What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Today in 1942- Executive Order 9066 (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/19/internment_camps_have_we_forgotten_the_lesson_129724.html

It’s Friday, February 19, a date which will live in White House infamy. I’m borrowing Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous phrase about December 7, 1941, in reference to an infamous action taken two months later by FDR -- on this day in 1942.

Executive Order 9066 authorized the forced relocation of persons of Japanese descent living on the West Coast into wartime internment camps. Most of the men, women, and children covered by the edict were naturalized or American-born citizens.

The rationale cited in Executive Order 9066 was espionage, but the true causes were wartime hysteria, overt racism, and latent jealousy over the commercial and agricultural success of Japanese immigrants (issei) and their descendants, the nisei (second-generation) and sansei (third-generation).

From Washington state to Arizona, some 120,000 innocent people were rounded up under this order. I’ve written about this shameful chapter in American history previously. But with a presidential campaign taking place, and a leading candidate talking openly about barring Muslims from coming to this country, it seems more relevant than ever.

Donald Trump isn’t inventing the threat from ISIS, or from other foreign terrorist groups, or from murderous Muslim radicals living here in the United States. The San Bernardino couple who lived and worked among peaceful Southern Californians before slaughtering them at a Christmas party were a second-generation Pakistani Muslim and his immigrant bride.

What they did and how they did it -- and the fact that this immigrant bride was a new mother -- was a frightening new front in this war we are fighting, a conflict George W. Bush inexactly labeled the “War on Terror,” and which Barack Obama seems reluctant to name at all.

But how this nation responded two months after Pearl Harbor provides a valuable history lesson. Was the government being vigilant? Or hysterical? In this instance, the verdict has been officially rendered, although it took 46 years.

That judgment came in the form of legislation called the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The law, signed by President Reagan on August 10 that year, compensated all those still living who had been interned in the “relocation” camps with $20,000 and an apology from their government.

“The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained,” Reagan said. “Yet no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For here we admit a wrong; here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.”

Reagan paid special notice in his signing statement to Norman Y. Mineta, then a member of California’s congressional delegation, one of the prime movers of the Japanese-American redress legislation.

Reagan read aloud Mineta’s own recollection of being rounded up with his family in San Jose, California, at age 10.

My own family was sent first to Santa Anita Racetrack,” Mineta had written. “We showered in the horse paddocks. Some families lived in converted stables, others in hastily thrown together barracks. We were then moved to Heart Mountain, Wyoming, where our entire family lived in one small room of a rude tar paper barrack.”

The president also paid homage to the famed Nisei regiment, focusing on the central injustice of its formation:

“The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of Japanese-Americans, served with immense distinction to defend this nation, their nation,” Reagan noted. “Yet back at home, the soldiers' families were being denied the very freedom for which so many of the soldiers themselves were laying down their lives.”

Among those soldiers was Daniel Inouye, the long-serving Democratic senator from Hawaii. Inouye, who lost an arm to a grenade while fighting in Italy, was later awarded a Medal of Honor for his valor. On the day the redress measure was enacted into law, Inouye maintained that although it was long overdue, it still should make Americans proud.

“Very few nations are strong enough to admit they’re wrong,” he said. “America is strong enough, and we did so.”

Inouye passed away a little more than three years ago. But my old friend Norm Mineta is still with us, and with an over-heated presidential election in full swing, I’ll give him the last word this morning.

“What happened in the past remains in the past,” Mineta said at a 2011 dedication of the Heart Mountain Interpretive Learning Center in Wyoming. “But it's not about the past. It's about the future, because history always has the ability to repeat itself.”

 
If you're really looking for irony, you might note the fact that it was Democrats who interned the Japanese-Americans. The order was signed by a Democratic President, FDR, and carried out by New Dealers such as John McCloy. And it was Republicans like Herbert Hoover who protested at the time, and a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who finally apologized to the Nisei decades later. 

Why is this ironic? Because right now it's a leading Republican candidate for the Presidency who is advocating discrimination against Muslim Americans and won't dismiss out of hand the idea of internment, and it is Democrats who are outraged about it. What has happened to the decency of the Republican Party? 

 
Good job raising the FFA IQ. Listening to some of the political rhetoric that dominates the headlines I am always reminded of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


 
Somebody who can't rule out internment isn't worthy of the presidency. Simple enough.

eta* And FDR did a ton of damage to America by running his agenda through the executive branch in the form of administrative agencies rather than awaiting legislation. Internment by executive action should come as no surprise.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My mom's family lost their home and business in SF and spent 22 months in Topaz.  She graduated from High School in the camps and was young enough to get on with the rest of her life.  But my grandparents were ruined and never totally recovered.

 
Lots of Germans and German Americans were also interned. Many German and Italian nationals from Latin America were also sent for detention in the USA. Not many were Nazis. Many had been citizens for decades and had their property seized by our corrupt dictators in Panama and Guatemala. A few were even German Jews from Panama. A good read about the Camp near Jacksonville:Camp Blanding

 
Lots of Germans and German Americans were also interned. Many German and Italian nationals from Latin America were also sent for detention in the USA. Not many were Nazis. Many had been citizens for decades and had their property seized by our corrupt dictators in Panama and Guatemala. A few were even German Jews from Panama. A good read about the Camp near Jacksonville:Camp Blanding
This is true, and German Americans suffered even worse during World War I. 

 
Maybe it's also ironic that FDRs family was super rich as well.  His family was the biggest drug dealer on the planet, shipping crates of opiates to the Chinese on clipper ships.

 
By the way - this was an Executive Order.

It was wartime but if people want a lesson here it's the danger of the constant expansion of presidential authority.

If the president can do this without Congres, what can't he do?

 
By the way - this was an Executive Order.

It was wartime but if people want a lesson here it's the danger of the constant expansion of presidential authority.

If the president can do this without Congres, what can't he do?
From the looks of the past week, get a nominee onto the Supreme Court in the last year of their 2nd term, but that's all I got.

 
From the looks of the past week, get a nominee onto the Supreme Court in the last year of their 2nd term, but that's all I got.
Not really Obama had the opportunity for a recess appointment if he so chose.

Basically a president can seize property and incarcerate Americans en masse all on his lonesome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is from the Hirabayashi  decision. Korematsu was just confirming had already been decided in Hirabayashi.

[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]On February 20, 1942, the Secretary of War designated Lt. General J. L. DeWitt as Military Commander of the Western Defense Command, comprising the Pacific Coast states and some others, to carry out there the duties prescribed by Executive Order No. 9066. On March 2, 1942, General DeWitt promulgated Public Proclamation No. 1. 7 Federal Register 2320. The proclamation recited that the entire Pacific Coast 'by its geographical location is particularly subject to attack, to attempted invasion by the armed forces of nations with which the United States is now at war, and, in connection therewith, is subject to espionage and acts of sabotage, thereby requiring the adoption of military measures necessary to establish safeguards against such enemy operations'.  [/SIZE]…

[SIZE=12pt]The actions taken must be appraised in the light of the conditions with which the President and Congress were confronted in the early months of 1942, many of which [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt][320 U.S. 81, 94] [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]  [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]since disclosed, were then peculiarly within the knowledge of the military authorities. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese air forces had attacked the United States Naval Base at Pearl Harbor without warning, at the very hour when Japanese diplomatic representatives were conducting negotiations with our State Department ostensibly for the peaceful settlement of differences between the two countries. Simultaneously or nearly so, the Japanese attacked Malaysia, Hong Kong, the Philippines, and Wake and Midway Islands. On the following day their army invaded Thailand. Shortly afterwards they sank two British battleships. On December 13th, Guam was taken. On December 24th and 25th they captured Wake Island and occupied Hong Kong. On January 2, 1942, Manila fell, and on February 10th Singapore, Britain's great naval base in the East, was taken. On February 27th the battle for the Java Sea resulted in a disastrous naval defeat to the United Nations. By the 9th of March Japanese forces had established control over the Netherlands East Indies; Rangoon and Burma were occupied; Bataan and Corregidor were under attack. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Although the results of the attack on Pearl Harbor were not fully disclosed until much later, it was known that the damage was extensive, and that the Japanese by their successes had gained a naval superiority over our forces in the Pacific which might enable them to seize Pearl Harbor, our largest naval base and the last stronghold of defense lying between Japan and the west coast. That reasonably prudent men charged with the responsibility of our national defense had ample ground for concluding that they must face the danger of invasion, take measures against it, and in making the choice of measures consider our internal situation, cannot be doubted. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The challenged orders were defense measures for the avowed purpose of safeguarding the military area in question, at a time of threatened air raids and invasion [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt][320 U.S. 81, 95] [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]  [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by the Japanese forces, from the danger of sabotage and espionage. As the curfew was made applicable to citizens residing in the area only if they were of Japanese ancestry, our inquiry must be whether in the light of all the facts and circumstances there was any substantial basis for the conclusion, in which Congress and the military commander united, that the curfew as applied was a protective measure necessary to meet the threat of sabotage and espionage which would substantially affect the war effort and which might reasonably be expected to aid a threatened enemy invasion. 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.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/320/81.html#sthash.ksfTL48i.dpuf[/SIZE]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your ignorance of Presidential "authority."
Christo, I don't enjoy the personal attack thing, you want to quote chapter and verse explaining why a president can seize property and herd people into concentration camps all in his own go right ahead. I could see the war being an exigent situation. And I suppose the authority for that is in the Civil war cases, Hirabayashi or Korematsu.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eephus said:
My mom's family lost their home and business in SF and spent 22 months in Topaz.  She graduated from High School in the camps and was young enough to get on with the rest of her life.  But my grandparents were ruined and never totally recovered.
This is the best and only real thing that might really be said here.

 
Christo, I don't enjoy the personal attack thing, you want to quote chapter and verse explaining why a president can seize property and herd people into concentration camps all in his own go right ahead. I could see the war being an exigent situation. And I suppose the authority for that is in the Civil war cases, Hirabayashi or Korematsu.
Maybe it is the new quote system. You're not even understanding the argument you're in. 

You said a President can seize property and incarcerate Americans all on his lonesome. I said same as day 1. You responded Bill of Rights--as if the BoR had stopped US Presidents from seizing property and incarcerating Americans in the past. I then laughed because anyone who thinks that doesn't know the basics of US history. You should look up the Louisiana Purchase and the Trail of Tears. Seizing of property and forced incarceration of Americans without Congressional authority is a Presidential past-time.

 
Maybe it is the new quote system. You're not even understanding the argument you're in. 

You said a President can seize property and incarcerate Americans all on his lonesome. I said same as day 1. You responded Bill of Rights--as if the BoR had stopped US Presidents from seizing property and incarcerating Americans in the past. I then laughed because anyone who thinks that doesn't know the basics of US history. You should look up the Louisiana Purchase and the Trail of Tears. Seizing of property and forced incarceration of Americans without Congressional authority is a Presidential past-time.
That's fine, thanks I was just asking you to elucidate your point. However arguably what happened to the Cherokee was "wartime" and they were not deemed citizens.

As for the LA Purchase, not sure what you mean there, you mean Jefferson acting on his own to acquire territory? It's not a bad point but it wasn't Americans' land or property he was taking there.

The Japanese Americans in CA were actually Americans. If you look back at Dred Scott that was decided to not be the case for escaped slaves. Not so in in Hirbayashi and Korematsu.

Getting back to the Cherokee as I recall there was a USSC decision which recognized the rights of the Cherokee that Jackson or the US gov just simply ignored.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it's also ironic that FDRs family was super rich as well.  His family was the biggest drug dealer on the planet, shipping crates of opiates to the Chinese on clipper ships.
I wasn't aware that Roosevelt was related to Dirk Struan. I'll have to look into that. 

 
It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers-and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies-we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders-as inevitably it must-determined that they should have the power to do just this. 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 that time these actions were unjustified.

 
That's fine, thanks I was just asking you to elucidate your point. However arguably what happened to the Cherokee was "wartime" and they were not deemed citizens.

As for the LA Purchase, not sure what you mean there, you mean Jefferson acting on his own to acquire territory? It's not a bad point but it wasn't Americans' land or property he was taking there.

The Japanese Americans in CA were actually Americans. If you look back at Dred Scott that was decided to not be the case for escaped slaves. Not so in in Hirbayashi and Korematsu.

Getting back to the Cherokee as I recall there was a USSC decision which recognized the rights of the Cherokee that Jackson or the US gov just simply ignored.
Those sure are a lot of technicalities for someone concerned about government overreach.

 
timschochet said:
If you're really looking for irony, you might note the fact that it was Democrats who interned the Japanese-Americans. The order was signed by a Democratic President, FDR, and carried out by New Dealers such as John McCloy. And it was Republicans like Herbert Hoover who protested at the time, and a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who finally apologized to the Nisei decades later. 

Why is this ironic? Because right now it's a leading Republican candidate for the Presidency who is advocating discrimination against Muslim Americans and won't dismiss out of hand the idea of internment, and it is Democrats who are outraged about it. What has happened to the decency of the Republican Party? 
I must have missed this part of his speech/interview/townhall/tweet/whatever. Do you have a link?

fishing-girl-o.gif


 
I must have missed this part of his speech/interview/townhall/tweet/whatever. Do you have a link?

fishing-girl-o.gif
You post the best content, thank you for your excellent work, sir.

Also this board is so much better like this, if they're going to have conversation killing software settings they can at least give us this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
If you're really looking for irony, you might note the fact that it was Democrats who interned the Japanese-Americans. The order was signed by a Democratic President, FDR, and carried out by New Dealers such as John McCloy. And it was Republicans like Herbert Hoover who protested at the time, and a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who finally apologized to the Nisei decades later. 

Why is this ironic? Because right now it's a leading Republican candidate for the Presidency who is advocating discrimination against Muslim Americans and won't dismiss out of hand the idea of internment, and it is Democrats who are outraged about it. What has happened to the decency of the Republican Party? 


You say this, but who has come out in favor of internment?  The most prominent person I have seen is former Dem presidential candidate Wesley Clark.  You are attempting to equate a policy which protects our borders with internment, which is a your typical hyperbole.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top