They then picked up a Japanese message in code which identified the target as having a water problem and they would have to bring desalinization equipment with them, so they knew it was Midway. On its way to the U. Japanese submarine shelled Kahului, Maui, Hawaii. I later shells unarmed U. Japanese submarine I shells unarmed tanker southwest of Cape Mendocino, California.
Submarine I-1 shells, Hilo, Hawaii. Submarines shell Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii. I, shelled Ellwood oil refinery at Geleta on the Californian coast. The skipper had fueled there many times before the war. I shells Fort Stevens, Oregon. Phosphorus bombs were dropped on Mt.
Emily, ten miles northeast of Brookings, Oregon, to start forest fires. Nubuo Fujita was been catapulted from submarine I Phosphorus bombings were repeated on the southern coast of Oregon. The Japanese plan of invasion centered on capturing Midway then Hawaii. From there a two,pronged attack on Alaska and California would be conducted. Had Midway fallen, that plan would have been implemented. Must be tough talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Since the fires were never reported in the papers, the Japanese thought the balloons were ineffective, so they stopped sending them.
They found the remnants of one of the balloons in a forest a couple of years ago. They are still dangerous. Chinese people hate Japs. They could care less about this. Crazy idea I know. Without making a hindsight judgment either way I can say with a high level of certainty we will never actually know whether the internments of Japanese or German identified individuals positively supported the war effort.
The fundamental reason for this remains that if there was to be an insurgency by these ethnic groups it was generally stopped by the detentions. Hence, it was never permitted to organize to fruition and by the same token there was not an opportunity to conversely prove they posed no threat as evidenced by their freedom over time. Suffice to say the matter becomes controversial based upon whether the person is a citizen or not. But the Japanese American young men volunteered for the Nesei regiment, the th if I remember rightly.
They served mostly in Italy but also in the invasion of southern France. Many of the Japanese-American army volunteers did so precisely to demonstrate that their loyalty was to America, not to Hirohito. This can easily be looked up. He did but naval intelligence had evidence of radio transmissions from Hawaii to Japan from American citizens and legal aliens. So the intelligence community differed. Would you err on the safe side or not?
War is where one loss could be your last and there are no do-overs. Your survival is at stake and the only priority is to win at any cost. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: Force, and Fraud, are in warre the two Cardinall vertues. Justice, and Injustice are none of the Faculties neither of the Body, nor Mind.
If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his Senses, and Passions. They are Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition, that there be no Propriety, no Dominion, no Mine and Thine distinct; but onely that to be every mans that he can get; and for so long, as he can keep it.
And thus much for the ill condition, which man by meer Nature is actually placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the Passions, partly in his Reason. You underestimate fear as a motivator. If your survival was at stake and you genuinely feared for your life, would you torture? Answer that honestly and you see the dilemma. Your history is as good as your sarcasm. About Italians were interred by the US government and 15 times as many by the Canadians. Keep pitching those historical softballs, RSA. It is almost the All-Star game. Reblogged this on What i found intersting today… and commented: Sad time for America!
Resistance is much needed than ever! Chief Justice Roberts just yak away about Korematsu. Yakking easy to do. First Roberts say that Korematsu has nothing to do with the case. Then he say Korematsu overruled. Even Chinggis understand that. Why not Roberts or Turley understand that?
Judges should not be in the business of policy making or legislating. The other branches, which are elected by the people, not appointed, are charged with those duties. Presidents have the freedom to make bad policy and good policy. Lawmakers have the power to pass laws, many of which have done much more damage than good.
Redress in those cases is found at the ballot box. Judges should only declare laws unconstitutional when they clearly violate constitutional requirements. It properly limited itself to assessing their constitutionality. Presuming that a racial group of people have the same opinions because they are of a certain race. Because under that scenario, Korenmatsu was a good decision because it presumed that all the Japanese had the same loyalties to The Emperor of Japan because of their ethnicity.
Whereas if there had been the slightest understanding of Japanese culture FDR would have known that the loyalty was implicitly renounced upon emigration. Somebody should have told that to the three Japanese-American citizens Ishimatsu Shintani and Yoshio and Irene Harada who aided in the escape of a downed Japanese pilot on Hiihua Island, Hawaii just days after he and the second wave of bombers devastated Pearl Harbor. No reason to question culture, right? For those playing at home, my comment was providing a counter-example to the simpleton notion of Prof. Benson that Japanese culture dictates that the fact of emigration requires Japanese emigres who become US citizens to renounce loyalty to the emperor and that FDR was well aware of this cultural phenomena which insulated us from attack by them.
Choice of two sitters for your child. The agency of Sitter 1 has vetted the person to your satisfaction. The agency of Sitter 2 has not. The religion of the Sitter is irrelevant for the security you desire for your child is your primary concern — — Your choice — Sitter 1 or Sitter 2. That Americans of Japanese descent were interned due to a paranoia and due to historical racism-German and Italian Americans were not so easily differentiated regarding their physical appearance-might have been rectified after the war if complete and proper reparations were made.
However, the reparations never approached in the slightest way the loss of property, fishing boats, farms, income, etc. The same was done in Canada where in British Colombia Canadians of Japanese descent lost an equity that took generations to build. In the end those interned were treated as if guilty. When the war ended and they were released, they had to pretty much start over again. Being forced to do something is one thing; overly justifying it beyond the act itself is another.
Zero tolerance is the approach of the incompetent. Afterwards, they changed their name from Braun to Brown and moved to CA. I asked how that came about, and she said her grandfather was a dentist in CA and moved his family to Salt Lake City to avoid the internment. He was well treated by the Mormons and prospered there, so they joined the faith as a show of appreciation.
There was a line drawn and if you lived West of that line you were interned, East and you were fine. Internment was from designated areas, mainly coastal states.
The Long Overdue Death of Korematsu v. United States – JONATHAN TURLEY
Those we already lived in the interior or who could find sponsors to take them in the interior were not interned. The executive order allowed commanders of designated military zones to intern or remove those considered a risk from their zone, whether or not they were citizens. Thus your German-American was interned from a coastal state, while your Japanese-American colleague was not interned in Utah. Take the moral high ground even if it may lessen our safety.
Japanese Americans were interned in camps. This is what bothers me the most. Yeah, but they have that yellowish skin and slanted eyes. Somehow, they are always forgotten. Arizona had several of the Japanese camps plus a few German P. One of the P. He was placed their because he was fluent in German. He died before I was born. I got the story from my grandmother. The camp for regular soldiers was in eastern AZ someplace. Papago Park is the home of the Great Escape. Interestingly, that was not the case in the UK. There was a bureaucracy set up to adjudicate the status of refugees even Jewish ones and decide which should be left alone, and which to be interned.
A number of the interned were sent to Canada. Of those, some died on ships sunk by U-boats. A very small number of German-Americans were interred, as well as a very small number of Italian-Americans. Both groups had due process, according to:. Jay S — here you go https: No, there is nothing there. The formal rejection of Korematsu only came about because Justice Sotomayor cited it in her Dissent which she read aloud from the bench, Korematsu then to allowing the Trave Ban now.
The Korematsu opinion accepted the governments lies as to the danger represented by the Japanese which were later uncovered and Korematsu got his case overturned but SCOTUS never officially undid its opinion. Shall we call it Son of Korematsu? My hypocrisy detector has gone off scale today. When I was growing up in the sixties, I felt sure our country was evolving into a more just and tolerant society. The country is getting browner and fear has kicked in. The powers that be are fighting for their place without regard to a just and tolerant society. They have to stay home.
Or go to some other country. Just not the U. Take a Xanax and go to bed. Thank a progressive for your fear and a conservative for their protection. Thank a progressive for calling this a Muslim ban and a conservative for defending the separation of powers. And most of all, thank a conservative for Not Hillary, for Justice Gorsuch; because if the situation had been reversed…forget about it.
So, what fraction of Muslims in this country do you figure to be terrorists? Or what fraction from the banned countries? I believe it only took 13 of them to topple the World Trade Center and incinerate thousands of Americans. Thanks to Trumpism, I suspect we still have a ways to go before it can be said truly that our society has completely crept out of the abyss of racism.
Actually I will go a step further and say that once politicians, opportunists, and members of the media stop cramming the notion that everything is racist down the throats of the average person, the current perception of actual racism being ubiquitous in the United States will end. As that a vast majority interact with those of other races just as they would their own cohorts, those who discount the relative harmonious nature of average people might learn that they are wrong in following those who have an invested stake in perpetuating strife for their own personal benefit or to feed their misconceptions.
Jeff, you are not going to bring people to your side of the argument by furthering the notion that everyone perceived to be supportive of a particular politician—in your example President Trump—is a racist they will throw up a wall and never listen to you. His object is posturing for self-aggrandizement, not winning anyone over. This recent show was so unbelievable I thought it was staged but it was not.
In my county, all public pools require people to shower before getting in the pool. On March 2, , the U. Army Lieutenant General John L. Postal Service of any changes of residence. In the meantime, Secretary of War Henry L. By March 21, Congress had enacted the proposed legislation, which Roosevelt signed into law. On March 24, , Western Defense Command began issuing Civilian Exclusion orders, commanding that "all persons of Japanese ancestry, including aliens and non-aliens" report to designated assembly points.
With the issuance of Civilian Restrictive Order No. Army , even undergoing plastic surgery in an attempt to conceal his identity. The Fifth Amendment was selected over the Fourteenth Amendment due to the lack of federal protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. He was arrested and convicted. No question was raised as to Korematsu's loyalty to the United States. The decision of the case, written by Justice Hugo Black, found the case largely indistinguishable from the previous year's Hirabayashi v.
United States decision, and rested largely on the same principle: Justice Black further denied that the case had anything to do with racial prejudice:. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders—as inevitably it must—determined that they should have the power to do just this.
In his diaries, Justice Felix Frankfurter reported, that Justice Black told the justices as reason for deferring to the executive branch: It is either Roosevelt or us. Justice Frankfurter's concurrence reads in its entirety:. Justice Frank Murphy issued a vehement dissent, saying that the exclusion of Japanese "falls into the ugly abyss of racism", and resembles "the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. 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.
Justice Murphy's two uses of the term " racism " in this opinion, along with two additional uses in his concurrence in Steele v. Kahanamoku , U. California , U. It then disappeared from the court's lexicon for 18 years—it reappeared in Brown v. Louisiana , U. It did not appear in Loving v. Virginia , U. Justice Roberts's dissent also acknowledges the racism inherent in the case although he does not use the word. He recognized that the defendant was being punished based solely upon his ancestry:. On the contrary, it is the 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 towards the United States.
If this be a correct statement of the facts disclosed by this record, and facts of which we take judicial notice, I need hardly labor the conclusion that Constitutional rights have been violated. By contrast, Justice Robert Jackson's dissent argued that "defense measures will not, and often should not, be held within the limits that bind civil authority in peace", and that it would perhaps be unreasonable to hold the military, who issued the exclusion order, to the same standards of constitutionality that apply to the rest of the government.
- Supreme Court Toolbox!
- 121 thoughts on “The Long Overdue Death of Korematsu v. United States”;
- FDR and the Spanish Civil War: Neutrality and Commitment in the Struggle that Divided America (American Encounters/Global Interactions).
- Search form?
- The Long Overdue Death of Korematsu v. United States?
- Split Seconds: How to be Enlightened While Remaining Neurotic!
- Brooks Berry In The Case Of The Stolen Season (1).
He nonetheless dissented, writing that, even if the courts should not be put in the position of second-guessing or interfering with the orders of military commanders, that does not mean that they should have to ratify or enforce those orders if they are unconstitutional. Jackson writes, "I do not think [the civil courts] may be asked to execute a military expedient that has no place in law under the Constitution. I would reverse the judgment and discharge the prisoner.
Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens.
The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that apart from the matter involved here he is not law abiding and well disposed.
Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived. Now, if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable. Even if all of one's antecedents had been convicted of treason, the Constitution forbids its penalties to be visited upon him.
But here is an attempt to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign. If Congress in peace-time legislation should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it. In , Congress established a commission to evaluate the events leading up to the issuance of Executive Order and accompanying military directives and their impact on citizens and resident aliens, charging the commission with recommending remedies.
Discussing the Korematsu decision in their report entitled Personal Justice Denied , this Congressional Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians CCWRIC concluded that "each part of the decision, questions of both factual review and legal principles, has been discredited or abandoned," and that, "Today the decision in Korematsu lies overruled in the court of history.
Korematsu challenged his conviction in by filing before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California a writ of coram nobis , which asserted that the original conviction was so flawed as to represent a grave injustice that should be reversed. As evidence, he submitted the conclusions of the CCWRIC report as well as newly-discovered internal Justice Department communications demonstrating that evidence contradicting the military necessity for the Executive Order had been knowingly withheld from the Supreme Court.
While not admitting error, the government submitted a counter-motion asking the court to vacate the conviction without a finding of fact on its merits. Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denied the government's petition, and concluded that the Supreme Court had indeed been given a selective record, representing a compelling circumstance sufficient to overturn the original conviction.
She issued a ruling that granted the writ, thereby voiding Korematsu's conviction, while pointing out that since this decision was based on prosecutorial misconduct and not an error of law, any legal precedent established by the case remained in force. The document in question, known as the Ringle Report, concluded that very few Japanese represented a risk, and that almost all who did were already in custody.
The rulings in the s that vindicated Korematsu and Hirabayashi concluded that failure to disclose this evidence along with an initial report by General De Witt that demonstrated racist motivations behind the military orders represented a fatal flaw in the prosecution of their cases before the Supreme Court. Katyal noted that Justice Department attorneys had actually alerted Fahy that failing to disclose the Ringle Report's existence in the briefs or argument in the Supreme Court, "might approximate the suppression of evidence".
Thus, Katyal concluded that Mr. Fahy "did not inform the Court that a key set of allegations used to justify the internment" had been doubted, if not fully discredited, within the government's own agencies. Katyal therefore announced his office's filing of a formal "admission of error".
He reaffirmed the extraordinary duty of the Solicitor General to address the Court with "absolute candor," due to the "special credence" the Court explicitly grants to his court submissions.
Eleven lawyers who had represented Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi, and Minoru Yasui in successful efforts in lower federal courts to nullify their convictions for violating military curfew and exclusion orders sent a letter dated January 13, ,  to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.