| We're talking about presumed security risks, where there is a model justifying its validity but where the validity has not been demonstrated. American citizens of Japanese ancestry were labeled "security risks" during WWII and sent to internment camps. Do you agree that they were risks and therefore should be removed from all sensitive positions? And if so, what defines "sensitive position"? (We know, by the way, that there absolutely were spies for Japan in the US. http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/04/sorelle/poetry/wwii/... says that 10 were found, and none were Japanese. The only one I found by name was Velvalee Dickinson. Perhaps the risk factor was actually not having Japanese ancestry?) If there was a risk, why the lack of serious sabotage, espionage, etc. on Hawaii, where 1/3rd of the population had Japanese ancestry and therefore economically infeasible to intern them? Was it only because the islands were under martial law, and if so, how does that make a difference? Or do you agree with the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians that there was, in fact, little evidence of disloyalty? Do you agree with U.S. legislation saying that the "security risk" label was actually due to "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership"? If the latter, how does one distinguish between a (supposed true) claim for being a security risk based on political party affiliation and a (demonstrably false) claim for being a security risk based on ancestry? |