What Do You Think Of The Japanese Civilans In American Concentration Camps

I

Can you show that the situation with the German and Italian communities was exactly the same as the situation with the Japanese community? I don't think so. Therefore you are comparing two very dissimilar situations, apples and oranges, and arguing from the false premise that the same solutions would work.

For one thing, the ONI knew that there was a large and active Japanese espionage system centered on he West Coast. There was no such hard information about any such activity on the part of the Germans and Italians; the internment of German and Italian aliens was taken as a standard wartime measure to prevent likely individuals from acting in ways inimical to US interests.

Secondly, it was positively known that Japanese Americans frequently sent their children to Japan for education, and/or to maintain contact with relatives; this provided an excellent opportunity for Japanese intelligence operatives to recruit them and use them as a conduit for the flow of vital information back to Japan. This was a common practice among Japanese families, even those who had obtained US citizenship, the same was NOT the case with Americans of German and Italian descent. It was therefore reasonably believed to be very probable that the Japanese espionage system had recruited large numbers of "sleeper" agents who could not be identified simply by conducting a cursory investigation into their background. From what was known about the existing Japanese espionage system, it was obvious that American citizenship was no guarantee of loyalty among the Japanese community. For these reasons, it became imperative that persons of Japanese descent be removed from sensitive areas until their loyalty to the US could be positively established.

The fact that certain Americans used the process for racial or economic reasons of their own, does not obviate the very real security concerns that motivated the government's actions. It is regrettable that Japanese American citizens suffered a major inconvenience as a result, but, again, they were definitely not the only demographic group in this country which suffered major disruptions of their lives because of wartime measures taken by the US government to protect the country during the war.

 

Thanks for adding this part. They also received a formal apology from the Canadian Government. It has long been considered an act of shame by many; perhaps, less the idea of internment or movement inland as there was an understanding that when there is fear sometimes decisions are made reactively, but the confiscation of homes, businesses, etc. for which they were never reimbursed or received the proceeds when they were sold was considered unjust once it became generally known. The general Canadian population knew they were interned, but didn't consider the conditions under which they were interned.

A book I have that was written for young people by Susan Hughes, "Coming to Canada: Building a Life in a New Land" has a chapter on The Issei. It describes the difficult time they had when the Japanese first came to Canada, and then what occurred to them in 1942. Initially, Japanese-Canadian males between the ages of 18 and 45 were rounded up by the RCMP who moved them away from the coast of British Columbia. The women and children had 2 weeks to get ready to relocate and had to leave everything except a few personal belongings.

The initial facilities in which they were interned were temporary - city racetracks and exhibition grounds. Places not intended for human habitation that were outfitted with makeshift bunks and no privacy. Some families spend up to months in the temporary facilities until they were sent to permanent camps.

When families were relocated, the men were sent to build roads or work on the railways. The women, children, and the elderly were moved to internment camps far inland that were often built by the first Japanese men rounded up. They had no contact with people outside the camps. Adding insult to injury - they were expected to pay for their stay in the camps!! Often there were communal kitchens. Camp buildings were made with simple wood siding with no insulation, and none had electricity or running water. Many camps had small stores where internees could purchase basic staples.

Following the Japanese surrender, Japanese-Canadian internees might be sent to a former POW camp in Quebec where they were assessed and eventually set free; others, were stripped of their citizenship and deported by boat to Japan. Not one Japanese Canadian was ever charged with spying. Those released in Canada were not allowed to return to their homes or businesses. They had their freedom, but nothing else. Over 4,000 opted to leave Canada.

One of the men I worked with was a Japanese-Canadian whose family was interned. His grandparents, and parents chose to stay and ended up living in Ontario. His uncle's family chose to go to Japan, even though they were either 2nd or 3rd generation Canadians.

In many ways, Canada was a bigotted place in the first half of the 20th century. The population was predominantly of British and Western European background. Anything or anyone who was "too different" was a source of suspicion. One of the good things to come out of the war was the mixing of men and women of multi-cultural backgrounds and the knowledge they gained of each other. With knowledge came a lessoning of suspicion and fear. In fact we tend to embrace multiculturalism now. Except when fear mongers are at work and express attitudes such as those made in the first post of this thread.....they have not yet learned from history that we do not want to repeat the errors made in the past.

I believe that at that time the general concept of protecting their country from potential threat was the immediate reaction, and I while part of me understands the concept, I also believe that it could - and should - have been done with justice and due process.

 

Um....Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that the US Constitution is pretty clear on this one. No person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You could make a persuasive argument(as some have) that aliens are not protected by the Constitution. But US Citizens are guaranteed the rights and privileges under the law.

Not one of the proudest moments in the history of American juris prudence.

Heaven forbid that the government determines that white dorks are a security risk. Many of us would be in a world of hurt!

David

 

Uhm, just one thing, the government decides what constitutes "due process of law"; and in the cse of internment of Japanese during WW II, "due process" was followed. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the executive order authorizing the establishment of the military exclusion zones which was the basis of the internment process. I think you will find that, in times of extreme national emergency, such as the period following Pearl Harbor, Constitutional rights tend to be less than rigidly adhered to. For example, the draft really can't be reconciled with individual rights under the Constitution, but the government passed the law anyway and most people agreed that it was necessary to prosecute the war. This was true in the Civil War period as well as WW I. Whether you or I agree with the propriety of that or not, that's the way it works.

 

Hey macrusk you may like to check out this thread I created,

http://www.ww2f.com/war-pacific/24095-aleut-internment-aleut-restitution.html

 

"The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Ok...Let's examine the due process angle.

1. Were the Nisei given a trial by jury? No
2. Were they given a speedy and public trial? No
3. Were they informed of the nature and cause of the accusation? Because they were never actually tried they had no way of knowing the official charges against them.
4. Were they confronted with the witnesses against them? No
5. Did they have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor? No

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't look like much due process. As to the Supreme Court-This would not be the first time that they were wrong. Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson come to mind. In fact, the federal government even went so far as to apologize for the internment calling the supreme court decision in Korematsu an "anomaly."

When Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," he had precisely this type of thing in mind. If we give up liberty, the bad guys have already won before firing a shot.

David

 

What makes you think "due process" can only be a jury trial of an individual? There were no charges against the Japanese Americans, they were removed from the exclusion zones because the government had determined that, as a class, they posed an unacceptable risk to the war effort, not that they had committed any crimes.

You may argue that the Supreme Court makes mistakes and that's a logical argument. But it has absolutely no bearing on the legality, or "constitutionality" of the issue. As the ultimate and final authority on such questions, the Supreme Court cannot be challenged. What the Supreme Court determines is, by definition, the the final word on issues of constitutionality. The Federal government can disagree and call the decision anything it wants, but it doesn't change a thing.

An interesting statement with which many people would agree, but is it always applicable?

What about the draft? To accept the draft is to give up "essential liberty" (the right of individuals to not be deprived of liberty or life) to purchase a little temporary safety (the protection of the country from enemies in wartime). I see absolutely no practical difference in the effects of the draft and the effects of internment except that internees can expect to have their lives reasonably well protected whereas draftees cannot. So on the one hand you are arguing that internment is "unconstitutional", but apparently, the draft is not. Is acquiescing to the draft law and giving up individual liberty allowing the "bad guys to win without firing a shot"? Or is it a necessary measure decided upon by the government to protect the country? Seems to me you can't have it both ways.

 

Hi Scott, quite welcome and wish I could remember more stories. Mu Grandmother used to tell some too but, that was so long ago and I was not really interested at the time :headbash: :headbonk:

 

Devilsadvocate,

Thank you for the stimulating debate! Your posts have been thought provoking, and challenging. While I may not agree with you, I do respect the thought that you've obviously put into this thread.

I had a response almost ready, and my puter crashed! Why didn't I buy a Mac?!

I will respond, but I'm just too tired this evening.

David

 

I know how you feel Carl! I used to play with my Dad's Uncle when I was young, I never wanted to hear his "war stories"! I should have paid attention, he was a part of the underground in Holland! Oh well! hindsight is 20/20!!

 

You're quite welcome. No hurry, respond when you are ready. I will be taking a trip next week and will be offline for a week or ten days. But I will continue the discussion when I return

 

In dont know about the ONI. The FBI & others in the Federal government thought there was a significant network of German & Italian agents in the US. The BRits were feeding information, some goog some bad, on German efforts. Intercepting agents arriving, including the group that landed by submarine on Long Island supported this premise. They eventually turned up a fragmented and weak spy/sabatoge effort, but that was not the view of the Federal government in the Spring of 1942.

That last sentence is a bit strong. Back in my youth I met two US birthright citizens who had attended school in Germany in the 1920s & 1930s. My other realatives did not seem to think that was unusual for the era. There was still a fair ammount of contact across the water into the 1920s amoung my ancestors.

And, not every leader in Federal governemnt shared those concerns. Others were much less concerned, and some dismissed the threat as weak.

Perhaps there is a source that identifiys in detail the exact nature of the Japanese agent network in the US & Pacific territorys? There have been several books and many more magazine articals on the Axis agents in the US. What describes Japans efforts?

 

Advocate,

So...someone is not guilty of a crime, but they are not granted the same legal protections as criminals? I'm not sure I get that. Since our legal system is divided into criminal and civil, then let's assume you are talking about a civil matter.

Wikipedia says, "Due process has also been construed to generally protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result. This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials." To suggest that people are not entitled to legal protections because it is not a criminal matter is not quite accurate.

So I'll rephrase my question. Were the Nisei given a "fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result?"

On the court, you said "As the ultimate and final authority on such questions, the Supreme Court cannot be challenged." I would absolutely agree with your comment, and acknowlege that we have to have a final court beyond which there is no appeal. But I would remind you that the Supreme court has reversed itself many times in our history. It accepts that as an institution it can be wrong. It just requires another test case. Fortunately, we never had another test case of this order. The court never had to reevaluate Korematsu.

As to your last point, the US constitution specifically allows congress to "raise and support armies." By contrast, I would ask you to show me one instance where the Constitution specifically provides for denying citizens their aforementioned rights and privileges. It only says what the government can't do; such as deny due process. If the government drafted middle-aged and overweight(damn that hurts) dorks, then I would go because it is my legal and moral obligation. If on the other hand they segregated middle-aged and overweight dorks and sent them to a camp simply because they were middle-aged, overweight, and dorks, I would have serious issues. That's not contradictory at all.

I'm not suggesting that Japanese intelligence operatives shouldn't have been rooted out at every opportunity. That's a given. But somebody is not an intelligence operative simply because they are Japanese. We believe in fundamental "rights and privileges" in America. The Nisei were not allowed their aforementioned "rights and privileges."

David

 

Perhaps, but the situation was decidedly different from the Japanese espionage system on the US West Coast. There was no hard evidence of widespread German or Italian espionage in the US except, as you say, a fragmented spy effort later in the war. landing of agents by submarine was not the sort of thing that would be affected one way or another by internment of persons of German or Italian descent. Significantly, Hoover did not support the internment effort and felt that the FBI could handle any German or Italian espionage rings. Also significantly, the FBI was not directly involved in uncovering the Japanese system on the West Coast, so of course, Hoover downplayed it's signifigance.

Of course, there was contact back and forth across the Atlantic, but not any where near the extent of contact between Japanese Americans and the Japanese Home Islands. This was understandable as the two cultures were very different, much more so than American and German/Italian culture, and the Japanese in this country were proud of their Japanese heritage and wished to see their children to preserve it. I do not think it is too strong to characterize Japanese American contacts with their home country as much more extensive and frequent than German/Italian contacts with their home countries. There were Japanese travel companies and shipping lines which realized the majority of their revenues solely from arranging such trips and, more importantly, ONI was acutely aware of these issues. Combined with the known extensive activities of Japanese agents on the West Coast and the potential for Japanese Americans to be recruited as future agents and act as conduits of communication between the US and Japan, the situation was clearly alarming to American officials concerned with the security of US war preparations.

Possibly, but not those directly involved in the process, and obviously not those who had to make the decision for or against internment.

I have seen two or three references to extensive and very active Japanese espionage rings on the US West Coast, and in several Latin American countries, prior to WW II, but perhaps the most detailed examination is a source which I have already referenced in this thread; John Prados, in "Combined Fleet Decoded". Prados' book concentrates on sigint and code breaking issues prior to, and during, WW II, but the author devotes dozens of pages to describing Japanese espionage activities on the US West Coast in the late 1930's.

One interesting aspect of these activities was that, apparently, there was more than one Japanese military agency involved and consequently the espionage rings were acting somewhat independently of each other. This led to inefficiencies and duplication of effort, but also gave to the impression to American investigators that the rings were even more widespread and active than they actually were. Not all of the information ONI gathered on Japanese espionage activity turned out to be correct, but the sheer volume of suspected activity pointed to a very serious effort on the part of the Japanese, and understandably aroused deep concern on the part of American security officials. Significantly, these activities were known to ONI investigators as early as 1936, and, as Japanese espionage continued over several years prior to WW II, it fostered the feeling among Americans that the Japanese would continue such activities in war time using "sleeper" agents and operatives among the Japanese American community. In fact, it did not work out this way, although no one can say whether or not internment of Japanese Americans was a factor in this outcome.

It must be remembered that critics of Japanese American internment rely largely on hindsight in pointing out that Japanese espionage during the war itself was fairly ineffective. Fear of "Fifth Columnists" was widespread and, if mostly unjustified, was nevertheless real and sincere.

 

That is where you are incorrect. The EXACT same things can be said for German and Italian immigrants to the USA.

Interestingly enough, in the Munson Report (1941), Curtis B. Munson makes the distinction between Japanese educated in Japan and other subclasses of immigrants. You unfortunately, failed to make the distinction.

Digital History

Another report by Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Ringle, a naval intelligence officer tasked with evaluating the loyalty of the Japanese American population, makes it evident that... "more than 90% of the Nisei [second generation] and 75% of the original immigrants were completely loyal to the United States."

Once again: Why lock up all of the Japanese population on the West Coast when it's possible to make the distinction between threats and nonthreats? The EXACT distinctions mentioned in these reports were used quite successfully in Hawaii in order to prevent sabotage and other seditious acts.

 

There are many situations in which government may impose restrictions on people's liberty or confiscate property without granting legal protections or going through a trial or hearing; mandatory evacuations of areas threatened by natural disaster, civil disturbances such as riots, martial law imposed because of a threat of an enemy action, states of emergency imposed for any number of reasons. For example, the whole territory of Hawaii was under martial law for much of WW II and there was no opportunity to challenge the stringent restrictions on civilian liberties. In fact, the Japanese Americans who were interned did, with the assistance of the ACLU, have access to the courts. However, the nature of the threat was such that the authorities proceeded with the internment process immediately.

Again, in an emergency situation such as existed at the beginning of the war, the government can proceed with the action it deems necessary to prevent serious harm to the country. The Japanese internees were certainly not barred from going to court to challenge those actions. No one is suggesting that the internees were not entitled to a hearing, but the government couldn't afford to wait for any challenges to progress through the courts.

With the above in mind, the answer is "Yes".

Exactly, thus the Supreme Court held the government's actions to be constitutional, a decision which has never been reversed. Therefore, it cannot accurately be said that the government's actions were unconstitutional because the body which decides such matter has held otherwise.

I'm afraid you're reading too much into the power to "raise and support armies". That power does not specifically include the power to draft men or to force involuntary servitude on an entire class (or age group or gender) of people. It is historically construed only as the authority to authorize and fund armed forces.

Aha! Now you are trying to change the terms of the debate by saying that the government cannot act simply because it does not like a certain class of people; and I would would certainly agree. But the internment of Japanese Americans was not simply because the government did not like Japanese Americans. There was a real and demonstrated threat of Japanese espionage which might easily be facilitated by members of the Japanese American community. In order to protect US defenses it was deemed necessary to remove Japanese Americans from certain geographic zones on the West Coast. Japanese Americans who did not live in those areas were not interned. To follow your analogy of interning middle-aged, overweight dorks, if the government could somehow show that such a class of people posed an immediate and serious threat to national security, the President could legally (and constitutionally) so order under the extraordinary powers delegated to him by Congress. One thing that you have neglected to mention is that Roosevelt had declared a state of National Emergency which activated such powers. He could have declared the West Coast to be under Martial Law which, as Commander-in-Chief would have granted him even more sweeping powers under the Constitution.

It is a well established principle that under emergency situations requiring immediate action, the government has the authority to act in ways which might be inimical to individual rights under the Constitution, so long as these actions do not extend beyond the duration of the emergency.

The government made the decision that, in the short term, the only effective way to neutralize Japanese espionage agents on the West Coast was to remove all persons of Japanese descent from the sensitive areas. This decision may, or may not, have been the correct one, but that is something which can only be determined in hindsight. Japanese in other areas were not affected or interned. The President, as later determined by the Supreme Court, had the authority under the Constitution to order their removal as an emergency measure. The internees were not denied access to the courts, and some certainly did challenge the action as evidenced by the 1944 court decision. The internees were not treated any differently than other classes of people (draftees for example) who were obliged to give up certain freedoms in order to insure the protection of the country as a whole. Internment was no picnic, but it was no worse than the conditions in which millions of other Americans found themselves as a result of the war.

 

No, The same things could "be said about the Germans and Italians" in the US but they wouldn't be accurate. The Japanese community on the West Coast was acknowledged to represent far more of a security risk to the US because of the intensive contact between Japanese in the US and Japanese in the Home islands, AND the positively identified espionage ring which was definitely known to exist on the US West Coast. There was no such comparable situation with the German and Italian communities in the US. If you want to maintain that is the case, present some evidence that the situations were similar.

Interesting that you should mention this report because it establishes a basis for believing that there were something like 17,000 persons of Japanese descent on the West Coast who were NOT loyal to the US. Further that report was, I believe, made after Internment had already taken place. Prior to the government's action there were merely guesses as to how many were actually loyal to the US. And there was no way to quickly determine who was loyal and who wasn't. To leave 17,000 disloyal Japanese free o act in areas where military defenses were vulnerable to acts of espionage would have been an unconscionable act, and rightly would have been condemned by the American public.

I think you've answered your own question. It's not possible to quickly make distinctions between threats and non-threats in this case and no one has suggested such a course.

No they weren't. Hawaii was under martial law (unlike the West Coast), and even then it was considered desirable, but impractical, to intern the Japanese residents of Hawaii until such time as the determination could be made on an individual basis. As it was, individual Japanese in Hawaii did engage in acts of espionage which, very fortunately, did not prove to have serious consequences. However, this was only determined with the benefit of hindsight.

 

"There are many situations in which government may impose restrictions on people's liberty or confiscate property without granting legal protections or going through a trial or hearing.... martial law imposed because of a threat of an enemy action, states of emergency imposed for any number of reasons."

Whose emergency? Where was the threat? That was never proven. It was just institutional racism.


"I'm afraid you're reading too much into the power to "raise and support armies". That power does not specifically include the power to draft men or to force involuntary servitude on an entire class (or age group or gender) of people. It is historically construed only as the authority to authorize and fund armed forces."

Then so did the court. "As the mind cannot conceive an army without the men to compose it, on the face of the Constitution the objection that it does not give power to provide for such men would seem to be too frivolous for further notice."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=245&invol=366 and and the obligation for selective service was "beyond question." FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code



"...it was deemed necessary to remove Japanese Americans from certain geographic zones on the West Coast. Japanese Americans who did not live in those areas were not interned."

But this is only half true, Advocate. They were not given the opportunity to move into an area not included in the exclusion zone. They were summarily detained.


"But the internment of Japanese Americans was not simply because the government did not like Japanese Americans."

In the Korematsu case, the minority stridently disagreed. Justice Frank Murphy wrote, "I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting, but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must, accordingly, be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment, and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution."


"...if the government could somehow show that such a class of people posed an immediate and serious threat to national security, the President could legally (and constitutionally) so order under the extraordinary powers delegated to him by Congress."

Again, where was the threat? If it was a threat, then why was it less of a threat in Hawaii than on the mainland? And why did Hoover, who was most responsible for stopping internal espionage, not consider it a threat? Why did the First Lady not think it was a threat? And did he(Roosevelt), in fact demonstrate that there was a threat to the court? Justice Murphy didn't think so.


But all this aside, where we fundamentally differ is in our interpretation of the constitution. You believe that the government has the right to suspend liberties under national emergency. You don't believe this to be a violation of due process. And indeed the majority agreed with you in the Korematsu case. I disagree. It is incomprehensible to me that a "free" society can take away the rights of any group merely because they are unpopular. And who knows what would have happened if Korematsu had been reexamined by cooler headed jurists when the anti-Japanese hysteria had died down?



As an aside, if any of the members are tired of this debate, please respond so. We can always take it somewhere else. I Know that I speak for Advocate when I say that we do not want to create a nuisance for our fellow posters.

 

That's simply your opinion, not supported by any facts. The reality is that President Roosevelt had declared a formal state of National Emergency, so apparently he and his advisers certainly perceived a threat of some sort. And it's a documented fact that the ONI had positive proof of Japanese espionage activity on the West Coast starting a number of years prior to the war and continuing right up until the attack on Pearl Harbor. This posed as much of a threat as Al-Qaeda's operatives in this country do today. And it was proven beyond any doubt that an extensive and very active Japanese espionage ring did indeed exist in this country in the years immediately prior to the war. See John Prados' "Combined Fleet Decoded" for the details.

Sorry, but when I tried the link, it gave me a message, "No such case found". The court may well interpret that the Constitution authorizes a draft law, but there is no such specific language in the Constitution. It is known as judicial legislation when the court decides that the Constitution needs additional law to make it operate properly. The original Framers of the Constitution did not think drafting men was necessary.

No, they were not "summarily detained". They were ordered to report to an internment center within a certain period of time, usually a week or ten days. Any who decided to move out of the exclusion zones on their own accord were not interned.


I

Yes, and as you have noted, his was the minority opinion. The majority held otherwise and upheld the government's actions. This would not have happened unless the majority on the court felt the government was acting in the best interests of the country.

I've already discussed the nature of the threat and posted an authoritative source documenting it. What makes you think it was less of a threat in Hawaii than on the mainland? Hawaii was placed under martial law and all citizens were subject to restrictions on their activities because of the threat. In addition, plans were underway to intern Japanese citizens in Hawaii, but the government realized it was impractical to do so. In fact, there were instances of espionage and/or seditious activities carried out by persons of Japanese descent in Hawaii.

I'm not sure Hoover was the "most responsible" person for countering espionage in the US. The FBI was not directly involved in the investigation of the Japanese espionage activities prior to the war; It was the responsibility of the ONI and it was that agency which documented the situation. It's quite possible Hoover didn't have enough data to make an informed decision on the matter.

I don't know, and frankly, I don't think it's relevant unless you're seriously suggesting that the US government should consult with an unelected, unofficial, private citizen before acting on matters of national security. Perhaps Mrs. Roosevelt didn't think it was a threat because she was not privy to briefings on enemy espionage activities by the Office of Naval Intelligence, or perhaps Mr. Roosevelt didn't feel it was any of her business, so he didn't keep her informed of such matters. Had Mrs. Roosevelt won the Presidential election instead of Mr. Roosevelt, I'm sure her opinion would have carried more weight.

President Roosevelt wasn't required to demonstrate to the Court that a threat existed, and as you pointed out Justice Murphy was the minority opinion. In jurisprudence it's the majority opinion that prevails.

Well, I'm looking at it from the practical side of things. Historically, the government has acted as it sees fit in times of national emergency. Sometimes these actions have contravened the rights most people take for granted, but as long as they were reasonably deemed necessary to prevent great harm to the country, the Supreme Court and public opinion has supported them. You have not presented any evidence that the internment of Japanese Americans was a capricious act motivated by mere dislike of a specific ethnic group; that is simply your conclusion based on what appears to be an emotional bias. On the other hand I have cited evidence to support the idea that there was a real threat and that the government was acting reasonably when it moved to counter this threat. You may well disagree with this analysis, but don't forget, the US Supreme Court majority also felt the government acted reasonably in the situation.

 

fear of the unknown, more than anything.