The Brits should talk...

I seem to recall that the British army invented 'concentration camps' during the Boer War. Perhaps if they had been a little tougher on the IRA instead of the 'gentle' approach they seem to favor "The Troubles" wouldn't have lasted nearly 30 years.

Well, we could actually use some concentration camps in Iraq, but won't.

In the Boer War, the British were faced with an insurrection by irregulars who were part of, hidden by and able to blend into the civilian population. They concentrated the population in camps for the same reason we'd like to put the population of Faludjah in camps. Up through the end of WWII, various countries used concentration camps in this circumstance, and they usually worked. The WRA camps used to intern the Japanese during WWII are another (albeit unconstitutional) example of the paradigmatic use of concentration camps.

They were also always accompanied by claims of atrocities. The British were accused of putting ground glass in the Boer's food in their concentration camps. The guards at the WRA camps have also been accused of misusing the internees. This is one reason people were slow to believe that reports about the German camps. Now that we know the truth about the German death camps, it is politically impossible to use concentration camps.

I wonder what the British term is for 'rag-head'? Surely they have one. And surely they have used it, just as the GIs have. So what?

The US camps were hardly paradigmatic, since there was no insurrection to separate the masses from.

Reprisals must not be "proportionate." That was a big mistake in Vietnam. When determining the nature of response, "victory" should be the only criteria, not what "tit" equals that "tat." As long as the response is DIRECTED properly (opposed to indiscriminate reprisal or attacking a non-aggressor), proportionately should not be a question once the killing has begun. Proportionately is appropriate for pre-war diplomacy, not once shooting starts.

Easy to say that now, Harry. I've also seen it argued that the US camps were a complete success at stopping Issei sabotage.

And if we'd started losing the war with Japan it's easy to see the camps turning into much more evil places.

>I wonder what the British term is for 'rag-head'?

Wog.

There were no camps in Hawaii and no sabotage.

People can claim anything they want, David, but they ought to be required to provide evidence to back up the claims.

There were no camps because the Japanese-Americans had too much political power--no politician could afford to incarcerate them.

It's 2004, Harry. Seems a little late to start.

They didn't have any political power. The issei were not allowed to become citizens; the neisei had become numerous enough to elect a couple of (Republican) members to the Territorial House, but the Big Five ran the Territory.

The military was persuaded that it could not afford to lock up the majority of the labor in the Territory; and the local head of the FBI was astute enough (amazingly for a secret policeman) to recongnize that there was no disloyalty.

You cannot just make up facts to fit your theories. At some point, you really need to ask what the facts were.

David, maybe, but the law tries to operate on facts. It's called "discovery," not "invention."

One third of the islanders were Japanese-American--that's power. FDR and Warren could only do what they did to the Japanese-Americans of the West Coast because they were such a small % of the population. It's in all the books.