WI Muslims interned after 9/11

[Lateknight]

What would have been the effects of intern the Muslim population in America after 9/11 ? Such as How long could have it lasted and the what the international reaction to this action would have been.

Note:I don't support this any way shape or form I am just curious.

 

[Sol717]

It's not very likely because the US has too many checks and balances in its system, so even if it is seen as a good idea, there will be too much pressure on the group advocating it to get it into law. However, Bush could introduce an emergency measure so he has the right to do this, but that would ruin 2004 for him and the Republicans. The ethics of imprisoning innocent Muslims would make the issue a major political question for at least a decade (unless something really major pops up immediately so people forget about it). Finally, it is against the constitution, but that has arguably done in OTL (Prism, etc.).

 

[TheMaleRei]

Whatever one's thoughts on the USA being a pariah State in OTL, depending on political-religious-economic ideology, multiply it by a billion times.

It would be a propaganda victory for repressive and totalitarian regimes all around the world - although on the flip side, in a very twisted way, those same totalitarian regimes would think - "Holy Christ, these guys aren't f*cking around"...

The logistical needs would be immense, and there would be at least some physical resistance - violence by those who didn't want to be interred, and their supporters. Who knows how many deaths and property destruction would result.

 

[sciscisciortino]

The political goodwill internationally that got scuttled by the invasion of Iraq could happen much earlier. Even at home this is going to be deeply divisive.

 

[Lalli]

USA would notice being pretty lonely on international issues. USA wouldn't have much friends and it would be great propaganda stuff for leftists and Islamic groups. And Bush would lose election '04. But fixing of damages might last pretty long. And surely there wouldn't be invasion to Iraq, when anyone hardly want will cooperate with country which imprisone people only because their faith.

 

[Realpolitik]

ASB. Bush II was very explicit about the fact that he respected Islam and was not against the religion itself.

The logistical and PR problems would ban it anyway.

 

[jmc247]

The political goodwill internationally that got scuttled by the invasion of Iraq could happen much earlier. Even at home this is going to be deeply divisive.

The mistake in that regard was either going in or waiting too long. OTL if he went in at the start of 2002 instead of the start of 2003 it would have been met with muted tut tutting. Trying to get the world aboard to something they were not going to get aboard with and letting the opposition have months to plot and plan for what happens after we get in was the political mistake and one can argue one of the military mistakes as well.

If Bush wanted to do Iraq he should have done it early 2002 assuming they did Afghanistan the same way then asked for world help in training/retraining their new army or other things they were willing to help out with after Saddam was gone. From the start of 2002 to the end of 2002 anti toppling Saddam sentiment in Western Europe went from a mild trickle to a deafening roar as opposition built and organized.

 

[cubefreak123]

There are still people alive who remembered/lived through the Japanese internment and it's looked back at in shame today. I can't see anyone seriously advocating the same being done to muslims not getting shouted down immediately.

 

[MerryPrankster]

IIRC there was only one person with any influence who advocated interning Muslims--Michelle Malkin. And she might've been playing devil's advocate rather than advocating interning Muslims, no matter how dubious her book cover is.

Bush himself was STRONGLY against anybody picking on Muslims, no matter what the Freepers might want.

So it's not going to happen.

 

[Custard Cream Monster]

IIRC there was only one person with any influence who advocated interning Muslims--Michelle Malkin

If Michelle Malkin is the only person supporting it, that's good evidence that as an idea it is bonkers.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If Michelle Malkin is the only person supporting it, that's good evidence that as an idea it is bonkers.

She did call out Donald Trump repeatedly, but she wasn't the only one doing it.

And I don't think Malkin was seriously advocating interning Muslims, but supporting profiling. Seriously, there's no need to strip-search an old woman because focusing on more likely suspects is "racist."

Excessive use of profiling isn't good either (Saladin Ahmed complains about "traveling while Arab" and although his politics are irrational, he's no terrorist), but the TSA hasn't exactly been well-behaved.

 

[oreocruncher]

The mistake in that regard was either going in or waiting too long. OTL if he went in at the start of 2002 instead of the start of 2003 it would have been met with muted tut tutting. Trying to get the world aboard to something they were not going to get aboard with and letting the opposition have months to plot and plan for what happens after we get in was the political mistake and one can argue one of the military mistakes as well.

If Bush wanted to do Iraq he should have done it early 2002 assuming they did Afghanistan the same way then asked for world help in training/retraining their new army or other things they were willing to help out with after Saddam was gone. From the start of 2002 to the end of 2002 anti toppling Saddam sentiment in Western Europe went from a mild trickle to a deafening roar as opposition built and organized.

Thing is though, that the case against Iraq was less good than Afghanistan in the first place...
If you went on own earlier, people will still think you're nuts...2 wars at once!!!

 

[Mike Stearns]

The political goodwill internationally that got scuttled by the invasion of Iraq could happen much earlier. Even at home this is going to be deeply divisive.

Agreed. The international goodwill that the Americans pissed away in invading Iraq will evaporate virtually instantaneously in TTL.

And then there's the cost of building the camps and rounding everyone up....

 

[libbrit]

It's not very likely because the US has too many checks and balances in its system, so even if it is seen as a good idea, there will be too much pressure on the group advocating it to get it into law. However, Bush could introduce an emergency measure so he has the right to do this, but that would ruin 2004 for him and the Republicans. The ethics of imprisoning innocent Muslims would make the issue a major political question for at least a decade (unless something really major pops up immediately so people forget about it). Finally, it is against the constitution, but that has arguably done in OTL (Prism, etc.).

You say that, but explain the treatment of the Japanese Americans during WW2

 

[MerryPrankster]

You say that, but explain the treatment of the Japanese Americans during WW2

Because the general public was much, much more racist, the shock of Pearl Harbor and the fall of U.S. possessions on the Pacific was present and people honest-to-God thought the Japanese were a threat to California (nobody thought AQ was going to conquer the USA), and FDR was the closest this country has come to having a King.

The U.S. now is much more different, especially since Watergate wrecked the trust/deference the public and media had toward the president before.

 

[lucaswillen05]

Are all Muslims interned after 9/11 or only the known extremists and those subsequently identified/ Such a limited internment policy could be more feasible

 

[LHB]

Thing is though, that the case against Iraq was less good than Afghanistan in the first place...
If you went on own earlier, people will still think you're nuts...2 wars at once!!!

I'm also not sure striking in early 2002 outside of air strikes is even logistically possible and if you're invading Iraq stuff like the weather (the later you go in the hotter it gets) is going to be a factor. Hitting in the summer of 2002 with an even smaller scratch force is more risky than going in during spring of 2003 with sufficient force.

And either way most of America's allies will probably give the same response: we can't mobilize sufficient force in time.

 

[ChazMo]

Because the general public was much, much more racist, the shock of Pearl Harbor and the fall of U.S. possessions on the Pacific was present and people honest-to-God thought the Japanese were a threat to California (nobody thought AQ was going to conquer the USA), and FDR was the closest this country has come to having a King.

The U.S. now is much more different, especially since Watergate wrecked the trust/deference the public and media had toward the president before.

Plus, the benefit of TV, the internet, mass-media and a press less likely to casually rally behind the government render it much harder to actually justify to the public something as atrocious as the large-scale internment of a well-entrenched ethnoreligious group. There's no way a Western state would be able to pull off something like the Japanese-American program of WWII. Attitudes ... meh, there's a huge amount of anti-Muslim bigotry about, but it's really nothing on the scale of the militant feelings that prevailed in the U.S. in the 1940s.

 

[David T]

An obvious difference between the World War II Japanese-American situation and the post 9/11 situation is that the "War on Terror" depended on building coalitions with Muslim nations. Obviously, it was essential to convince them that it was *not* a war on Islam. Also, of course, racial and civil liberties attitudes were very different from what they were during World War II (when, for example, segregation was still prevalent in the South).

Finally, even during World War II, not all Japanese-Americans were interned; indeed, internment was almost confined to the West Coast. (In Hawaii, there were just too many Japanese-Americans to make internment practical.) At most, 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans Estimates of the number of Muslims in the US after 9/11 varied, but even the lowest figure--two million--would present a hugely greater population to be interned. "The U.S. Census doesn't collect information about religions, but estimates on the number of Muslims in the United States range from fewer than two million people to as many as seven million." http://www.cfr.org/united-states/muslims-united-states/p25927

 

[Robin Hood]

It would have made it harder to convince the Muslims that the US is not after them.