From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:02:53 GMT

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.

No.  SOME Arabs living in Gaza pose a demonstrable and definite threat
to the Israeli population.

Just as SOME Japanese-Americans posed a definite threat to the US during
WW2.  

># }# ->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.

Don't be silly.  Obviously, out of hundreds of thousands of
Japanese-Americans, a few of them must have been pro-Japan, and I'm
sure that at least a few spied for Japan. But that didn't justify the US 
action.

What the similarity is is that people are being punished for being
*potential* threats, rather than for any actions they have committed.

># }# ->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
># }#of war & 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.

>	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.

Why does this sound familiar?   I'll bet Joseph McCarthy said the same
thing as he justified violating the rights of thousands of 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.

And how do you know they *are* members? 

Besides the problem with guilt-by-association, they weren't even given the 
chance to answer *that* charge.

># }# 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 & defend against the evidence of your alleged "demonstratable &
># }# 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.
 
Proof by blatant assertion?

># 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?

>	Get real.  And by the way Mr. Coward, what is your name?

Ad homenims do nothing to improve your logic.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina