This week we debated three ethical questions in relationship to their historical context as well as modern current events:
a) Should nuclear weapons be proliferated (destroyed)? Is the use of weapons of mass destruction ever justified?
b) Should the US boycott Olympic games held in nations associated with human rights abuses?
c) Is the detention/ internment of cultural minorities in the interest of national security constitutional?
Your blog assignment OR creative assessment is to respond to one of these questions but NOT the topic you were assigned in class.
Be sure to explain how this topic relates to WWII and modern society. Your assessment must be at least 200 words and include specific historical details and modern-day examples.
Cite any outside research you conduct in MLA format OR provide hyperlinks.
You must respond to at least one other post if you blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The detention/ internment of cultural minorities in the intrest of national security is unconstitutional. For starters it contridicts with the 8th and 14th amendment. To detain people of a specific race and limit them from their American rights is unusal and cruel punishment. Based on speculations and racial profiling, a person is deprived from everything he or she worked for in life.Also, by detaining cultural minorities, the 14th amendment might be broken if they are citizens of the United States.This was the case for the Japanese internment of 1942. After the incident of Pearl Harbor, many security actions were taken due to fear and ignorance. Based on discrimination and hate, the U.S government interned 150,000, in addition with 1,200 to 18,000 Japaneses Americans were interned, of those interned 62 percent were United States citizens.These Japan descendents were basicaly imprisoned in tight places, with poor health, sanitary and medical care. In this situtaion, the Japanese descendants were robbed of their 8th and 14th amendment. They were casted off in society because of their race and for those who were citizens, were even worsely robbed of their "liberty, life and persuit of happiness", promised in the American constitution. Simliarly, the United States acted the same way after 9/11. After 9/11 , Arab Americans were looked upon as an "enemy" of the United States. It was like every Arab or Mulsim look alike was a terrorits. I know for sure that the government was definitly racial profiling in Staten Island . After a few days of the attacks, about three men from my Musjid had been arrested. Two of the men owned delis, which had to be closed down because the wives had their own jobs to perform. I dont know what jail they went to, if Guantanamo Bay or not, and what exactly they were charged for but three months later, the men of my Musjid were released from jail because of lack of evidence. I dont know what legal actions the men at my Musid took after that but the arrests were tottaly usless and unfair. They lost their jobs and their families had to suffer. One of the men was also a United States citizen, while the others were in the process of obtaining their citizenships.
At the end of the Japanesse American internment, President Regean realized America's mistake and apologized to the Japanese Americans. They also gave them 1.6 billion in reparations. Though, not every Muslim look alike was arrested and pused off to a section of America. Muslims and even people who weren't Muslim but looked like it(Hindus, Budists) were cast off of society. Hate fights broke loose and more discrimination was occuring in school and work. I feel that America should compasate every family that was and still is affected by assumptions and speculations in effect of 9/11.
To respond to what Maria and Mike said, during the debate: there were and are many other ways a governemnt could protect thier people, racial profiling is not one of the answers. For one, it was already bad enough that the government was tapping into phone calls and monotoring emails.Thats already a violation of privacy. But to impose physical action on a person because of race is more than wrong and immoral; its against American values and rules. Americans need to stop living thiers lives being a nationality( color, race), and instead an indivisul human being.
In class we had numerous debates on certain issues. One that caught my eyes, besides the one I debated on was, Is the detention/ internment of cultural minorities in the interest of national security constitutional? Im my opinion this is not constitutional at all. It is not right to take people and put them into a camp because their race was in a war. These people are citizens of the United States. Meaning they have nothing to do with what goes on in another country. Although, the United States do not want to risk having Americans from take another countries side, it is still not constitutional. Every American citizen deserves the same amount of respect as any other person. When the Japanese were attacked, American knew japan would retaliate. So, they took all Japanese in America and put them into camps until everything calmed down. Yes, Japan was going to attack the United States, but the American Japanese had nothing to do with the attack.
Yasmeen Sweatte
F Block
5.27.08
Blog Post: During the past couple of weeks, we've been opposing very strong debates. However, the best debate was the detention/internmemt of Cultural Minorities in the interest of National Security Constitutional? I felt as though it wasn't constitutional I don't think it was right for people to be taken out of their camps that they've adjusted to becuase, of their races position in the war. They are citizens of the U.S. as well, this action violates their rights of freedom. The U.S. reason behind there action is because, they don't want Americans siding with other countries. But, it doesn't make it right (constitutional). For an example, after 9/11 Arab Americans weere looked at as "terrorists" if they looked like a terrorists.
Response: I agree with Khadijat 100% when she stated, "For one, it was already bad enough that the government was tapping into phone calls and monotoring emails.Thats already a violation of privacy. But to impose physical action on a person because of race is more than wrong and immoral; its against American values and rules. Americans need to stop living thiers lives being a nationality( color, race), and instead an indivisul human being". Americans definitely do need to make it a priority to live their lives as a unique individual instead of as a color or race. But because, many people allow for themselves to be seen as a "nationality" other people are going to take up that advantage.
Shaun Quinto
5/26/08
C) Is the detention/internment of cultural minorities in the interest of national security constituional?
According to the precedent reached in Schenck v. US, internment of minorities is constitutional. Along with the Espionage Act of 1917, the landmark Supreme Court Case of Schenck V. US protects the US citizens from a threat to our national security. In order to protect the people of America, we need to eliminate the threat from our country. For example, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the USS Arizona, the Japanese were our sworn enemies. According to FDR and Executive Order 9066, the Japanese-Americans were a threat to us. We jsut entered WWII and the Japanese were instilling fear into America. We had to intern them, to keep our coutnry safe, and eliminate the threat to our national security. Therefore, in times of war, when a person or group of people are a threat to the welfare of America and the safety of our people and democracy, internment is constitutional. In response to 90's kid, I think you are failing to recognize the importance of monitoring people. First of all, we can't let these people threaten our safety. Also, tapping into phone calls and emails has proven to save lives. We have unraveled many terrorists plots through spying on them. Now, if you want to say that we shouldn't be allowed to monitor people to save our own lives, then think about all the other lives that would've been killed if we didn't unfoil these plots.
Tiffany Cho
Block F
Is the detention/ internment of cultural minorities in the interest of national security constitutional?
The detention/ internment of cultural minorities is unconstitutional, even if it is in the interest of national security. We live in a democracy, where everyone has the right to be safe. That safety does not only mean from terrorist attacks, but also from our own government. The Amendments of the constitution were specifically written so that the federal government does not become too powerful and ignore the rights of the people at times when it would become easy to do so. Detention centers and internment camps are simply not the way to go about keeping the nation from harm. During World War II, the 1942 Japanese Internment is a prime example of how the rights of American citizens were disregarded and its inefficacy. The American government believed, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, that relocating about 160,000 Japanese-Americans would be beneficial to the nation. The Supreme Court case of Koramatsu v. United States also stated that he, along with the other Japanese-Americans would be denied equal protection on racial bias. In 1988, however, congress apologized for their mistake and paid up to $20,000 to those Japanese who were detained and forced to submit property. Even today in Guantanamo Bay, we are giving into pressure by compromising aspects of our free and open society. Many have not been convicted of any crimes, nor have they been given a fair trial. Suspects should be tried upon evidence and deported if they are foreign nationals. Detentions/internments give the nation a chance to keep threats to the national security locked up, but at the price of thousands of other innocent people. The government is taking these measures to keep American citizens safe, but keeping them locked up in internment camps or detention centers against their will (and their rights) simply defeats the purpose. As Loretta stated in her blog, keeping people in indefinite detention without a public trial undermines the key values of habeas corpus and a person’s innocence until they are proven guilty.
Ama Kwakye
May 27,2008
As most of the class said in their blogs its not right for there to be detention/internment of cultural minorities in interest of national security. As Yasmeen said its not right for innocent people to get taken out of the cap just because America is having problems with the nation; they are now American citizens and most likely they are innocent. Its the same thing as today, ever since September 11, 2001, middles eastern people are getting looked at as terrorist mean while only a couple of people caused the damage. This reminds me of the Holucost when Jewish people were detained abussed and sent to concentration campls just because they were Jewish, most of them where innocent. When we went to Germany we had the opurtunity to go and visit came and we seen pictures and read some of the detaines's stories. What is happening to our freedom and liberty. How would the United States like that if another country did that to its citizens then their would be another war. As Khaidjat said the United States is starting to become to protective to the point people are starting to feel uncomfortable. Their are other ways of protecting the country and nation other then being so overprotective.
Karmila Saulong
Block F
Should nuclear weapons be proliferated (destroyed)? Is the use of weapons of mass destruction ever justified?
The debates from the pros and cons have shown strong views on whether or not nuclear weapons should be proliferated. Nuclear weapons shouldn't be proliferated because in case of national security, American may need to have nuclear weapons. Many people disagree with a country have nuclear weapons. However, the nuclear weapons led American to winning the war. Japan used bombs to attack Pearl Harbor, and in return, America was victorous when using their nuclear weapons on Japan. The use of weapons of mass destruction is never justified. These weapons are destructive and kill many innocent civilians. However, these weapons are needed for a country in order to win a war. Sometimes desperate times calls for desperate measures.
Response: In response to Cherricka, sometimes the detainment of certain groups are neccessary because many people can be a threat to national security. The people who were in the internment camps were put there for a reason. If the government didn't feel comfortable with the decision, they would never have let this event happen. The Korematsu vs United States case shows how protecting Americans is important. If neccessary, we can put people in camps and is even if its seems unconstitutional, the government is trying its best to protect the other Americans from any harm.
Shaun Quinto
sources
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html
http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/mlking.htm
Post a Comment