Posted on 02/18/2002 4:05:49 PM PST by RCW2001
Japanese-Americans recall the pain of World War II internment 60 years later
Monday, February 18, 2002
©2002 Associated Press
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/02/18/state1949EST0101.DTL
(02-18) 16:49 PST SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) --
It's been 60 years, but the pain of destroying her mother's kimonos and anything else of Japanese origin still stings Betty Haruko Nishi. She remembers all too well how the federal government forced thousands of Japanese to give up their homes and businesses to live in internment camps during World War II.
"Everything happened so fast. My dad's new tractor, we had to leave behind. We couldn't take anything Japanese," Nishi, 72, told the San Jose Mercury News. "It was horrible."
President Roosevelt signed an Executive Order on Feb. 19, 1942, forcing about 120,000 Japanese-Americans -- many of them U.S. citizens living on the West Coast -- away from their homes, jobs and farms and into 10 internment camps.
The U.S. government did not formally apologize or make reparations to internment survivors until 1989.
Former internees say they hope a lesson was learned from their pain and that others aren't treated the same during America's war on terrorism.
"I hope the same thing doesn't happen to the Middle Easterners," said Dave Tatsuno, whose family was forced to sell their store's merchandise and move to Topaz in the Utah desert. "Most of them are innocent like we were. The country has to be careful to never again fall into the trap of condemning a people due to ancestry."
Nishi had just celebrated her 12th birthday with her family in Turlock when she was sent to a filthy assembly center in Merced with her parents, five brothers and sister. Nishi's mother went temporarily blind with stress, and her siblings got pneumonia and ulcers.
Four months later, they shared two stark rooms in Amanche, Colo., and watched many young men leaving the camps to fight for the United States overseas. Ultimately, the all-Japanese 100th Battalion/442nd Regimental Combat Team suffered the highest casualty rate and became the most decorated unit in U.S. military history for its size and length of service.
"Looking back I remember the deep well of pain the experience caused my parents," Nishi said. "It is something that will always be in my heart."
Katie Hironaka, 82, also can't forget, even though she admits the camps -- in a strange way -- may have saved lives.
"What was done to us was wrong," said Hironaka, who was a new mother sent to Heart Mountain, Wyo., with her parents and brothers.
"And yet, there was so much prejudice and ignorance, who knows how many Japanese homes would have been burned, how many citizens would have been hurt or even killed if we had been around?" she said. "In that way it was good, and yet it was so terrible as well."
You on the other hand, have digressed into a discussion on class warfare, malarky which sought to tie the events of 9-11-01 to FDR's mistaken socialist policies, and then permit your claims of "constitutional republicanism".
You are sadly mistaken.
The Supreme Court has reviewed these matters and I've published their legal opinions here. Unless you are advocating for the overthrow of the US legal system, where is your support for the US Constitution?
Are you prepared to accept the unconstitutional nature of FDR's Executive Order 9066?
I doubt you can accept it because you are simply racist against the Japanese and have little else to base your opinion upon.
The fact is that it was YOU who began arguing about class warfare. If you had a shred of entrepreneurial spirit, you wouldn't be advocating for a classless society.
The reality is that you've not read Adam Smith or Karl Marx, have you?
I don't remember Roosevelt being impeached for this. If it was a clear-cut case of unlawfulness, why wasn't he?
You on the other hand, have digressed into a discussion on class warfare, malarky which sought to tie the events of 9-11-01 to FDR's mistaken socialist policies, and then permit your claims of "constitutional republicanism".
Your opinions, which when your insane rantings on this thread are taken into account, don't mean much.
The Supreme Court has reviewed these matters and I've published their legal opinions here. Unless you are advocating for the overthrow of the US legal system, where is your support for the US Constitution?
The same Supreme Court that says a person can't worship on public property?
Are you prepared to accept the unconstitutional nature of FDR's Executive Order 9066?
I'm prepared to accept the fact that Japanese-Americans weren't allowed to commit acts of sabotage like the Islamic-Americans did.
I doubt you can accept it because you are simply racist against the Japanese and have little else to base your opinion upon.
I'm suspicious of first, second and third generation Americans during rebellion and/or invasion when these people are of the people doing the invading and/or rebelling.
The fact is that it was YOU who began arguing about class warfare. If you had a shred of entrepreneurial spirit, you wouldn't be advocating for a classless society.
I am an entreprenuer, goofy. Go worship your Hirohito doll if you love a government subsidized elitist class system so much.
The reality is that you've not read Adam Smith or Karl Marx, have you?
As I said before I don't read opinions. That's the way people get misled, they sit down and read one man's opinion for a couple weeks. They don't know what's true and what's not.
Impractical. Too many German descendants. We paid too. There were German spies etc.
The internment of Jap-americans during WWII was wrong.
Your opinion. The results suggest your opinion is wrong.
During the time it might of felt like a good move, but in hindsight it was WRONG!
Results suggest otherwise.
No one alive at the time knew what it was like to be attacked. Fear set in and bad decisions were made because of it.
More common sense than fear.
I understand the thinking and logic behind it, and if I was President during that time I probaply would of done the same thing. Bottom line: It was wrong!
Results suggest otherwise.
We said we were sorry, and paid reparations to the victims which is more than the Japs did for our boys who were treated 100 times worse.
I would have fully supported reparations as soon as Japan was defeated and screened them for any post-war traitors.
First you advocate for classless society, then you claim support for capitalism.
Second, you name call me when faced with constitutional supreme court opinions which support my interpretation of the legality of incarcerating 120,000 AMERICANS without charges or trial.
Third, you attempt to align the plight of 120,000 Americans with the conduct of a foreign government during war. That doesn't make sense!
Fourth, you're a waste of my time. In college, we call people like you a "troll" because you're posting in the middle of the night. I'd say you should get some sleep...maybe then you'd think straight.
So in your view, government subsidized elite classes is capitalism?
First you advocate for classless society, then you claim support for capitalism.
Government subsidized elite classes is capitalism?
Second, you name call me when faced with constitutional supreme court opinions which support my interpretation of the legality of incarcerating 120,000 AMERICANS without charges or trial.
Namecall? What name?
Third, you attempt to align the plight of 120,000 Americans with the conduct of a foreign government during war. That doesn't make sense!
Yes it does because we prevented the Japanese-Americans from committing sabotage unlike the Islamic-Americans.
Fourth, you're a waste of my time. In college, we call people like you a "troll" because you're posting in the middle of the night. I'd say you should get some sleep...maybe then you'd think straight.
I'm a trader. I post in between watching the foreign markets open. From about nine in the evening until New York's open at 8:30 in the morning, markets come alive westward from Japan to Mexico.
Yes I would be very angry at my former country for attacking my new country. But that's me. I would know that out of hundreds of thousands of my fellow internees, there would be some of my nationality that would be trying to sabotage my new country. God provides, I would count on Him to make me stronger for the experience.
It was WRONG! What is that "Results suggest otherwise"? You said that like 3 times.
There was no Japanese sabotage unlike Islamic-Americans who sabotaged America on 9-11. That's the difference in policy. The liberalized policy of today resulted in 3000 dead.
You sound like an idiot that keeps repeating himself. What happened was against the Constitution, so take bones advice and learn your history.
The Constitution allows for restrictions of freedoms in cases of rebellion or invasion. See Article 1, Section 9, second paragraph for a clue.
I've decided to go ahead a give you two a lesson on the Constitution. From here:
The Constitutionality of Relocation/Internment
The Supreme Court Cases
World War II | Executive Order 9066 | Supreme Court Cases | The Legacy of E.O. 9066
The United States Supreme Court addressed controversies stemming from Executive Order 9066 only four times: Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), Yasui v. United States, 320 U.S. 115 (1943), Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), andEx Parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944). In not one of these cases didthe Court find Executive Order 9066 or orders promulgated under its authority to be unconstitutional.
In Hirabayashi and Yasui, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the curfews for American citizens of Japanese ancestry (described above), and approved "differentiating citizens of Japanese ancestry from other groups in the United States." Hirabayashi v. UnitedStates, 320 U.S. 81, 101 (1943), though the Court did acknowledge that, generally, "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of theirancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."
In particular, the Court stated that "[t]he adoption by Government, in the crisis of war and threatened invasion, of measures for the public safety, based upon the recognition of facts and circumstances which indicate that a group of one national extraction may menace that safety more than others, is not wholly beyond the limits of the Constitution and is not to be condemned merely because in other and in most circumstances racial distinctions are irrelevant." Id.
The Hirabayashi Court explicitly declined to consider the constitutionality of the regulations requiring Hirabayashi to report to an Assembly Center preparatory to his being sent to a Relocation Camp. The Court basically deferred to "military expediency," essentially buying the argument that (i) a certain number of people of Japanese ancestry were not loyal to the United States; (ii) it was impossible in short order to determine precisely who; and (iii) it was therefore necessary to round up everyone of Japanese ancestry (except those living in Hawaii next door the the naval base at Pearl Harbor).
In Ex Parte Endo, Ms. Endo, an American citizen being held in a Relocation Camp, filed for leave clearance. It was granted, but she failed to file for indefinite leave. Instead, she filed for writ of habeas corpus, demanding that she be restored to liberty and that the regulations holding her were invalid.
The Endo Court granted her petition, but explicitly declined to rule on constitutional grounds. The Court merely found that, pursuant to the War Relocation Authority statute and Executive Order 9066, the WRA had no power to subject admittedly loyal citizens to its leave procedure, i.e., no power to detain, where the citizen was admittedly loyal.
The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the Order allowed for detention of citizens whose loyalty was not known. The Court stated "[d]etention which furthered the campaign against espionage and sabotage would be one thing. But detention which has no relationshipto that campaign is of a distinct character…" Ex Parte Endo, 323U.S. 283, 302 (1944). Thus, although the camps were generally opened in the wake of Endo, the case never addressed the constitutionality of the measure.
Korematsu related to the constitutionality of an exclusion order, i.e., whether it was constitutional to exclude Mr. Korematsu from his home in California simply because he was Japanese American. As the Court framed the issue, it was constitutional to exclude Mr. Korematsu from his home. The Court denied that it was reaching the question of whether internment was constitutional. However, the practical effect was that the internment itself passed constitutional muster, since Mr. Korematsu was not allowed to be within the excluded area, except within a Relocation (or Assembly) Center.
The Court announced that "all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect," and subject "to the most rigid scrutiny." Nevertheless, in upholding Korematsu'sconviction, the Court relied heavily on the "military expediency" doctrine it had enunciated in Hirabayashi and noted that ‘[w]e are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by [the exclusion order] upon a large group of American citizens. But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and outof uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier." Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
Somewhat gratifyingly, Justice Roberts, in dissent, stated that "the indisputable facts exhibit a clear violation of constitutional rights." Further, he stated "this is a case of convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition toward the United States." Justice Murphy, in dissent, noted that the "exclusion goes over the very brink of constitutional power and falls into the ugly abyss of racism." Justice Jackson noted that, by ratifying the exclusion order, "the Court has for all timevalidated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens." However, Roberts, Murphyand Jackson were only three of nine justices; their dissents do nothave any force of law.
Care to revise or extend your remarks?
You sound like an idiot that keeps repeating himself. What happened was against the Constitution, so take bones advice and learn your history.
I'm afraid Mr. McCoy has made a fool of you. What he gave were dissenting opinions, not rulings. The Supreme Court heard four cases involving the WW2 Japanese-American martial law and internment questions and not one case found the executive order to be unconstitutional. ROFL
"Executive Order 9066 was finally withdrawn in 1976 by President Ford. In 1980, the government convened a special commission, called the "Commission of Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians," to investigate the internment/relocation. The Commission's report, issued in 1982, and titled Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, found that the relocation and internment were "not justified by militarynecessity" and were based on "prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." See also, 50 U.S.C. App. 1989a(a).
Also in the early 80's, Gordon Hirabayashi, Minoru Yasui, and Fred Korematsu filed petitions for writs of error coram nobis. Essentially, this means that they wanted their convictions vacated on the groundsthat the facts presented by the government were in error and/or falsified. The courts found that the government had suppressed documents showing that there was, in fact, no threat of espionage or sabotage from the Japanese American community during WWII.
Hirabayashi's exclusion conviction and curfew conviction were vacated on appeal. Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1987). Yasui's case was dismissed by the district court upon thegovernment's motion to dismiss the indictment and vacate the conviction, but did not reach the issue of whether Yasui's constitutional rights had been violated. See, Yasui v. United States, 772 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir. 1985). Yasui appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as untimely; Yasui died before further substantive action was taken on his case. Yasui v. United States, 772 F.2d 1496 (9thCir. 1985); Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591 (9th Cir.1987). Korematsu's conviction was vacated by the district court; the government did not appeal. Korematsu v. United States, 584 F.Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1984).
Finally, in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the Congress formally apologized on behalf of the United States and authorized restitution for surviving internees. In particular, the Congress recognized that "agrave injustice has been done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II." 50 U.S.C. App. 1989a(a). In addition, Congress stated that one of the purposes of the Civil Liberties Act was to "discourage the occurrence of similar injustice and violations of civil liberties in the future." 50 U.S.C. App.1989 (6).
In none of the coram nobis cases, however, did the District Courts or the Courts of Appeals address the constitutionality of the conviction(and nor could they). The Supreme Court had already found it constitutional, and a lower court cannot overrule the Supreme Court. Thus, although Hirabayashi's and Korematsu’s convictions were vacated, the constitutionality of the underlying government action remains.
Moreover, congressional legislation cannot remove/overturn a Supreme Court pronouncement on constitutionality (Nor, of course, is there any reason to do so). Accordingly, the exclusion order of whichKorematsu was convicted of violating, and the curfew which Hirabayashi and Yasui violated, are constitutional.
Why is this important? In 1950, not long after the fall of China to communism, Congress passed the McCarran Internal Security Act (repealed in the early '80s), which authorized the attorney general to detain anyone if he believed there was "reasonable ground" to believe that that person was engaged in espionage or sabotage. The Act was, of course, directed at Communists; and it authorized theirinternment during a "national emergency." Note that this language closely tracks that of the Supreme Court’s Japanese American internment cases.
For an example closer to the present, consider the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. At least one Arab Americans was arrested at the airport, apparently because he looked Arab. Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Korematsu, this was proper.
Finally, since the relocation derived from an Executive Order, ratified by act of Congress, nothing exists to prevent a future President from reissuing a similar Executive Order.
"Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history. As a legal precedent it is now recognized as having very limited application. As historical precedent, it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutionsmust be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands asa caution that in time of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that intimes of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused." Korematsu v. United States, 584 F.Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1984). "
Yes, for the public safety in times of rebellion or invasion according to the Constitution.
American Citizens were confined in those camps. Defend this all day long it still doesn't take away from the fact that it was WRONG!!
That's easy to say in 2002 standing behind the strongest military in the world. In 1941, our Navy was almost taken out and we weren't ready to fight a war and so many expected a Japanese invasion into California. The Japanese successfully invaded China, a country with many more times the population of ours at the time. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
[/sarcasm off]
You can't make up your mind where you stand. Don't ever run for president.
Results suggest otherwise. The was no sabotage by slash-Americans in WW2 like there was on 9-11. So I'd say internment was the right thing to do.
The internment was only correct if you were the scum sucking Dashole who acquired the lost assets of the Japanese American community. You might feel that it is appropriate to have state-sponsored theft. I do not.
May imminent domain take your home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.