Why?

Executive Order 9066 Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104); Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion.

Where?

Who?

Fred Korematsu: Korematsu v. United States, 1944

Korematsu v. United States: The U. S Korematsu v. United States: The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Internment (6-3 Ruling Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. In the instant case, temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by the military on the same ground. . . . We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.

Hirabayashi v. United States, Yasui v. United States Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, U. of Washington student Minoru Yasui, Japanese Consulate employee, Army reservist, attorney Ex parte Mitsuye Endo (decided same day as Korematsu USSC upheld legality of executive order in all three cases

CIVIL LIBERTIES ACT OF1988 Enacted by the United States Congress August 10, 1988 “The Congress recognizes that, as described in the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent residents of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II. As the Commission documents, these actions were carried out without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage documented by the Commission, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership. The excluded individuals of Japanese ancestry suffered enormous damages, both material and intangible, and there were incalculable losses in education and job training, all of which resulted in significant human suffering for which appropriate compensation has not been made.

CIVIL LIBERTIES ACT OF1988 For these fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese ancestry, the Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation.” Based on the findings of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC), the purposes of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 with respect to persons of Japanese ancestry included the following: 1) To acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation and internment of citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War II; 2) To apologize on behalf of the people of the United States for the evacuation, internment, and relocations of such citizens and permanent residing aliens; 3) To provide for a public education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about the internment so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event; 4) To make restitution to those individuals of Japanese ancestry who were interned; 5) To make more credible and sincere any declaration of concern by the United States over violations of human rights committed by other nations.

President G. Bush, 1990

Scandal May 20, 2011: Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal released an unusual statement denouncing one of his predecessors of more than 65 years ago, Solicitor General Charles H. Fahy, accusing him of having “suppressed critical evidence” in the Hirabayashi and Korematsu cases before the Supreme Court during World War II.

Questions to Consider Was the US government justified in its actions? Why/why not? What powers should a government have in times of war that are different than in times of peace? Should Japanese-Americans have been compensated? If so, how?