Leave out the mass internment of civilians – what about the rest?
It is a question that could be answered with a “yes” or a “no” – and I would appreciate answers, not evasions.
Leave out the mass internment of civilians – what about the rest?
It is a question that could be answered with a “yes” or a “no” – and I would appreciate answers, not evasions.
#1 by gabykawa on 11/24/2011 - 2:41 AM
The “internment of civilians” was a crime. Let’s call it by its real name, it was the kidnapping of US citizens by the US government.
Detention (legal detention) or arrest requires a legal process. Before or after. The agent in charge of the arrest has (should…) justify his actions and be held responsible for his decisions.
The “internment of civilians” involved no legal process before or after. The fact that it was ordered “legally” (by orders issued by the legal government) doesn’t make it legal. According to the Constitution, not everything can be legislated. A law that grants powers to the government beyond those stated in the Constitution is not legal.
We’re wrong assuming that everything that comes from the government is legal per se, it’s not.
The war in Iraq, for example, is not legal. The executive branch does not have the power to mobilize troops outside US borders. The congress (smartly) gave tacit approval but the Constitution clearly states that the congress is the one who has to declare war. Something that hasn’t happened since WWII.
The activation of troops inside US borders for law enforcement is not legal either, it’s a violation of the posse comitatus act. Not part of the Constitution but a federal law ironically. However, the federal government has been doing it lately without a problem.
All governments have been criminal one way or the other, at least the ones I knew during my lifetime, in the sense that all of them have violated the law. Either ignoring it or legislating against previous laws or the Constitution itself.
#2 by MadMan on 11/24/2011 - 3:11 AM
No.