This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This archive contains topics discussed during a protracted edit war on the page. A digest of this page has been created.
This article suffers from multiple confusions and inaccuracies, both semantic and organizational, which raise questions about its objectivity:
Americans of Japanese ethnicity certainly suffered serious disruption of their lives during World War II. And so did most Americans, including over 10 million men who were drafted for military service. Almost 300,000 suffered the most serious disruption – loss of their lives. It was a time such as we no longer remember, today. Topnife 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)Eric Muller is financed by the California Civil Liberties Public Education Fund. Any work provided by him should include his source of financing as pro-reparations pov.
http://www.library.ca.gov/cclpep/recipients2004.cfm
California Civil Liberties Public Education Program Announces Grant Recipients for Fiscal Year 1999-2000
Dr. Eric L. Muller Chapel Hill, North Carolina
"LOYAL PROTEST: JAPANESE AMERICAN DRAFT RESISTERS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS"
This project has two related components: (1) the completion of a book chronicling the experience of the Nisei draft resisters of World War II and their encounters with the federal criminal justice system, and (2) a public lecture tour in California to share the results of the research on the Nisei draft resisters with interested organizations and groups in California.
Fiscal Year 2003-2004 CCLPEP GRANT RECIPIENTS
Eric Muller University of North Carolina School of Law Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Project Name: Judgments Judged and Wrongs Remembered: Examining the Japanese American Civil Liberties Cases of World War II on Their 60th Anniversary
This project is a conference to be held at the Japanese American National Museum commemorating the 60 th anniversary of the various legal cases on Japanese American civil liberties from World War II.
-- History Student 03:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
My original criticisms were addressed to the issue of confusing semantics and logic in the article, which raise questions of objectivity. The above response does not serve to alter my observation. It appears to re-interpret the facts, to reach a pre-conceived conclusion. I do not defend the internment/relocation; I’m just trying to understand it, and I’m trying to keep my discussion here objective and factual, as well.
Concentration camp The dictionary definition of a “camp where persons are imprisoned under harsh conditions” is factually consistent with the actuality of the relocation camps, although many were able to move out of the camps during the war, and were not "imprisoned". Roosevelt used the term in the dictionary sense, long before it had acquired new meaning by association with Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and their attendant horrors. It is difficult to believe that Holocaust survivors would equate the relocation camps with the Nazi “concentration camps”, where the prisoners were subject to torture, starvation, and wholesale murder. I continue to assert that the article suffers from serious semantic confusion.
MAGIC cables “discredited” The MAGIC cables were an extremely valuable intelligence resource throughout the war, as cited by numerous authorities, including Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy. One has only to read the MAGIC cables, to verify for oneself, the fact that Japan diligently sought to recruit sympathetic Americans for the purpose of espionage (as would only reasonably be expected). Lt Col Hertzig was probably not consulted by any of the decision-makers such as Secretary of War Stimson, or President Roosevelt, regarding the veracity or value of the MAGIC cables (a Lt Colonel is ranked just slightly above a janitor in the Pentagon). On the other hand, he and his Nisei spouse, Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga, were obsessively involved in the pursuit of reparations, 40 years later – hardly a validation of objectivity.
Niihau incident a “joke” This incident, in which a Japanese fighter pilot from the Pearl Harbor attack crash-landed on Niihau, was certainly no joke to those terrorized by the pilot and and assisted by locally resident Nisei accomplices, Yoshio and Irene Hirada. Ultimately, a Native Hawaiian citizen was shot 3 times by the pilot, and then counterattacked and killed him. Harada, who knew of the Pearl Harbor attack, nevertheless treasonously assisted the pilot, and subsequently committed suicide. This was the first test of loyalty for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, and unfortunately for many others, the Hiradas did not pass the test.
Shelling of the Coast The shelling, while it produced little damage, produced the hysteria which led to the “Battle of Los Angeles”, two days later. The article states that the shelling incident was disproven, which is factually incorrect.
Martial Law in Hawaii was a fact, and it means suspension of civil rights for all citizens, unlike on the mainland. Americans of Japanese descent who lived outside the west coast exclusion zone were not affected by the relocation orders, and completely retained their civil rights. One has to wonder, if racism was the motive, why all Americans of Japanese descent were not affected.
Denial of citizenship to long-term resident aliens of Japanese origin was a racially motivated injustice, without any doubt. At the time of WWII, racial bigotry was also inexcusably common and socially accepted (e.g., reference to “Japs” by national politicians then), unlike today. Decision-makers of that era, including Roosevelt, were operating on their database of racial attitudes, which we do not share today. America has grown, and deserves its self-respect (my opinion).
Invalid Comparison with draft. My allusion was probably inappropriate to the issue. However, speaking as one who was drafted, I can factually state that one is not given any choice, that one is forcibly relocated, and one cannot voluntarily leave (except by being wounded or killed). However, the food is worse, and the bathing facilities often non-existent.
I understand the purpose of Wikipedia to be presentation of factual and hopefully, unbiased information, to allow users to reach their own conclusions. Let's pursue that objective.
References:
The Puzzle Palace : Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization by James Bamford ISBN: 0140067485
Niihau Incident by Allan Beekman ISBN: 0960913203
Respectfully, Topnife 00:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)I like your sense of humor ("Shane"), and your style! However, I said I was on a quest for real knowledge, not that I already had it. I started this Talk with the intent to offer suggestions on how the topic could be made less confusing. I don't feel qualified to edit it myself, or I would have. But since you asked:
I spent a few months "imprisoned" needlessly on Guam, TAD orders by the US Navy, after the fall of Saigon. I experienced just a faint and brief version of what my fellow Americans of Japanese ethnicity endured during WWII - no barbed wire, no guards, and no way to get out of there to my home and family. I can only try to empathize in a small way with what happened, and how frustrating and infuriating it must have been. I also assert that, in time of war, the government's primary responsibility is to ensure our survival, individually and as a nation; that we all have to make sacrifices, sometimes including our temporary freedom, and sometimes our lives; and that our decisions made in terror and haste may later be regretted in leisure and comfort - but only if we survive.
I'm sorry, but I don't choose to debate further. The response to my last post just makes my case for NPOV:
Let's all get over it. I'm gone. Topnife 02:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Now I see where 207.207.79.202 is coming from. Using the MAGIC cables again makes it clear. Revisionist history is being added to this article once again. I'll leave it to others to remove it. So far, this particular Wikipedia article is a big waste of time because it's constantly going back and forth between the truth and what revisionists want everyone to believe. Gmatsuda 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What a load of reparations activist crapola! So pathetic. Let's break it down piece by piece.
1. It's nice to again see that fable about the Japanese submarine attack on the oil refinery --
Answer: Dec 7, 1941. On its way to the US west coast, I-26 tracks a US freighter. Precisely at 8:00 a.m., Dec 7, Pearl Harbor time, she surfaces and sinks Cynthia Olson with gunfire. Dec 15, 1941. Japanese submarine shelled Kahului, Maui, Hawaii.
Dec 20. Unarmed US tanker sunk by Japanese submarine I-17 off Cape Mendocino, California. 31 survivors rescued by Coast Guard from Blunt's Reef Lightship.
Dec 20. Unarmed US tanker shelled by Japanese submarine I-23 of the coast of California
Dec 22. Unarmed U.S. tanker sunk by Japanese submarine I-21 about four miles south of Piedras Blancas light, California, I-21 machine-guns the lifeboats, but inflicts no casualties. I-21 later shells unarmed U.S. tanker Idaho near the same location.
Dec 23. Japanese submarine I-17 shells unarmed tanker southwest of Cape Mendocino, California.
Dec 27. Unarmed US tanker shelled by Japanese submarine I-23 10 miles from mouth of Columbia River.
Dec 30, 1941. Submarine I-1 shells, Hilo, Hawaii.
Dec 31, 1941. Submarines shell Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii.
Feb 23, 1942. I-17, shelled Ellwood oil refinery at Geleta on the Californian coast. The skipper had fueled there many times before the war.
June 20, 1942, the radio station on Estevan Point, Vancouver Island was fired on by a Japanese submarine I-26.
June 21. I-25 shells Fort Stevens, Oregon.
Sept 9 . Phosphorus bombs were dropped on Mt. Emily, ten miles northeast of Brookings, Oregon, to start forest fires. A Yokosuka E14Y1 "Glen" reconnaissance seaplane piloted by Lt. Nubuo Fujita was been seen catapulted from submarine I-25.
Sep 29. Phosphorus bombings were repeated on the southern coast of Oregon.
2. where are the CONVICTIONS of all of those supposed spies referred to in the MAGIC report?
Answer: There were no convictions but not because there was no espionage. Those suspected were simply sent to internment -- not relocation -- camps. For example, in Hawaii, three Japanese Americans on Niihau aided a downed Imperial Navy aviator to the point where they attempted to kill some of their Hawaiian neighbors. One of the Japanese was killed in a struggle and the other two surrendered to authorities. (This "Niihau Incident" is considered the trigger that largely justified the relocation order.)
In another case, AJA Richard Kotoshirodo actively aided Japanese spies keeping track of ship movements in Pearl Harbor. Until martial law, however, watching ships from public property was not a crime. Another AJA was shot in Kaneohe when he fled after being discovered signaling a Japanese submarine.
Removing those arrested for espionage solved the immeidiate problem and ensured sensitive intelligence would not be revealed in the courts.
3. The primary basis for the internment was bigotry against all Asians, not merely those of Japanese descent.
Answer: Totally untrue. The basis for the evacuation was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The San Jose police archives reveal the majority of attacks on ethnic Japanese in the area were committed by ethnic Filipinos and some cases involving Chinese.
4. The supposed MAGIC translations proving Nikkei espionage don't seem to show up on the lists of MAGIC translations.
Answer: What are you talking about? http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00416&search_id=&pagenum=7
5. If it was an "evacuation" rather than "internment," then why were the "evacuees" kept behind barbed wire and subject to being shot for approaching the fence? How can you "attempt escape" if you aren't a prisoner?
Answer: It was three strand cattle wire that was routinely crossed. If you want to read the details on how people got shot, read them here....
http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00073&search_id=16288
6. The only revisionism is by the people who are trying to cover up an atrocity against thousands of American citizens. Consider that a far greater percentage of Nisei fought in the war than any other group of Americans. Over 1,000 from one camp of 10,000 population -- where is there another American "town" where one in ten of the total population went to fight?
Answer: The vast majority of adult were not American citizens, they were Japanese citizens and after Pearl Harbor they were Enemy Aliens. Even their American born kids, the vast majority held dual citizenship.
You've got to be kidding. What a myth of ridiculous proportions!
More nisei chose to sit out the war or openly support the enemy than fight for America.
Selective Service Special Monograph Number 10 which was published after the war (1953) is a source. This publication covered "Special Groups" who served during WWII and Chapter IX was titled "Japanese Americans." In that chapter on page 122 was the following statement:
"In the continental United States, fewer than 1500 Japanese Americans volunteered although there were 19,000 citizens of military age within the War Relocation Authority Centers and approximately 4,000 outside the centers."
That would be a total of 23,000 of whom only 7% (1500)volunteered.
On the other hand, the WRA publication "The Evacuated People" (1946) mentions only 1208 volunteers from the ten relocation centers (of whom only 805 were actually selected to serve) plus "several hundred" voluteers from outside the centers. Estimating a total of about 1100 (805 plus an estimated 300 from outside the centers) out of a total 23,000 of military age, comes to 5%.
The nisei war memorial in Los Angeles only has about 16,000 names on it and you know they sticking as many names as possible on it regardless of if they served or not.
The whole "most decorated unit" myth came about after Bill Clinton, motivated by legislation from Sen Akaka of Hawaii started handing out medal upgrades like candy canes against the advice of the Pentagan many years and miles away from the battlefied in complete defiance of American Military Tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.168.93.35 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 July 2006
I have placed Template:noncompliant atop this article per Wikipedia policy, specifically:
Given the controversial nature of this topic, the entire article needs to use citations as often as possible, preferably after vetting on Talk:Japanese American internment . Notably, the unregistered users are significantly ahead in citing sources. While User:Gmatsuda and others dispute the authority of these sources, they are not as effective at referencing sources to back up their edits and disputes. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am uncomfortable with the edits by the unregistered users, and I am not thoroughly convinced as to their relevance. However, the unregistered users have eliminated some obviously POV ("pro-reparations" in their view) copy on the page--even as they have added POV elsewhere. Finally, as I have noted elsewhere on this talk page, these disputes are not new to this article. The disputes will not go away, and they will not be resolved unless we--collectively--are able to produce an article that adheres to Wikipedia standards. [One last comment: I considered reverting to a previous version before adding the template, since it is just as applicable to earlier revisions. I decided to use the most recent version, which just happens to be the version preferred by the unregistered users. I encourage everyone to retain the template in edits until these disputes are resolved. -- ishu 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I for one find the newest version of this article regreshing because I learned some new history regarding this subject rather than just being force fed the same old line that we read in the newspapers, at school, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by History Student ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 July 2006
I added Prof John Stephan as a source in the Hawaii and included an AP article describing conditions at Japanese camps for repatriated Japanese Americans. I also add information on "Tom" Kawakita at the link near the end of the article.
Most of my sources are cited directly after my additions with an "according to" or such.
I have many of the books ishu has mentioned and can comment further on them. One not mentioned that is worth reading is David Kahn's "The Code Breakers".
Other books important to a full understanding of the history but not specifically related to MAGIC include "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert Bix, decribes the rise of Japanese Ultra Nationalism during the Showa Era which I believe needs to be discussed in the history of the Evacuation.
"Soldiers of the Sun" by Meirion and Susie Harris describes the history of Japan's use of total intelligence from the Meiji Era through WW2 and is also a good read to understand the intelligence threats posed by Japan and ethnic Japanese in her colonies and elsewhere.
"Japan's Longest Day" desribes the conditions for Japanese Americans working at translators at Imperial Army Headquarters in Ichigaya, Tokyo towards the end of the war.
"The Niihau Incident" by Beekman decribes Japanese American Harada assisting a down Japanese pilot after Pearl Harbor. Beekman was a writer to the JACL's "Pacific Citizen".
Just a few. I'll add more later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 16 July 2006
1.The opening phrase of the article, "The Japanese American Internment is a misnomer..." is inappropriate in my opinion,
Answer: Regardless of your feeling it is inapproproate, it is entirely true. We need to reverse some of the bad history regarding the evacuation and that included getting the definitions correct. The evacuation was not the internment.
2. The large image at the top of the article. While I understand the point being made, placing this image at the top of the article gives a certain slant to the "first glance" of the article which I feel is disingenuous. I suggest keeping this image, but moving it to a different place within the article.
Answer: The entire article gave a certain slant before it was re-edited. I suggest no image on the top then. And more images that reflect the reality of the centers within the article.
3.I'd like to see a mention of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2525, 2526, and 2527 sooner in the article. Any comments as to the appropriateness of this suggestion?
Answer: Sounds good. We also need to add the congress immediately passed Public Law 503 by a wide majority to back up EO 9066.
4. The introduction area also contains sections which I feel are more appropriate to the "Terminology debate" section, "Legal legacy" section, and "Compensation and reparations" section. The paragraphs to which I refer should be easily identifiable.
Answer: No, I think a summary at the beginning is important for those who choose to stop reading before the end of the article.
5. In the "Terminology debate" section, there is a paragraph which attempts to describe the camps in an effort to clarify the usage of terms. Would it perhaps be appropriate to mention the average length of time individuals stayed in these camps, and also whether they remained voluntarily or involuntarily?
Answer: That information is available in the WRA's "An Evacuated People" 1946. You will find people were coming and going into the camps in great numbers, harldy and "incarceration".
6. In the History section, the "shelling of a California oil refinery" incident needs to have a citiation. In addition, there has been some dispute on these pages regarding whether this incident was in fact the result of a Japanese submarine; if it was perceived as an attack at the time, then perhaps that ought to be clarified within the article?
Answer: Of course it was. I will provide a breakout of every incident and cite a source.
7. I suggest that until MAGIC's contributions are fully explained and cited, they be removed from the article.
Answer: No way! Any article on the evacuation must include the MAGIC intercepts.
8. "...caught up the Japanese Ultra Nationalism of the era." The use of weasel words and lack of adequate citation in this portion of the "History" section should be remedied."
Answer: Calling anything you disagree with "weasel words" is a problem. You want me to cite sources for the Japanese Ultra Nationalism the existed I can do it. The comment is 100% historically correct. Perhaps that Tule Photo needs to stay at the top of the article after all....
9. "However it should be noted that the vast majority of ethnic Japanese at the time were not American citizens..."
Answer: I believe it says the vast majorty of ethnic Japanese ADULTS at the time... If it doesn't say this it is a typo and should be corrected.
10. More generally, the "History" section needs to be cleaned up.
Answer: Agreed there are sections that need to be cleaned up and the history section is short. It needs to be lenghted to include Japan's history of total intelligence, the Japanese "Language Schools", the Patriotic Societies, etc...
11. The AP release within the "Internment results" section should probably be moved to the "Conditions in the Camps" section.
Answer: No, that needs to be included in the sections discussing repatriates who demanded to return to Japan.
12. "If the the authorities could have evacuated all ethnic Japanese from Hawaii they would have. They could not so they did not." This statement from the "Hawaii" section is strangely phrased.
Answer: Regardless of the style it is also 100% accurate.
13. "However, the records of the time and the personal histories of those involved (on both sides of the issue) prove that many of these claims are either distorted or simply untrue. The problems with this excerpt are obvious. The short sentence found immediately after this paragraph is also in need of citation.
Answer: Yea, there's a problem. The writer adds at the end, "that's untrue". I cited the location of the Bendetsen interview at the Truman Presidential Library. Visit the website and do a search. As for "presumabley"...well visit the site and you will know.
14. Warren's quote surfaced after his death however, is contrary to his opinions well known before his death and are not considered credible given the circumstances in which is what revealed." This paragraph from the "Support for the internment, then and now" section is awkwardly worded and needs citation.
Answer: Easy to cite. I will fix it.
15. "The "newly discovered evidence" that commission "researcher" Aiko Herzig "found" that was used in the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980's is a Ringle memo the pro-reparations lawyers submit to the court as exhibit "D" MINUS THE FEBRUARY 14, 1942 ONI COVER MEMO FROM RINGLE'S BOSS, H.E. KEISKER STATING "IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL AND OFFICAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT." The memo was also carbon copied for MID and two sections of the FBI. Thus, the memo was an unofficial document haveing no status whatsoever was not concealed, but on the contrary given wide distribution, did not represent the stated position of the ONI nor anyone else of any status in the military, and WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AN OFFICIAL ONI INTELLIGENCE REPORT AUTHORED BY LT. COMMANDER HIMSELF LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER. Thus the lawyers representing the Japanese American reparations movment submitted evidence in a federal court under false pre-tense." This excerpt is from the "Legal legacy" section and desperately needs to be cleaned up.
Answer: 100% true. I will replace the capitols with italics. Source is the Lowman book, which also has photos of the original documents including the Keisker cover letter the reparations lawyers did not include with the Ringle report. I will provide more detail for those who find it difficult to understand.
16. In addition to attempting to resolve existing issues within the article, I'd like to suggest that we refrain from further editing in the existing article pending discussion and resolution on this Talk page.
Answer: I plan on going back and citing sources, making some of my edits easier to read.
I still challenge any reader to show me any content I have added that is historically inaccurate.
-Regards
Yea, that's real cute tom.
I'll be back tomorrow.
This is such a load of crap. If "Tom" is in charge of editing suffice to say Wikipedia is not going to be taken seriously...
Your choice Wikipedia. I challenge "Tom" to dispute any content I have added,
Show us what's "unreferenced" Tom. I cited sources for my material and was in the process of doing so regarding the bogus Warren quote. You have totally abused your admin privilidge. My material was cited much more thoroughly than the pr-reparations POV material that you have locked on this site. You can't debate the history so you resort to this which is total reparations activist crap.
Unbiased article is now here:
"Internment" is a misnomer anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_Evacuation_of_1942
Now the POV reparations activists are attempting to delete the article under Japanese Evacuation. Pathetic.
You know what? You guys all say the same thing then you provide no examples. You like Tom's piece because it's what you want to believe... Any information no matter how citable that is contrary to your own opinion is dimissed as POV. What a joke.
What consensus can we derive from the following:
The fact that the Act and the orders are silent on detention does not of course mean that any power to detain is lacking. Some such power might indeed be necessary to the successful operation of the evacuation program. At least we may so assume. Moreover, we may assume for the purposes of this case that initial detention in Relocation Centers was authorized. But we stress the silence of the legislative history and of the Act and the Executive Orders on the power to detain to emphasize that any such authority which exists must be implied. If there is to be [323 U.S. 283, 302] the greatest possible accommodation of the liberties of the citizen with this war measure, any such implied power must be narrowly confined to the precise purpose of the evacuation program. ( para. 16)
If nothing else, this undercuts the claim that the Japanese Americans in the camps were "free to leave." Comments, anyone? -- ishu 18:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
First off the DOJ internment program was not the WRA Relocation program or the Evacuation program. If you're pulling your definitions from the dictionary that's great but they don't apply to this history.
The Supreme Court cases usually refer to Korematsu, Hirabayashi and Yasui although Endo is also a case. At any rate the intial comment "...but the court upheld the government's right to intern" is still wrong even if the writer was talking about Endo.
Now that we're getting into the semantics of "free to leave" or "incarcerated in concentration camps" this is a good opportunity to clarify.
The government made a rule that any person wishing to enter or leave a Relocation Center had to petition to do so. The reason for the petition was two-fold. One reason was to ensure the individual was not a security risk and was loyal to the United States. The second reason was to ensure the individual had to the means to support himeself outside the military zones. The WRA set up offices in the large cities outside the military zones to aid evacuees in finding employment and housing.
So if arrangements had not been made by March 25, 1942 to settle outside the military zones you were going to a Relocation Center. People started leaving the centers on June of 1942 (WRA An Evacuated People 1946).
You will also find in the Endo ruling (which provides a nice concise history of the evacuation if you read the entire thing)the reason why Mitsue Endo was not released sooner. It had nothing to do with the government questioning her loyalty. Endo had failed to provide the WRA with the proper paperwork when petitioning for her leave clearance.
The Endo case states: (Original copy is all capitals.)
THE PROGRAM OF THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY IS SAID TO HAVE THREE MAIN FEATURES: (1) THE MAINTENANCE OF RELOCATION CENTERS AS INTERIM PLACES OF RESIDENCE FOR EVACUEES; (2) THE SEGREGATION OF LOYAL FROM DISLOYAL EVACUEES; (3) THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF THE DISLOYAL AND SO FAR AS POSSIBLE THE RELOCATION OF THE LOYAL IN SELECTED COMMUNITIES. FN7 IN CONNECTION WITH THE LATTER PHASE OF ITS WORK THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED A PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING LEAVE FROM RELOCATION CENTERS. THAT PROCEDURE, SO FAR AS INDEFINITE LEAVE FN8 IS CONCERNED, PRESENTLY PROVIDES FN9 AS FOLLOWS:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE APPLICANT IS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING "THE PROBABLE EFFECT UPON THE WAR PROGRAM AND UPON THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SECURITY OF ISSUING INDEFINITE LEAVE" TO THE APPLICANT. FN10 THE GRANT OF LEAVE CLEARANCE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE DEPARTURE FROM THE RELOCATION CENTER. APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE MUST ALSO BE MADE. INDEFINITE LEAVE MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 14 SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. FN11 FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAY BE GRANTED (1) WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACCEPT AN EMPLOYMENT OFFER OR AN OFFER OF SUPPORT THAT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED AND APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY; OR (2) WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT INTEND TO WORK BUT HAS "ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF" AND A RELOCATION OFFICER HAS INVESTIGATED AND APPROVED "PUBLIC SENTIMENT AT HIS PROPOSED DESTINATION," OR (3) WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO LIVE AT A HOTEL OR IN A PRIVATE HOME APPROVED BY A RELOCATION OFFICER WHILE ARRANGING FOR EMPLOYMENT; OR (4) WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT BY A FEDERAL OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY; OR (5) WHERE THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO LIVE WITH DESIGNATED CLASSES OF RELATIVES.
Endo case also states:
MITSUYE ENDO MADE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE CLEARANCE ON FEBRUARY 19, 1943, AFTER THE PETITION WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT. LEAVE CLEARANCE FN15 WAS GRANTED HER ON AUGUST 16, 1943. BUT SHE MADE NO APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE. FN16
So that's why Endo wasn't released. She didn't petition for indefinate leave. It should also be noted that petitions for entry into a Relcoation Center were also required. Once an individual was granted leave the WRA wouldn't just let them return. They had to have a good reason for doing so.
Certainly the folks at Wikipedia can understand the importance of keeping a program orderly and adhering to the rules.
-Regards, History Student-- History Student 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Who said "any time"? Since when has the government done anything quickly? Ethnic Japanese had between February 19th and March 25, 1942 to evacuate on their own and thousands did so. If they had not by that time made arrangements to take care of themselves outside the military zones thay came under jurisdiction of the WRA. Welcome to government beauracracy.
You can see by this graph the consistency in which those who wanted to leave and petitioned to do so left. You can see that from late 1942 the graphs trend downward in all the camps except Tule Lake because Tule Lake became a segregation center for those known as disloyals because of the screening process.
http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00002&search_id=16354&pagenum=35
Considering there was a war going on and the WRA was also given the responsibility of seperating the loyal from the disloyal I'm surprised it only took six months for Endo. What was the average time from petitioning to leave and actually leaving a Relocation Center? That's a good question. Maybe it was more or less than Endo's experience. The point is the Relocation Centers were hardly what the reparations activists are portraying them to be and the reason Endo wasn't granted clearence is because she failed to petition. I don't think the average person knows that.
Check this out from the same report:
http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00002&search_id=16354&pagenum=38
...continued here...
http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00002&search_id=16354&pagenum=39
Look I'm not saying a lot of people weren't burdened. Everyone makes sacrifices in war. It sure doesn't gel with reparations talk of "racism, wartime hysteria and lack of political will", though. Where's the malice?
The government made the best of a bad situation to ensure the security of the nation as a whole in a time of war. I don't think the government was under any obligation to provide for the evacuees one they were moved outside the military zones. If ethnic Japanese had been dumped at the borders to fend for themselves, how would that have been discussed 64 years later?
-- History Student 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Something screwy happened so I am responding here in a new thread....
I realize they had to separate the "disloyal" from the "loyal", but it seems like six months is a long time to keep someone in custody without reasonable suspicion. It's not just the six months though -- all in all it took something like 18 months total (mar '42 to aug '43) to determine her loyalty. Yeah it was wartime and I'm sure the government had other things to do, but it just doesn't pass the "free to leave" smell test. To use an overused analogy: to capture guys on a battlefield in Afghanistan is one thing, but gathering all US citizens of Afghani origin and putting them in camps for 18 months while investigating loyalty would be another. BTW The graph you cite shows camp population, not the number of requests to leave. Justforasecond 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Justasecond, the United States Government drafted millions in the largest peactime draft in American history in 1940. Many didn't come home after being drafted and many more didn't come home until 1945 or without a limb. Were they "kept in custody" too? Were their "civil rights" violated? C'mon....
The American Government can take extraordinary steps in wartime which means the steps taken in 1942 may seem unorthadox to some people in 2006 even though we're supposed to be fighting an undeclared war on terror.
As mentioned before, the vast majority of adults were not U.S. citizens they were Enemy Aliens. The vast majority of kids were dual American and Japanese citizenship. You may think six months is a long time but given the amount of people, the fact the war was going on and the fact it was the first time the American government had to engage in an evacuation program of such magnitude I'd say it went pretty darn well. I don't know where you're getting the "free to leave smell test" thought. As I have said before those who left the military zones voluntarily before March 25 never even went to Relocation Centers. Others could petition to leave and thousands did leave the Relocation Centers. As I said above it wasn't about determining Endo's loyalty that kept her from getting released - it was about Endo not filing the proper paperwork. Of course the graph shows camp population. You will notice the camp population was decreasing after late 1942 until the end of the war and that's not because of gas chambers and ovens.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Please show me where I said "free to leave" and in what context I said. I don't recall saying it. People had to petition to leave and that took time. Thousands did so. -- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC),
ishu wrote:
Internment Camp should refer only to the DOJ camps that held Enemy Aliens and their families who were determined to be security risks. I believe the map in the article now shows these as "Justice Dept. U.S. Army or other facility". The Justice Dept. facilities are the internment camps.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Roosevelt and others loosely used the terms "concentration camp" early on before the camps were even built. That is the justification for the pov reparations activists to use the term today. Then Justice Black said in Korematsu that the term is not justified. I believe most people associate "concentration camps" to the barbarity of the Nazis. That's why the activists are attempting to associate it to the Relocation Centers.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Well then it's wrong. Here is an honest definition from Lowman's MAGIC
"Internment camps were run by the Department of Justice and held only enemy aliens who had been deemed security risks and their U.S. citizen family members who were allowed at their choice to stay with them. Internees included 10,995 Germans, 16, 849 Japanese (5,589 who voluntarily renounced U.S. citizenship and became enemy aliens), 3,278 Italians, 52 Hungarians, 25 Romanians, 5 Bulgarians, and 161 classified as “other”. Only a small fraction of enemy aliens were interned. Japanese citizens with families were sent to Crystal City, Texas and lived side-by-side with German and Italian families. Single men were sent to internment camps in other states. Not all enemy aliens were placed in internment camps, and no American citizen was forcefully placed in an internment camp. If you were interned it was determined that you, a spouse or parent was an enemy alien and a security risk."
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
That's a stretch. You can also say millions of Americans were forceably taken from their homes and placed in camps surrounded by fences and gaurds and made to wear green uniforms and run around all day before being shipped off to such exotic locals as New Guinea and Okinawa. Were they "interned" too?
Those in real Dept. of Justice internment camps were surrounded by real high wire fences with real security and very few were ever given an opportunity to petition to leave. Your idea is interesting, though. We need to refrain from lumping "relocation", "evacuation" and "internment" into just "internment". It just confuses the issue. Lately the term "detained" has become popular. Sounds accurate.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Okay, let's do so. Well the opposing argument is historically wrong, it's bad history and is intentionally meant to confuse the issue. -- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
How can you say it's beside the point? If Endo had submitted the proper paperwork she would have been cleared. Agreed the court said she should be released anyway, but the court is also saying the WRA agreed she was loyal. To me the court is chastising the WRA for being too beurocratic and that's about it.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Right! No one is denying that the court said she should be released. This is a summary of Endo. Endo failed to follow proper WRA procedure for release, Endo sued, the court said Endo doesn't have to follow proper WRA procedure.
If people learn that, it's a step in the right direction. Most people who even know Endo's name don't know the reason she wasn't released to begin with was because she didn't petition to leave.
Let me put it this way. The pro-reparations activists when citing Endo say to this extent, "The Supreme Court ruled on Ex-Parte Endo that the government had no power to detain a concedingly loyal citizen of the United States". This is true.
What they don't say is there was no disagreement over the fact Endo was loyal. Her failure to follow protocol in petitioning for clearence is the reason she wasn't released, not that the government had a policy of detaining concedingly loyal American citizens. That's a big clarification.
After all, thousands of other concedingly loyal ethnic Japanese followed the proper procedure and were released without incident.
For terms regarding Endo and those similar how about "temporarily detained". Heck, you could even say "temporary suspension of civil liberties" and it would be correct.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The term that best defines the overall experience is "Ethnic Japanese Evacuation of 1942". -- History Student 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is getting old. You guys are total pov posers attempting to masquerade as unbiased. I pointed out the historical facts and in response I am getting pov opinion and straw men. No, temporary leave isn't permanent leave. That should be pretty self-explanatory. The WRA had offices in major cities to aid in resettling and finding employment. Thousands did so. No, the government didn't want people unable to care for themselves begging in the street. Certain criteria needed to be met, ie the ability to support one's self. It didn't require millions and thousands of business hired them. The graph speaks for itself. I understand how hard it is for you to dispute and how convenient it is for you to say you read it wrong.
And from what source do you conclude the government wasn't trying hard enough to re-settle these people? Or is that once again just your opinion? You might also try to remember that we are currently not fighting WW2. They were removed from the coast because the military ordered it for reasons of security. I understand it's convenient for you to forget that.
-- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This entire discussion is degenerating into far-left reparations activist stupidy. I've seen it before and I'm losing patience.
Then you better start providing historical facts to support your opinions. Quite frankly you're blathering.
-- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Supreme Court said the WRA determined she was loyal so filing the paperwork isn't necessary. After the decision anyone who was determined by the WRA to be loyal could leave without petitioning. That's it! (This was a non-issue by 1944 because the vast majority who wanted to leave had already done so.)
Oh it did not! It ruled that Endo should be let go and that's it. -- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
She was free to leave under conditions like submitting the properwork. You guys brought up, the "free to leave" quote as a straw man. I have always maintained petition was necessary. At any rate if you want to discuss Endo you need to discuss why she wasn't released sooner. You also need to disucss Korematsu and Hirabayashi which deemed the evacuation constitutional.
No, not through the mail. Through the various administrative offices at each relocation center that provided information, job contacts and housing so they could leave and get on with their lives. You really don't know anything about the program if you're asking these kinds of questions. In which case what is your purpose? Why not have me edit the article then you can learn something.
-- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You guys are trying your hardest to explain away what happened and why because you have a pov that is pro-reparations. I'm getting tired of talking past you and your weak explanations. Not to mention the crappy article is still up and locked and hasn't been edited. I'm going to start editing the article so it's historically correct.
-- History Student 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Conditions for leaving the camp:
(1) where the applicant proposes to accept an employment offer or an offer of support that has been investigated and approved by the Authority; or (2) where the applicant does not intend to work but has 'adequate financial resources to take care of himself' and a Relocation Officer has investigated and approved 'public sentiment at his proposed destination', or (3) where the applicant has made arrangements to live at a hotel or in a private home approved by a Relocation [323 U.S. 283, 293] Officer while arranging for employment; or (4) where the applicant proposes to accept employment by a federal or local governmental agency; or (5) where the applicant is going to live with designated classes of relatives. But even if an applicant meets those requirements, no leave will issue when the proposed place of residence or employment is within a locality where it has been ascertained that 'community sentiment is unfavorable' or when the applicant plans to go to an area which has been closed by the Authority to the issuance of indefinite leave. 12 Nor will such leave issue if the area where the applicant plans to reside or work is one which has not been cleared for relocation. 13 Moreover, the applicant agrees to give the Authority prompt notice of any change of employment or residence
A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind not of race, creed, or color. He who is loyal is by definition not a spy or a saboteur. When the power to detain is derived from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage, detention which has no relationship to that objective is unauthorized.
Justforasecond 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what your point is here. It's pretty self explanatory.
-- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's great! Just call me the Mitsue Endo of Wikipedia! What a joke!
-- History Student 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, like Korematsu and Hirabayashi, I suspect Endo was advised to not petition for permanent leave in order to challenge the policy in court.
The repartions image that Korematsu valiantly challenged the evacuation order in defense of civil liberties is a total myth. In reality, Korematsu wanted to remain in the militarized zone with his girlfriend who was not bound by the evacuation order, had plastic surgery to pass himself as a person of Pacific Islander/Mexican ancestory and was picked up and caught lying to the F.B.I. - after which he got the attention of the A.C.L.U. who decided he was about the best choice they had for an individual needed to challenge the evacuation order in court.
Regarding Endo, which historical fact is more important of the two is irrelevent. What is important is clarifying that Endo was not granted released because she failed to petition - not because the government had a policy of detaining concedingly loyal American citizens.
I believe you two are deliberately convoluting the discussion. The line regarding "internment" is historically incorrect and needs to be changed.
-- History Student 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a long thread. What alternative did you present? Once I read it I will tell if it is 100% correct. I wish to avoid half truths and vagueness and the entire article needs to be more precise.
Here are two reasons why the sentence is wrong.
1. Korematsu, Hirabayashi and Yasui are generally what is considered the "Wartime Supreme Court Cases". These cases dealt with the evacuation and had nothing to do with the misnomer "internment".
2. Endo dealt with the WRA holding a concedingly loyal American citizen and the Supreme Court sided with Endo therefore you can't say "...but the court upheld the government's right to intern..." regardless if you beleive Endo was technically interned or not (which she wasn't).
-- History Student 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean this?
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity." A still-controversial issue is whether the threat of espionage by Japanese Americans was a legitimate concern of President Roosevelt and his administration.
Quite a bit of spin, don't you think? Lots of pro-reparations buzzwords, too.
First off, "landmark decision" is vague. Secondly Japanese is a national origin not a racial group and no other members of the Asian race were evacuated and for that matter the Japanese affected were those in the military zones.
As for "curtailing civil rights" that comment is related to the WRA relocation centers, not the evacuation itself. The Supreme Court said in Korematsu that EO 9066 was nothing more than an evacuation order.
Here is my example:
In Korematsu vs United States 1944, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 for the constitutionality of the evacuation saying in part, "There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot --by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that at the time these actions were unjustified." The decison was vacated by a lower federal court in a coram nobis case in San Francisco in 1983, but Korematsu vs United States has never been overturned by the Supreme Court and is still good law.
I'd save the espionage concerns for another section. The story behind the coram nobis decisions a'la Aiko Herzig and also be explained in more detail in another section.
I am back to spoofing my IP as once again "History Student" has been blocked. History Student - -- 69.57.136.39 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can tell by the zone of the "revisionist garbage" comment that you're real open minded about this history!
Just fyi, my additions have been around a lot longer than the 1980s when you version of the history was written (re-written).
Anyway, I challenge any of you to a debate of this history.
I couldn't believe the blatantly pro-repatations tone of what is supposed to be an unbiased source for students. But that's pretty much the entire history of the Japanese American Reparations Movment.
I look forward to filling in the conveniently missing chapters of the history.
Right, your definition of credbile is anything you agree with. That's real honest.
However wrote this piece in the evacuation was obviously a member of the reparations movement. Was it you?
However it was has a bad habit of manipulating and cherry picking history to the detriment of students interested in the 100% truth regarding this history.
You will find my sources are not only credible but have nothing to do with the opinions of reparations activists which make up the majority of sources on this page.
P.S. I hope TopKnife comes back to the discussion!
The man knows his history!
Well, when these "established scholars" are being funded by the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund, that causes a bit of a conflict of interest doesn't it? Not to mention they are almost all from the far left.
But if you want sources they are all raw:
"The Evacuated People" (1946) published by the WRA is a good source.
"Selective Service Special Monograph Number 10" was footnoted.
Material came from "Hawaii Under the Rising Sun" by Prof. John J. Stephan, an excellent read.
Of course MAGIC by David Lowman, 2/3rd of which is nothing but raw documents and was labled as "controversial" by who wrote the piece here.
You quote Peter Irons, but you left out this quote...
"...There was no question that Tachibana headed an espionage ring on the West Coast that enlisted a number of Japanese Americans, both aliens and citizens (sic), nor that the government knew the identities of its members..."
You seem to disregard the Tachibana Spy Ring and everything that is contrary to what you want people to think.
I could and most likely will go on. I however found to sources for your comments. Many of the comments were not just opinion or interpretation they were just plain wrong...
They haven't been discredited at all, only by the reparations activists who had no knowledge of them in the first place until David Lowman wrote about it in the New York Times. Have you read his book or do you just read what you want to believe?
Which government official at the time? Start citing your sources.
Irons himself says Japanese Americans were involved and I'm no fan of Irons. He's on your side.
Because the CLPEF was set up by the money bill to "re-educate the American people" regarding this history. Too bad for you it's backfiring.
You folks have to done more to damage the reputation of Japanese Americans than Pearl Harbor ever did.
Edward Ennis? Ha! Lowman blows his comments away as you would know if you had read Lowman's book. Considering Lowman was the National Security Agency Executive assigned the task of declassifying the MAGIC intercepts and a decades long intelligence professional as well as a graduate of Stanford School of Law, I'll say his credentials over some CLPEF paid PH.D. lackey any day.
As for Curtis Munson another guy the reparations folks have put on a pedistal, he was an L.A. businessman who enjoyed playing intelligence agent before the war. He has absolutely no qualifications or credibility in intelligence.
That the "Personal Justice Denied" Commission used that guy as the only source of intelligence over the Office of Naval Intelligence or MAGIC transcripts, doesn't say a lot for their credibility either.
By the way, here's another famous quote from Munson that the Commission didn't print:
"In the first place there are not so many people of Japanese descent in the U.S. that in an emergency they could not all be thrown into a concentration camp in 48 hours. Of course you might get a few Chinamen too because they all look alike. But the looks are a great aid to rounding them up and in keeping them away from sabotage and truoblesome pastimes."
-Extract from a Munson report to Carter October 22, 1941
That real professionalism. After Pearl Harbor, Munson faded away never to be heard from again.
Yea, right. Let's see if the CLPEF made up entirely of folks with Japanese surnames are going to give scholars with views contrary to their agenda money for research or publication. I'm sure you folks are laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayer dollars. Too bad the price is the reputation of all Japanese Americans.
Fine. Run away. I'm not here to convince the unconvincable, just set the record straight regarding this history and I'll have like minded people join me.
You want to try a debate without running away, let me know.
The MAGIC intercepts were not mentioned because the entire program was highly classified.
Here is a brief summary. I have included portions in the Wikipedia article. If you have not read David Lowman's book MAGIC, I highly recommend doing so.
"In March 1939, a new code emerged providing Japanese diplomatic communications between its embassies and consulates throughout the world. Led by William Friedman and Frank Rowlett, it was the responsibility of the SIS (Signal Intelligence Service) to break the code and develop an analog machine that could decipher the diplomatic messages. It took eighteen months to crack the code, and they named it PURPLE. At the cost of $684.65 in taxpayer money, they built the first machine to decipher Japanese diplomatic messages. It was named PURPLE analog. PURPLE analog performed the exact function of the Japanese code machine – in reverse. Certainly the most bang for the buck in the history of the United States taxpayer.
All high level Japanese diplomatic traffic intercepted and decrypted by the Americans came to be known as MAGIC. It was said only magicians could produce such an accomplishment! Navy cryptanalytic unit OP-20-G (which focused on Japanese naval code starting June, 1942), and SIS produced all MAGIC intelligence that in its raw form was available to just ten men. Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Director of Naval Intelligence Admiral Theodore Wilkinson, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Harold Stark, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, Army Director of Military Intelligence General Sherman Miles, Chief of Army War Plans General Leonard T. Gerow, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt – they were the only men in a position to make a knowledgeable decision.
MAGIC was “sanitized” to ensure the secrecy of the source and disseminated to the FBI, lower levels at the Office of Naval Intelligence and Army Military Intelligence, to use in conjunction with their own information. The order was use phrases such as “highly reliable sources,” “various sources,” and “highly confidential sources” when preparing their confidential reports.
The MAGIC program was second in secrecy only to the Manhattan Project. Great pains were taken to ensure the Japanese never discovered their diplomatic code (or any code) had been cracked. After the war the Japanese developers of PURPLE refused to accept the Americans had cracked their code. They went to their deaths believing they had been betrayed."
To answer you questions:
1. The MAGIC cables were declassified in 1977 and David Lowman was the NSA executive given the task of doing so.
2. Dewitt and McCloy would have had access to sanitized intelligence derived from MAGIC but would not have had access to the raw intelligence or knowledge of the program. Of course the SIS had knowledge of the program but the raw intelligence was limited to the ten men listed above.
3. Regarding the reference to the MAGIC cables in Personal Justice Denied (pp.471-475), the Commision had never even heard of MAGIC intelligence until their report was completed. Shortly after the report was released, David Lowman http://www.athenapressinc.com/ wrote an article in the New York Times that questioned the absence of MAGIC in the report. The commissioners had never heard of it!
Without any expertise whatsoever on the subject of military intelligence in general and MAGIC in particular, the commission's staff quickly "analyzed" MAGIC communications intelligence and reached conclusions in a hastily prepared addendum about it which were contrary to the opinions of every recognized authority on MAGIC for the last 47 years.
Not long after it was released the mistake-laden addendum so quickly written to cover the commissions ignorance was quietly withdrawn.
And hears the kicker. The mistake-laden addendum written up after the report (produced by people who had never even heard of MAGIC and had absolutely no authority to comment officially on it) is the same stuff being provided as "extraordinary detail" from Personal Justice Denied (P.471-475) - WORD FOR WORD!
To summarize, p.471-475 was never a part of the original report and you'll not find it in original versions of the CWRIC report. The it exists in later volumes today after the commission originally withdrew it after admitting how ridiculous it is only serves to continue to undermine the credibilty of the Commission on Wartime Internment and Relocation of Civilians.
4. Yes, I've read the Munson report. My point is Munson was not an intelligence professional and his report was more opinion than evidence and he certainly had no knowledge of MAGIC or for that matter MIS or ONI intelligence. Yet, today the reparations activists have put him on this pedistal as some sort of expert because they believe he supports their cause.
5. Not only was there a pre-exisitng effort by the F.B.I. there was success. As Ringle states in his report the concern wasn't just for those who were already involved in espianage, it was those who would be predisposed to do so if the opportunity arose -as exemplified in the Nihau Incident immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the behavior of ethnic Japanese in colonies invaded by Japan, especially in the Philippines.
Reparations activists like to point out that J. Edgar Hoover didn't support evacuation. Actually, Hoover waffled on the issue, but his San Diego and Seattle offices were fully in support of the evacuation. The Portland and Los Angeles FBI field offices leaned heavily in support. Hoover wanted to ensure the Dept. of Justice played a role in security and he knew that the evacuation would diminish that role. Intelligence officials also knew that civil cases would leak intelligence related to the war effort.
Lastly, MAGIC intelligence failed to provide names and addresses of ethnic Japanese in the United States who were assisting Japan. The government knew all Japanese were not involved but that didn't reduce the threat of espionage.
Lastly I would question the oopen mindedness of an author who titles his book "America's Concentration Camps". Do you think the author is capable of providing the 100% truth regarding this history or do you think there is a bias?
I would urge you to read the Lowman book and check out "Internment Archives" to balance your sources.
I was aghast at the content in this article before I contributed and the sources as well. They are all pro reparataions the members of which have dug themselves in a hole so deep that it will be difficult to climb out with their reputations intact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to be in the middle of some pretty serious editing by a few different users. I am a relatively new user and don't feel qualified to intervene for fear of doing more harm than good, but after perusing some of the pertinent wikipages on the subject, I believe several edits could be tagged as vandalism, blatant non-NPOV, and disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I'd appreciate someone more knowledgable about these situations taking a look. -- Ogthor 08:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The editing is reflective of the controversy surrounding this history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs)
Vandalism? What's your definition of vandalism? From my perspective this entire was "vandalism" before the recent changes. I challenge you to find any historical inaccuracy in the added material. This article has been stalked by the reparations activists for too long and if Wikipedia intends on being taken seriously it needs to be a lot more honest and objective and that includes the new content so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 15 July 2006
Nonsense? According to who, Phideaux? You? I challenge you to point out one historical inaccuracy in my added content. Go visit the JACL website if you want some twisted history. Wikipedia is supposed to be about 100% accuracy and suffice to say this article in its past form was far from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 12:26 15 July 2006
So let's get serious about editing.
Here's an example of some blatantly wrong history in this article. Where is the outcry for citations? Is not surprising the criticism is totally one-sided? Well not for me because I know how the reparations activists tick.
"During the war, an appeal contesting the government's authority to intern people based on their ancestry reached the Supreme Court, but the court upheld the government's right to intern."
Wrong. Blatantly flat out wrong. The Supreme Court Decisions upheld the government's right to evacuate from the military zones. They had nothing to do with the Relocation Centers and even less to do with the DOJ internment program.
Obviously providing people with blatantly incorrect information isn't an issue here, though. You people are too concerned with signing posts, pov forks and my Tom Kawakita edit that was removed!!! What a joke.
Regards - History Student-- History Student 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's clarify which specific court decisions are at issue. I'm quoting from the relevant Wiki articles.
The article is poorly worded at best on this point.
In paragraph 2 of Korematsu [7], Justice Black writes:
It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.
Can we reword something like this:
I see this as a two-fer. First, it corrects the original sentence. Second, it inserts the military-necessity controversy in the introduction in a concise manner. (Please note that I would prefer to keep the intro at 2 paragraphs; 3 maximum.) Suggestions are welcome. -- ishu 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You know what, Justasecond? My IP is no longer banned so perhaps my civlility level has increased just a notch. You may also notice I have yet to commit a blanket edit of the article no matter how poorly written it is.
Discussion of the cases should include quotes from the opinions. I provided concurring quotes from the opinions for Hirabayashi and Korematsu. Let the reparations folks provide dissenting opinion quotes from Justice Murphy. As long as the reader knows which are dissenting and wich are concurring. All to often I read Murphey's opinion on pro-repartions sites with no explanation that his opinion went down 6-3.
See, I even learned to sign my posts.
Regards, History Student-- History Student 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree but a non pov summary should be abvailable in the lead section for those who only read the lead section. -- History Student 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does. I don't know why you think things are so great. The crappy pov version of this article is still locked on the site. I believe Ishu is being civil but he also has a pov that he wishes to promote. -- History Student 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
First off, I'd like to thank History Student for presenting an alternative to the text I proposed. While this process is slow, it is collaborative. I hope that we can continue this way, more or less. I'd like to emphasize here that we're discussing a few sentences for placement in the lead section.
At 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC), History Student wrote:
Please remember that we're dealing with the lead section, which should deal briefly with the main issues. So it has to touch on a lot of stuff in a little space. Let's start with the first sentence above, since HS wants to leave out the espionage discussion in the second sentence. If you read Korematsu, you will find that the key language used in the proposed text mirrors the actual language of the majority decision. I'd rather not post pages of dueling quotations, but paragraph 2 of Korematsu lays out the issues quite clearly:
The first sentence of the proposed edit mirrors the court's actual language. If we want to be more expansive, we can change exclusion to exclusion, removal, and detention. Detention is threaded throughout Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Endo. Not only did the court use the word detention extensively, but it also supported detention as an outgrowth of EO9066 and its offshoots. HS objects to the use of racial group but the Court saw this in those terms. In fact, Japanese was considered to be a distinct "racial group" back then by some. Either way, the treatment of Japanese Americans was the issue in these cases, and the court explicitly referred to the cases as treatment of a racial group. Nobody ever suggested including Chinese or other groups we now call "Asian" in EO9066 etc. When referring to the cases, I'm trying to adhere to the language of the decisions as much as possible.
HS proposes the following alternative:
First off, I see nothing factually wrong with this copy. I oppose quoting the decision because I think it's not necessary to go into that much detail--in the lead section. I think it's enough--for the lead section--to say that the Supreme Court declared it's legal and constitutional. That's why I'm proposing the language "curtail civil rights" and "pressing public necessity," since it is general enough for the lead section, but provides the basic logic that supported exclusion, removal, and detention. Since the decision itself was never overturned, there's no reason to state that it's still valid--in the lead section. I also think that the Court upheld the legality/constitutionality of the event in the several decisions we have discussed, so it's better not to specify any particular decision--in the lead section. I think we do not need to decide now how to interpret the coram nobis decisions, and I would prefer not to mention it directly in the lead section because they do not affect the legal legitimacy of the event as there has been no change to the legal status of the decisions.
Let me propose the following revision of the second sentence:
I favor inclusion of the second sentence because:
HS may not like it, but this issue is controversial: one group of people believes strongly that this event was driven by a legitimate threat of espionage/sabotage, and another group of people believes just as strongly that it was not motivated by a legitimate threat. I suspect that a large majority of people doesn't know what to believe, or doesn't care, if that matters at all. I have not opposed discussion of the controversy in the body of the article--including HS's take on it.
A while back, I indicated that, although we do know there were reports of espionage--i.e., there was a threat, we do not know the extent to which these reports contributed to decisions regarding EO9066 and its offshoots. To restate, I am not saying there was "no legitimate threat," only that I can't conclude that the threats did or did not justify the magnitude of the response. I have not reviewed the documents, books, and articles that contest this issue one way or the other. From browsing this talk page, there are some timeline issues that have been raised. I have some responses to other comments, but I wanted to focus on the bigger issues with respect to the proposed text.
Finally, I think that the lead section should mention the security concerns, including the existence of reports of espionage--again, without going into too much detail. I'd like to agree on this one passage about the court decisions before we go on to another issue. (Please recall that I selected the court decisions issue because HS correctly pointed out this particular factual error.) -- ishu 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
"Some Japanese Americans did become less loyal to the United States after the government removed them and their families from their homes and held them in internment camps, although such cases were isolated incidents and did not reflect the larger sentiment of the Japanese-American people who remained loyal to the United States."
Where is the evidence for this? Justforasecond 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Good question! That's another example of the pro-reparations pov infecting this article that has no sources. Even though it's wrong I left it in the re-edit in the interests of fairness. So much for that idea....
Now if you want a citeable comment you can say, "More Japanese Americans petitioned for repatriation to Japan than served in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, according to the WRA report "An Evacuated People", published in 1946." It's a historical fact and the numbers prove it.
My added material was cited and these activist types who hijacked the article are blowing smoke...
The 442nd War Memorial in Little Tokyo had just over 16,000 names and they're sticking as many on it as possbible. No the govt didn't know, time was short and they had to take action. That was the opinion of the prevailing decision of the Supreme Court in Korematsu that I added and was subequently deleted. Should the govt have let these "anomolies" run willy nilly all over the country? Should the govt just crossed their fingers and hoped all the "anomolies" on the west coast were taken care of?
If you had read my contributions, including the interview with Karl Bendetsen that I cited and is available at the Truman Library, you would know the govt seized no property and that is myth. Of course the pro-reparations pov guy added, "that's a lie", naturally without providing a source. What intellect!
And many more chose to leave for Japan as I pointed out and I lived in Tokyo when the the U.S. govt was running around looking for these people to give them $20,000 and an apology. The Japanese press had a field day!
The ethnic Japanese movement is made up preodominately of 60s era baby boomers who if they did experience the camps were very young. That they did experience the camps isn't an open invitation for them to promote a dishonest, agenda driven history to force down the throats of others. They're cherry picking the history to manipulate a certain response from a largely apathetic public.
If we are going to document this history it needs to be warts and all on all sides. That means Japanese Americans need to start confronting some of the darker chapters of their own history.
If WIkipedia is an example, they're obviously not there yet.
P.S. I civilly responded to comments regarding a re-editing of the piece and it's above. After which the pro-reparations pov was returned and locked, which is a load of crap.
That's not true. Roosevelt signed EO 9066 on February 19th and the first mandatory evacuation wasn't until March 26th. There was no order that those relocated had to sell their property and many didn't. "Allowed to keep much less property than soldiers or prisoners"??? What are you talking about? This is a perfect example of pro-repartions pov with no citations and entirely historically inaccurate.
Agreed, it is somewhat disorganized in terms of style but at least the content I added is accurate and cited. I will get around to replacing the capitols with italics. I had intended to clean up my contributions before the article was locked out with the pro-reparations pov article.
We are now back to tit for tat between the pro-reparations pov article and the article with my additions. I am willing to offer a truce as long as balance is brought to this article, all side are represented.
Oh yes they are, The "Civil Liberties Public Education Fund" still receives millions in taxpayer dollars annually.
Check out the surnames of the the board and tell me they're not biased. You think they're going to provide money to scholars with opinions equal to mine? Ha!
http://www.momomedia.com/CLPEF/backgrnd.html#board
The Japanese American Reparations Movement is big business.
I have a login. It's "History Student". I only login when I have to. I'm new to Wikipedia but learning fast.
FDR was the biggest lib of his time which is pretty funny considering today's far left who have vilified him are also big time libs. If "racism" played a large part why didn't the government in definately detain all ethnic Japanese and not just remove them from the West Coast Military Zones? Why not detain all Asian people? You may recall the Chinese and Filipinos were our allies at the time. Most of what you see or read today is a product of the "Civil Liberties Public Education Fund" that finances biased one-sided bad history with American taxpayer dollars. That's what happens when ethnic activist groups start lobbying politicians to re-write history. Who needs scholars?
ANSWERS TO JUSTFORASECOND:
It was decided it was logistically impossible. That doesn't mean it wasn't considered. Besides Hawaii was under military marital law at the time. Read John Stephan's "Hawaii Under the Rising Sun".
The West Coast because was the first line of defense and an area with ample miltitary and industrial infrastructre, not to mention where the vast majority of ethnic Japanese were located. It was only the West Coast that was desiganted a military zone however and the only area in which the military had the authority to do so. Perhaps the entire country should have been a miltiary zone or been under marital law. It would have been an unneccesary burden and the Supreme Court dealt with it.
As Justice Stone said in Hirabayashi:
“THE ALTERNATIVE WHICH APPELLANT INSISTS MUST BE ACCEPTED IS FOR THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES TO IMPOSE THE CURFEW ON ALL CITIZENS WITHIN THE MILITARY AREA, OR ON NONE. IN A CASE OF THREATENED DANGER REQUIRING PROMPT ACTION, IT IS A CHOICE BETWEEN INFLICTING OBVIOUSLY NEEDLESS HARDSHIP ON THE MANY, OR SITTING PASSIVE AND UNRESISTING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THREAT. WE THINK THAT CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, IN TIME OF WAR, IS NOT SO POWERLESS AND DOES NOT COMPEL SO HARD A CHOICE IF THOSE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE HAVE REASONABLE GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT THE THREAT IS REAL.”
Chief Justice Stone Hirabayashi vs. United States
Still good law to this day.
Taxpayer funding didn't start until 1988 when the money bill was signed by Pres. Reagan (against the advice of his own Dept. of Justice).
Ripped off by who? 1940 saw the largest peacetime draft in American history. Were they "ripped off", too? The government didn't rip off anybody. The vast majority of families were not Japanese-American, they were Japanese and after Pearl Harbor they were enemy aliens - treated a heck of a lot better than American enemy aliens in Japan or countries invaded by Japan.
The Nihhau involved Japanese Americans and a Japanese national. Every country invaded by Japan found ethnic Japanese who had colonized as long as those on the West Coast welcoming the invaders with open arms.
Reagarding your last comment, Japan was fighting the racial holy war, not America. That includes many ethnic Japanese living outside Japan.
This article also needs a background on the Japanese "Language Schools" and their use at indoctrinating young Japanese Americans. A couple quotes from reputable sources:
"By the eve of all-out war with China, Japanese Public schools, under orders from the Ministry of Education, were inculcating Shinto mythology as if it were historical fact: emporer ideology had become fused with anti-western sentiment: and a coceptual ground had been prepared for the transformation of Hirohito into a benevolent pan-Asian monarch defending not only Japan, but all of Asia from Western encroachment."
-Bix, Hirohito, Making of Modern Japan p. 283
"The Japanese Ministry of Education was controlled by the militarists who, "To deliver the lectures and teach new courses, they enlisted specialists in Japanese racial thought, academic opponents of liberalism and advocates of Nazi theories of law".
-Masuda Tomoko, "Tenno kikansetsu haigeki jiken to kokutai meicho undo" p. 173
Justasecond, have you ever studied the kokutai? Hakko Ichiu? Any reading of Kokutai no Hongi? Shimin to Michi? The role of Nichiren Buddhism and Japanese "Language Schools" in teaching these doctines of Japanese racial superiorty to ethnic Japanese colonies throughout the word prior to Pearl Harbor?
This is history is a heck of a lot more complex than this biased crappy little article up on Wikipedia.
Given the past edits and actions of everyone involved, it is a near certainty that any substantial editing of the article will only lead to a revert war. I think it would be better to take down the article completely, and, if we agree, we can create protected subpages, one with the current version, and one with User:History Student's most recent edit as of this timestamp. -- ishu 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, you're real big on "protecting" your agenda as history you want to promote, Tom.
I agree with Ishu. Take it down until the matter is resolved otherwise you're just feeding impressionable minds bad and factually incorrect history.
Any re-edits are going to be changed and blocked by "Tom" and I'll return to being a Wikipedia rebel.
-- History Student 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a load of crap, Tom. Don't accuse me of trolling, either. Your complaints of policy violation are a smoke screen. You abused your admin privilige by locking the crappy article and attempting to ban me. Your admin privilige should be revoked.
-- History Student 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
(UTC)
I'll tone it down when you guys get serious. Stop convoluting. Stop the strawmen. Stop reaching conclusions based on opinion. I'm surprised at your recent posts, justasecond.
-- History Student 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Tom , show me the contributions I provided to the article you removed that are not cited. I asked you before and you failed to respond. Secondly, where is your concern regarding the uncitable and factually incorrect content in the article you returend and locked? What a hypocrite!
As for format, the style of my rewrite could be changed to make it easier to read. I acknowledged that and intend to do so. The content is spot on.
-- History Student 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute. The locked article contains refs from 1. Michi Weglyn 2. Peter Irons and 3. Personal Justice Denied. Is that your definition of unbiased non pov history?
Where are the citations for comments such as, "During the war, an appeal contesting the government's authority to intern people based on their ancestry reached the Supreme Court, but the court upheld the government's right to intern."
Where's the citations for, "Historical references describe the camps as internment camps, although others favor the name relocation camps."
Not to mention that both comments are blatantly wrong. I at least add an "according to" and cite the source in my material.
You're a hypocrite.
-- History Student 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No, Tom. I cited sources. Go read the "Evacuation" article. We're going around in circles which I suspect is your strategy with the hope I will eventually go away....
I've also pointed out two weak spots in your article, Tom. I can point out more specifics. Please point out the contributions provide by me that fit your definition of "weak". I'll not hold my breath, but it sure points to your not very clandestine biasness towards this subject. You can sound as "professional and civil" as you like. Your actions speak louder than your posts.
Reagarding Wikipedia policy I find the lot of you to be sanctimonious bores.
Regarding this history I see a lot of deliberate dishonesty here. Lip service, obfuscation, deliberate convolution and no substantial improvement to the locked article posing as history. That's about it.
Maybe it's time for a Wikipedia revolution. -- History Student 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The support section seems to have a lot of unsupportive statements. For instance, the Earl Warren quote is:
I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens. Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken.
The statement in the "criticism" section is...also unsupportive.
The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066....
Seems unbalanced to me.
Justforasecond 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
...and few meaningful changes to the article. You've still got a biased, unprofessional piece of bad history here and I have been using it as an example of such.
-- History Student 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Bold text
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This archive contains topics discussed during a protracted edit war on the page. A digest of this page has been created.
This article suffers from multiple confusions and inaccuracies, both semantic and organizational, which raise questions about its objectivity:
Americans of Japanese ethnicity certainly suffered serious disruption of their lives during World War II. And so did most Americans, including over 10 million men who were drafted for military service. Almost 300,000 suffered the most serious disruption – loss of their lives. It was a time such as we no longer remember, today. Topnife 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)Eric Muller is financed by the California Civil Liberties Public Education Fund. Any work provided by him should include his source of financing as pro-reparations pov.
http://www.library.ca.gov/cclpep/recipients2004.cfm
California Civil Liberties Public Education Program Announces Grant Recipients for Fiscal Year 1999-2000
Dr. Eric L. Muller Chapel Hill, North Carolina
"LOYAL PROTEST: JAPANESE AMERICAN DRAFT RESISTERS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS"
This project has two related components: (1) the completion of a book chronicling the experience of the Nisei draft resisters of World War II and their encounters with the federal criminal justice system, and (2) a public lecture tour in California to share the results of the research on the Nisei draft resisters with interested organizations and groups in California.
Fiscal Year 2003-2004 CCLPEP GRANT RECIPIENTS
Eric Muller University of North Carolina School of Law Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Project Name: Judgments Judged and Wrongs Remembered: Examining the Japanese American Civil Liberties Cases of World War II on Their 60th Anniversary
This project is a conference to be held at the Japanese American National Museum commemorating the 60 th anniversary of the various legal cases on Japanese American civil liberties from World War II.
-- History Student 03:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
My original criticisms were addressed to the issue of confusing semantics and logic in the article, which raise questions of objectivity. The above response does not serve to alter my observation. It appears to re-interpret the facts, to reach a pre-conceived conclusion. I do not defend the internment/relocation; I’m just trying to understand it, and I’m trying to keep my discussion here objective and factual, as well.
Concentration camp The dictionary definition of a “camp where persons are imprisoned under harsh conditions” is factually consistent with the actuality of the relocation camps, although many were able to move out of the camps during the war, and were not "imprisoned". Roosevelt used the term in the dictionary sense, long before it had acquired new meaning by association with Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and their attendant horrors. It is difficult to believe that Holocaust survivors would equate the relocation camps with the Nazi “concentration camps”, where the prisoners were subject to torture, starvation, and wholesale murder. I continue to assert that the article suffers from serious semantic confusion.
MAGIC cables “discredited” The MAGIC cables were an extremely valuable intelligence resource throughout the war, as cited by numerous authorities, including Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy. One has only to read the MAGIC cables, to verify for oneself, the fact that Japan diligently sought to recruit sympathetic Americans for the purpose of espionage (as would only reasonably be expected). Lt Col Hertzig was probably not consulted by any of the decision-makers such as Secretary of War Stimson, or President Roosevelt, regarding the veracity or value of the MAGIC cables (a Lt Colonel is ranked just slightly above a janitor in the Pentagon). On the other hand, he and his Nisei spouse, Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga, were obsessively involved in the pursuit of reparations, 40 years later – hardly a validation of objectivity.
Niihau incident a “joke” This incident, in which a Japanese fighter pilot from the Pearl Harbor attack crash-landed on Niihau, was certainly no joke to those terrorized by the pilot and and assisted by locally resident Nisei accomplices, Yoshio and Irene Hirada. Ultimately, a Native Hawaiian citizen was shot 3 times by the pilot, and then counterattacked and killed him. Harada, who knew of the Pearl Harbor attack, nevertheless treasonously assisted the pilot, and subsequently committed suicide. This was the first test of loyalty for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, and unfortunately for many others, the Hiradas did not pass the test.
Shelling of the Coast The shelling, while it produced little damage, produced the hysteria which led to the “Battle of Los Angeles”, two days later. The article states that the shelling incident was disproven, which is factually incorrect.
Martial Law in Hawaii was a fact, and it means suspension of civil rights for all citizens, unlike on the mainland. Americans of Japanese descent who lived outside the west coast exclusion zone were not affected by the relocation orders, and completely retained their civil rights. One has to wonder, if racism was the motive, why all Americans of Japanese descent were not affected.
Denial of citizenship to long-term resident aliens of Japanese origin was a racially motivated injustice, without any doubt. At the time of WWII, racial bigotry was also inexcusably common and socially accepted (e.g., reference to “Japs” by national politicians then), unlike today. Decision-makers of that era, including Roosevelt, were operating on their database of racial attitudes, which we do not share today. America has grown, and deserves its self-respect (my opinion).
Invalid Comparison with draft. My allusion was probably inappropriate to the issue. However, speaking as one who was drafted, I can factually state that one is not given any choice, that one is forcibly relocated, and one cannot voluntarily leave (except by being wounded or killed). However, the food is worse, and the bathing facilities often non-existent.
I understand the purpose of Wikipedia to be presentation of factual and hopefully, unbiased information, to allow users to reach their own conclusions. Let's pursue that objective.
References:
The Puzzle Palace : Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization by James Bamford ISBN: 0140067485
Niihau Incident by Allan Beekman ISBN: 0960913203
Respectfully, Topnife 00:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)I like your sense of humor ("Shane"), and your style! However, I said I was on a quest for real knowledge, not that I already had it. I started this Talk with the intent to offer suggestions on how the topic could be made less confusing. I don't feel qualified to edit it myself, or I would have. But since you asked:
I spent a few months "imprisoned" needlessly on Guam, TAD orders by the US Navy, after the fall of Saigon. I experienced just a faint and brief version of what my fellow Americans of Japanese ethnicity endured during WWII - no barbed wire, no guards, and no way to get out of there to my home and family. I can only try to empathize in a small way with what happened, and how frustrating and infuriating it must have been. I also assert that, in time of war, the government's primary responsibility is to ensure our survival, individually and as a nation; that we all have to make sacrifices, sometimes including our temporary freedom, and sometimes our lives; and that our decisions made in terror and haste may later be regretted in leisure and comfort - but only if we survive.
I'm sorry, but I don't choose to debate further. The response to my last post just makes my case for NPOV:
Let's all get over it. I'm gone. Topnife 02:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Now I see where 207.207.79.202 is coming from. Using the MAGIC cables again makes it clear. Revisionist history is being added to this article once again. I'll leave it to others to remove it. So far, this particular Wikipedia article is a big waste of time because it's constantly going back and forth between the truth and what revisionists want everyone to believe. Gmatsuda 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What a load of reparations activist crapola! So pathetic. Let's break it down piece by piece.
1. It's nice to again see that fable about the Japanese submarine attack on the oil refinery --
Answer: Dec 7, 1941. On its way to the US west coast, I-26 tracks a US freighter. Precisely at 8:00 a.m., Dec 7, Pearl Harbor time, she surfaces and sinks Cynthia Olson with gunfire. Dec 15, 1941. Japanese submarine shelled Kahului, Maui, Hawaii.
Dec 20. Unarmed US tanker sunk by Japanese submarine I-17 off Cape Mendocino, California. 31 survivors rescued by Coast Guard from Blunt's Reef Lightship.
Dec 20. Unarmed US tanker shelled by Japanese submarine I-23 of the coast of California
Dec 22. Unarmed U.S. tanker sunk by Japanese submarine I-21 about four miles south of Piedras Blancas light, California, I-21 machine-guns the lifeboats, but inflicts no casualties. I-21 later shells unarmed U.S. tanker Idaho near the same location.
Dec 23. Japanese submarine I-17 shells unarmed tanker southwest of Cape Mendocino, California.
Dec 27. Unarmed US tanker shelled by Japanese submarine I-23 10 miles from mouth of Columbia River.
Dec 30, 1941. Submarine I-1 shells, Hilo, Hawaii.
Dec 31, 1941. Submarines shell Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii.
Feb 23, 1942. I-17, shelled Ellwood oil refinery at Geleta on the Californian coast. The skipper had fueled there many times before the war.
June 20, 1942, the radio station on Estevan Point, Vancouver Island was fired on by a Japanese submarine I-26.
June 21. I-25 shells Fort Stevens, Oregon.
Sept 9 . Phosphorus bombs were dropped on Mt. Emily, ten miles northeast of Brookings, Oregon, to start forest fires. A Yokosuka E14Y1 "Glen" reconnaissance seaplane piloted by Lt. Nubuo Fujita was been seen catapulted from submarine I-25.
Sep 29. Phosphorus bombings were repeated on the southern coast of Oregon.
2. where are the CONVICTIONS of all of those supposed spies referred to in the MAGIC report?
Answer: There were no convictions but not because there was no espionage. Those suspected were simply sent to internment -- not relocation -- camps. For example, in Hawaii, three Japanese Americans on Niihau aided a downed Imperial Navy aviator to the point where they attempted to kill some of their Hawaiian neighbors. One of the Japanese was killed in a struggle and the other two surrendered to authorities. (This "Niihau Incident" is considered the trigger that largely justified the relocation order.)
In another case, AJA Richard Kotoshirodo actively aided Japanese spies keeping track of ship movements in Pearl Harbor. Until martial law, however, watching ships from public property was not a crime. Another AJA was shot in Kaneohe when he fled after being discovered signaling a Japanese submarine.
Removing those arrested for espionage solved the immeidiate problem and ensured sensitive intelligence would not be revealed in the courts.
3. The primary basis for the internment was bigotry against all Asians, not merely those of Japanese descent.
Answer: Totally untrue. The basis for the evacuation was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The San Jose police archives reveal the majority of attacks on ethnic Japanese in the area were committed by ethnic Filipinos and some cases involving Chinese.
4. The supposed MAGIC translations proving Nikkei espionage don't seem to show up on the lists of MAGIC translations.
Answer: What are you talking about? http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00416&search_id=&pagenum=7
5. If it was an "evacuation" rather than "internment," then why were the "evacuees" kept behind barbed wire and subject to being shot for approaching the fence? How can you "attempt escape" if you aren't a prisoner?
Answer: It was three strand cattle wire that was routinely crossed. If you want to read the details on how people got shot, read them here....
http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00073&search_id=16288
6. The only revisionism is by the people who are trying to cover up an atrocity against thousands of American citizens. Consider that a far greater percentage of Nisei fought in the war than any other group of Americans. Over 1,000 from one camp of 10,000 population -- where is there another American "town" where one in ten of the total population went to fight?
Answer: The vast majority of adult were not American citizens, they were Japanese citizens and after Pearl Harbor they were Enemy Aliens. Even their American born kids, the vast majority held dual citizenship.
You've got to be kidding. What a myth of ridiculous proportions!
More nisei chose to sit out the war or openly support the enemy than fight for America.
Selective Service Special Monograph Number 10 which was published after the war (1953) is a source. This publication covered "Special Groups" who served during WWII and Chapter IX was titled "Japanese Americans." In that chapter on page 122 was the following statement:
"In the continental United States, fewer than 1500 Japanese Americans volunteered although there were 19,000 citizens of military age within the War Relocation Authority Centers and approximately 4,000 outside the centers."
That would be a total of 23,000 of whom only 7% (1500)volunteered.
On the other hand, the WRA publication "The Evacuated People" (1946) mentions only 1208 volunteers from the ten relocation centers (of whom only 805 were actually selected to serve) plus "several hundred" voluteers from outside the centers. Estimating a total of about 1100 (805 plus an estimated 300 from outside the centers) out of a total 23,000 of military age, comes to 5%.
The nisei war memorial in Los Angeles only has about 16,000 names on it and you know they sticking as many names as possible on it regardless of if they served or not.
The whole "most decorated unit" myth came about after Bill Clinton, motivated by legislation from Sen Akaka of Hawaii started handing out medal upgrades like candy canes against the advice of the Pentagan many years and miles away from the battlefied in complete defiance of American Military Tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.168.93.35 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 July 2006
I have placed Template:noncompliant atop this article per Wikipedia policy, specifically:
Given the controversial nature of this topic, the entire article needs to use citations as often as possible, preferably after vetting on Talk:Japanese American internment . Notably, the unregistered users are significantly ahead in citing sources. While User:Gmatsuda and others dispute the authority of these sources, they are not as effective at referencing sources to back up their edits and disputes. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am uncomfortable with the edits by the unregistered users, and I am not thoroughly convinced as to their relevance. However, the unregistered users have eliminated some obviously POV ("pro-reparations" in their view) copy on the page--even as they have added POV elsewhere. Finally, as I have noted elsewhere on this talk page, these disputes are not new to this article. The disputes will not go away, and they will not be resolved unless we--collectively--are able to produce an article that adheres to Wikipedia standards. [One last comment: I considered reverting to a previous version before adding the template, since it is just as applicable to earlier revisions. I decided to use the most recent version, which just happens to be the version preferred by the unregistered users. I encourage everyone to retain the template in edits until these disputes are resolved. -- ishu 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I for one find the newest version of this article regreshing because I learned some new history regarding this subject rather than just being force fed the same old line that we read in the newspapers, at school, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by History Student ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 July 2006
I added Prof John Stephan as a source in the Hawaii and included an AP article describing conditions at Japanese camps for repatriated Japanese Americans. I also add information on "Tom" Kawakita at the link near the end of the article.
Most of my sources are cited directly after my additions with an "according to" or such.
I have many of the books ishu has mentioned and can comment further on them. One not mentioned that is worth reading is David Kahn's "The Code Breakers".
Other books important to a full understanding of the history but not specifically related to MAGIC include "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert Bix, decribes the rise of Japanese Ultra Nationalism during the Showa Era which I believe needs to be discussed in the history of the Evacuation.
"Soldiers of the Sun" by Meirion and Susie Harris describes the history of Japan's use of total intelligence from the Meiji Era through WW2 and is also a good read to understand the intelligence threats posed by Japan and ethnic Japanese in her colonies and elsewhere.
"Japan's Longest Day" desribes the conditions for Japanese Americans working at translators at Imperial Army Headquarters in Ichigaya, Tokyo towards the end of the war.
"The Niihau Incident" by Beekman decribes Japanese American Harada assisting a down Japanese pilot after Pearl Harbor. Beekman was a writer to the JACL's "Pacific Citizen".
Just a few. I'll add more later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 16 July 2006
1.The opening phrase of the article, "The Japanese American Internment is a misnomer..." is inappropriate in my opinion,
Answer: Regardless of your feeling it is inapproproate, it is entirely true. We need to reverse some of the bad history regarding the evacuation and that included getting the definitions correct. The evacuation was not the internment.
2. The large image at the top of the article. While I understand the point being made, placing this image at the top of the article gives a certain slant to the "first glance" of the article which I feel is disingenuous. I suggest keeping this image, but moving it to a different place within the article.
Answer: The entire article gave a certain slant before it was re-edited. I suggest no image on the top then. And more images that reflect the reality of the centers within the article.
3.I'd like to see a mention of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2525, 2526, and 2527 sooner in the article. Any comments as to the appropriateness of this suggestion?
Answer: Sounds good. We also need to add the congress immediately passed Public Law 503 by a wide majority to back up EO 9066.
4. The introduction area also contains sections which I feel are more appropriate to the "Terminology debate" section, "Legal legacy" section, and "Compensation and reparations" section. The paragraphs to which I refer should be easily identifiable.
Answer: No, I think a summary at the beginning is important for those who choose to stop reading before the end of the article.
5. In the "Terminology debate" section, there is a paragraph which attempts to describe the camps in an effort to clarify the usage of terms. Would it perhaps be appropriate to mention the average length of time individuals stayed in these camps, and also whether they remained voluntarily or involuntarily?
Answer: That information is available in the WRA's "An Evacuated People" 1946. You will find people were coming and going into the camps in great numbers, harldy and "incarceration".
6. In the History section, the "shelling of a California oil refinery" incident needs to have a citiation. In addition, there has been some dispute on these pages regarding whether this incident was in fact the result of a Japanese submarine; if it was perceived as an attack at the time, then perhaps that ought to be clarified within the article?
Answer: Of course it was. I will provide a breakout of every incident and cite a source.
7. I suggest that until MAGIC's contributions are fully explained and cited, they be removed from the article.
Answer: No way! Any article on the evacuation must include the MAGIC intercepts.
8. "...caught up the Japanese Ultra Nationalism of the era." The use of weasel words and lack of adequate citation in this portion of the "History" section should be remedied."
Answer: Calling anything you disagree with "weasel words" is a problem. You want me to cite sources for the Japanese Ultra Nationalism the existed I can do it. The comment is 100% historically correct. Perhaps that Tule Photo needs to stay at the top of the article after all....
9. "However it should be noted that the vast majority of ethnic Japanese at the time were not American citizens..."
Answer: I believe it says the vast majorty of ethnic Japanese ADULTS at the time... If it doesn't say this it is a typo and should be corrected.
10. More generally, the "History" section needs to be cleaned up.
Answer: Agreed there are sections that need to be cleaned up and the history section is short. It needs to be lenghted to include Japan's history of total intelligence, the Japanese "Language Schools", the Patriotic Societies, etc...
11. The AP release within the "Internment results" section should probably be moved to the "Conditions in the Camps" section.
Answer: No, that needs to be included in the sections discussing repatriates who demanded to return to Japan.
12. "If the the authorities could have evacuated all ethnic Japanese from Hawaii they would have. They could not so they did not." This statement from the "Hawaii" section is strangely phrased.
Answer: Regardless of the style it is also 100% accurate.
13. "However, the records of the time and the personal histories of those involved (on both sides of the issue) prove that many of these claims are either distorted or simply untrue. The problems with this excerpt are obvious. The short sentence found immediately after this paragraph is also in need of citation.
Answer: Yea, there's a problem. The writer adds at the end, "that's untrue". I cited the location of the Bendetsen interview at the Truman Presidential Library. Visit the website and do a search. As for "presumabley"...well visit the site and you will know.
14. Warren's quote surfaced after his death however, is contrary to his opinions well known before his death and are not considered credible given the circumstances in which is what revealed." This paragraph from the "Support for the internment, then and now" section is awkwardly worded and needs citation.
Answer: Easy to cite. I will fix it.
15. "The "newly discovered evidence" that commission "researcher" Aiko Herzig "found" that was used in the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980's is a Ringle memo the pro-reparations lawyers submit to the court as exhibit "D" MINUS THE FEBRUARY 14, 1942 ONI COVER MEMO FROM RINGLE'S BOSS, H.E. KEISKER STATING "IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL AND OFFICAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT." The memo was also carbon copied for MID and two sections of the FBI. Thus, the memo was an unofficial document haveing no status whatsoever was not concealed, but on the contrary given wide distribution, did not represent the stated position of the ONI nor anyone else of any status in the military, and WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AN OFFICIAL ONI INTELLIGENCE REPORT AUTHORED BY LT. COMMANDER HIMSELF LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER. Thus the lawyers representing the Japanese American reparations movment submitted evidence in a federal court under false pre-tense." This excerpt is from the "Legal legacy" section and desperately needs to be cleaned up.
Answer: 100% true. I will replace the capitols with italics. Source is the Lowman book, which also has photos of the original documents including the Keisker cover letter the reparations lawyers did not include with the Ringle report. I will provide more detail for those who find it difficult to understand.
16. In addition to attempting to resolve existing issues within the article, I'd like to suggest that we refrain from further editing in the existing article pending discussion and resolution on this Talk page.
Answer: I plan on going back and citing sources, making some of my edits easier to read.
I still challenge any reader to show me any content I have added that is historically inaccurate.
-Regards
Yea, that's real cute tom.
I'll be back tomorrow.
This is such a load of crap. If "Tom" is in charge of editing suffice to say Wikipedia is not going to be taken seriously...
Your choice Wikipedia. I challenge "Tom" to dispute any content I have added,
Show us what's "unreferenced" Tom. I cited sources for my material and was in the process of doing so regarding the bogus Warren quote. You have totally abused your admin privilidge. My material was cited much more thoroughly than the pr-reparations POV material that you have locked on this site. You can't debate the history so you resort to this which is total reparations activist crap.
Unbiased article is now here:
"Internment" is a misnomer anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_Evacuation_of_1942
Now the POV reparations activists are attempting to delete the article under Japanese Evacuation. Pathetic.
You know what? You guys all say the same thing then you provide no examples. You like Tom's piece because it's what you want to believe... Any information no matter how citable that is contrary to your own opinion is dimissed as POV. What a joke.
What consensus can we derive from the following:
The fact that the Act and the orders are silent on detention does not of course mean that any power to detain is lacking. Some such power might indeed be necessary to the successful operation of the evacuation program. At least we may so assume. Moreover, we may assume for the purposes of this case that initial detention in Relocation Centers was authorized. But we stress the silence of the legislative history and of the Act and the Executive Orders on the power to detain to emphasize that any such authority which exists must be implied. If there is to be [323 U.S. 283, 302] the greatest possible accommodation of the liberties of the citizen with this war measure, any such implied power must be narrowly confined to the precise purpose of the evacuation program. ( para. 16)
If nothing else, this undercuts the claim that the Japanese Americans in the camps were "free to leave." Comments, anyone? -- ishu 18:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
First off the DOJ internment program was not the WRA Relocation program or the Evacuation program. If you're pulling your definitions from the dictionary that's great but they don't apply to this history.
The Supreme Court cases usually refer to Korematsu, Hirabayashi and Yasui although Endo is also a case. At any rate the intial comment "...but the court upheld the government's right to intern" is still wrong even if the writer was talking about Endo.
Now that we're getting into the semantics of "free to leave" or "incarcerated in concentration camps" this is a good opportunity to clarify.
The government made a rule that any person wishing to enter or leave a Relocation Center had to petition to do so. The reason for the petition was two-fold. One reason was to ensure the individual was not a security risk and was loyal to the United States. The second reason was to ensure the individual had to the means to support himeself outside the military zones. The WRA set up offices in the large cities outside the military zones to aid evacuees in finding employment and housing.
So if arrangements had not been made by March 25, 1942 to settle outside the military zones you were going to a Relocation Center. People started leaving the centers on June of 1942 (WRA An Evacuated People 1946).
You will also find in the Endo ruling (which provides a nice concise history of the evacuation if you read the entire thing)the reason why Mitsue Endo was not released sooner. It had nothing to do with the government questioning her loyalty. Endo had failed to provide the WRA with the proper paperwork when petitioning for her leave clearance.
The Endo case states: (Original copy is all capitals.)
THE PROGRAM OF THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY IS SAID TO HAVE THREE MAIN FEATURES: (1) THE MAINTENANCE OF RELOCATION CENTERS AS INTERIM PLACES OF RESIDENCE FOR EVACUEES; (2) THE SEGREGATION OF LOYAL FROM DISLOYAL EVACUEES; (3) THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF THE DISLOYAL AND SO FAR AS POSSIBLE THE RELOCATION OF THE LOYAL IN SELECTED COMMUNITIES. FN7 IN CONNECTION WITH THE LATTER PHASE OF ITS WORK THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED A PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING LEAVE FROM RELOCATION CENTERS. THAT PROCEDURE, SO FAR AS INDEFINITE LEAVE FN8 IS CONCERNED, PRESENTLY PROVIDES FN9 AS FOLLOWS:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE APPLICANT IS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING "THE PROBABLE EFFECT UPON THE WAR PROGRAM AND UPON THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SECURITY OF ISSUING INDEFINITE LEAVE" TO THE APPLICANT. FN10 THE GRANT OF LEAVE CLEARANCE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE DEPARTURE FROM THE RELOCATION CENTER. APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE MUST ALSO BE MADE. INDEFINITE LEAVE MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 14 SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. FN11 FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAY BE GRANTED (1) WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACCEPT AN EMPLOYMENT OFFER OR AN OFFER OF SUPPORT THAT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED AND APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY; OR (2) WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT INTEND TO WORK BUT HAS "ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF" AND A RELOCATION OFFICER HAS INVESTIGATED AND APPROVED "PUBLIC SENTIMENT AT HIS PROPOSED DESTINATION," OR (3) WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO LIVE AT A HOTEL OR IN A PRIVATE HOME APPROVED BY A RELOCATION OFFICER WHILE ARRANGING FOR EMPLOYMENT; OR (4) WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT BY A FEDERAL OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY; OR (5) WHERE THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO LIVE WITH DESIGNATED CLASSES OF RELATIVES.
Endo case also states:
MITSUYE ENDO MADE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE CLEARANCE ON FEBRUARY 19, 1943, AFTER THE PETITION WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT. LEAVE CLEARANCE FN15 WAS GRANTED HER ON AUGUST 16, 1943. BUT SHE MADE NO APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE. FN16
So that's why Endo wasn't released. She didn't petition for indefinate leave. It should also be noted that petitions for entry into a Relcoation Center were also required. Once an individual was granted leave the WRA wouldn't just let them return. They had to have a good reason for doing so.
Certainly the folks at Wikipedia can understand the importance of keeping a program orderly and adhering to the rules.
-Regards, History Student-- History Student 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Who said "any time"? Since when has the government done anything quickly? Ethnic Japanese had between February 19th and March 25, 1942 to evacuate on their own and thousands did so. If they had not by that time made arrangements to take care of themselves outside the military zones thay came under jurisdiction of the WRA. Welcome to government beauracracy.
You can see by this graph the consistency in which those who wanted to leave and petitioned to do so left. You can see that from late 1942 the graphs trend downward in all the camps except Tule Lake because Tule Lake became a segregation center for those known as disloyals because of the screening process.
http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00002&search_id=16354&pagenum=35
Considering there was a war going on and the WRA was also given the responsibility of seperating the loyal from the disloyal I'm surprised it only took six months for Endo. What was the average time from petitioning to leave and actually leaving a Relocation Center? That's a good question. Maybe it was more or less than Endo's experience. The point is the Relocation Centers were hardly what the reparations activists are portraying them to be and the reason Endo wasn't granted clearence is because she failed to petition. I don't think the average person knows that.
Check this out from the same report:
http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00002&search_id=16354&pagenum=38
...continued here...
http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00002&search_id=16354&pagenum=39
Look I'm not saying a lot of people weren't burdened. Everyone makes sacrifices in war. It sure doesn't gel with reparations talk of "racism, wartime hysteria and lack of political will", though. Where's the malice?
The government made the best of a bad situation to ensure the security of the nation as a whole in a time of war. I don't think the government was under any obligation to provide for the evacuees one they were moved outside the military zones. If ethnic Japanese had been dumped at the borders to fend for themselves, how would that have been discussed 64 years later?
-- History Student 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Something screwy happened so I am responding here in a new thread....
I realize they had to separate the "disloyal" from the "loyal", but it seems like six months is a long time to keep someone in custody without reasonable suspicion. It's not just the six months though -- all in all it took something like 18 months total (mar '42 to aug '43) to determine her loyalty. Yeah it was wartime and I'm sure the government had other things to do, but it just doesn't pass the "free to leave" smell test. To use an overused analogy: to capture guys on a battlefield in Afghanistan is one thing, but gathering all US citizens of Afghani origin and putting them in camps for 18 months while investigating loyalty would be another. BTW The graph you cite shows camp population, not the number of requests to leave. Justforasecond 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Justasecond, the United States Government drafted millions in the largest peactime draft in American history in 1940. Many didn't come home after being drafted and many more didn't come home until 1945 or without a limb. Were they "kept in custody" too? Were their "civil rights" violated? C'mon....
The American Government can take extraordinary steps in wartime which means the steps taken in 1942 may seem unorthadox to some people in 2006 even though we're supposed to be fighting an undeclared war on terror.
As mentioned before, the vast majority of adults were not U.S. citizens they were Enemy Aliens. The vast majority of kids were dual American and Japanese citizenship. You may think six months is a long time but given the amount of people, the fact the war was going on and the fact it was the first time the American government had to engage in an evacuation program of such magnitude I'd say it went pretty darn well. I don't know where you're getting the "free to leave smell test" thought. As I have said before those who left the military zones voluntarily before March 25 never even went to Relocation Centers. Others could petition to leave and thousands did leave the Relocation Centers. As I said above it wasn't about determining Endo's loyalty that kept her from getting released - it was about Endo not filing the proper paperwork. Of course the graph shows camp population. You will notice the camp population was decreasing after late 1942 until the end of the war and that's not because of gas chambers and ovens.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Please show me where I said "free to leave" and in what context I said. I don't recall saying it. People had to petition to leave and that took time. Thousands did so. -- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC),
ishu wrote:
Internment Camp should refer only to the DOJ camps that held Enemy Aliens and their families who were determined to be security risks. I believe the map in the article now shows these as "Justice Dept. U.S. Army or other facility". The Justice Dept. facilities are the internment camps.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Roosevelt and others loosely used the terms "concentration camp" early on before the camps were even built. That is the justification for the pov reparations activists to use the term today. Then Justice Black said in Korematsu that the term is not justified. I believe most people associate "concentration camps" to the barbarity of the Nazis. That's why the activists are attempting to associate it to the Relocation Centers.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Well then it's wrong. Here is an honest definition from Lowman's MAGIC
"Internment camps were run by the Department of Justice and held only enemy aliens who had been deemed security risks and their U.S. citizen family members who were allowed at their choice to stay with them. Internees included 10,995 Germans, 16, 849 Japanese (5,589 who voluntarily renounced U.S. citizenship and became enemy aliens), 3,278 Italians, 52 Hungarians, 25 Romanians, 5 Bulgarians, and 161 classified as “other”. Only a small fraction of enemy aliens were interned. Japanese citizens with families were sent to Crystal City, Texas and lived side-by-side with German and Italian families. Single men were sent to internment camps in other states. Not all enemy aliens were placed in internment camps, and no American citizen was forcefully placed in an internment camp. If you were interned it was determined that you, a spouse or parent was an enemy alien and a security risk."
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
That's a stretch. You can also say millions of Americans were forceably taken from their homes and placed in camps surrounded by fences and gaurds and made to wear green uniforms and run around all day before being shipped off to such exotic locals as New Guinea and Okinawa. Were they "interned" too?
Those in real Dept. of Justice internment camps were surrounded by real high wire fences with real security and very few were ever given an opportunity to petition to leave. Your idea is interesting, though. We need to refrain from lumping "relocation", "evacuation" and "internment" into just "internment". It just confuses the issue. Lately the term "detained" has become popular. Sounds accurate.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Okay, let's do so. Well the opposing argument is historically wrong, it's bad history and is intentionally meant to confuse the issue. -- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
How can you say it's beside the point? If Endo had submitted the proper paperwork she would have been cleared. Agreed the court said she should be released anyway, but the court is also saying the WRA agreed she was loyal. To me the court is chastising the WRA for being too beurocratic and that's about it.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:
Right! No one is denying that the court said she should be released. This is a summary of Endo. Endo failed to follow proper WRA procedure for release, Endo sued, the court said Endo doesn't have to follow proper WRA procedure.
If people learn that, it's a step in the right direction. Most people who even know Endo's name don't know the reason she wasn't released to begin with was because she didn't petition to leave.
Let me put it this way. The pro-reparations activists when citing Endo say to this extent, "The Supreme Court ruled on Ex-Parte Endo that the government had no power to detain a concedingly loyal citizen of the United States". This is true.
What they don't say is there was no disagreement over the fact Endo was loyal. Her failure to follow protocol in petitioning for clearence is the reason she wasn't released, not that the government had a policy of detaining concedingly loyal American citizens. That's a big clarification.
After all, thousands of other concedingly loyal ethnic Japanese followed the proper procedure and were released without incident.
For terms regarding Endo and those similar how about "temporarily detained". Heck, you could even say "temporary suspension of civil liberties" and it would be correct.
-- History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The term that best defines the overall experience is "Ethnic Japanese Evacuation of 1942". -- History Student 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is getting old. You guys are total pov posers attempting to masquerade as unbiased. I pointed out the historical facts and in response I am getting pov opinion and straw men. No, temporary leave isn't permanent leave. That should be pretty self-explanatory. The WRA had offices in major cities to aid in resettling and finding employment. Thousands did so. No, the government didn't want people unable to care for themselves begging in the street. Certain criteria needed to be met, ie the ability to support one's self. It didn't require millions and thousands of business hired them. The graph speaks for itself. I understand how hard it is for you to dispute and how convenient it is for you to say you read it wrong.
And from what source do you conclude the government wasn't trying hard enough to re-settle these people? Or is that once again just your opinion? You might also try to remember that we are currently not fighting WW2. They were removed from the coast because the military ordered it for reasons of security. I understand it's convenient for you to forget that.
-- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This entire discussion is degenerating into far-left reparations activist stupidy. I've seen it before and I'm losing patience.
Then you better start providing historical facts to support your opinions. Quite frankly you're blathering.
-- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Supreme Court said the WRA determined she was loyal so filing the paperwork isn't necessary. After the decision anyone who was determined by the WRA to be loyal could leave without petitioning. That's it! (This was a non-issue by 1944 because the vast majority who wanted to leave had already done so.)
Oh it did not! It ruled that Endo should be let go and that's it. -- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
She was free to leave under conditions like submitting the properwork. You guys brought up, the "free to leave" quote as a straw man. I have always maintained petition was necessary. At any rate if you want to discuss Endo you need to discuss why she wasn't released sooner. You also need to disucss Korematsu and Hirabayashi which deemed the evacuation constitutional.
No, not through the mail. Through the various administrative offices at each relocation center that provided information, job contacts and housing so they could leave and get on with their lives. You really don't know anything about the program if you're asking these kinds of questions. In which case what is your purpose? Why not have me edit the article then you can learn something.
-- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You guys are trying your hardest to explain away what happened and why because you have a pov that is pro-reparations. I'm getting tired of talking past you and your weak explanations. Not to mention the crappy article is still up and locked and hasn't been edited. I'm going to start editing the article so it's historically correct.
-- History Student 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Conditions for leaving the camp:
(1) where the applicant proposes to accept an employment offer or an offer of support that has been investigated and approved by the Authority; or (2) where the applicant does not intend to work but has 'adequate financial resources to take care of himself' and a Relocation Officer has investigated and approved 'public sentiment at his proposed destination', or (3) where the applicant has made arrangements to live at a hotel or in a private home approved by a Relocation [323 U.S. 283, 293] Officer while arranging for employment; or (4) where the applicant proposes to accept employment by a federal or local governmental agency; or (5) where the applicant is going to live with designated classes of relatives. But even if an applicant meets those requirements, no leave will issue when the proposed place of residence or employment is within a locality where it has been ascertained that 'community sentiment is unfavorable' or when the applicant plans to go to an area which has been closed by the Authority to the issuance of indefinite leave. 12 Nor will such leave issue if the area where the applicant plans to reside or work is one which has not been cleared for relocation. 13 Moreover, the applicant agrees to give the Authority prompt notice of any change of employment or residence
A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind not of race, creed, or color. He who is loyal is by definition not a spy or a saboteur. When the power to detain is derived from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage, detention which has no relationship to that objective is unauthorized.
Justforasecond 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what your point is here. It's pretty self explanatory.
-- History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's great! Just call me the Mitsue Endo of Wikipedia! What a joke!
-- History Student 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, like Korematsu and Hirabayashi, I suspect Endo was advised to not petition for permanent leave in order to challenge the policy in court.
The repartions image that Korematsu valiantly challenged the evacuation order in defense of civil liberties is a total myth. In reality, Korematsu wanted to remain in the militarized zone with his girlfriend who was not bound by the evacuation order, had plastic surgery to pass himself as a person of Pacific Islander/Mexican ancestory and was picked up and caught lying to the F.B.I. - after which he got the attention of the A.C.L.U. who decided he was about the best choice they had for an individual needed to challenge the evacuation order in court.
Regarding Endo, which historical fact is more important of the two is irrelevent. What is important is clarifying that Endo was not granted released because she failed to petition - not because the government had a policy of detaining concedingly loyal American citizens.
I believe you two are deliberately convoluting the discussion. The line regarding "internment" is historically incorrect and needs to be changed.
-- History Student 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a long thread. What alternative did you present? Once I read it I will tell if it is 100% correct. I wish to avoid half truths and vagueness and the entire article needs to be more precise.
Here are two reasons why the sentence is wrong.
1. Korematsu, Hirabayashi and Yasui are generally what is considered the "Wartime Supreme Court Cases". These cases dealt with the evacuation and had nothing to do with the misnomer "internment".
2. Endo dealt with the WRA holding a concedingly loyal American citizen and the Supreme Court sided with Endo therefore you can't say "...but the court upheld the government's right to intern..." regardless if you beleive Endo was technically interned or not (which she wasn't).
-- History Student 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean this?
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity." A still-controversial issue is whether the threat of espionage by Japanese Americans was a legitimate concern of President Roosevelt and his administration.
Quite a bit of spin, don't you think? Lots of pro-reparations buzzwords, too.
First off, "landmark decision" is vague. Secondly Japanese is a national origin not a racial group and no other members of the Asian race were evacuated and for that matter the Japanese affected were those in the military zones.
As for "curtailing civil rights" that comment is related to the WRA relocation centers, not the evacuation itself. The Supreme Court said in Korematsu that EO 9066 was nothing more than an evacuation order.
Here is my example:
In Korematsu vs United States 1944, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 for the constitutionality of the evacuation saying in part, "There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot --by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that at the time these actions were unjustified." The decison was vacated by a lower federal court in a coram nobis case in San Francisco in 1983, but Korematsu vs United States has never been overturned by the Supreme Court and is still good law.
I'd save the espionage concerns for another section. The story behind the coram nobis decisions a'la Aiko Herzig and also be explained in more detail in another section.
I am back to spoofing my IP as once again "History Student" has been blocked. History Student - -- 69.57.136.39 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can tell by the zone of the "revisionist garbage" comment that you're real open minded about this history!
Just fyi, my additions have been around a lot longer than the 1980s when you version of the history was written (re-written).
Anyway, I challenge any of you to a debate of this history.
I couldn't believe the blatantly pro-repatations tone of what is supposed to be an unbiased source for students. But that's pretty much the entire history of the Japanese American Reparations Movment.
I look forward to filling in the conveniently missing chapters of the history.
Right, your definition of credbile is anything you agree with. That's real honest.
However wrote this piece in the evacuation was obviously a member of the reparations movement. Was it you?
However it was has a bad habit of manipulating and cherry picking history to the detriment of students interested in the 100% truth regarding this history.
You will find my sources are not only credible but have nothing to do with the opinions of reparations activists which make up the majority of sources on this page.
P.S. I hope TopKnife comes back to the discussion!
The man knows his history!
Well, when these "established scholars" are being funded by the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund, that causes a bit of a conflict of interest doesn't it? Not to mention they are almost all from the far left.
But if you want sources they are all raw:
"The Evacuated People" (1946) published by the WRA is a good source.
"Selective Service Special Monograph Number 10" was footnoted.
Material came from "Hawaii Under the Rising Sun" by Prof. John J. Stephan, an excellent read.
Of course MAGIC by David Lowman, 2/3rd of which is nothing but raw documents and was labled as "controversial" by who wrote the piece here.
You quote Peter Irons, but you left out this quote...
"...There was no question that Tachibana headed an espionage ring on the West Coast that enlisted a number of Japanese Americans, both aliens and citizens (sic), nor that the government knew the identities of its members..."
You seem to disregard the Tachibana Spy Ring and everything that is contrary to what you want people to think.
I could and most likely will go on. I however found to sources for your comments. Many of the comments were not just opinion or interpretation they were just plain wrong...
They haven't been discredited at all, only by the reparations activists who had no knowledge of them in the first place until David Lowman wrote about it in the New York Times. Have you read his book or do you just read what you want to believe?
Which government official at the time? Start citing your sources.
Irons himself says Japanese Americans were involved and I'm no fan of Irons. He's on your side.
Because the CLPEF was set up by the money bill to "re-educate the American people" regarding this history. Too bad for you it's backfiring.
You folks have to done more to damage the reputation of Japanese Americans than Pearl Harbor ever did.
Edward Ennis? Ha! Lowman blows his comments away as you would know if you had read Lowman's book. Considering Lowman was the National Security Agency Executive assigned the task of declassifying the MAGIC intercepts and a decades long intelligence professional as well as a graduate of Stanford School of Law, I'll say his credentials over some CLPEF paid PH.D. lackey any day.
As for Curtis Munson another guy the reparations folks have put on a pedistal, he was an L.A. businessman who enjoyed playing intelligence agent before the war. He has absolutely no qualifications or credibility in intelligence.
That the "Personal Justice Denied" Commission used that guy as the only source of intelligence over the Office of Naval Intelligence or MAGIC transcripts, doesn't say a lot for their credibility either.
By the way, here's another famous quote from Munson that the Commission didn't print:
"In the first place there are not so many people of Japanese descent in the U.S. that in an emergency they could not all be thrown into a concentration camp in 48 hours. Of course you might get a few Chinamen too because they all look alike. But the looks are a great aid to rounding them up and in keeping them away from sabotage and truoblesome pastimes."
-Extract from a Munson report to Carter October 22, 1941
That real professionalism. After Pearl Harbor, Munson faded away never to be heard from again.
Yea, right. Let's see if the CLPEF made up entirely of folks with Japanese surnames are going to give scholars with views contrary to their agenda money for research or publication. I'm sure you folks are laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayer dollars. Too bad the price is the reputation of all Japanese Americans.
Fine. Run away. I'm not here to convince the unconvincable, just set the record straight regarding this history and I'll have like minded people join me.
You want to try a debate without running away, let me know.
The MAGIC intercepts were not mentioned because the entire program was highly classified.
Here is a brief summary. I have included portions in the Wikipedia article. If you have not read David Lowman's book MAGIC, I highly recommend doing so.
"In March 1939, a new code emerged providing Japanese diplomatic communications between its embassies and consulates throughout the world. Led by William Friedman and Frank Rowlett, it was the responsibility of the SIS (Signal Intelligence Service) to break the code and develop an analog machine that could decipher the diplomatic messages. It took eighteen months to crack the code, and they named it PURPLE. At the cost of $684.65 in taxpayer money, they built the first machine to decipher Japanese diplomatic messages. It was named PURPLE analog. PURPLE analog performed the exact function of the Japanese code machine – in reverse. Certainly the most bang for the buck in the history of the United States taxpayer.
All high level Japanese diplomatic traffic intercepted and decrypted by the Americans came to be known as MAGIC. It was said only magicians could produce such an accomplishment! Navy cryptanalytic unit OP-20-G (which focused on Japanese naval code starting June, 1942), and SIS produced all MAGIC intelligence that in its raw form was available to just ten men. Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Director of Naval Intelligence Admiral Theodore Wilkinson, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Harold Stark, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, Army Director of Military Intelligence General Sherman Miles, Chief of Army War Plans General Leonard T. Gerow, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt – they were the only men in a position to make a knowledgeable decision.
MAGIC was “sanitized” to ensure the secrecy of the source and disseminated to the FBI, lower levels at the Office of Naval Intelligence and Army Military Intelligence, to use in conjunction with their own information. The order was use phrases such as “highly reliable sources,” “various sources,” and “highly confidential sources” when preparing their confidential reports.
The MAGIC program was second in secrecy only to the Manhattan Project. Great pains were taken to ensure the Japanese never discovered their diplomatic code (or any code) had been cracked. After the war the Japanese developers of PURPLE refused to accept the Americans had cracked their code. They went to their deaths believing they had been betrayed."
To answer you questions:
1. The MAGIC cables were declassified in 1977 and David Lowman was the NSA executive given the task of doing so.
2. Dewitt and McCloy would have had access to sanitized intelligence derived from MAGIC but would not have had access to the raw intelligence or knowledge of the program. Of course the SIS had knowledge of the program but the raw intelligence was limited to the ten men listed above.
3. Regarding the reference to the MAGIC cables in Personal Justice Denied (pp.471-475), the Commision had never even heard of MAGIC intelligence until their report was completed. Shortly after the report was released, David Lowman http://www.athenapressinc.com/ wrote an article in the New York Times that questioned the absence of MAGIC in the report. The commissioners had never heard of it!
Without any expertise whatsoever on the subject of military intelligence in general and MAGIC in particular, the commission's staff quickly "analyzed" MAGIC communications intelligence and reached conclusions in a hastily prepared addendum about it which were contrary to the opinions of every recognized authority on MAGIC for the last 47 years.
Not long after it was released the mistake-laden addendum so quickly written to cover the commissions ignorance was quietly withdrawn.
And hears the kicker. The mistake-laden addendum written up after the report (produced by people who had never even heard of MAGIC and had absolutely no authority to comment officially on it) is the same stuff being provided as "extraordinary detail" from Personal Justice Denied (P.471-475) - WORD FOR WORD!
To summarize, p.471-475 was never a part of the original report and you'll not find it in original versions of the CWRIC report. The it exists in later volumes today after the commission originally withdrew it after admitting how ridiculous it is only serves to continue to undermine the credibilty of the Commission on Wartime Internment and Relocation of Civilians.
4. Yes, I've read the Munson report. My point is Munson was not an intelligence professional and his report was more opinion than evidence and he certainly had no knowledge of MAGIC or for that matter MIS or ONI intelligence. Yet, today the reparations activists have put him on this pedistal as some sort of expert because they believe he supports their cause.
5. Not only was there a pre-exisitng effort by the F.B.I. there was success. As Ringle states in his report the concern wasn't just for those who were already involved in espianage, it was those who would be predisposed to do so if the opportunity arose -as exemplified in the Nihau Incident immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the behavior of ethnic Japanese in colonies invaded by Japan, especially in the Philippines.
Reparations activists like to point out that J. Edgar Hoover didn't support evacuation. Actually, Hoover waffled on the issue, but his San Diego and Seattle offices were fully in support of the evacuation. The Portland and Los Angeles FBI field offices leaned heavily in support. Hoover wanted to ensure the Dept. of Justice played a role in security and he knew that the evacuation would diminish that role. Intelligence officials also knew that civil cases would leak intelligence related to the war effort.
Lastly, MAGIC intelligence failed to provide names and addresses of ethnic Japanese in the United States who were assisting Japan. The government knew all Japanese were not involved but that didn't reduce the threat of espionage.
Lastly I would question the oopen mindedness of an author who titles his book "America's Concentration Camps". Do you think the author is capable of providing the 100% truth regarding this history or do you think there is a bias?
I would urge you to read the Lowman book and check out "Internment Archives" to balance your sources.
I was aghast at the content in this article before I contributed and the sources as well. They are all pro reparataions the members of which have dug themselves in a hole so deep that it will be difficult to climb out with their reputations intact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to be in the middle of some pretty serious editing by a few different users. I am a relatively new user and don't feel qualified to intervene for fear of doing more harm than good, but after perusing some of the pertinent wikipages on the subject, I believe several edits could be tagged as vandalism, blatant non-NPOV, and disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I'd appreciate someone more knowledgable about these situations taking a look. -- Ogthor 08:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The editing is reflective of the controversy surrounding this history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs)
Vandalism? What's your definition of vandalism? From my perspective this entire was "vandalism" before the recent changes. I challenge you to find any historical inaccuracy in the added material. This article has been stalked by the reparations activists for too long and if Wikipedia intends on being taken seriously it needs to be a lot more honest and objective and that includes the new content so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 15 July 2006
Nonsense? According to who, Phideaux? You? I challenge you to point out one historical inaccuracy in my added content. Go visit the JACL website if you want some twisted history. Wikipedia is supposed to be about 100% accuracy and suffice to say this article in its past form was far from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 12:26 15 July 2006
So let's get serious about editing.
Here's an example of some blatantly wrong history in this article. Where is the outcry for citations? Is not surprising the criticism is totally one-sided? Well not for me because I know how the reparations activists tick.
"During the war, an appeal contesting the government's authority to intern people based on their ancestry reached the Supreme Court, but the court upheld the government's right to intern."
Wrong. Blatantly flat out wrong. The Supreme Court Decisions upheld the government's right to evacuate from the military zones. They had nothing to do with the Relocation Centers and even less to do with the DOJ internment program.
Obviously providing people with blatantly incorrect information isn't an issue here, though. You people are too concerned with signing posts, pov forks and my Tom Kawakita edit that was removed!!! What a joke.
Regards - History Student-- History Student 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's clarify which specific court decisions are at issue. I'm quoting from the relevant Wiki articles.
The article is poorly worded at best on this point.
In paragraph 2 of Korematsu [7], Justice Black writes:
It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.
Can we reword something like this:
I see this as a two-fer. First, it corrects the original sentence. Second, it inserts the military-necessity controversy in the introduction in a concise manner. (Please note that I would prefer to keep the intro at 2 paragraphs; 3 maximum.) Suggestions are welcome. -- ishu 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You know what, Justasecond? My IP is no longer banned so perhaps my civlility level has increased just a notch. You may also notice I have yet to commit a blanket edit of the article no matter how poorly written it is.
Discussion of the cases should include quotes from the opinions. I provided concurring quotes from the opinions for Hirabayashi and Korematsu. Let the reparations folks provide dissenting opinion quotes from Justice Murphy. As long as the reader knows which are dissenting and wich are concurring. All to often I read Murphey's opinion on pro-repartions sites with no explanation that his opinion went down 6-3.
See, I even learned to sign my posts.
Regards, History Student-- History Student 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree but a non pov summary should be abvailable in the lead section for those who only read the lead section. -- History Student 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does. I don't know why you think things are so great. The crappy pov version of this article is still locked on the site. I believe Ishu is being civil but he also has a pov that he wishes to promote. -- History Student 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
First off, I'd like to thank History Student for presenting an alternative to the text I proposed. While this process is slow, it is collaborative. I hope that we can continue this way, more or less. I'd like to emphasize here that we're discussing a few sentences for placement in the lead section.
At 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC), History Student wrote:
Please remember that we're dealing with the lead section, which should deal briefly with the main issues. So it has to touch on a lot of stuff in a little space. Let's start with the first sentence above, since HS wants to leave out the espionage discussion in the second sentence. If you read Korematsu, you will find that the key language used in the proposed text mirrors the actual language of the majority decision. I'd rather not post pages of dueling quotations, but paragraph 2 of Korematsu lays out the issues quite clearly:
The first sentence of the proposed edit mirrors the court's actual language. If we want to be more expansive, we can change exclusion to exclusion, removal, and detention. Detention is threaded throughout Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Endo. Not only did the court use the word detention extensively, but it also supported detention as an outgrowth of EO9066 and its offshoots. HS objects to the use of racial group but the Court saw this in those terms. In fact, Japanese was considered to be a distinct "racial group" back then by some. Either way, the treatment of Japanese Americans was the issue in these cases, and the court explicitly referred to the cases as treatment of a racial group. Nobody ever suggested including Chinese or other groups we now call "Asian" in EO9066 etc. When referring to the cases, I'm trying to adhere to the language of the decisions as much as possible.
HS proposes the following alternative:
First off, I see nothing factually wrong with this copy. I oppose quoting the decision because I think it's not necessary to go into that much detail--in the lead section. I think it's enough--for the lead section--to say that the Supreme Court declared it's legal and constitutional. That's why I'm proposing the language "curtail civil rights" and "pressing public necessity," since it is general enough for the lead section, but provides the basic logic that supported exclusion, removal, and detention. Since the decision itself was never overturned, there's no reason to state that it's still valid--in the lead section. I also think that the Court upheld the legality/constitutionality of the event in the several decisions we have discussed, so it's better not to specify any particular decision--in the lead section. I think we do not need to decide now how to interpret the coram nobis decisions, and I would prefer not to mention it directly in the lead section because they do not affect the legal legitimacy of the event as there has been no change to the legal status of the decisions.
Let me propose the following revision of the second sentence:
I favor inclusion of the second sentence because:
HS may not like it, but this issue is controversial: one group of people believes strongly that this event was driven by a legitimate threat of espionage/sabotage, and another group of people believes just as strongly that it was not motivated by a legitimate threat. I suspect that a large majority of people doesn't know what to believe, or doesn't care, if that matters at all. I have not opposed discussion of the controversy in the body of the article--including HS's take on it.
A while back, I indicated that, although we do know there were reports of espionage--i.e., there was a threat, we do not know the extent to which these reports contributed to decisions regarding EO9066 and its offshoots. To restate, I am not saying there was "no legitimate threat," only that I can't conclude that the threats did or did not justify the magnitude of the response. I have not reviewed the documents, books, and articles that contest this issue one way or the other. From browsing this talk page, there are some timeline issues that have been raised. I have some responses to other comments, but I wanted to focus on the bigger issues with respect to the proposed text.
Finally, I think that the lead section should mention the security concerns, including the existence of reports of espionage--again, without going into too much detail. I'd like to agree on this one passage about the court decisions before we go on to another issue. (Please recall that I selected the court decisions issue because HS correctly pointed out this particular factual error.) -- ishu 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
"Some Japanese Americans did become less loyal to the United States after the government removed them and their families from their homes and held them in internment camps, although such cases were isolated incidents and did not reflect the larger sentiment of the Japanese-American people who remained loyal to the United States."
Where is the evidence for this? Justforasecond 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Good question! That's another example of the pro-reparations pov infecting this article that has no sources. Even though it's wrong I left it in the re-edit in the interests of fairness. So much for that idea....
Now if you want a citeable comment you can say, "More Japanese Americans petitioned for repatriation to Japan than served in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, according to the WRA report "An Evacuated People", published in 1946." It's a historical fact and the numbers prove it.
My added material was cited and these activist types who hijacked the article are blowing smoke...
The 442nd War Memorial in Little Tokyo had just over 16,000 names and they're sticking as many on it as possbible. No the govt didn't know, time was short and they had to take action. That was the opinion of the prevailing decision of the Supreme Court in Korematsu that I added and was subequently deleted. Should the govt have let these "anomolies" run willy nilly all over the country? Should the govt just crossed their fingers and hoped all the "anomolies" on the west coast were taken care of?
If you had read my contributions, including the interview with Karl Bendetsen that I cited and is available at the Truman Library, you would know the govt seized no property and that is myth. Of course the pro-reparations pov guy added, "that's a lie", naturally without providing a source. What intellect!
And many more chose to leave for Japan as I pointed out and I lived in Tokyo when the the U.S. govt was running around looking for these people to give them $20,000 and an apology. The Japanese press had a field day!
The ethnic Japanese movement is made up preodominately of 60s era baby boomers who if they did experience the camps were very young. That they did experience the camps isn't an open invitation for them to promote a dishonest, agenda driven history to force down the throats of others. They're cherry picking the history to manipulate a certain response from a largely apathetic public.
If we are going to document this history it needs to be warts and all on all sides. That means Japanese Americans need to start confronting some of the darker chapters of their own history.
If WIkipedia is an example, they're obviously not there yet.
P.S. I civilly responded to comments regarding a re-editing of the piece and it's above. After which the pro-reparations pov was returned and locked, which is a load of crap.
That's not true. Roosevelt signed EO 9066 on February 19th and the first mandatory evacuation wasn't until March 26th. There was no order that those relocated had to sell their property and many didn't. "Allowed to keep much less property than soldiers or prisoners"??? What are you talking about? This is a perfect example of pro-repartions pov with no citations and entirely historically inaccurate.
Agreed, it is somewhat disorganized in terms of style but at least the content I added is accurate and cited. I will get around to replacing the capitols with italics. I had intended to clean up my contributions before the article was locked out with the pro-reparations pov article.
We are now back to tit for tat between the pro-reparations pov article and the article with my additions. I am willing to offer a truce as long as balance is brought to this article, all side are represented.
Oh yes they are, The "Civil Liberties Public Education Fund" still receives millions in taxpayer dollars annually.
Check out the surnames of the the board and tell me they're not biased. You think they're going to provide money to scholars with opinions equal to mine? Ha!
http://www.momomedia.com/CLPEF/backgrnd.html#board
The Japanese American Reparations Movement is big business.
I have a login. It's "History Student". I only login when I have to. I'm new to Wikipedia but learning fast.
FDR was the biggest lib of his time which is pretty funny considering today's far left who have vilified him are also big time libs. If "racism" played a large part why didn't the government in definately detain all ethnic Japanese and not just remove them from the West Coast Military Zones? Why not detain all Asian people? You may recall the Chinese and Filipinos were our allies at the time. Most of what you see or read today is a product of the "Civil Liberties Public Education Fund" that finances biased one-sided bad history with American taxpayer dollars. That's what happens when ethnic activist groups start lobbying politicians to re-write history. Who needs scholars?
ANSWERS TO JUSTFORASECOND:
It was decided it was logistically impossible. That doesn't mean it wasn't considered. Besides Hawaii was under military marital law at the time. Read John Stephan's "Hawaii Under the Rising Sun".
The West Coast because was the first line of defense and an area with ample miltitary and industrial infrastructre, not to mention where the vast majority of ethnic Japanese were located. It was only the West Coast that was desiganted a military zone however and the only area in which the military had the authority to do so. Perhaps the entire country should have been a miltiary zone or been under marital law. It would have been an unneccesary burden and the Supreme Court dealt with it.
As Justice Stone said in Hirabayashi:
“THE ALTERNATIVE WHICH APPELLANT INSISTS MUST BE ACCEPTED IS FOR THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES TO IMPOSE THE CURFEW ON ALL CITIZENS WITHIN THE MILITARY AREA, OR ON NONE. IN A CASE OF THREATENED DANGER REQUIRING PROMPT ACTION, IT IS A CHOICE BETWEEN INFLICTING OBVIOUSLY NEEDLESS HARDSHIP ON THE MANY, OR SITTING PASSIVE AND UNRESISTING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THREAT. WE THINK THAT CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, IN TIME OF WAR, IS NOT SO POWERLESS AND DOES NOT COMPEL SO HARD A CHOICE IF THOSE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE HAVE REASONABLE GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT THE THREAT IS REAL.”
Chief Justice Stone Hirabayashi vs. United States
Still good law to this day.
Taxpayer funding didn't start until 1988 when the money bill was signed by Pres. Reagan (against the advice of his own Dept. of Justice).
Ripped off by who? 1940 saw the largest peacetime draft in American history. Were they "ripped off", too? The government didn't rip off anybody. The vast majority of families were not Japanese-American, they were Japanese and after Pearl Harbor they were enemy aliens - treated a heck of a lot better than American enemy aliens in Japan or countries invaded by Japan.
The Nihhau involved Japanese Americans and a Japanese national. Every country invaded by Japan found ethnic Japanese who had colonized as long as those on the West Coast welcoming the invaders with open arms.
Reagarding your last comment, Japan was fighting the racial holy war, not America. That includes many ethnic Japanese living outside Japan.
This article also needs a background on the Japanese "Language Schools" and their use at indoctrinating young Japanese Americans. A couple quotes from reputable sources:
"By the eve of all-out war with China, Japanese Public schools, under orders from the Ministry of Education, were inculcating Shinto mythology as if it were historical fact: emporer ideology had become fused with anti-western sentiment: and a coceptual ground had been prepared for the transformation of Hirohito into a benevolent pan-Asian monarch defending not only Japan, but all of Asia from Western encroachment."
-Bix, Hirohito, Making of Modern Japan p. 283
"The Japanese Ministry of Education was controlled by the militarists who, "To deliver the lectures and teach new courses, they enlisted specialists in Japanese racial thought, academic opponents of liberalism and advocates of Nazi theories of law".
-Masuda Tomoko, "Tenno kikansetsu haigeki jiken to kokutai meicho undo" p. 173
Justasecond, have you ever studied the kokutai? Hakko Ichiu? Any reading of Kokutai no Hongi? Shimin to Michi? The role of Nichiren Buddhism and Japanese "Language Schools" in teaching these doctines of Japanese racial superiorty to ethnic Japanese colonies throughout the word prior to Pearl Harbor?
This is history is a heck of a lot more complex than this biased crappy little article up on Wikipedia.
Given the past edits and actions of everyone involved, it is a near certainty that any substantial editing of the article will only lead to a revert war. I think it would be better to take down the article completely, and, if we agree, we can create protected subpages, one with the current version, and one with User:History Student's most recent edit as of this timestamp. -- ishu 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, you're real big on "protecting" your agenda as history you want to promote, Tom.
I agree with Ishu. Take it down until the matter is resolved otherwise you're just feeding impressionable minds bad and factually incorrect history.
Any re-edits are going to be changed and blocked by "Tom" and I'll return to being a Wikipedia rebel.
-- History Student 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a load of crap, Tom. Don't accuse me of trolling, either. Your complaints of policy violation are a smoke screen. You abused your admin privilige by locking the crappy article and attempting to ban me. Your admin privilige should be revoked.
-- History Student 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
(UTC)
I'll tone it down when you guys get serious. Stop convoluting. Stop the strawmen. Stop reaching conclusions based on opinion. I'm surprised at your recent posts, justasecond.
-- History Student 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Tom , show me the contributions I provided to the article you removed that are not cited. I asked you before and you failed to respond. Secondly, where is your concern regarding the uncitable and factually incorrect content in the article you returend and locked? What a hypocrite!
As for format, the style of my rewrite could be changed to make it easier to read. I acknowledged that and intend to do so. The content is spot on.
-- History Student 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute. The locked article contains refs from 1. Michi Weglyn 2. Peter Irons and 3. Personal Justice Denied. Is that your definition of unbiased non pov history?
Where are the citations for comments such as, "During the war, an appeal contesting the government's authority to intern people based on their ancestry reached the Supreme Court, but the court upheld the government's right to intern."
Where's the citations for, "Historical references describe the camps as internment camps, although others favor the name relocation camps."
Not to mention that both comments are blatantly wrong. I at least add an "according to" and cite the source in my material.
You're a hypocrite.
-- History Student 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No, Tom. I cited sources. Go read the "Evacuation" article. We're going around in circles which I suspect is your strategy with the hope I will eventually go away....
I've also pointed out two weak spots in your article, Tom. I can point out more specifics. Please point out the contributions provide by me that fit your definition of "weak". I'll not hold my breath, but it sure points to your not very clandestine biasness towards this subject. You can sound as "professional and civil" as you like. Your actions speak louder than your posts.
Reagarding Wikipedia policy I find the lot of you to be sanctimonious bores.
Regarding this history I see a lot of deliberate dishonesty here. Lip service, obfuscation, deliberate convolution and no substantial improvement to the locked article posing as history. That's about it.
Maybe it's time for a Wikipedia revolution. -- History Student 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The support section seems to have a lot of unsupportive statements. For instance, the Earl Warren quote is:
I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens. Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken.
The statement in the "criticism" section is...also unsupportive.
The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066....
Seems unbalanced to me.
Justforasecond 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
...and few meaningful changes to the article. You've still got a biased, unprofessional piece of bad history here and I have been using it as an example of such.
-- History Student 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Bold text