And I see you finally acknolwedged your mistake on US citizens versus foreign naturals. And that you acknowledge Malkin was defending a policy that is now about 60 plus years old – during war time, which has been responsibly debated on the Internt w/o name calling and cheap sloganeering.

Malkin’s arguments might be faulty but if we all get over the Iternet are racist criticisms (not you) of her and vulgar name calling, we won’t know will we?

Dugger

You go astray on two points. First you said foreign nationals. Roosevelt’s internment program targeted American citizens. Secondly, you use present tense (wants to) to describe Malkin’s past defense of somebody else’s internment program.

I tell you again: to reduce this argument to some kind of cheap dismissive slogan is wrong. There is interesting discussion and give and take, for the pen minded.

BTW, Malkin merely defends the logic of FDR’s decision in that time and place (based primarily on intelligence – there is some disagreement on that intelligence, though). How is it Malkin’s argument is worthy of such abuse and ugliness but the man who actually originated and implemented that policy is a liberal saint?

Dugger

You are coming around. At least this time you have dropped the foreign nationals claim. I still recommend reading the adults, Muller, Volokh etc. Don’t trust me, or OW. Read those guys, if you dare. Its not all good virtuous guys versus evil interning racists. Roosevelt was well intentioned and he and Malkin would contend, in their times, had justification for what he did. Many think otherwise. They may be right. But it is more than cheap sloganeering and name calling.

Dugger

a terrorist detention facility where the detainees put on weight

Well, when they’re not on a hunger strike, that is.

My ‘folksy metaphors’ usually irritate, but can’t help that. I try to keep it light.

You tactic is in this argument has evolved into claiming you didn’t mean Auschwitz etc type camps but more a sterile dictionary meaning of camps – like Gitmo where detainees could practice their religion and actually put on weight. Seems, then, to render your first assertion “guess once you hear someone start arguing for concentration camps, you start to take the debate a little bit personally” somewhat irrelevant, doesnt it? You get hot bothered about a terrorist detention facility where the detainees put on weight and practice their religion? TomY1 meet TomY2.

Dugger

Since you missed it, from Brittanica: A concentration camp is defined as an  internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals& 

Nope. TomY I’m sure appreciates your help, but he messed up.

He said: “Concentrating foreign nationals in a camp? Yep, Malkin argued for it. Just because FDR did it doesn t make it right by me.”

And why the visceral, physical criticism of Malkin? The nasty embellishment? You tell me. In context, its a little ugly.

TomY,

Your punt had poor hang time.

Again: Where and when did Malkin advocate American concentration camps?

As to the thoughtful considerations, perhaps you are unaware that Muller is a strong critic of Malkin and my remarks covered both sides. You should read some of those debates before you criticize.

Dugger

Malkin advocated no internment but supported FDRs policy on internment of certain American citizens – not foreign nationals.

And you accuse me of nit-pickishness.

I think those American citizens (who all shared a certain ethnicity) would be covered by the “etc.” in Tom’s definition.

And OW:
“Lips curling with ecstasy”??

What on earth are you talking about? Forget who we’re talking about and why. That just makes no sense.

From Britannica: “internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals…” How those nits tasting, Dugs?

I would debate you, but I’m getting scared now that you have used a bad word. Wooooo!

BTW, you already are wrong on major point. “foreign nationals”???

Malkin advocated no internment but supported FDRs policy on internment of certain American citizens – not foreign nationals.

Perhaps it would be better if you first developed an understanding of the basic premise before you start arguing against it. Now that I think of it, your ready-fire-aim approach is typical of the left re Malkin.
I suggest reading the thoughtful discussions of Muller, Volokh and Robinson re Malkin.

Dugger

I wonder why leftists are seemingly afraid to debate Malkin on merit.

You ought to get out more.

Concentrating foreign nationals in a camp? Yep, Malkin argued for it. Just because FDR did it doesn’t make it right by me. I’ll debate the merits of this one any fucking day of the week, Dugsy.

Be careful. Who has started arguing for concentration camps? Perhaps you are referring to conservative Malkin’s support of Democratic liberal FDR’s policy of internment in WWII. Most people conjure up a Nazi Auschwitz or Siberian slave labor camp when they think concentration camp. Perhaps you had an atypical definiton in mind. Like Gitmo? Where the ‘internees’ gained weight? That it?

I wonder why leftists are seemingly afraid to debate Malkin on merit. Are they scared of her ethnicity. Her potential popularity as a conservative personality?

Dugger

Tom, who categorically rejects the idea of American concentration camps, unlike some people he could mention.