From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians
Date: 5 Jan 1993 09:34:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan4.001853.5603@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
$In article <1i7mjqINN3i8@agate.berkeley.edu> ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
$
$# In article <1993Jan3.165550.14881@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
$
$# }In article <1i6gdjINNmd4@agate.berkeley.edu> ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
$
$# }# In article <1992Dec24.183747.25193@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp
$# }# (Adam Shostack) writes:
$
$# }# ->In article <1992Dec22.091054.24186@Princeton.EDU>
$# }# niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
$
$# }# ->Quoting somewhat out of context here:
$
$# }# ->>(Basically, I view this as pretty analagous to the US interment of
$# }# ->>Japanese-Americans during WW2, actually.  The government there, too,
$# }# ->>said there was an imminent security threat because a war was going on.
$# }# ->>Many of the people arguing this may even have believed it sincerely.  It
$# }# ->>didn't make the actions right, however.)
$
$# }# ->This analogy, is like comparing apples and oranges.  The basic
$# }# ->difference between the actions of the US government and the Israeli
$# }# ->government is that the Arabs living in Gaza pose a demonstratable and
$# }# ->definite threat to the Israeli population.
$
$# }# ->The Americans of Japanese ancestry who were thrown into camps had
$# }# ->shown no propensity to oppose the American war effort.  Many of them
$# }# ->were second and third generation American citizens.  There were no
$# }# ->instances that I know of of Japanese-Americans spying for the Imperial
$# }# ->Government.  This is in stark contrast to the fact that there were
$# }# ->Germans who spied for the Reich, although German-Americans were never
$# }# ->jailed en masse.
$
$# }# ->Please note that I am not defending the deportations.  I am merely
$# }# ->trying to point out that David's analogy is fundamentally inaccurate. 
$ 
$# }# In both cases the internees and deportees were denied due process in time of
$# }# war and instead summarily interned or deported following neither trial nor
$# }# conviction.  The degree to which each group was/is held in suspect is
$# }# immaterial.
$
$# }	This is plain and simply misleading.  What was being debated was
$# }not the degree to which each group was/is held in suspect as you
$# }claim, but the degree to which they were/are a threat.  You are
$# }discussing apples and oranges.
$ 
$# How do you measure and establish the existance and extent of the threat
$# someone poses?
$
$	Well, here is just one simple measure.  Nissim Toledano.  There
$are of course more.

How does the commission of a crime make someone a threat if he has not
been duely found guilty of committing it?  If he is not allowed to see
and confront the evidence that supposedly associates him with the crime
and instead just has sentence carried out on him, then he is denied
due process just as the interned Japanese Americans were during
World War II.

$	One thing has just occured to me.  Why am I even bothering to
$answer you?  There is a war going on.  If you expect things to operate
$normally you are pathetic.

I'm just making the correct analogy between the deportees' denial of due
process with that of the wartime internment of Japanese Americans.

$# If someone says you're a threat to the state, how should
$# you be allowed to answer such charges before action is taken?

$	You do not need to answer.  Just avoid VOLUNTARY membership in
$organizations whose raison de etre is to be a threat to the state.

If membership in such an organization is a crime itself then you should be
allowed to see and confront the evidence that, proves your membership, or
otherwise somehow demonstrates you're a threat to the state.  The WWII JA
internees were likewise denied the right to confront the evidence of
their threat.

$# }# Whether you're not liked because of your last name or the shape
$# }# of your eyes, or because of your political positions or suspected acts, if the
$# }# threat you pose to the state is such that extreme measures, i.e. internment
$# }# or deportation, are warrented, then you deserve your day in court to confront
$# }# and defend against the evidence of your alleged "demonstratable and definite
$# }# threat" BEFORE sentence is carried out.
$
$# }	Not if going through this imposes an unacceptable threat to the
$# }population.  And if you believe otherwise you are being both wrong,
$# }impracticle, and suicidal should you ever be faced with such a
$# }situation.
$ 
$# Again, who and how is this "unacceptable threat to the population"
$# supposed to be determined?  Where is the standard by which someone
$# may be judged to be such a threat?  Are you saying it's enough just
$# to make the accusation?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast