tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30981422.post1632456820209284575..comments2023-04-02T21:26:16.352-07:00Comments on A Proud Liberal: How Big a Clothespin?A Proud Liberalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03184843313132771874noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30981422.post-71067228975609946482008-09-22T16:43:00.000-07:002008-09-22T16:43:00.000-07:00Anonymous wrote:">> FDR's actions w...<I>Anonymous wrote:<BR/><BR/>">> FDR's actions were in response to the War Crimes of the Germans and Japanese.<BR/>Now I’m really confused – “constitutional” isn’t the criterion?<BR/>Note that you are also confused. You need to get your ducks in the right order. Your telling me the Japanese-American internment was in response to Japanese/German war crimes – you gotta be kidding me. The extent of German war crimes was not known until after these measures were in place. That includes FDR’s press censorship, implemented for the allied invasion of French North Africa, which was put in place to keep the folks at home from hearing all the bad news, and there was a lot of bad news. The “special privileges” given to British agents by FDR began well before 1941."</I><BR/><BR/><B>No, there is no kidding involved. War Crimes were known at the time—the invasion and occupation of numerous countries had occurred without cause or on false pretenses—exactly like the invasion of Iraq. Many of the war criminals executed after WWII were executed for the crime of pre-emptive, unjustified war—defined as a crime against humanity. Again, any of FDR's actions were in response to war crimes not war crimes themselves like the War Chimp's actions.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>">> the number of Justices on the Supreme Court is set by statute not in the Constitution..<BR/>But – they do decide what is or is not constitutional. So, if after losing several 5-4 cases on detainee treatment, Bush proposes adding 2 justices to the SC – you’re OK with that?"</I><BR/><BR/><B>No, I'm not okay with it but I would know enough not to call it unconstitutional. What does it matter anyway, the War Chimp just ignores rulings if he doesn't agree with them. That I do call a shredding of the Constitution.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>">> Your cowardly use of anonymous….<BR/>I don’t have a blog – I don’t have the time. Who I am or you are does not matter. The ideas should stand or fall on their own. In any case, it does not take much “courage” to operate an anti-war blog these days. Operating an anti-war publication under FDR – now that would have taken courage"</I><BR/><BR/><B>You do have the time to sit at home and at work in Illinois to do your little sniping job. What you have missed is that FDR was anti-war himself. The actions you use to compare with and justify the War Chimp's actions were anti-war. Your ideas fall on their merit, since they have none. Your support of the War Chimp means that you abet war crimes, making you guilty of war crimes yourself.</B>A Proud Liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03184843313132771874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30981422.post-75008014783935414082008-09-22T09:07:00.000-07:002008-09-22T09:07:00.000-07:00>> the specious argument of two wrongs make ...>> the specious argument of two wrongs make a right…<BR/><BR/>I never said whether FDR was wrong or right. I was simply using your “constitutional” criterion.<BR/><BR/>>> FDR's actions were in response to the War Crimes of the Germans and Japanese.<BR/><BR/>Now I’m really confused – “constitutional” isn’t the criterion?<BR/><BR/>Note that you are also confused. You need to get your ducks in the right order. Your telling me the Japanese-American internment was in response to Japanese/German war crimes – you gotta be kidding me. The extent of German war crimes was not known until after these measures were in place. That includes FDR’s press censorship, implemented for the allied invasion of French North Africa, which was put in place to keep the folks at home from hearing all the bad news, and there was a lot of bad news. The “special privileges” given to British agents by FDR began well before 1941.<BR/><BR/>>> the number of Justices on the Supreme Court is set by statute not in the Constitution..<BR/><BR/>But – they do decide what is or is not constitutional. So, if after losing several 5-4 cases on detainee treatment, Bush proposes adding 2 justices to the SC – you’re OK with that?<BR/><BR/>>> Your cowardly use of anonymous….<BR/><BR/>Please explain the difference between “anonymous” and APL. I don’t have a blog – I don’t have the time. Who I am or you are does not matter. The ideas should stand or fall on their own. In any case, it does not take much “courage” to operate an anti-war blog these days. Operating an anti-war publication under FDR – now that would have taken courageAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30981422.post-38974658130903145392008-09-22T01:29:00.000-07:002008-09-22T01:29:00.000-07:00Your state of confusion comes from your inability ...Your state of confusion comes from your inability to recognize that FDR's actions were in response to the War Crimes of the Germans and Japanese. The War Chimp's actions are War Crimes. I am always amazed by the specious argument of two wrongs make a right. You lack of constitutional knowledge is also apparent; the number of Justices on the Supreme Court is set by statute not in the Constitution. FDR's packing scheme might have been ill advised but it was constitutional. Your cowardly use of anonymous serves you well, as not to embarrass yourself.<BR/>APLA Proud Liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03184843313132771874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30981422.post-59375476750226972612008-09-21T22:24:00.000-07:002008-09-21T22:24:00.000-07:00Perhaps APL can help me out of my state of confusi...Perhaps APL can help me out of my state of confusion. He speaks of "the War Chimp's blatantly illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping program", and also "the FDR/JFK Democratic Party". I presume that the reference to FDR was intended to be positive. But was that Japanese internment really consitutional? How about the strict press censorship authorized by dear Franklin? The unauthorized pre -12/7/41 "war" with German submarines? How about allowing hundreds of British spies free reign within our borders prior to the war (see Jennet Conant's new book - "The Irregulars")? I won't get into his Supreme Court packing scheme. Talk about shredding the constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30981422.post-13910457490035338752008-07-22T11:16:00.000-07:002008-07-22T11:16:00.000-07:00Excellent post, APL. While I agree that Kucinich ...Excellent post, APL. While I agree that Kucinich and Edwards would have been more progressive candidates than Obama, perhaps even more courageous in certain ways, I still find that Obama's intellect and poise in general is so superior to the level of the current President, or the Republican candidate, that it is more than worth it for all of us to cast our vote for Obama in November. What happens after that is up to him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com