human observation. -- William Timberman

I know what the fuck he was calling attention to and I am saying don't call attention to it. Both because it amounts to a bunch of pompous, social Darwinist, war winner's revisionist history and because it doesn't do a god-damn thing to help either the Iraqi people or us at the moment. Again, this isn't ancient history and we aren't looking back on it from 1000 years hence.

It's not as embarassing as all the handwringing and wailing that transpired when Gates sacked Moseley and everyone thought it meant: Oh Noes!!!!!! WE ARE BOMBING IRAN!

http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/06/may-schwartz-be-with-you.html

Roosevelt's decision in 1942 to intern Japanese Americans living on the west coast encountered virtually no opposition in the U.S. Congress. The most notable dissenter was Sen. Here's what I said:

Robert Taft of Ohio, the man known as "Mr. Republican" and the most staunch conservative of his time. Indeed, when the law criminalizing the refusal to evacuate one's home and accede to internment was passed, the only vote in Congress against the law came from Sen. Taft.

Now here's what Pauliac said:

It was an executive order, dude. There was no vote in Congress.

Then I replied:

The order to intern was an executive order. The order did not, however, criminalize refusal to abide by the internment order. That action was taken by Congress in 1942, and Taft voted against it.

Then Pauliac purported to contradict my claim that Congress had criminalized a failure to abide by the internment order:

Congress hurriedly sanctioned the president's order when, with little debate and a unanimous voice vote, it passed Public Law No. 503, which incorporated the procedures of 9066, criminalizing the violations of military orders, such as the curfews and evacuation directives outlined in the order.

Pauliac, do you see how disproved your own claim? Is it clear now that your own cite confirms that it was Public Law No. 503, not Roosevelt's executive order, that criminalized violations of the internment order?

I probably am going to regret getting into this but I'm sort of confused.

I've seen two quotes posted about the Japanese internment during WW2.

One says that Congress passed a law which sanctioned the president's executive order by a "unanimous voice vote" and I've also seen another quote which claims that William Taft was the lone person to vote against that law.

"Congress hurriedly sanctioned the president's order when, with little debate and a unanimous voice vote, it passed Public Law No. 503, which incorporated the procedures of 9066, criminalizing the violations of military orders, such as the curfews and evacuation directives outlined in the order."

and

"Robert Taft of Ohio, the man known as "Mr. Republican" and the most staunch conservative of his time. Indeed, when the law criminalizing the refusal to evacuate one's home and accede to internment was passed, the only vote in Congress against the law came from Sen. Taft."

Did the definition of 'unanimous' change recently?

for me to return to surly lurking.

Yes! Yes they did!

Simple answers to simple questions...

Beer! Whiskey! Inflatable women! At least some of their parts... Back to the partay!

Adnoto, being pissed off is kinda your standard mode; I don't take it personally, but it does cloud your judgment. If it ain't x, it's y, and fuck you if you can't see that. Is that about it? X and Y appear to be both rigidly defined -- by you -- and infinitely interchangeable, according to whatever assertion is uppermost in your mind at the time. This isn't likely to convince anyone else of the rightness of your views, if that's your aim. (Yes, I know, it goes without saying that you don't give a shit what I think.)

And Derbig, please take a deep breath and look again at what I wrote. I'm not trying to justify atrocities, and I don't think Omooex was either. Still the passage of time does change our perceptions. An atrocity not witnessed, victims whose names are no longer remembered, aren't accorded the reverence they undoubtedly deserve. Hence Yad Vashem, the inevitably futile attempt to guarantee that the atrocities we remember so vividly now will be remembered forever.

The way to avoid atrocities is not to feel guilty for those which are centuries old, but to refuse to participate in those which are underway in the present, and attempt to obstruct them as much as we are able. The past is a warning, to be sure, but unless you're a Serbian Irredentist, or a Jew, or perhaps a Palestinian -- time will tell on that score -- the past grows dimmer with succeeding generations. That's all I was trying to say. No sophistry involved, just a statement of the facts as I understand them.