Changes in law and practice since WW2, good for the country?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by oddfellow4870, Jan 10, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    One of the underlying threads in a number of discussions here is a comparison between defense and legal practices during WW2 as they are compared to today.

    Some specific items:

    FDR created internment camps for Japanese Americans. We would never think of doing such a thing today.

    FDR did not require court approval to monitor the activities of Americans. This practice has been assailed by acts of congress since then and is being examined now.

    Former Presidents and members of congress question and challenge our war status both here and abroad.

    Interrogation methods are subjects of political and public discussion. Congress ties the hands of the military and intelligence services.

    So, are these changes good for the country and its citizens? Or do they make it far more difficult to sustain and win an armed conflict with a fierce, determined and amoral oppponent?
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2006