Japanese internment by the U.S. during WW2 was justified

I assume the readers, like myself, are smart enough to not be manipulated by Pro's rhetoric to "get back on track" or buy into his bare assertion criticisms. Indeed this entire debate has stayed focused on the resolution; there have been no red herrings on my end which is why Pro has only dropped the term... without actually being able to specify one."Japanese" Pro says that 1/16th = third generation, when in fact it is the fourth. Nonetheless, Pro claims that MAGIC intercepts say these people pose a threat. David D. Lowman is a former high ranking intelligence officer with the National Security Agency, a specialist on World War II signal intelligence, and a participant in the congressional hearing and court cases relating to Japanese internment. According to this internment sympathizer (whom agrees with Pro), "the loyalty to the United States of about a fifth of the Japanese population could not be trusted" per MAGIC intel [1].This means that 80% of the Japanese could be trusted, even according to pro-internment strategists. Not only does that mean 4/5 Japanese-Americans were imprisoned with no legitimate reason, i.e. not committing a crime or planning to, but the (alleged) 20% that did pose a threat were never charged with any formal crime, not given legal representation, and were never put on trial to face their accusers. Instead, an entire race (nationality) of people were treated as guilty until proven innocent, which is a complete violation of U.S. legal standards. Moreover these people were not even given the chance to prove themselves innocent. Their race alone determined their presumed guilt and subsequent punishment which is racist. Their only crime was looking like the enemy. "Internment"A concentration camp is “a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined.” The definition of a concentration camp describes exactly what happened to the Japanese Americans during WWII, where they were political prisoners confined in a camp [2]. The Japanese were literally held in a concentration camp, though the term "internment" camp is preferred by government officials to distinguish the treatment of the Japanese vs. the treatment of Jews in Hitler's concentration camps [3]. Still, I've outlined the inhumane treatment of people in these camps, and Pro wants to focus on semantics. That's because he knows it is 100% false that the camps were pleasurable or even tolerable. Pro has not (can not) deny that the conditions of the camps were horrid, so he attempts to distract the readers by suggesting the term "internment" is relevant. This, ladies and gentleman, is a blatant example of a red herring. But the truth is that these camps could have been 5-star hotels with every amenity possible and the resolution would still be negated. Pro can call these camps whatever he wants. Regardless of the name of the camps or even the conditions, every single one of my arguments regarding the legal rights of citizens and responsibilities of government on due process still applies. MAGICI've asked Pro to single out which part of the encrypts, specifically, outlined a significant threat. He has repeatedly failed to do so and simply states "I don't believe it [doesn't exist]" as if his beliefs are meaningful evidence. They are not. Once again, the Congress conducted a serious investigation into this move and ruled in favor of the Japanese-Americans who sued them for their unlawful behavior. If the government had a legitimate reason to not pay reparations, they would have made that information public to justify their claims. To this day, the only reasoning they have found -- by Pro's own admission -- is the intercepts calling to utilize Japanese-Americans in favor of Japan's interests. Extend my argument that just because the Japanese government might have wanted this, doesn't mean that it was likely to happen or be effective. Islamic extremists call for Muslims to kill others in an act of jihad, yet we do not assume or behave as if the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are guilty or will be guilty per this request. Even if we violate some of their rights (spying) we do not detain them like prisoners, violating a bunch more of their civil rights. That would not be justifiable.In an intercept dated January 30, 1941 and noted as translated 2-7-41 Numbered #44, there was a call by the Japanese for "Utilization of our 'Second Generations' and our resident nationals [4]. Of course 'second generations' does not necessarily include 3rd and 4th generations, but I digress. The same intercept also called for "Utilization of U.S. citizens of foreign extraction (other than Japanese), aliens (other than Japanese), communists, Negroes, labor union members, and anti-Semites." Yet non-Japanese aliens or citizens, including communists, blacks or unionized Americans were not put in camps. Therefore, Pro's single justification for locking up the Japanese as per these encrypts also incriminates other entire groups... yet none of those groups were locked in camps, and neither were any other Americans with national ties to the Axis Powers. My opponent straw mans my position on the intercepts by providing another terrible analogy. First, I never suggested ignoring intel. Second, unlike Pro's example the intercepts did not specify a particular target but said the Japanese would ASK for help from a huge group of people who MIGHT be sympathetic to their cause. You can act on reasonable intelligence without violating the rights of citizens. It would be permissible to evacuate the west coast in Pro's example, but it would be impermissible to lock up every American of North Korean descent.RightsPro is completely wrong about the rights of non-citizens. This can easily be looked up which is why I sourced my claims in the last round. Pro has not. The U.S. Supreme Court settled this issue well over a century ago, and founding father James Madison wrote "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage" [5]. In Wong Win v. United States (1896), the court ruled that: It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law [6]. I have no idea why Pro thinks he is correct.Furthermore, Pro is incorrect in that you cannot drone American citizens which is exactly why Rand Paul staged a 13 hour filibuster against this in the Senate [7]. Of course this is irrelevant to the debate, but I felt compelled to point out how wrong Pro is because his arrogance is unwarranted. Perhaps one should look up the laws before making bold claims about them. Counter Plan and ConclusionI said instead of uprooting 127,000 men, women, and children from their homes, the government could have simply barred them from specific military and industrial sites. Pro responded, "That is precisely what caused the internment and relocation though. Executive order 9066 is what caused large portions of California to be called sensitive military and industrial sites." He links to the Wikipedia page of this order which absolutely nowhere confirms Pro's claim. You can also read the Executive Order in its full context, and nowhere does it even mention the state of California [8]. The declaration of "military areas" per the Order cannot realistically apply to entire states... even though Japanese-Americans were locked up whom were not located in California or anywhere near a coast. And moreover, I've outlined in the last round that Japanese Americans living in Hawaii were spared relocation because of the logistical difficulty of transporting a third of the state's population to the mainland. With their numbers exceeding the entire Japanese population on the mainland, Japanese Americans in Hawaii proved an essential part of the state's labor force and defense. This means that even in Hawaii... the closest state to Japan and the most vulnerable, evidenced by the attack on Pearl Harbor... was swarming with Japanese-Americans who theoretically should have been a threat. And yet these people played a vital role in fighting on America's behalf despite their ancestry and their location. MAGIC intercepts note, "These men [that the Japanese wanted for help] moreover, should have access to governmental establishments, laboratories, governmental organizations of various characters, factories, and transportation facilities" [4]. This gives credence to my point that the government could have easily kept Japanese-Americans out of significant positions of power - especially in roles of military and government by firing or not hiring them, which would reasonably protect sensitive information. This would have inhibited the vast majority of relevant information. Any other information was readily available by all citizens and all U.S. travelers alike. My plan would protect the interest of American security to the same extent that locking up the Japanese in camps would. Since the Japanese knew that Japanese-Americans were being locked up, they would have to find new strategy to implement their goals which could just as easily have involved non-Japanese. In fact, the MAGIC intercepts specifically called for using other people!My plan would also have abided by the constitutional rights of the American citizens that were locked up (which was 62% of them) even though non-Americans had other due process rights as well. In the final round, I will focus heavily on the standard of judicial review used by U.S. courts to demonstrate how this act was blatantly unjustifiable. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...