NC congressman Coble defends internment of Japanese American

c.i., "The Roadmap" has been on the table quite a while, and has met with little success due to primarily Radical Islamist opposition.

Not a "New Idea":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/598258.stm

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text/1220map.htm

Some question of both Palestinian and Israeli acceptance of the proposals:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/peacewatch/peacewatch2002/408.htm




timber

Obviously, there is a newer "roadmap" by the US government on its way:

Powell: 'Roadmap' for Mideast Peace to be Published Soon

I agree that "Roadmap" is not perfect, but it is the best plan ever proposed by the USA to the conflicting parties. It certainly needs further improvement, and I hope that the U.S. administartion will be able to make the necessary corrections when it finishes dealing with Saddam. Mr.Sharon's attempts to negotiate with relatively moderate Palestinian leaders, like Abu-Ala, are intended to put end to stalemate: to reduce terror level that will enable to withdraw IDF forces from the major Palestinian towns, and to give them chance to reform the Authority. Reformed authority, if it refuses to support terror and stops incitement campaign, may be a partner for negotiations that will lead to final solution of the conflict and creation of the Palestinian state by side of Jewish Israel (and not instead of it).

steissd, That's how I understood your initial statement on "Roadmap." IMHO, all past plans for a peaceful resolution has already proven to be ineffective. Some old ideas must be included in the new Roadmap, but it must be with the support of the US to protect the interests of both sides. c.i.

ci:

Law school professors who teach constitutional law, have expressed the same opinion as the person, you've called a bigot. I don't know that he is a bigot. If he is, does he not have a right to express his opinions in America. You don't agree with him, but you can't deny him his right to express his views.


Sounds like the Black poet who wrote a poem recently in which he said that 2000 Jews who worked in the WTC in NYCity, stayed home on 9/11/01, because they knew in advance of the attack(?). The poet is wrong, but he still has the right to express his ideas in his poem.

Surely. Israel needs security, Palestinian need independent state. If there is no terror in between, both objectives are real. Absence of terror is pre-conditioned by recognition of Israel as a Jewish state by Palestinians. If there are some positive shifts in the Palestinian position regarding terror and recognition of Israel, then it will be much easier for Mr. Sharon to solve the settlements problem, he will be able to mobilize national consensus in favor of territorial concessions. In absence of security no consensus in favor of any of the Palestininan requests is possible, and Mr. Sharon is a democratically elected leader and not a military dictator: he cannot act in absence of national consensus.

If Bush wants peace and stability in the middle east he should lead a coalition to separate the Jews and Arabs first - stop the killing - and then seek a plan for peace. That instead of invading Iraq.

Edgar:

Have you comunicated your ideas to President Bush and Dr. Rice?

Replacement of Saddam may serve the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian relationships as well. If Iraqi regime pays $25,000 to every family of the suicide bomber, everyone can guess what is the influence of this regime on the peace prospects.

steissd
Even without Iraq in the equation there is still Iran, Syria, Palestinian terrorist groups and above all the Fundamental Islamic groups to contend with. How does one deal with that? There is also the Ultra orthodox Jews who I understand do not want to give up the West bank because they consider it part of historical Israel.
This is a question you could answer. Here in the states we have a sect of Ultra Religious Jews who were and are against the establishment of the state of Israel. They claim that can only occur after the arrival of the messiah. Do you have a similar situation in Israel?

NH, If constitutional law professors agree with Coble, it only shows how wrong headed they are. To justify the encarceration of a race of people who have not been charged with any crime goes against all the legal and moral dictates of our constitution and our bill of rights. Please show us proof that such support of Coble exists, besides your making the statement. c.i.

It would indeed be interesting to hear a case made that the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was Constitutional. My reading of the Constitution doesn't support that view, nor was it the view of my law professors. It was legal, but not Constitutional.

Did someone say it was legal but unconstitutional. Is that possible?

au, Unfortunately, Asherman is correct; it was "legal." Here's a link that explains Executive Order 9066 signed by President Roosevelt. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/aasc/ex9066/ c.i.

Well, I didn't know that either:
something can be legal, but unconstitutional the same time.
Impossible here in Germany (and most other countries as well, as far as I remember my courses on Constitutional Law).

NH, Yes, all Americans have a right to express their views. However, there are some subjects that reflects their bigotry, and the quotes by our government representatives shows they do not believe in the Bill of Rights. In those cases, those public servants should be railroaded out of office. c.i.

I am with CI on this.

Its disturbing to hear folks talk about railroading people whose views they disagree with. Railroad a dispicable creep today, and be railroaded tomorrow. Don't go there. We can never safely abandon the rule of law and due process without grave risk to our way of life.

I think the kinds of remarks Coble made puts us at risk to our way of life.