Well duh! Do you think it could be because we quarantined them? LOL?
Attempts to use disloyalty as a reason for unlawful incarceration are simply fraudulent.
We were smart enough not to give any the chance.
2. Your attempt to qualify constitutional law as being inapplicable during a time of "invasion or rebellion" is patently incorrect. After all, we have had many times of rebellion (each time a Presidential incumbent is defeated upon reelection).
That is not rebellion.
Please point out the section of the US Constitution which suggests suspension of the US Constitution is appropriate.
The Constitution is never suspended. But certain rights are at certain times, like the writ of Habeas Corpus.
It doesn't exist. Kobayashi v. United States exists. Does your phantom clause in the US Constitution?
Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2. Checkmate.
2. Thank you for retracting your belief that the US Constitution can be suspended. Your attempt to suspend the US constitution when YOU believe it necessary was foolish. The rule of law requires an intact government. You show yourself to be uneducated about civilian law during wartime. DID YOU READ THE KOBAYASHI OPINION?
3. The clause on habeas corpus does not apply to the case of the 120,000 Japanese Americans who were illegally and unconstitutionally denied equal protection under the US Constitution. Habeas corpus was evaluated by the Judiciary in Endo vs. the United States.
You are CLEARLY WRONG.
4. Since you are attempting to punish innocent Americans with your disturbed brand of racism, it is YOU who is the threat to our nation, not the innocent 120,000 people who were incarcerated in FDR's socialist prisons.
From the Endo Circuit Court Opinion:
MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, BUT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT DETENTION IN RELOCATION CENTERS OF PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY REGARDLESS OF LOYALTY IS NOT ONLY UNAUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS OR THE EXECUTIVE BUT IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESORT TO RACISM INHERENT IN THE ENTIRE EVACUATION PROGRAM. AS STATED MORE FULLY IN MY DISSENTING OPINION IN KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 233, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION OF THIS NATURE BEARS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO MILITARY NECESSITY AND IS UTTERLY FOREIGN TO THE IDEALS AND TRADITIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. MOREOVER, THE COURT HOLDS THAT MITSUYE ENDO IS ENTITLED TO AN UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE BY THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY. IT APPEARS THAT MISS ENDO DESIRES TO RETURN TO SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, FROM WHICH PUBLIC PROCLAMATIONS NOS. 7 AND 11, AS WELL AS CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 52, STILL EXCLUDE HER. AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THE "UNCONDITIONAL" RELEASE TO BE GIVEN MISS ENDO NECESSARILY IMPLIES "THE RIGHT TO PASS FREELY FROM STATE TO STATE," INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO MOVE FREELY INTO CALIFORNIA. TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 97; CRANDALL V. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35. IF, AS I BELIEVE, THE MILITARY ORDERS EXCLUDING HER FROM CALIFORNIA WERE INVALID AT THE TIME THEY WERE ISSUED, THEY ARE INCREASINGLY OBJECTIONABLE AT THIS LATE DATE, WHEN THE THREAT OF INVASION OF THE PACIFIC COAST AND THE FEARS OF SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE HAVE GREATLY DIMINISHED. FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SUGGEST UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PRESENCE OF JAPANESE BLOOD IN A LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZEN MIGHT BE ENOUGH TO WARRANT HER EXCLUSION FROM A PLACE WHERE SHE WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE A RIGHT TO GO IS A POSITION I CANNOT SANCTION.