Japanese Internment Vs. the War On Terror

Lillian Nakano is an American of Japanese descent whom was held against her will during WWII because the Roosevelt administration felt that she and other Japanese-Americans were security threats. This was by far the most anti-American policy initiated in the 20th century and the people who were effected deserved compensation that was eventually granted them.

Ms. Nakano however, declares that there are parallels in the internment of the Japanese and the plight of Muslims living in the US:

Today, many in the Japanese American community will attend the annual Day of Remembrance events in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities, with the goal of teaching new generations the lessons from that painful time. Some of my fellow Americans are now being targeted because they are Muslim, Arab or Middle Eastern. When the attacks of Sept. 11 happened, I mourned for the innocent lives that were lost. But I also began to identify and sympathize with the innocent Muslim Americans who immediately became victims of the same kind of stereotyping and scapegoating we faced 63 years ago. They too have become targets of suspicion, hate crimes, vandalism and violence, all in the name of patriotism and national security.

This comparison is wrong on many levels but I'll state just a few. To begin, the internment during the war was government policy and became legal when FDR signed Executive Order 9066. To my knowledge, GWB has yet to go this extreme. Perhaps he, in conjunction with Alberto Gonzales has secretly signed an executive order and the Muslims are being secretly held in Utah. I think we probably would've heard something about this from the families of the internee's.

Second, the incidents of "suspicion, hate crimes, vandalism and violence" that she refers to seem to be isolated, but it's the last part of that sentence that bothers me; "all in the name of patriotism and national security". The natioanal security part would indicate that the government was complicit in the hate crimes, vandalism and violence and that is just not the case.

Ms. Nakano is being disingenuous by comparing the two and the LA Times Editorial Board knows this. I know it is an opinion piece, and I for one support the rights of citizens to air their views. I also believe that if someone states an opinion that is intellectually dishonest, it's my right to question it.