PDA

View Full Version : U.S. official cites misconduct in Japanese American internment cases


Sigaba
05-26-2011, 23:27
Source is here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-japanese-americans-20110525,0,2339839,print.story).U.S. official cites misconduct in Japanese American internment cases

Acting Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal says one of his predecessors, Charles Fahy, deliberately hid from the Supreme Court a military report that Japanese Americans were not a threat in World War II.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

7:27 PM PDT, May 24, 2011

Reporting from Washington
Advertisement

Acting Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal, in an extraordinary admission of misconduct, took to task one of his predecessors for hiding evidence and deceiving the Supreme Court in two of the major cases in its history: the World War II rulings that upheld the detention of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans.

Katyal said Tuesday that Charles Fahy, an appointee of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, deliberately hid from the court a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that concluded the Japanese Americans on the West Coast did not pose a military threat. The report indicated there was no evidence Japanese Americans were disloyal, were acting as spies or were signaling enemy submarines, as some at the time had suggested.

Fahy was defending Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066, which authorized forced removals of Japanese Americans from "military areas" in 1942. The solicitor general, the U.S. government's top courtroom attorney, is viewed as the most important and trusted lawyer to appear before the Supreme Court, and Katyal said he had a "duty of absolute candor in our representations to the court."

Katyal, 41, who is of Indian American heritage and is the first Asian American to hold the post, said he decided "to set the record straight" Tuesday at a Justice Department event honoring Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

He said that two of the government's civilian lawyers had told Fahy it would be "suppression of evidence" to keep the naval intelligence report from the high court.

"What does Fahy do? Nothing," Katyal said.

Instead, Fahy told the justices the government and the military agreed the roundup of Japanese Americans was required as a matter of "military necessity." Roosevelt issued the order on Feb. 19, 1942, about two months after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, which plunged the U.S. into World War II.

In 1943, the high court unanimously upheld a curfew imposed on Japanese Americans in the case of Gordon Hirabayashi vs. United States. And in 1944, the court in a 6-3 decision upheld the removal order imposed on Japanese Americans in Fred Korematsu vs. United States. The majority accepted the government's claim that it was a matter of "military urgency."

Scholars and judges have denounced the World War II rulings as among the worst in the court's history, but neither the high court nor the Justice Department had formally admitted they were mistaken — until now.

"It seemed obvious to me we had made a mistake. The duty of candor wasn't met," Katyal said.

Korematsu, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Clinton, died in Marin County in 2005 at age 86. On Tuesday, his daughter Karen said she was grateful that Katyal had acknowledged the mistakes of his predecessor.

"It was a remarkable statement he made," she said. "It proves what my father believed all along — that removing the Japanese Americans was wrong and incarcerating them was unconstitutional."

Korematsu was sent to a camp in Utah, one of 10 in the country. California had two, Tule Lake and Manzanar.

Katyal said that last summer he was doing research for several immigration cases when he came upon some ugly, disturbing comments about Asians in 19th century briefs submitted to the Supreme Court. Chinese immigrants were described as "people not suited to our institutions." People from India were described as a "subject race."

He then looked into the history of the World War II internment cases, including documents revealed in the 1980s. Peter Irons, a professor at UC San Diego, had found reports in old government files that showed the U.S. military did not see Japanese Americans as a threat in 1942. His research led to federal court hearings that set aside the convictions of Korematsu and Hirabayashi. Congress later voted to have the nation apologize and pay reparations to those who were wrongly held.

Katyal said he decided it was important to publicly acknowledge the mistakes made in the solicitor general's office. Hiding the truth from the justices, he said, "harmed the court, and it harmed 120,000 Japanese Americans. It harmed our reputation as lawyers and as human beings, and it harmed our commitment to those words on the court's building: Equal Justice Under Law."

Hirabayashi is now 93 and living in Canada. His memory of the World War II years has faded, said his nephew Lane Hirabayashi, a professor of Asian American studies at UCLA. "I know Gordon would be very pleased by this. He didn't know at the time that government prosecutors had distorted evidence. However, he knew in his heart that mass incarceration was unconstitutional," he said.

"I thought it was good and very long overdue," Irons said of Katyal's statement. "This was a deliberate, knowing lie by Fahy to the Supreme Court. For the government's highest counsel to make that statement now is quite noteworthy and admirable."

A year ago, Katyal became the acting solicitor general when Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court. He had made a name for himself in legal circles in 2006 when took on the case of Salim Hamdan, who faced a military trial at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He won in the Supreme Court, which struck down the military commissions because they had not been authorized by Congress.

But that victory in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld earned him some critics in the Senate — and it may have cost him the chance to win Senate confirmation as solicitor general. This year, President Obama passed over Katyal and nominated Deputy White House Counsel Donald Verrilli Jr. for the post. Katyal said he would step down when the Senate officially confirmed Verrilli.

Pete
05-27-2011, 03:40
"..........Katyal said he decided it was important to publicly acknowledge the mistakes made in the solicitor general's office. Hiding the truth from the justices, he said, "harmed the court,..............."

Mistake? Not hardly. Fahy knew it but hid it.

JJ_BPK
05-27-2011, 04:17
"..........Katyal said he decided it was important to publicly acknowledge the mistakes made in the solicitor general's office. Hiding the truth from the justices, he said, "harmed the court,..............."



This happened almost 70 yrs ago. I see no benefit in dragging out subjects like this, with one exception..

Someone wants to get reelected...

:munchin

Is BHO going to go home to his 15th removed relatives(Africa & Ireland, next Indonesia) and now speak of the great things he has accomplished to right the wrongs of his predecessors??

Please remind everyone Roosevelt was a DEMOCRAT... :(

Richard
05-27-2011, 06:27
This happened almost 70 yrs ago. I see no benefit in dragging out subjects like this, with one exception...

I disagree - it's the TRUTH and should be told.

I grew up with the children of many who had been interred as adults and children in places like Manzanar and Tule Lake, and the story of our internment of American citizens during WW2 is a complicated and often distorted tale.

Mary Tsukamoto, a close family friend who was interred as a child, wrote a book worth reading by anyone interested in that truth - "We the People - A Story of Internment in America." Another family friend, Bob Matsui, was our Congressman for many years and used to talk with my Dad, a USN vet of the PTO, and brother, the Florin Historical Society President for many years, about it.

TRUTH trumps myth, half-truths, and lies. Good for Mr Katyal.

Richard :munchin

JJ_BPK
05-27-2011, 07:33
Completely agree Richard! Ugly but true, it needs to be known.

You're missing my point,

This was a very sad chapter in this nations history.

BUT,, The forum use by this 2L is completely wrong and only serves to aggrandize ZERO and his agenda of world socialism.

Prepare for Pigford v. Glickman, deuxième partie (aka: PUBLIC LAW 100-456-SEPT. 29, 1988) ..

Teach history, make children aware (and adults) but this format is muck racking and divisive.

This rubbish is worthy of a Dan Rather Award for purposeful poor judgment for the advancement of the Left.


:mad:

WRMETTLER
05-27-2011, 10:52
In the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, $20,000 was awarded for each surviving detainee, totaling $1.2 billion dollars. The Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriated an additional $400 million to ensure all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments, These payments were awarded to 82,210 Japanese Americans or their heirs at a cost of $1.6 billion until 1999. The United States government has apologized to the Japanese Americans at least twice.

Under Pigford, the United States government has paid less than $1billion dollars.

Each of these situations resulted from a policy decision of the United States Government.

Anyone should be able to discuss all facts surrounding each situation on any forum.

Richard
05-27-2011, 11:01
You're missing my point,

I don't think so; I just disagree.

This was a very sad chapter in this nations history.

Agree.

BUT,, The forum use by this 2L is completely wrong and only serves to aggrandize ZERO and his agenda of world socialism.

The 'forum' was the DOJs Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month Event. Here's what Mr Paytel, the keynote speaker, said:

It has been my privilege to have served as Acting Solicitor General for the past year and to have served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General before that. The Solicitor General is responsible for overseeing appellate litigation on behalf of the United States, and with representing the United States in the Supreme Court. There are several terrific accounts of the roles that Solicitors General have played throughout history in advancing civil rights. But it is also important to remember the mistakes. One episode of particular relevance to AAPI Heritage Month is the Solicitor General’s defense of the forced relocation and internment of Japanese-American during World War II.

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States uprooted more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent, most of them American citizens, and confined them in internment camps. The Solicitor General was largely responsible for the defense of those policies.

By the time the cases of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu reached the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General had learned of a key intelligence report that undermined the rationale behind the internment. The Ringle Report, from the Office of Naval Intelligence, found that only a small percentage of Japanese Americans posed a potential security threat, and that the most dangerous were already known or in custody. But the Solicitor General did not inform the Court of the report, despite warnings from Department of Justice attorneys that failing to alert the Court “might approximate the suppression of evidence.” Instead, he argued that it was impossible to segregate loyal Japanese Americans from disloyal ones. Nor did he inform the Court that a key set of allegations used to justify the internment, that Japanese Americans were using radio transmitters to communicate with enemy submarines off the West Coast, had been discredited by the FBI and FCC. And to make matters worse, he relied on gross generalizations about Japanese Americans, such as that they were disloyal and motivated by “racial solidarity.”

The Supreme Court upheld Hirabayashi’s and Korematsu’s convictions. And it took nearly a half century for courts to overturn these decisions. One court decision in the 1980s that did so highlighted the role played by the Solicitor General, emphasizing that the Supreme Court gave “special credence” to the Solicitor General’s representations. The court thought it unlikely that the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way had the Solicitor General exhibited complete candor. Yet those decisions still stand today as a reminder of the mistakes of that era.

Today, our Office takes this history as an important reminder that the “special credence” the Solicitor General enjoys before the Supreme Court requires great responsibility and a duty of absolute candor in our representations to the Court. Only then can we fulfill our responsibility to defend the United States and its Constitution, and to protect the rights of all Americans.

Neal Katyal is the Acting Solicitor General of the United States.

http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/

Prepare for Pigford v. Glickman, deuxième partie (aka: PUBLIC LAW 100-456-SEPT. 29, 1988) ..

That train has left the station long ago - Congress passed 10 Apr 1987 and President Ronald Reagan signed S.1009 which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and the disbursment of $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.

http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00055&search_id=19269&pagenum=1

http://www.democracynow.org/1999/2/18/wwii_reparations_japanese_american_internees

Teach history, make children aware (and adults) but this format is muck racking and divisive.

I don't see how. :confused:

This rubbish is worthy of a Dan Rather Award for purposeful poor judgment for the advancement of the Left.

I disagree - this is not at all like what got Dan Rather in trouble.

Richard :munchin

wet dog
05-27-2011, 11:09
How many Japanese/American citizen lives were saved from lynching mobs by being interned? I don't know, 1941 was still a volatile period. Few if any, and aside from spying for the Japanese govt., no Italians were interned because they were fresh off the boat from Italy. Maybe a few, but not in mass.

Many fear mongers were wishing we interned every Arab in America after 9-11, it would have resulted only in more hatred. There are a few NY rabble-rousers shouting Kill Americans, etc., idiots looking for attention. They are only hurting other second generation Arab Americans. Them and the teenage flash mobs, I think we can just out right shoot, but I could be wrong.

akv
05-27-2011, 11:40
How many Japanese/American citizen lives were saved from lynching mobs by being interned? I don't know, 1941 was still a volatile period. Few if any, and aside from spying for the Japanese govt., no Italians were interned because they were fresh off the boat from Italy. Maybe a few, but not in mass.
Many fear mongers were wishing we interned every Arab in America after 9-11, it would have resulted only in more hatred. There are a few NY rabble-rousers shouting Kill Americans, etc., idiots looking for attention. They are only hurting other second generation Arab Americans. Them and the teenage flash mobs, I think we can just out right shoot, but I could be wrong.

Agreed, we have come a long way in 70 years, but we must still guard against taking counsel of our fears and turning on our own citizens as we did in 1942, and the history of the Japanese internment provides a valuable lesson. Hatred and xenophobia are easy traps to fall into amdist war and economic turmoil.

IMHO a contemporary example of this can be seen in the candidacy of Herman Cain for POTUS, despite agreeing with his politics, how can we claim to have evolved as a society since 1942, if there is real support for an open bigot for the most powerful job in the world?

Richard
05-27-2011, 12:23
How many Japanese/American citizen lives were saved from lynching mobs by being interned? I don't know,...

A specious bit of reasoning which can never be answered; however, teaching History vice myth can allow one to ponder the complexity of the matter by giving us a glimpse of the times and those involved:

- The Evacuation of the Japanese Following Pearl Harbor

http://marchand.ucdavis.edu/lessons/japanese/japanese.html

- Senate Bill S.1009 - To accept the findings and to implement the recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.

Page 2 Sec 1. (a) Findings.

(2) the internment of individuals of Japanese ancestry was carried out without any documented acts of espionage or sabotage, or other acts of disloyalty by any citizens or permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry on the west coast;

(3) there was no military or security reason for the internment;

(4) the internment of the individuals of Japanese ancestry was caused by racial prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership;

(5) the excluded individuals of Japanese ancestry suffered enormous damages and losses, both material and intangible, and there were incalculable losses in education and job training, all of which resulted in significant human suffering;

(6) the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of those individuals of Japanese ancestry interned were fundamentally violated by that evacuation and internment;

http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00055&search_id=19269&pagenum=2

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

JJ_BPK
05-27-2011, 12:35
I don't think so; I just disagree.
OK
Agree.
OK

The forum was the DOJs Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month Event. Here's what Mr Paytel, the keynote speaker, said:....

Neal Katyal is the Acting Solicitor General of the United States.[/I]


I think this could have been a very positive speech, stressing the ideas, the hard work and contributions Americans with Asian heritage have made to this country. The proud heritage they have created for their generation and generations to come..

Instead he digs up one 70 yr old negative event by a bigoted white boy.

Sorry,, That's what community organizers are famous for,, no socially redeeming value,, It's a FAIL...

That train has left the station long ago - Congress passed 10 Apr 1987 and President Ronald Reagan signed S.1009 which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and the disbursment of $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.


Agreed, but given todays entitlement electorate, don't be surprised if this is reappraised next Fall


I don't see how. :confused:


see above under: community organizers


I disagree - this is not at all like what got Dan Rather in trouble.

Richard :munchin

I use Rather as an example of intent and style, not content.


So,, I agree we disagree.. But I'll still buy the beer,, anyone for a summit?? :D

At Richard's.. :D

Dusty
05-27-2011, 13:12
Who issued the Executive Order? Roosevelt? Oh. Dem, right?

Sigaba
05-27-2011, 13:29
Who issued the Executive Order? Roosevelt? Oh. Dem, right?FDR's secretary of war was Henry L. Stimson, a Republican. Stimson was a vigorous advocate of relocation and internment.

Dusty
05-27-2011, 13:31
FDR's secretary of war was Henry L. Stimson, a Republican. Stimson was a vigorous advocate of relocation and internment.

So what? He didn't issue the order. The Demlib did.

If you're going to be an apologist for the internment bullshit, then don't give Obama the credit for the OBL "assassination".

Sigaba
05-27-2011, 13:41
So what? He didn't issue the order. The Demlib did.

If you're going to be an apologist for the internment bullshit, then don't give [the current president] the credit for the OBL "assassination".QP Dusty--

First, Stimson's advocacy translated into a recommendation to the president on 11 February 1942. FDR delegated to Stimson the task.

Second, the interpretation you're presenting is that FDR's motivation to put American citizens into concentration camps was a product of both domestic party politics and to political ideology. What evidence supports this interpretation?

Third, how does a focus on historical accuracy translate into being an "apologist"?

Dusty
05-27-2011, 14:55
QP Dusty--

First, Stimson's advocacy translated into a recommendation to the president on 11 February 1942. FDR delegated to Stimson the task.

Second, the interpretation you're presenting is that FDR's motivation to put American citizens into concentration camps was a product of both domestic party politics and to political ideology. What evidence supports this interpretation?

Third, how does a focus on historical accuracy translate into being an "apologist"?

First: Who issued the order-Stimson or FDR? If it was FDR, don't blame Republicans for the internment.

Second: Everything FDR did was arguably motivated by domestic party politics and ideology.

Third: You're releasing a Dem, FDR, from fault and laying the blame on Stinson, a Repulican.

Sigaba
05-27-2011, 15:29
First: Who issued the order-Stimson or FDR? If it was FDR, don't blame Republicans for the internment.

Second: Everything FDR did was arguably motivated by domestic party politics and ideology.

Third: You're releasing a Dem, FDR, from fault and laying the blame on Stinson, a Repulican.QP Dusty--

First, if we want to make the issue of responsibility a matter of politics, then we must also ask ourselves: What did Republicans do to stop the interment of American citizens? IMO, the GOP's silence on the issue was deafening in its party platform for the 1944 presidential election (available here (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25835#axzz1NaccjlnH)).

Second, your interpretation of FDR's motivation simplifies the complexity of his own decision making process as war leader. There is no doubt that FDR was "the ultimate political animal" (as Robert Divine often put it). There is, however, significant debate over what motivated him: personal ambition, nationalism, patricianism, political ideology, or pragmatism. It also remains unclear to what extent FDR was influenced by public opinion during World War II. Did he lead the American people, as Robert Dallek suggests? Or do Divine and Andrew Roberts correctly argue in separate works that FDR carefully modulated his choices based upon public opinion?

Third, I'm neither releasing FDR from responsibility nor assigning blame to Stimson. I am simply pointing out that there was bipartisan support for this issue within FDR's administration. This point is consistent with my previous posts on the impact of cultural perceptions of racial difference on America's conduct during World War II. These perceptions transcended party lines. While suggesting otherwise may make for a satisfying political polemic, the argument is not historiographically sustainable.

Chris Cram
05-27-2011, 15:32
Gentlemen – (Dusty/Sigaba)

Wasn’t FDR a Progressive Liberal and Stimson Progressive Conservative?

And doesn’t the progressive ‘ethic’, among other things, allow the responsible population to reduce the stature or value of another
segment of the human population so that the confiscation of their rights may be legally and morally done for the betterment of society?

I submit that the Parties are concealment, and the Ideology should be the target.

wet dog
05-27-2011, 16:41
Forget the Japanese, how about the Red-Man enslaved to Reservations.

The point is, it failed the commen sense test. Internment camps, really?

Not one of our better moves, but from those interned families also came Jaspanese sons who served honorably in the US armed forces.

A few MOH recipients might I add.

p.s., FDR was a hack.

Dusty
05-27-2011, 17:22
Gentlemen – (Dusty/Sigaba)

Wasn’t FDR a Progressive Liberal and Stimson Progressive Conservative?

And doesn’t the progressive ‘ethic’, among other things, allow the responsible population to reduce the stature or value of another
segment of the human population so that the confiscation of their rights may be legally and morally done for the betterment of society?

I submit that the Parties are concealment, and the Ideology should be the target.

Don't cloud the dialogue with logic, please. ;)

Dusty
05-27-2011, 17:25
FDR was a hack.



As well as the third most marxist-leaning POTUS behind Wilson and a certain golfer who can recite the Islamic call to prayer better than Ali Baba.