Ummm…actually I think you were agreeing with me. I was the one who said it’s kind of a pointless argument :)

With that being said, I agree with Adam in that these arguments rapidly become pointless. It’s like getting angry in a debate over the question of who was more evil, Hitler or Stalin. Both were evil, and reasonable people can disagree.

In essence, I believe your proximity to Bush is blinding you to the true horror of what FDR brought to this country in the 1930’s and 40’s.

Perhaps, and my opinion on it may change down the road, but our entire argument here is really a subjective one based on personal opinion of who’s worse between two presidents who, when you get right down to it, are both pretty fucking horrific. You weight the despicable socialist policies that FDR installed higher than I rate higher the open lack of respect for human rights (by attempting to legalize torture) that Bush has pushed and neither of us are probably going to convince the other that they’re wrong. Ultimately we’d probably agree that they should both rot in Hell. The only bone of contention I’d have with your argument is that I disagree that without FDR none of these abuses would be possible, because (as Napolitano pointed out) abuse and subversion of the Constitution is a consistent practice by the executive branch all the way back to John Adams…if FDR hadn’t installed all of these policies, who knows what future presidents would have attempted? All governments eventually attempt to consolidate greater power for themselves, not just our own.

Medicare, Medicaid, NCLB, all just evolution. Without Social Security, the NRA, the Switch in Time, WWII, etc. none of the rest would have been enabled institutionally.

Hah! This is an extreme simplification, and generalizing the whole of Europe at the time.

The Western Allied powers – Britain, France, the US etc – in the European theatre were civilized in their conduct, and even the Nazis were fairly humane towards the Allied forces.

Things couldn’t be more different for the poor sods just East of Germany, who *weren’t* signees to the Geneva Convention. Poles, Serbs, Roma, Russians, Jews obviously, were not treated in a civilized manner. I don’t just mean the Holocaust, or the lesser known extermination of over 3 million Soviet POWs from ’41 in concentration camps through complete neglect, but the attitude towards civilian welfare. Massacres of civilians in Poland were extremely common, not only by the infamous SS Dirlewanger Bridgade but by regular units as well. Over 150,000 civilian Poles were killed in the first month of the country’s invasion.

The Soviets were no better. After the conquering the Eastern realms of Germany, mass rape and slaughter of civilians was common place, and German civilian refugee columns were sometimes unfortunate enough to be gunned and mowed down by Red Army tanks.

I would’ve preferred to be an American in a Japanese internment camp than a Russian Soviet in a Nazi internment camp. A 1 in 3 chance of survival is better than actually being exterminated.

You know, for all that Bush has used “the other” to gain power, neither he nor his administration have actually demonized them with racial epithets, racial stereotyping, etc.

Not openly, since society now frowns on open stereotyping, they’re just sneakier about it by using euphemisms to define the “white man’s burden” they think it’s our job to shoulder.

I’m amazed, with the violation of the property rights of the Nisei, that you think that the “internment camps” were not major civil rights violations.

I never said that, nor do I believe that those camps were not violations of civil rights. They were inherently wrong and FDR’s decision was appalling. You called them “concentration camps”, which they were not. People were not executed on a mass scale in them as they were in Nazi Germany. The Nisei were also not tortured for information as detainees apparently have been in Guantanamo. I said that you were cherry-picking facts to bolster your argument, which you did.

They posed no threat, had never acted in a criminal fashion and there is not one single case of established Nisei sabotage or spying to support the Japanese war effort, even though many movies have tried to implicate that.

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch2_a.htm

There was a Japanese intelligence presence in the United States on the West Coast and in Hawaii. The government’s response (interning the Nisei and Issei) was an unconstitutional and abhorrent overreaction but to insist that there was no threat at all is disingenuous.

At least at Gitmo the small number of people we are detaining have, for the most part, been in combat against us.

Really? And your conclusion is based on what? The government’s word that they’re guilty, which the detainees are unable to challenge in any court except a military tribunal where they have no meaningful legal representation, little to no ability to call witnesses on their behalf and where hearsay and evidence obtained by torture can be submitted as evidence by the prosecution? As someone who worked in a war zone I can clearly state that the military arrests the wrong people all the time, sometimes for offenses no more egregious than the detainee being related to a guy we’re looking for, or being in the area of a guy we’re looking for, or having a similar name. The military detainee and tribunal system is inherently flawed…even the military’s lawyers have been fairly jaundiced in their view of it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375738/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/washington/16jags.html

The reality is, if they were called prisoners of war and this was a declared war there would be little to object to.

If they were called “prisoners of war” it’s highly unlikely that the President would be willing to advocate “aggressive interrogation” methods be used against them because that would be a clear violation of international law. Instead he set up the category of “enemy combatants”, the qualifications for which he alone has the authority to determine, and the implication of which is that said “enemy combatant” (U.S. citizen or not) has no human rights. I don’t seem to recall FDR claiming that Nazi and Japanese POWs had no human rights.

There’s no excuse, none, for the massive violation of the personal rights of hundreds of thousands of American residents and citizens.

You’re right, there isn’t. There’s also no excuse for most of what Bush has done in the “War on Terror” either in regards to human rights. Ultimately our dispute is a matter of opinion over who is worse…Bush is on the record as advocating the torture of prisoners, FDR isn’t. So as far as I’m concerned, Bush is worse because that’s about as clear a disregard for human rights as you’re going to get.

Not to mention that I consider your scale comment to be aligned with Stalin’s “a million deaths is a statistic” comment. More violations is worse, not just a difference of scale.

Actually, since I oppose both a few wrongful deaths at the government’s hands as much as I oppose a million wrongful deaths at the government’s hands I think you’re tossing a straw man out there. Bush conducted a poorly-planned invasion and occupation of a country (Iraq) unnecessarily that has to this date resulted in the deaths of approximately 4,000 U.S. soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis, turned Iraq over the Iranians, and kicked off a religious war that threatens to destabilize the entire region. As far as I’m concerned, he’s more of a murderer than FDR ever was because every single death caused by the Iraq War is a direct result of Bush’s decision to go in…unprovoked.

Medicare Part D is not even comparable to Social Security. It’s completely incremental. Social Security tied EVERY SINGLE citizen and resident nearly irrevocably to the US federal government. Medicaid and Medicare would have been unthinkable without Social Security.

Give it a few years.

About using Iron Crosses vs. Medal of Freedom. Yeah, helping out the suck ups is bad. But silencing dissent is much worse. Come on now.

There is no difference between what FDR did and what Bush has done every time an Iraq supplemental funding bill has come up, or when the PATRIOT Act came up, or when Congress criticizes what Bush does. He basically claims that anyone who opposes him wishes harm on the troops.

As far as the OSS goes, there’s a couple of different books I can recommend. I will dig ‘em out. Look into the OSS in Indochina, not Europe. Going along with the theme of the FDR administration as racist against Orientals, the OSS secret war in Asia was dramatically different than Europe AND something that no one ever talked about. The Pacific war was vastly different in terms of what was acceptable and the level of atrocities and so forth. The US war in Europe was very civilized, over all. Not so the war in the Pacific. Don’t buy into the glory that hollywood shows.

Oh, I’m well aware of the differences between the two wars. Not to excuse human rights abuses on our part, but all battlefields tend towards reciprocity and the Japanese…well, let’s say that they weren’t overly gracious towards POWs or civilians. Toss out the names of the books and I’ll probably give them a read…I’ve got a long reading list right now, but I enjoy all books about military history so I’ll get to them eventually and be objective about it. I’m just not willing to debate the morality of the OSS based on vague accusations (because there are plenty who try to paint an inaccurate picture for the other side too).

I think Napolitano’s overall point is that we have to always remain vigilant with regard to our liberties no matter who is in the Oval Office, the congress, or the Supreme Court.

Sorry, an undeclared war without congressional approval is wrong, regardless of how much you do, or do not, like the enemy country. While Bush has fought a war in Iraq that I disagree with starting in the first place, at least he had congressional approval. Hindsight to decide that the North Atlantic naval war of 1940-41 was okay because the Nazi’s were bad is justifying a bad deed, not establishing a good deed.

You know, for all that Bush has used “the other” to gain power, neither he nor his administration have actually demonized them with racial epithets, racial stereotyping, etc. The Japanese and German fascists were threats, yes. However, they couldn’t actually threaten us substantially in the near term. And once our industry was engaged, the outcome of WWII was pretty much ordained.

I’m amazed, with the violation of the property rights of the Nisei, that you think that the “internment camps” were not major civil rights violations. They lost their freedom of movement and personal liberty, had their speech completely censored and had their property rights massively violated. It’s not just that they were interned. They posed no threat, had never acted in a criminal fashion and there is not one single case of established Nisei sabotage or spying to support the Japanese war effort, even though many movies have tried to implicate that.

At least at Gitmo the small number of people we are detaining have, for the most part, been in combat against us. The reality is, if they were called prisoners of war and this was a declared war there would be little to object to. That doesn’t mean, by the way, that I excuse some of the things that have happened there. I’m simply pointing out the difference between the WWII “internment camps” that housed American residents and citizens who had not committed any crime other than being Nisei Japanese-Americans and Gitmo.

I think you need to check your thinking on FDR in that area. There’s no excuse, none, for the massive violation of the personal rights of hundreds of thousands of American residents and citizens. Not to mention that I consider your scale comment to be aligned with Stalin’s “a million deaths is a statistic” comment. More violations is worse, not just a difference of scale.

Medicare Part D is not even comparable to Social Security. It’s completely incremental. Social Security tied EVERY SINGLE citizen and resident nearly irrevocably to the US federal government. Medicaid and Medicare would have been unthinkable without Social Security.

About using Iron Crosses vs. Medal of Freedom. Yeah, helping out the suck ups is bad. But silencing dissent is much worse. Come on now.

As for my “Nuremberg Rallies” comment, read this.

As far as the OSS goes, there’s a couple of different books I can recommend. I will dig ‘em out. Look into the OSS in Indochina, not Europe. Going along with the theme of the FDR administration as racist against Orientals, the OSS secret war in Asia was dramatically different than Europe AND something that no one ever talked about. The Pacific war was vastly different in terms of what was acceptable and the level of atrocities and so forth. The US war in Europe was very civilized, over all. Not so the war in the Pacific. Don’t buy into the glory that hollywood shows.

And seriously, about citing specifics, not rhetoric, how about you and Napolitano and so on not blowing the Bush administration all out of proportion. This administration has been bad, but less abusive of rights during wartime than Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ or Nixon. And less jingoistic, racist and propagandist than those administrations. To me this is more BDS, although not as bad as the far left. I can’t stomach Bush, but I can try to be objective about reality.

UC Crawford? :)