Arabs in U.S. could be held, official warns - Page 2

Giancarlo · July 28, 2002, 22:04

Frogger, I gotta agree... that comment on interest rates made by Ned was pretty stupid.

KrazyHorse · July 28, 2002, 22:06

I'm planning to borrow a trillion dollars as soon as the government drops the bank rates below zero. I'll even return it the next day...

Shadowstrike · July 28, 2002, 22:08

The question is however, should we set a precedent for this kind of thing to happen? Today it may be the Arabs, tomorrow, it could by the Italians. Or the Chinese. Or the Mexicans. Frankly, locking up people of one ethnic group just because they may harm you is both wasteful of resources and undermiens the principles of democracy and freedom on which America was built on.

Giancarlo · July 28, 2002, 22:11

I don't locking up an ethnic group will occur... and it does not help the situation...

Dr Strangelove · July 28, 2002, 22:12

Quote:

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
In Sweden, we're much more civilized. It's just Kurd males who get punishments without trials here.

Why Kurds? Stockholm is a long way from northern Iraq. Has Sweden entered into an alliance with Iraq? Joining the "axis of evil" are we? Did we just get too bored or something?

KrazyHorse · July 28, 2002, 22:17

The Swedes are tired of everybody ignoring them. It's what comes of not having fought in a war in 150 years...

KrazyHorse · July 28, 2002, 22:18

That's why we should all keep our eyes on Switzerland...

notyoueither · July 28, 2002, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then what are you arguing for?

I guess I'm trying to discuss the possibility of people being detained on a large scale for actions that would not be considered criminal under normal, peace time conditions.

If it is the act of support, or harbouring, or otherwise aiding the 'bad' guys, then the issue is no longer one of ethnicity. Many non Arabs may very well be sympathetic to some nut bar at a local mosque. Maybe not a lot, but I'm sure there are more Mr. Walkers around.

These are things we should think about. As the person in the article was quoted to say, if there is another large scale attack on the United States, then very likely there will be loud demands to address the problem of the 'enemies within'. Those demands might not be limited to the US. It might be better if people are prepared for it and have considered what would be resonable in advance.

Lord Merciless · July 28, 2002, 23:04

The sooner we defeat the fundamentalist movement, the lower the risk of this happening. I would rather be a little more ruthless now than having to build concentration camps for Arabs.

Kramerman · July 28, 2002, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The sooner we defeat the fundamentalist movement, the lower the risk of this happening. I would rather be a little more ruthless now than having to build concentration camps for Arabs.

We need to be totally ruthless. If i could, i would put the movement down like a rabid dog. But I cant.

. And the US cant because, as it is, the whole world gets madder than hell (and understandablely so) over 'collaterla damage'. Thank you very much telecommunications.....sheesh.

Quote:

After all the greatest causers of crime are white males.

They are the most prevelant group of males in the US. Black males (nothing against african-americans. Ive played may a game of basketball and i rever their natrual talents - its not a stereotype - theyare athletic) are the highest crime committers per capita.

Ned · July 29, 2002, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
I'm planning to borrow a trillion dollars as soon as the government drops the bank rates below zero. I'll even return it the next day...

What you fail to take into consideration is that we are in a deflationary environment. If money is defined to inlude stocks, they we are in a wopping deflationary environment.

Interest rates are relative. If the money supply is deflating at -5% and you borrow money at -1%, your effective interest is 4%.

Japan has had ten years with interest rates held at 0%. These rates still are high because they have strong deflationion going on there primarily caused by bad bank loans sucured by a falling real estate market. When last I was there, economist were pointing out that the effective rate, even a 0% was still to high. The also said that one simply could not loan money at negative interest. However, why not?

Recently, car loans in the US were at 0%. The could also have been at less than 0. You still have to pay back the loan. But the money you pay it back with is more valuable than the money you borrowed.

Ned · July 29, 2002, 00:51

We saw no sabatoge from the Japanese. I also note they were locked up. Whether being locked up was the only reason for there being no sabatoge is left to speculation and revisionist history.

Does anyone know whether the Supreme Court ever ruled on the legality of the Japanese detention in WWII?

DinoDoc · July 29, 2002, 00:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone know whether the Supreme Court ever ruled on the legality of the Japanese detention in WWII?

The SCOTUS took up the issue in Korematsu v US.

Urban Ranger · July 29, 2002, 00:59

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Would it be resonable to detain people who contributed to a known terrorist sponsoring organization?

Does that include the US government? Consider that there is the Contras, and paramilitary groups in Columbia.

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Would it be resonable to detain the known associates of someone who is known to be involved with a terrorist group?

Does that include the US government? At the very least, the CIA is as much a terrorist organisation as a lot of Muslim militant groups.

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Are there other circumstances where someone might be resonably detained prior to an overt hostile act?

So would the same thing apply to US citizens in the Muslim world?

Ned · July 29, 2002, 00:59

OK, What did they say?

DinoDoc · July 29, 2002, 01:01

They approved it.

Ned · July 29, 2002, 01:07

Here's the final paragraph in the Courts's opinion sustaining the camps.

"It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers -- and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies -- we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders -- as inevitably it must -- determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot -- by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that at that time these actions were unjustified. "

Ned · July 29, 2002, 01:09

I take it that the Supreme Court are morons as well.

KrazyHorse · July 29, 2002, 01:13

d

KrazyHorse · July 29, 2002, 01:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

What you fail to take into consideration is that we are in a deflationary environment. If money is defined to inlude stocks, they we are in a wopping deflationary environment.

Interest rates are relative. If the money supply is deflating at -5% and you borrow money at -1%, your effective interest is 4%

Beep! Wrong, unless you plan on actually spending the money on something. If I borrow a trillion dollars then simply give it back the next day, how does deflation hurt me?

KrazyHorse · July 29, 2002, 01:23

Quote:

What you fail to take into consideration is that we are in a deflationary environment. If money is defined to inlude stocks, they we are in a wopping deflationary environment

You're beginning to spout absolute nonsense now. We are not deflationary; the current inflation rate in the US is 1.64%

Ned · July 29, 2002, 01:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

Quote:

What you fail to take into consideration is that we are in a deflationary environment. If money is defined to inlude stocks, they we are in a wopping deflationary environment

You're beginning to spout absolute nonsense now. We are not deflationary; the current inflation rate in the US is 1.64%

The '29 crash caused a subsequent 20% deflation.

KrazyHorse · July 29, 2002, 01:36

Your point? You used the current tense of the verb. You are also ignoring my earlier point. What is to stop someone from borrowing a trillion dollars and handing it back having gained millions in interest? There's no risk, immense gain.

Admit that you said something extremely stupid, then admit that your deflation argument was even stupider and we can all move on with our lives.

Ned · July 29, 2002, 01:45

Banks will not loan you money on a basis that they will loose in the end. In order for there to be negative interest, they has to be deflation - and reliably so.

Today's long term home rates are still above 6%. This indicates that the banks think the long term inflation rate is around 3%.

Now, assume we actually had a long term deflation caused by a 50% drop in the capital value of our nation's companies. Well, 0% might look like the right interest rate.

I think the recent drop in the market is caused by interest rates still being too high.

KrazyHorse · July 29, 2002, 01:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Banks will not loan you money on a basis that they will loose in the end. In order for there to be negative interest, they has to be deflation - and reliably so

This still doesn't make any sense, Ned. Say we posit a 50% deflation rate over the space of a year. I borrow 1000$ from a bank at -2% interest. I leave the money in a sock under my bed. At the end of the year, I give them the 980$ I owe them and keep the extra 20$ for myself. Where is the hole in this, please?

Claiming that deflation will hurt me will only work if you tell me I have to buy something with the money, and even then the bank loses value on the exchange. The bank will always lose money on negative interest rates, no matter how high deflation goes. This is so self-evident it feels like I'm talking to a child. Did you take any arithmetic classes in school, Ned?

KrazyHorse · July 29, 2002, 01:56

If you're going to only be able to lend at a negative interest rate it would be better to stash the money in a vault. At least that way it's still all there when you come back for it in a year's time...

orange · July 29, 2002, 02:04

Ned - quit while you're behind

The quote alone is bad enough, but then trying to justify it makes you look even worse.

Kramerman · July 29, 2002, 04:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Does that include the US government? Consider that there is the Contras, and paramilitary groups in Columbia.

Does that include the US government? At the very least, the CIA is as much a terrorist organisation as a lot of Muslim militant groups.

So would the same thing apply to US citizens in the Muslim world?

All of those things would apply to almost everyone who have ever existed if you interpret what NYE said so loosely as you did.

The fact is, when you or anybody feels cornered, you do whatever you feel is necessary to survive. That is why the arabs probably wont be detained on any scale even close to that as the Japanese were, because the US does not feel cornered.

Kman

Kepler · July 29, 2002, 05:10

There won't be camps, but as attacks continue we'll see some severe abridgements of Arab-Americans' personal freedom and the same sort of blank check apologetics the USSC gave to the Japanese camps. When the pressure's on, we tend to sh1t the free society bed. No opinion either way whether it's justified -- it merely is what will inevitably happen in any society, and never mind the high-minded rhetoric.

I think what's likely is fairly sensible general guidelines by federal authorities, with stupid and occasionally racist execution of those guidelines by local law enforcement, resulting in abuses that are excused for the moment and apologized for years later.

Faeelin · July 29, 2002, 07:51

Won't happen. Most Americans, by and large, tend to distrust the government. Similarly, most viewed the attacks on Muslims as pretty contemptible. Thus, if the government started rounding up muslim citizens, the question would arise: "So am I next?"

Especially as this fits in with a lot of right wing conspiracy theories.