Japan in WW2

[Pc_Madness]

Do we have any Japanese members here?

I wanna hear what they know about WW2.

[nishantp]

As far as I know, they dont hear about it the way we do. We've probably all seen pics of POWs in Japanese concentration camps at some point. The human rigths violations that took place are second only to the worst Nazi camps.

However, it is hard for Japanese people to accept that their country actually commited such acts, considering what it has become. I can understand why they generally don't teach history that way in Japan, although I feel they should at least know what went on.

[Pc_Madness]

Yeah. I figured that with the internet and all, most Japanese people would have an idea about what happened?

[Arc]

Well i know i'm one of the Most Pro-American guys on this board but America had it's own Camps that it held japanese people in, however i wouldn't begin to compare it to the nazi camps.

The thing is though we weren't holding jap POW's we were holding American citizens of japanese decent.

[nishantp]

Originally posted by Arc
Well i know i'm one of the Most Pro-American guys on this board but America had it's own Camps that it held japanese people in, however i wouldn't begin to compare it to the nazi camps.

The thing is though we weren't holding jap POW's we were holding American citizens of japanese decent. Yeah same here in Canada. We recuited thousands of Japanese immigrants and held them in internment camps. It was basically taught to show how fragile our freedom really is, and what mistakes should not be made. Of course now, half of us drive Japanese cars:p

[nishantp]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Yeah. I figured that with the internet and all, most Japanese people would have an idea about what happened? Yeah they could find out if they tried. But again, its not easy to accept that your contry has done things like that. Its not the same in Germany. There, there was a party that came to power democratically (Nazis), and then abolished that very democracy. Current Germans will be the first to distance themselves from that.

In Japan, its not so clear. Their country otherwise has a very long history.

[Gaffer]

Im in Japan at the moment, and there is much airtime devoted to the US request for Japan to start possessing nuclear weapons, in order to assist in the "potential war" against N Korea.

This request has not gone down well in Japan - they are very much aware of their recent history, and consider themselves a peaceful nation, much like the stance Germany has taken after WII.

Personally, I believe that as we have a handful of countries holding enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 40 times over, we dont need more.

[nishantp]

Originally posted by Gaffer
Im in Japan at the moment, and there is much airtime devoted to the US request for Japan to start possessing nuclear weapons, in order to assist in the "potential war" against N Korea.

This request has not gone down well in Japan - they are very much aware of their recent history, and consider themselves a peaceful nation, much like the stance Germany has taken after WII.

Personally, I believe that as we have a handful of countries holding enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 40 times over, we dont need more. But those weapons will never be destroyed. Even if they are, the technology to make them cannot be destroyed (without destoying the world:rolleyes: ). Eventually someone else will make them, and everyone else wont have anything to counter it with. Thats why as bad as they are, they can't be destroyed.

Now the point about Japan. As far as I know, Japan and NK aren't exactly cozy. I understand that Japan is sensitive to the topic of nukes, but the possession of them may actually be detterent enough to stop an actual war from taking place (cold-war style). Although, if Japan did start producing them, they could probably make nukes of better quality in larger quantities than NK ever could.

[Arc]

Originally posted by Gaffer
Im in Japan at the moment, and there is much airtime devoted to the US request for Japan to start possessing nuclear weapons, in order to assist in the "potential war" against N Korea.

This request has not gone down well in Japan - they are very much aware of their recent history, and consider themselves a peaceful nation, much like the stance Germany has taken after WII.

Personally, I believe that as we have a handful of countries holding enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 40 times over, we dont need more.

umm excuse me? America is requesting Japan to build/Own nukes? Isn't that against thier constitution that we wrote for them?

[Pc_Madness]

Yeah, I thought that as well actually.

I heard that they've considered building them twice, once back in the 50's and again in the 70's or 80's, but decided against it cause they didn't want to start trouble, and possibly start another WW2

[plenderj]

Originally posted by nishantp
The human rigths violations that took place are second only to the worst Nazi camps.

The US doesn't really have much right to lecture anyone on human rights.
You're making a complete sham of it yourselves right now.

http://www.humanrightsmonitor.org/article491.html

[DeadEyes]

Originally posted by Arc
umm excuse me? America is requesting Japan to build/Own nukes? Isn't that against thier constitution that we wrote for them?
Constitutions can be changed, in Ireland all it takes is for the majority of citizens to vote in agreement of the change

[Pc_Madness]

In Australia it takes a majority of voters in a majority of states, which eliminates the possiblity of creating laws that favour the city over the country for example.

If Japan decided to purse development of Nuclear weapons, what happened during WW2 would come to light, and I should think that most of the people would vote against it, as they have indicated in the past. Aside from that, there country has prospered after the war after restricting there armies to defensive capabilities only.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
The US doesn't really have much right to lecture anyone on human rights.
You're making a complete sham of it yourselves right now.

http://www.humanrightsmonitor.org/article491.html

gee oh well.. next time don't fly planes into our ****ing buildings :rolleyes:

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
gee oh well.. next time don't fly planes into our ****ing buildings :rolleyes:

So because they killed some civilians they have no human rights ?

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
So because they killed some civilians they have no human rights ?

Surely deliberately targeting civilians is a violiation of the rules of war?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Surely deliberately targeting civilians is a violiation of the rules of war?

No because it wasn't a military strike.
And even if it was a military strike, the US made up the term "illegal combatants" or whatever it was called.
That is absolutely meaningless.

Even if I ordered thousands of army people to torch civilians, yes I would be guilty of war crimes, but I was also be entitled to my human rights.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
No because it wasn't a military strike.
And even if it was a military strike, the US made up the term "illegal combatants" or whatever it was called.
That is absolutely meaningless.

Even if I ordered thousands of army people to torch civilians, yes I would be guilty of war crimes, but I was also be entitled to my human rights.

they didn't show the civilians they killed any mercy.... they are a giant terrorist group... why should they have the right to complain about the cell they are in???

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
No because it wasn't a military strike.
And even if it was a military strike, the US made up the term "illegal combatants" or whatever it was called.
That is absolutely meaningless.

Even if I ordered thousands of army people to torch civilians, yes I would be guilty of war crimes, but I was also be entitled to my human rights.

No, it was a military strike, because it came from an organisation with enough members to be classified as an army. ;)

And they claimed that they were at war with America anyway ;)

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
they didn't show the civilians they killed any mercy.... they are a giant terrorist group... why should they have the right to complain about the cell they are in???

Because they're still human beings.
They deserve the same human rights as anyone.

And as a nation that pushes free speach, equality & democracy I would have thought that would be paramount.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
No, it was a military strike, because it came from an organisation with enough members to be classified as an army. ;)

And they claimed that they were at war with America anyway ;)

No it was Osama Bin Laden that declared war on America, and they are a terrorist organization - not a legitimate Army.

But irrespective of whether its an army or not, they still deserve their human rights.

[Pc_Madness]

So? George Bush declared war on Iraq?


Surely, the actions of coldly killing civilians is not something we would like to call a human action?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Surely, the actions of coldly killing civilians is not something we would like to call a human action?

Irrespective of whether we'd like to call it human, the fact remains that it was human beings that did it.
And under the geneva convention which the US seems so concerned about, and under human rights laws, which the US too seems so concernced about, they have certain rights.

[Pc_Madness]

And what rights have been breached?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And what rights have been breached?

http://www.humanrightsmonitor.org/article491.html

[kleinma]

well lets be fair then.. lets put them all in a building and fly a plane into it... that sounds about right?? no?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
well lets be fair then.. lets put them all in a building and fly a plane into it... that sounds about right?? no?

No it doesn't sound right.
If the US is so intent on the Iraqis upholding the geneva convention and human rights issues, the least the US can do is the same.


If you don't treat the soldiers well then why should anyone treat yours well ?

[DeadEyes]

Originally posted by kleinma
they didn't show the civilians they killed any mercy.... they are a giant terrorist group... why should they have the right to complain about the cell they are in???

What civilians did they kill? what proof is there that all the people in these camps are terrorists/soldiers? Christ with police investigations and juries innocent people sill get imprisoned.

Then They Came for Me
by

Stephen F. Rohde, Esq.


First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.

Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.

Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.

Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.

Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.

Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.

Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.

Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
http://www.humanrightsmonitor.org/article491.html
They are not classified as PoW's therefore the Geneva Convention doesnt apply in this case. They are criminals and they are terrorists not PoW's and can be detained for crimes against the US according to US law. It really is that simple.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
No it doesn't sound right.
If the US is so intent on the Iraqis upholding the geneva convention and human rights issues, the least the US can do is the same.


If you don't treat the soldiers well then why should anyone treat yours well ?
They are terrorists and criminals not soldiers.

X

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Xanith
They are not classified as PoW's therefore the Geneva Convention doesnt apply in this case. They are criminals and they are terrorists not PoW's and can be detained for crimes against the US according to US law. It really is that simple.

Okay so they're not PoWs.
But under US law you cannot hold someone for more than... something like 24 or 48 hours without charging them.

These men have been detained, ie. locked up in prison, without ever being charged yet.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
Okay so they're not PoWs.
But under US law you cannot hold someone for more than... something like 24 or 48 hours without charging them.

These men have been detained, ie. locked up in prison, without ever being charged yet.
Very true. I dont know the full extent of the situation but I do think they are being held by authority of the new Homeland Security Act.

X

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Xanith
Very true. I dont know the full extent of the situation but I do think they are being held by authority of the new Homeland Security Act.

Which ****s human rights up the ass.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
Which ****s human rights up the ass.
Criminals can be treated according to the law of the country that they are in. IN the Middle East they cut off your hand for stealing in other countries its OK to kill your wife if you find her cheating on you. Both brutal examples in our western eyes but still the law of the land in other countries.

I think you are overreacting a bit in this case. I highly doubt these prisoners are being tortured or deprived of their basic human needs such as food, water, and shelter. Simply a matter of holding them without being charged with a crime is hardly a human rights violation.

X

[DeadEyes]

Originally posted by Xanith
Simply a matter of holding them without being charged with a crime is hardly a human rights violation.
X
I would consider it a violation of my rights if I was imprisoned without being charged or put on trial.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by DeadEyes
I would consider it a violation of my rights if I was imprisoned without being charged or put on trial.
I suppose. But if you are a terrorist and a criminal and being held like this I am hardly going to shed a tear about you. Sorry.

X

[DeadEyes]

Originally posted by Xanith
I suppose. But if you are a terrorist and a criminal and being held like this I am hardly going to shed a tear about you. Sorry.

X

That is what I am driving at how can you know if someone is a terrorist? Who's word do you take?
If someone had a grudge against you and pointed the finger saying you were a terrorist, how would you prove your innocence?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Xanith
I am hardly going to shed a tear about you. Sorry.

So you have x reasons for not giving a **** if they are badly treated and you don't care what happens to them.
They have x reasons for hating America, and don't care what happens to Americans.

So why is September11th such a big deal then ?
They're only treating you with the same apathy you are treating them.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
So you have x reasons for not giving a **** if they are badly treated and you don't care what happens to them.
They have x reasons for hating America, and don't care what happens to Americans.

So why is September11th such a big deal then ?
They're only treating you with the same apathy you are treating them.
I’m sorry but that’s not a fair analogy. I don’t think the people who died in 9/11 were plotting to kill anyone in other countries. I honestly really don’t care about what they do with people who want to kill me and my family for the simple reason of just being an American. I mean would you shed a tear for people who were killing your family and friends simply for being Irish?

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by DeadEyes
That is what I am driving at how can you know if someone is a terrorist? Who's word do you take?
If someone had a grudge against you and pointed the finger saying you were a terrorist, how would you prove your innocence?
I'm sure they wouldn’t be holding these people if they were not terrorists. I guess I don't feel like this can turn into something where they are taking innocent people and locking them up simply because they look a certain way or believe in certain things. The people that are interned have very real ties to terrorist organizations and are responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians.

X

[nishantp]

Originally posted by plenderj
The US doesn't really have much right to lecture anyone on human rights.
You're making a complete sham of it yourselves right now.

http://www.humanrightsmonitor.org/article491.html :p I'll bet I am. Can't you see how blinded you've become? I had not once mentioned the US in any of my posts this thread. I'm from Canada. I explained what human rights abuses we had performed during WW2. And you call me a sham. Great. I might not have agreed with you earlier, but now you've lost my respect. Have a nice day.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
So you have x reasons for not giving a **** if they are badly treated and you don't care what happens to them.
They have x reasons for hating America, and don't care what happens to Americans.

So why is September11th such a big deal then ?
They're only treating you with the same apathy you are treating them.

I hate to break it to you Jamie, but this thread is about Japan during World War 2, not how the US are treating their little guests.

Jamie is the person who is secretly out to derail as many threads as possible. :p

[Shaggy Hiker]

The thread started out over Japan, but it has veared away by now. After all, the original question was for the Japanese perspective, and there hasn't been one.

The current thread, veered though it has, is still valid. My understanding is that the group held in Cuba (I can't spell that base name) is largely terrorists, and terrorist related. I was surprised to see in this thread that some people feel that they are not POW's, but held under criminal code. I don't know, can somebody confirm this? I thought it was the other way around. They are clearly in violation of US ciminal code, though we have often treated detained foreign nationals with a kind of confused inconsistency.

In short: What are those people classified as, and under what code are they being held?

I was also surprised by people who hold that they are not being harmed by perpetual imprisonment. We hold that to be punishment in this country. Is perpetual punishment acceptable for somebody just becuase they might have done a bad thing, or happened to be associated with an organization that has done bad things? Members of a certain church in the US fit the latter category, would it be justified to lock them all up indefinitely until we decide some essential indecidable issue?

[hellswraith]

Shaggy Hiker, to answer your questions:

The place: Guantanamo Bay (Camp X-Ray)

From an article online:
That's because these detainees aren't soldiers, but part of a murderous gang that exists outside all civilized strictures. The Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda members, since they did not, as required by the convention to qualify for its protections, wear proper uniforms, answer to a responsible chain of command, and abide by the rules of war (or sign the treaty, for that matter). They are war criminals. Now, the administration has yet to say clearly whether it considers Taliban as well as al Qaeda prisoners unlawful combatants. If it does not, it is obliged to hold hearings to sort out the legitimate prisoners of war.

Still confusing though...lol.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Amen to that!

I don't feel that we are a just society unless we deal with those who break the laws in a consistent and fair manner. These folks aren't being handled that way. Partly that is because we really don't know what to do with them, but I feel that part of it is a lack of leadership at the top. Not that the pack of cowboys in charge don't know what to do with them, just that they are allowing them to slip through the cracks simply because they see them as evil and don't want to give them fair treatment. They will be treated humanely, but not fairly. Most people would prefer predictability, good or bad, rather than limbo.