Treason: Not Just for Lefties Anymore!

Sorry to give Ann Coulter any more attention, but I though this paragraph might be of specific interest:

What are we to make of people who promote the idea that America is in the grip of a civil-liberties emergency based on 100 hazy stories of scowls and bumps and one-week detentions? Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?

Link via Michael Totten.

Comments

[fyodor]

Isn't that why libertarians are also called classic traitors? I mean, or, well, something like that...

[Matt Welch]

That's pretty funny....

[Balasubramania's Mania]

Nice. Funny. Sad. She's really so extreme that her comments often do not (as in this case) warrant a response. BUT what does it say about the state affairs that she has a relatively well selling book out right now?

[Anonymous]

Cathy Young really covered it all when she lambasted Coulter a few weeks back. The problem is not that she's a polarizing idiot (which she is), but that she deliberately calls the intentions of anyone who may disagree with her into question. Libertarians, according to her, are not merely misguided -- they must be traitors if they would dare to question secret lockups, because the fact is that they're not going back and questioning FDR.

What this all ignores is that most Libertarians DO call FDR's horrific policy on Japanese-Americans, and that we're protesting the here and now because it's what we can actually change. Calling people traitors for disagreeing with you is enormously dangerous to the idea of public dialogue.

[Jean Bart]

"Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?"

This is a very good example of a deductive fallacy. One of the best I've seen in the media in quite sometime.

Coulter's basic problem is that by the overuse of the term traitor she is bleeding the term of its meaning; just as when people overuse the term fascist they bleed it of its meaning. Hannah Arendt found that such activity is rather dangerous because in the end, when such terms are bled of their meaning, it will be very difficult to tell who is in fact a traitor and who is in fact a fascist - in other words, it limits our ability to protect ourselves from such people.

[Jean Bart]

Anon @ 2:03 pm,

Its a bit like Randroids when they claim that any and all disagreement with their "philosophy" is a sign of dishonesty and other evils.

[Jean Bart]

"...that's right, PBS, the television network owned, operated and funded by the very same federal government Albasti now claims is oppressing him..."

Well, the government is so large that one side could easily be in conflict with another aside of it. Also, the CPB isn't exactly a direct analog to the Department of Justice either.

[PLC]

Coulter's entire paragraph is accurate except for the last sentence, which is obviously a deductive leap. People can make false claims or exagerations for innumerable reasons...

[cdunlea]

A scene from the Coulter home:

ANN: "Do you want some more tuna casserole, dear?"

HUBAND: "Umm, no thanks, I'll pass..."

A: "Why, you said you like tuna casserole."

H: "Well, yeah, but this one is...a little dry."

A: "WHAT?! This is perfect! How can you not like this!? What's wrong with you?? No one in his right mind would think this is dry...unless...you were a TRAITOR!!!"

(looks at beleagered husband like Dana Carvey's Church Lady)

Given the faulty logic of the posted excerpt, I wouldn't put this type of domestic spat beyond possibility.

[Jean Bart]

"And yet, Ashcroft's modest, carefully tailored policies have prevented another attack for almost two years since Sept. 11, 2001."

Hmm, well, maybe yes, and maybe no. I think Coulter needs a remedial course on the issue of causality.

"AFTER PEARL HARBOR, President Roosevelt rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese residents and citizens and threw them in internment camps. Indeed, both liberal deities of the 20th century, FDR and Earl Warren, supported the internment of Japanese-Americans."

This is known as an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

BTW, it may be of interest to many here that when the SCOTUS decided _Korematsu_, the Justice Department and the military both lied to the court about the threat Japanese-Americans presented to the US.

[Jean Bart]

PLC,

You are flat wrong - I've already knocked a few holes in Coulter's arguments.

[Alex]

Someone needs her thorazine shot -- why again do we pay her any attention?

[Bob Hodge]

Thank goodness I'm not the only mental case that hears Dana Carvey's Church Lady when Coulter uses the T word.
She gives the word "strident" new depths of meaning. Is there any possibility that she's just goofing on us?

[Neil Block]

Ann Coulter makes my brain hurt.

[JaxPax]

What do you expect from someone that wacko? She's so off-the-chart-rabid-stupid (her biggest hero of late is Joe McCarthy) that it's increasingly difficult to take her seriously let alone find her fascinating (as George magazine did) unless you fascinated by the lengths to which an individual will go to make a complete ass of themselves.

I've been thinking lately that she may actually be a plant by the left (ala Manchurian Candidate) designed to make the right-wingers look bad.

[Anonymous]

Best Coulter column ever.

[Alex]

This is also entertaining.

[joe]

Wow, that "Manifestly" is one powerful word! Let me try.

"Manifestly, income tax laws don't require private citizens to pay taxes."

"Manifestly, honey, it is your responsibility to give me oral sex at least twice a week."

You know, I still prefer the Stalinist "It is well known that..."

[Rick Barton]

This one ranks right up there with her idiot anti-muslim comment on the insipid index. The threats posed to civil liberties by the PATRIOT act were concerning enough to lead Dick Army and Bob Barr to join the ACLU. Were Ann Coulter in Congress, her statement makes it doubtful that she would have joined with the conservatives who led the charge to apply sunset provisions to and then later trim back part of the PATRIOT act. What's also disturbing is her attitude that people who are concerned are "traitors." If they really are traitors, than gee, a little curtailment on THIER civil liberties doesn't seem so disturbing, does it? Sure, shes "anti" the liberals who are indeed in many ways antithetical to individual liberty, but how much of a friend of freedom is Ann?

[Lefty]

"As my good friend Clarence Thomas said to me last October at the Bull Connor Day Celebration in Alabama, ?Why can?t America just be for those of us who are white, like it was before the Indians showed up??

[dude]

JaxPax - yes, I think she and Michael Savage are actually leftist agent provocateurs posing as conservatives. The goal is to make anyone to the right of Hillary look like a loon.

[joe]

"BUT what does it say about the state affairs that she has a relatively well selling book out right now?"

That Allegheny County should really be charging Richard Scaife more for his landfill permit.

[Jean Bart]

"BUT what does it say about the state affairs that she has a relatively well selling book out right now?"

About the same thing that a best selling Michael Moore book does. 🙂

[JDM]

"BUT what does it say about the state affairs that she has a relatively well selling book out right now?"

About the same thing that every other best selling book says.

[thoreau]

I haven't bought her books, but I love her columns. I read them for the same reason that I sometimes watch reality TV. I can't believe anybody would actually say or do those things!

[ispdrudge]

Coulter's article also contains the line "Let me be the first to predict that when John Kerry is president, pigs will fly." Can we take this as a Baldwinesque promise that she'll leave the country, if Kerry is elected?

[Jim Walsh]

If this be treason, then make the most of it...

[Brian]

Coulter was much more entertaining when she wasn't so well-known. Popular success seems to have a way of amplifying the more outragous and obnoxious aspects of one's personality (or at least their public persona).

See also: Bill O'Rielly, Micheal Savage, Micheal Moore, et al.

Brian
(Traitor and damn proud of it)

[Ray]

Of all of the critical pieces I?ve read on Coulter?s latest, all but one have come from conservative/libertarian women.

Cathy Young took umbrage with Coulter for her over the top approach but failed to actually fault her with any factual lapses. So essentially we have a cat fight where one girl didn?t like the way the other girl flipped her hair. Hardly a lambasting.

As for the typical fallout around here, it has been pointed out in other posts that fringe types, Left and Right, are all crying that Bush & Co. moved too slowly on 911 and too fast on the subsequent war on terrorism.

I can?t always get on board Coulter?s rhetoric but her basic point is correct, upper case ?L? Libertarians, like their counterparts on the Left, are always going to find a reason to complain. Had this administration moved in time to avert 911, Reason editors et al would have made the rest of their careers on the supposed civil rights violations of this administration.

Or in other words, the fringe types? knee jerk reaction is to condemn and accuse their own country and to reserve skepticism for all others. It may not be treason per se but it is definitely objectionabel behavior.

[Jean Bart]

Ray,

When does Coulter mention libertarians in her piece?

[Ray]

Jean B.

She doesn't but the first few posts have taken her article personally and so the connection. That this individual forum even exists kind of makes that point, otherwise you guys wouldn't be giving her yet more attention which supposedly pains so many of you.

Also, I reread your posts in particular and failed to find where you supposedly poked holes in her argument.

Coulter's point, as I've already mentioned, is to take on those who automatically assume human rights violations on the part of our country. The benefit of the doubt it would seem, would go to America. We're not perfect but our track record is better than anyone else and seems to me to be getting better all of the time.

To listen to the black helicopter fringe crowd, Ashcroft is personally monitoring this exchange right now and is at pains as to which one of us to aprehend first.

[Ray]

Jough,

And a great book it is. I've been curious why so many conservatives have taken a stand against it and all I can figure is that it's a case of RushLimbaugh-itus. She's gotten bigger than the conservative movement itself and alot of people just don't know what to do with her.

Astonishingly, this is the first time most readers have ever heard of the Venona project. I've actually had conservatives from my own personal circle question my credibility when I mention FDR's treachery, Venona etc.

[WLC]

Sure, Ray. And if the Democrats take the White House in 2004, we Libertarians will then have YOU at our side whining and bitching about the government. Just like 1993-2000. Who is truely knee-jerk here?

[Jean Bart]

Ray,

Let me repeat myself:

"Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?"

This is a very good example of a deductive fallacy. One of the best I've seen in the media in quite sometime.

..that's right, PBS, the television network owned, operated and funded by the very same federal government Albasti now claims is oppressing him..."

Well, the government is so large that one side could easily be in conflict with another aside of it. Also, the CPB isn't exactly a direct analog to the Department of Justice either.

"And yet, Ashcroft's modest, carefully tailored policies have prevented another attack for almost two years since Sept. 11, 2001."

Hmm, well, maybe yes, and maybe no. I think Coulter needs a remedial course on the issue of causality.

"AFTER PEARL HARBOR, President Roosevelt rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese residents and citizens and threw them in internment camps. Indeed, both liberal deities of the 20th century, FDR and Earl Warren, supported the internment of Japanese-Americans."

This is known as an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Yes, I've poked a few holes. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

Ray,

"Astonishingly, this is the first time most readers have ever heard of the Venona project."

Only if they were asleep; the files associated with the Venona Project have been open to the publuc since 1995. In fact, there was even an X-Files episode that used them as part of the plot.

Here are the archives: http://www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/

[Jean Bart]

Ray,

"Coulter's point, as I've already mentioned, is to take on those who automatically assume human rights violations on the part of our country. The benefit of the doubt it would seem, would go to America. We're not perfect but our track record is better than anyone else and seems to me to be getting better all of the time."

You've got to be kidding me, right? Are you so totally ignorant of American history as to have forgotten about slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, the post-civil war treatment of Black Americans, etc. It has only been forty years since the first inklings of equality for blacks came to fruition in this country. Not to mention the discrimination by government and the private sector against Jews and other ethnic groups (or such things as the Chinese Exclusionary Act)? Or the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII based largely on lies and hysteria? When people start telling me to give the US government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to human rights, I think that either they are naive or up to something nefarious.

The American record on human rights is no better than any other nation's record.

[fyodor]

To give Ray his due, I think the larger picture argument of Coulter's that it is true that no one here has addressed directly is that Ashcroft is doing a good job under the circumstances and that there is no ingenuous reason to question his performance or to fear a collapse in civil liberties.

I confess that I cannot whip out a large slate of egregious Ashcroft violations of the Bill Of Rights (though would any slate be large enough to convince Ann and Ray?), but as I believe I have reason to believe they exist, I entreat someone else better versed on the issue to address this question. I do hasten to add that a "civil liberties crisis" does not have to exist full force in the present to have good reason to fear that certain precedents have been laid that open the door for such in a foreseeable future....

[Kevin Carson]

"Coulter's point, as I've already mentioned, is to take on those who automatically assume human rights violations on the part of our country. The benefit of the doubt it would seem, would go to America. We're not perfect but our track record is better than anyone else and seems to me to be getting better all of the time."

First, of all, the U.S. government, let alone Bush & Ashcroft, is not "our country" or "America."

Second, why should free people with a capacity for critical thought give ANY government the benefit of the doubt.

Third, America has a better track record than most or all because the American PEOPLE are the most freedom-loving in the world, and have the worst attitude toward authority. It is because of our historic vigilance and distrust of the U.S. government, and our willingness to dig in our feet and say "hell, no," that we have the civil liberties we do. As Rudolf Rocker put it, liberties are not granted by governments; they are forced on governments from below. Or if you prefer Churchill, liberties are not given; they are taken. Giving the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt is a good way to lose freedom.

[Anonymous]

it's funny she says the things she says when the president is holding hundreds of people as enemy combatants which he doesn't have the authority to do as explained here the other day. and don't forget the justice department threating the lackawana six with e.c. status if they didn't plead guilty to their charges. sounds like a civil liberties crisis to me.

[Mark Harden]

You know, I still prefer the Stalinist "It is well known that..."

Whoa, I thought that phrase was coined by Noam Chomsky.

The American record on human rights is no better than any other nation's record.

Notwithstanding the examples you cite, that statement is a ridiculous distortion and utterly false. Not treasonous, but certainly myopic.

[thoreau]

When a Democrat infringes on civil liberties, any Republican will tell you that it's unconstitutional, while the Democrats will say "Those Republicans are just a bunch of paranoid whacko anti-government types."

When a Republican infringes on civil liberties, any Democrat will tell you that it's unconstitutional, while the Republicans will say "Those Democrats are just a bunch of anti-American whacko hippie types."

When either party infringes on civil liberties, any Libertarian will tell you that it's unconstitutional, while everybody else ignores us 😉

[Jean Bart]

Mark Harden,

"Notwithstanding the examples you cite..."

Nice way to dodge my examples, however you cannot just explain way things like Jim Crow and Trail of Tears, nor experiments by the US government in the 1950s and on 1960s on human subjects without their knowledge. Furthermore, I find that is rather difficult for Americans to explain away the violence and injustice that was so common in the US in the 19th century.

You see Americans have this myth about themselves - that they are better than everyone else, that they are indeed the paragons of virtue, etc. When confronted with the ugly facts of their own history Americans tend to dismiss it as an aberration, as something atypical, etc. when in fact it is anything but that.

BTW, if anyone is being myopic here it is you; your myopia tends to ignore the very examples of ugliness and injustice which I have posted here.

[Jean Bart]

Mark,

BTW, you gave me my first good belly laugh of the day. 🙂

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart wrote:
"The American record on human rights is no better than any other nation's record."

Even when allowing a wide margin for rhetorical latitude the above statement seems absurd. Our constitutional liberties are indeed currently in danger and require our direct action to preserve them. But, it is just that constitution that is protective of individual liberty that sets our nation apart. Where in the world is there a broader guarantee of free speech then here? Where else are any government attempts to restrain it so checked by appeal to the law? Even in nations that we consider "free" such as Germany, Canada and England have currently embraced restrictions on free speech that could not hold in the US.

"It has only been forty years since the first inklings of equality for blacks came to fruition in this country."

But now, that's more a function of economics then human rights. (although, economic freedom is a crucial human right) The first statistically significant Black and Hispanic upper-middle class (better then "equality") was born of the boom caused by the Reagan tax rate cuts (sadly reversed by Bush 1) and economic deregulation.

"Not to mention the discrimination by government and the private sector against Jews and other ethnic groups (or such things as the Chinese Exclusionary Act)?"

Yet now, fully half of all the billionaires in the country are Jews. And, Chinese Americans are a solidly upper-middle class population.

"Or the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII based largely on lies and hysteria?"

Yes, a hideous crime against them by the government, the kind of horror that governments tend get away with when war is their pretext and it wouldn't have mattered even if it wasn't "based largely on lies and hysteria?" It would still be wrong and unconstitutional. The point is, that it is that same constitution, the enforcement of which, forced reparations for the victims of that travesty and with proper enforcement will undo the current PATRIOT ACT trampling of liberty.(this of course will be dependent on our vigilant action) How many other nations have constitutions that force that justice be done when their governments misbehave on such massive scale. The Palestinians surely enjoy no such protection while the Israeli government steals their land with its "fence" as their excuse.
Yes, our government has committed terrible transgressions, but lets be honest about comparisons with the rest of the world and lets be honest as well about our government limiting constitution that has caused this better record, even if "better" only in comparison to other governments.

[Jean Bart]

Rick Barton,

"Where in the world is there a broader guarantee of free speech then here?"

You are side-stepping the issue.

"Yet now, fully half of all the billionaires in the country are Jews. And, Chinese Americans are a solidly upper-middle class population."

So? That still doesn't excuse American history vis a vis discrimination against these groups of people.

"The point is, that it is that same constitution, the enforcement of which, forced reparations for the victims of that travesty and with proper enforcement will undo the current PATRIOT ACT trampling of liberty."

Actually, the Constitution never demanded reparations. In fact, _Korematsu_ has never been overturned and remains good law as to this day. What brought about reparations was a guilty conscience.

"How many other nations have constitutions that force that justice be done when their governments misbehave on such massive scale."

Most of the Western governments do. France has spent much of the post-war era trying to exorcise the demons of the Vichy regime in all manner of ways - from naming streets after Jewish victims of WWII atrocities to trying collaborators.

I'm sorry, I simply refuse to view the US as some special bastion of liberty, etc. Its got the same problems every other nation has, especially in comparison to other Western nations, and is not very special in this regard.

[Mark Harden]

Jean Bart wrote:
"The American record on human rights is no better than any other nation's record."

And therefore, Jean Bart believes that the human rights record of the United States is no better than that of the Soviet Union. Or Saddam's Iraq. Or Germany, even if you amortize 1933-1945 over their entire history.

Now that's a belly laugh.

[Mark Harden]

Goodness, how could I leave out the ChiComs? Just plumb forgot about those 20 or 30 million murdered. Mao, FDR, same difference.

[Plutarck]

While I will agree that America is not "no better than any other countries record...", it is a kind of absurdity to think a record positive merely because it is a bit less horribly negative to everyone else; actions, such as the Phoenix program, are yet more recent examples of modern ignoring or trampling of human rights; if one will permit the addint of a mania to the list, add Satanic Ritual Abuse trials, amongst others.

I can just as well, and will just as well happily, note similarly long and detailed lists of horrors and manias that manifested themselves in other countries. That's perhaps the problem - often people only mention America, and thus get an America-bashing perception. I prefer the humans-aren't-a-pretty-species line of attack, and "we are all in the same damn boat" kind of approach.

The point, at least for me, is that Americans are no less human than any other group of people, yet they (we) have culturally inherited a distinctly Greco-Roman sense of moral and philosophical superiority to everyone else in the world, such that it is merely assumed that we are better - without any evidence to support the idea, other than the luxury of just having a shorter national history and a solid national taste for selective readings of modern American history (just not enough time divorcing us from the origins, and as such you don't get the sort of Chinese distaste for the kinds of Emperors and such that get the exact opposite reaction in America). Not that no one else shares in the self-love - the Japanese, as with perhaps all humans, tend to think modern successes are due to superiority in some way, and I'm aware of no particular instance in ANY culture where a nation looks back on history and sees itself as being on the morally wrong side of a war (...ok, except the one's that were, or sided with, Hitler - and not everyone, even then).

It would seem there is also a rather widely written about "cultural fog", which remarkably presents, promotes, and reinterprets other cultures until they painfully fit modern American culture. Hell, some people (at least the public ones) tend to go into absolute fits when you even so much as mention "culture" and "other cultures", and have a similar tendency to demand that students should study AMERICAN history, not all this foreign history crap! I make it through the day with a positive attitude largely because few people will behave so rediculously when they are not in front of crowds that cheer on their lunacy. That's probably also why I do my best to avoid cheering crowds.

Really, history just repeats itself over, and over, and over again, and not, I believe, because people fail to learn from it but because the game has not, and will never, change (and people's remarkable ongoing lack of learning and appreciating the importance of it...then again, I guess I do think it's because history isn't systematically learned from). Same strive for dominance, same demand for conformity, same struggle for survival and security, dishonesty works over the short-term just as much (and sometimes more) than ever, manias occur and persist over indefinate periods (some might have existed for as long as we can know), people still can't intuitively understand statistics, commiting logical fallacies is just plain natural and often feeds into intentional dishonesty (wishful thinking is a real bitch, especially), cherry picking examples and data that supports a thesis, the nature of orthodoxy, status quo, and maintaining one's own lifestyle, judging members that are not a member of one's own group as less intelligent, honest, kind, moral, attractive...and on, and on, and on.

Same old stuff, new people doing it, and some occassionally new rationalizations are invented for it.

[Jean Bart]

Rick Barton,

Well, whether in reality or on paper there is a broader mandate regarding free speech than other countries doesn't really speak to the HR issue I have brought up here. To be frank, having actually lived in France and the US I see no difference between the two nations on a practical level regarding free speech issues.

As to the Constitution mandating restitution, no court ever declared so, and _Korematsu_ has never been overturned. It is still good law, and that means a similar option is still open for the American government in time of war, etc. Furthermore, Congress decided on the restitution plan not because it was forced to, but because it wanted to. And finally, no such plan has come into existance to deal with the tens of thousands of German and Italian-Americans who were similarly detained by the US government.

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart wrote:
"Its (the US) got the same problems every other nation has, especially in comparison to other Western nations..."

At least this is more reasonable then his original claim that: "The American record on human rights is no better than any other nation's record." Were making progress.

"... and is not very special in this regard."

On the contrary; As I said, the fact that, no where in the world is there a broader guarantee of free speech then here is quite special and worth all of us fighting ferociously to preserve, threatened, as it is now.

"Actually, the Constitution never demanded reparations.(for the WWII Japenese internment In fact _Korematsu_ has never been overturned and remains good law as to this day. What brought about reparations was a guilty conscience."

The constitution most certainly did demand reperations. Reagan's Attorney General, William French Smith in arguing for their nessesity cited
Amendment V of the Bill of Rights:
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

"Most of the Western governments do. (have constitutions that force that justice be done when their governments misbehave on such massive scale) France has spent much of the post-war era trying to exorcise the demons of the Vichy regime in all manner of ways - from naming streets after Jewish victims of WWII atrocities to trying collaborators."

That example is not really analagous since it was an occupation government and was it the French constitution that forced these measures?

[Jean Bart]

drf,

BTW, my comment overlooked nothing; exorcising demons neccessarily means that atonement is trying to be be made for past wrongs. And I don't see anyone bragging about France's record in WWII, Many Frenchmen collaborated, many also fought the Nazis (relatives of mine did, one to his death at the hands of Klaus Barbie). I take pride in those that did fight; in the hundreds of thousands who fought throughout the world during the war when their own country was occupied.

[david f]

letsee. we got yer HR violations in america. yeah. there's not a good record there... (according to some)

don't forget the testing on mentally disabled types in sweden (until the 60s). or in denmark: the forcing of those suspected of being german colaberators to walk across fields to clear mines. or the debtors farms in denmark up until 1933 (when the first welfare bill was passed), where debtors could risk a, um, copulation ban.

here's one: until post WWII, EVERYBODY in the western world seems to have awful human rights/ individual rights records. let's not even go elsewhere...

and because in the US there was a lot of pain in the transformation, which is probably still going on, the smug comments that say the us is bad/medicore are off base. look at the fear of islam on the continent. look at the treatment of Turks in germanic/northern europe. australia. listen to midnight oil. look at the north-africa experience in france (passage a tabac). each country goes through different growing pains in effort to "create a more perfect union".

and that france example conveniently overlooks good ol francois mitterand's collaberation. france does not have that good a WWII record there compared with, say denmark (and they don't go about bragging about it). uh oh. here come the francophiles.

now, have a breakfast burrito and relax.

cheers,
drf

[Johnny Rockets]

Is it just me, or do other people think Ann Coulter is to the right what International ANSWER is to the left?

[Robert Racansky]

"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."

"A libertarian is a conservative who's been arrested."

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart,
I understand that in France, advocating more restrictive immigration rules with specific referance to individual ethnic groups can land one in jail, as can, saying certain things about the Jewish holocaust.

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart,
My understanding is that German and Italian-Americans who were similarly detained by the US government were not permanently disspossesd as the Japanese were. Not, that the legal case for restitution shouldn't still be there.

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart,
My understanding is that German and Italian-Americans who were similarly detained by the US government were not permanently disspossesd as the Japanese were. Not, that the legal case for restitution shouldn't still be there.