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

RacismWylted begins by pointing out that just because someone is racist, does not automatically mean that their actions are not justified. Indeed I intend to argue that the government's agents were both racist AND unjustified. In his analogy, he suggests it would be acceptable to shoot an Amish person for putting a gun in his fiance's face, even if he is racist against the Amish. This analogy is obviously flawed as he specifically presents a reason other than race for blowing out the Amish person's brains. Yet with the internment camps, the fact that people had 1/16th Japanese blood alone was enough of a factor to lock up people like prisoners and violate a ton of their civil rights. The difference is clear. Wylted gives an example where he has a reason to commit violence against someone of a particular race (their specific, individual aggressive behavior), whereas race alone was sufficient for oppressing hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans, who committed no violence whatsoever. Internment CampsPro states that FDR originally intended to move the Japanese inland; however, "the racism of state governments (not federal) made that plan blow up, and so FDR ordered relocation centers." This has essentially lost Pro the debate, or at the very least proves that racism was the primary factor in the creation of the camps, and would therefore be unjustified. It doesn't matter if it was the state or federal governments that gave really God-awful reasoning -- the reasoning is still God-awful."On the West Coast, a hysteria of fear against Japanese Americans as 'the Fifth Column' and 'the enemy within' was created by inflammatory journalism, pressure groups, politicians, and the U.S. Army. A profound suspicion of Japanese Americans quickly led to cries for their expulsion" [1]. "The constitution only applies to American citizens, and not to aliens." -- PRO The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments that were all completely violated [2]. Moreover, 62% of the people locked in camps were American citizens, so this is a moot point entirely [3]."We also have less rights once we are arrested and have either been convicted of or are awaiting a trial for crime." -- PROWe have rights that are specifically related to our arrests. In fact, false arrest is a common law tort where a plaintiff alleges he or she was held in custody without probable cause [4]. The entire concept of the camps was an unjustifiable arrest. In fact the very amendments I was referring to all have to do with one's rights while they are awaiting trial. These people weren't even put on trial. Please extend all of my legal arguments. In this section of the debate, Pro tries to argue that the camps weren't that bad and that those deserving of Constitutional rights received them. Both of those claims are false. He manipulatively tries to downplay the camp's conditions though they are well documented. For example Ralph Smeltzer, a member of the Brethren Church, worked within the camps and produced his own reports documenting the condition of the internees. "His reports present a group of people confined to almost unbearable situations. Smeltzer describes how bathing facilities were quite inadequate, running water was late in being made available, and two weeks elapsed before hot water was available... In the second report, a lack of plumbing supplies creates a serious lack of sanitary facilities leading to widespread dysentery” [5].More on Camp Conditions"Detainees were housed in livestock stalls or windowless shacks that were crowded and lacked sufficient ventilation, electricity, and sanitation facilities. Food was often spoiled. There was a shortage of food and medicine... These camps were located in remote, uninhabitable areas. In the desert camps, daytime temperatures often reached 100 degrees or more. Sub-zero winters were common in the northern camps... The internment camps were surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers. Armed guards patrolled the perimeter and were instructed to shoot anyone attempting to leave. The barracks consisted of tar paper over two-by-sixes and no insulation. Many families were assigned to one barracks and lived together with no privacy. Meals were taken communally in mess halls and required a long wait in line. A demonstration in Manzanar over the theft of food by personnel led to violence in which two died and many were injured" [1].After-Effects on Japanese AmericansThrough the relocation program the Japanese Americans suffered greatly. First they were essentially sent to prison. Then they lost their homes and businesses. "Their educations and careers were interrupted and their possessions lost. Many lost sons who fought for the country that imprisoned their parents. They suffered the loss of faith in the government and the humiliation of being confined as traitors in their own country... Relocation after incarceration was difficult, especially since prejudice still ran high in the West Coast. Many Issei (first generation Japanese Americans) never regained their losses, living out their lives in poverty and poor health" [1].Back to Rights You'll notice that Wylted comments on the Tulelake facility in attempting to defend the vast amount of civil rights that were violated. He also goes back to quote my source, suggesting that the WRA officials did not treat the inmates that badly (because they were treated better than the WCAA). This is an interesting tactic considering the very next line/s following Wylted's posted excerpt reads, "However, the essential liberties of Japanese Americans remained restricted. They required a pass to enter or leave camp; some visiting Nisei soldiers subsequently had to sneak in and out in order to visit their families. Armed sentries in guard towers patrolled the perimeter fences, and shot at inmates who came too close. In two well-documented cases, inmates were shot and killed by perimeter guards. The inmates also were initially denied permission to use cameras or shortwave radios. Both the center regulations established at WRA headquarters in Washington and their enforcement at the various camps were gradually relaxed over time" [6]. Again: the majority of people in these camps were American citizens. All of their rights were completely violated. MAGICI've asked Pro for evidence - any evidence - that the government had for locking up these people. Pro was unable to provide the evidence (because it doesn't exist) and suggests this doesn't matter. Obviously that is false. Please extend my arguments regarding the government's very specific responsibility to abide by the Constitutional rights of people in this country. Once again, the government is held to a much higher legal standard when it comes to arbitrating justice. It is imperative that the government be held to this higher standard."Throughout the course of World War II, not a single incident of espionage or treason was found to be committed by Japanese Americans. The difficulty of committing treason while incarcerated cannot alone explain this absence of wrongdoing; 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" [1]. In 1980, the U.S. Congress appointed The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to conduct an official governmental study of Executive Order 9066. They concluded a "grave injustice" and unanimously agreed the move was motivated by 'racial prejudice, war hysteria and failure of political leadership,' and not by military considerations [7]. Pro says we should put ourselves in FDR's shoes when thinking about his decision, but that would be hard since I'm not racist against the Japanese...The point here is clear. MAGIC did not provide any information that was sufficient for FDR to go through with this.NiiahauPro writes, "The Niihau incident though a small sample size was the only available information we had on what would occur in a Japanese invasion." This is precisely my point and precisely why the resolution has been negated. This was the ONLY available information we had -- in Pro's very own words -- so clearly FDR's motivation was insufficient and the move was unjustified.Wylted mentions that after 9/11, everyone had to go through increased security measures despite the actions of a small few. This is a weak analogy. One could argue that increased security measures are justified while not ALL increased security measures are justified. Obviously. Let's go back to my point about the fear of disloyalty. I asked how this is a valid argument in defense of locking up children and the mentally ill. Pro explains (something about) how people could join their parents in the camps...? Whatever he's talking about, he didn't answer my question or address the point. These people could not have realistically been suspected of treason. Wylted dropped my point on most internees signing loyalty agreements, he dropped my argument about criminalizing everyone that shares a nationality with a bad guy, and he dropped my point that pro-Asian Americans should still have loyalty to their fellow Asian-Americans. But most importantly, extend my 1/16th Japanese blood argument here, since this helps exemplify the hysterical (and irrational, i.e. unjustifiable) nature of the camp policy. ==I'm out of character space, but since I have 2 more rounds, there will be time to defend my Counter Plan. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...