Well, you and the court'd be wrong. As Korematsu is recognized to be in today's society.
There is "reasonable doubt" that a person may commit a violent crime in wartime, that supercedes constitutional protections.
(Really?? And where in the Constitution do you find this unlimited grant of Power to the Government?) We're talking about innocent people here, who've done nothing. It isn't a case of "reasonable doubt," it is a case of "there's not the slightest scintilla of evidence they did anything wrong." They relocated infants and children, for Christ's sakes.
The first rule in wartime is to survive.
So anything goes? How about genocide? If FDR decided to kill all the Japanese, would that have been okay with you?
If you need a constitution to tell you that the first order of business of a nation is survival, I pity you.
By the way, if it could have been proven that "all the Japanese" were in fact a deadly threat, say, individually carrying biological weapons in their bodies, I would have no problem with killing them. It's an ultra-far fetched scenario, but the principle is, survival always comes first. Period.