History Question: What Law did FDR use to Inter Japanese-Americans during WWII?

[FrenchieCat]

I'm just curious.

Was what he did legal? If so, what was the law called?
Wouldn't there have been a constitutional issue in taking people's properties and putting them in camps?

[davepc]

1. Executive Order 9066

[FrenchieCat]

2. So an executive order superceded the Constitution?

I'm reading about this now.

I don't see the rationale at all on this.

I realized that this had happened, but I always pushed it to the back of my mind.
But now, with debates about what George Bush or his office did in subversing the constitution,
I am realizing, as I think about it, that this country actually has a history of this sorta of stuff,
going way back....and up to like just now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Yes the US has a history of doing this

and the US also has a history of doing something about it after the fact

Remember, Japanese Americans not only received an official apology, but also reparations

The only way to clean the stench of what Bush did is also legal... and it will involve reparations, official apologies and trials

Until all of this happens, I will maintain the US has lost its moral center

If it ever had it

[FrenchieCat]

4. Were people tried for going to the home of Japanese-Americans

and taking them from their homes?

When were those trials?

The only thing I found was that in 1988, there was an apology, and payments of $20,000 made to those who were intered.

So did the United States ever have a moral center? Cause it seems like if it was lost, it happened a long time ago. When I look at the history of this government and Native Americans and Blacks and Asians....and even Hispanics, I don't see the Moral center of this country. So my questions is, when did this government ever really have this moral center of which you speak?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. No, they were not

and the USSC even saw some of this as excesses of war time

The reparations were given sixty years later to families or descendants

Not enough, but for most Japanese Americans the recognition that the guv'ment did this was enough

Nobody was tortured though

And Nissei troops, who served in Europe, did so to prove they were Americans

A few refused to serve on principle, as their families were still in camps, and there were no consequences

As one Nissei, (Japanese American) woman I spoke to right after 9.11 in Hawaii put it, if the US interns Arab Americans (and the balloon was floated) then the US didn't learn that lesson

They didn't... and there is more to that story... anecdotally US service members would have refused to continue serving if that was done.

In this case, war crimes have been committed... war crimes

If we don't prosecute, somebody else will. All these crimes hold universal jurisdiction

[elleng]

14. Frenchie, we were taught we had a 'moral center.'

I feel that I got it from my elementary school in Brooklyn,long time ago, and of course was never taught anything else.

Since then, learned what we did to Native Americans, + + +.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I learned history in France.

We just cut their heads off early on, and called it a day. :)

[anigbrowl]

31. Don't forget what happened to Robespierre

Eventually the guillotining got out of hand and its chief proponent got to test his own product. France is not exactly the center of the moral universe either, either historically or recently. Every country of any significance has a stinky laundry basket.

[FrenchieCat]

34. I certainly agree.

[moez]

36. Exactly -

I defy anyone to find any country that is without a questionable moral history.

[JDPriestly]

26. We have never given reparations for slavery either.

That does not mean that our failure to give reparations for slavery is right.

[Lasher]

5. Have you found the Wiki article on the subject?

Here it is. In 1944 the SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Yeah....The Supremes ruled on it after the fact.

I read that.

I'm gonna read their ruling.....something I never did.
I want to see how they rationalized that an executive order
could supercede the constitution.

[elleng]

17. Decision has been undermined.

'It is important to note that the rulings of the US Supreme Court in the 1944 Korematsu and Hirabayashi cases, specifically, its expansive interpretation of government powers in wartime, were not overturned. They are still the law of the land because a lower court cannot overturn a ruling by the US Supreme Court. However, the coram nobis cases totally undermined the factual underpinnings of the 1944 cases, leaving the original decisions without the proverbial legal leg to stand on.<52> But in light of the fact that these 1944 decisions are still on the books, a number of legal scholars have expressed the opinion that the original Korematsu and Hirabayashi decisions have taken on an added relevance in the context of the War on terror.'

[FrenchieCat]

21. Kind of like Bush v. Gore.

[elleng]

24. More than that;

actual lower court decisions that while not definitive are persuasive.

[JDPriestly]

27. I believe I recall reading bits of those cases in law school -- as

if we needed to be reminded that the Court could err.

[Common Sense Party]

6. And Lincoln suspended habeus corpus

Executive overstep is nothing new.

[Uzybone]

12. He also pardoned open traitors and secessionists

[Common Sense Party]

15. Yup. He was a hard one to figure out some times.

I'm listening to the audiobook "1864" right now. Very good, detailed account of one pivotal year in Lincoln's presidency and the war.

[JDPriestly]

28. Lincoln had the right to suspend habeas corpus because

he was president during an insurrection.

U.S. Constitution Section 9, Clause 2. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/writ_of_habeas_corpus.htm

[Thothmes]

35. At the begining of the Civil War, President Lincoln did not have the legal

authority to suspend the writ of haveas corpus. He acted outside of the law in this regard. U.S. Constitution Article I, section 9, clause 2 reserves authority to suspend habeas corpus for the Congress, not the President. Lincoln abused his power when he suspended the writ. Later in the war, Congress did take action to suspend the writ.

[JDPriestly]

38. You are correct with regard to the procedure. Sorry.

[elleng]

10. An executive order does not supercede the Constitution.

What FDR did was later examined by the Supremes, they found it Constitutional (OR, they didn't conclude that it violated the Constitution or any other laws), but some Justices have regretted that decision.

Checking.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Yes, but that was after the fact.

I'm not sure how the could have justify taking American Citizens from their homes just based on their ancestry. Was the 14th Amendment just ignored?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[elleng]

18. Didn't 'justify,' just ignored.

Executive Order 'allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in internment camps.<7> In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders,<8> while noting that the provisions that singled out people of Japanese ancestry were a separate issue outside the scope of the proceedings.<9>'

PS, Parents of a friend of mine, at work, were among those interned.

[JDPriestly]

30. Yes. The 14th Amendment was just ignored.

Americans became sensitive to civil rights issues after WWII -- because of the Holocaust.

[JDPriestly]

25. The Supreme Court decision that approved the detentions is

often cited as a black mark on the Court. It has since been repudiated as has FDR's detentions. Remember, FDR detained the Japanese before the Americans discovered the concentration camps. The discovery of the emaciated bodies in the German camps brought great moral enlightenment to the leadership of the U.S. -- until Bush. It is now up to Obama to decide what side he is on. Bush and Obama, it is worth noting, are the first American presidents to have been born after the end of the Holocaust.

For those of us who were schooled in the years after the Holocaust, what Bush did, what Obama is willing to ignore -- is reprehensible. Bush's actions; Obama's failure to act -- will lead mankind to disaster.

Yes, FDR made horrible mistakes with regard to the detentions of the Japanese. Pearl Harbor is not the only day that will live in infamy.

[Journeyman]

7. David Neiwart has written extensively on this and associated topics. . .

Go to his blog, Orcinus, then do a search on the site for "Internment." You'll find a wealth of historic and contemporary commentary.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

[FrenchieCat]

11. Thanks! I will.

I'm quite curious on the SCOTUS ruling on this.
How they would have rationalized it stumps me.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Orcinus is a wonderful blog in general. I first came across it a few years back...

With his or her posts on American Eliminationism.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/02/eliminationism-in-america-ix.html

[FrenchieCat]

20. Well, sounds like it comes highly recommended! Thanks!

:hi:

[Redbear]

37. Essentially, it was a national security trumps everything rationale

The court basically held that FDR's duty to "defend" the constitution (which would disappear if we were conquered by a foreign power) was more important than FDR's duty to uphold the constitution.

[Orangeone]

22. My family was put in camps

My grandparents lost everything. They had a cut-flower farm in Long Beach, in fact it was located where the city hall is now. I'm sure the push to put the Japanese Americans into camps was economic, because people made a lot of money out of taking our places...

[madrchsod]

23. you are correct on the confiscation of property.

[FrenchieCat]

33. That must have been unbelievable.

I can't even imagine the feeling of one's own country doing that,
and then calling itself a "Beacon of Freedom" all at the same time.
not personally anyways....although my Black blood told me long ago
that anything is possible.....

[empyreanisles]

29. I think Frenchie's whole point with the FDR stuff is:

When put in perspective, this torture scandal is small stuff compared to things that happened on the watch of other Presidents in our history. Some of these leaders are highly praised as well.

This is stuff Obama didn't EVEN DO HIMSELF. He was dumped into an awful situation and people are not giving him ANY credit for trying to wade these waters successfully.

The truth is out there now. So just shut up and let Obama do his job.

[FrenchieCat]

32. He may want the noise though.......

I don't Blame this President for any of this, and he is in a tough place,
as we all know that courts can come out on the wrong side
(as they did in the FDR court case cited as well as Bush v. Gore),
and they could rationalize and justify this torture shit,
......and then we'd be fucked, because the blame of lost time and money,
would be placed on this President solely and those who egged him on.
It could end up looking like political payback....as we know the voters are fickle.

It is Tough stuff....but I don't preclude that it should be let go.
I Just don't believe that Barack Obama should be the one shouldering this shit,
cause it ain't all that he has to do.

Can someone name one President who led the charge in going after a former President?
I don't know history before JFK that well.