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

JustifiedI highly doubt that myself nor Wylted intend to argue semantics in this debate. However, the value for this debate - justified - is an integral part of my position. Ultimately the government is held to a different or higher standard than individual citizenry. His definition does not account for this. Justice at the hands of the government is different than justice at the hands of a private company for instance, especially as it concerns taking actions against people based on nationality/race. Acts of the government must not violate the Constitution whereas acts of private companies can (for the most part). This is especially relevant as it concerns the period in question, because at the time of Japanese internment, the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution were in existence, but the Civil Rights Act was not. So the government cannot simply justify racism by having a "good or legitimate reason."My definition includes the terms "just" and "right" which implicates the constitutional obligations of the government, and more readily accounts for the fact that they're held to a higher standard. "Good and legitimate reason" does not account for that. In fact in constitutional jurisprudence, the term "legitimate" relates to rational basis review, which is the lowest level of scrutiny for government action. But race based laws are subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of scrutiny.HistoryMy opponent begins by rightfully pointing out that decisions do not occur in a vacuum. Indeed there is relevant and important history to explain the hysteria and racism that led to the violation of almost 127,000 Americans in 1942. In this round, I will explain my case against the resolution, which primarily revolves around a constitutional context. For now, some background on the events that led up to the camps. With severe labor shortage in the agricultural industry, a wave of Japanese immigrants came to the U.S. in the late 1800s. "Although their skills and hard labor in the agricultural fields were welcomed, as soon as they showed any signs of initiative or a desire to better their economic conditions, they were seen as a threat to the white population. Led by the Hearts newspaper chain, after the Russo-Japanese War, other publications including the New York Times saw the prosperity of California threatened and a conflict between the United States and Japan as inevitable.By 1913 labor unions feared that the Japanese workers would undermine union progress. They pressured California legislators and finally, in 1924, the Federal Government to pass various Anti-Japanese legislation. At no time during this period did any of the media-radio, the press or motion pictures, remind the general public that many of those with Japanese ancestry were American citizens" [1]. Racism against the Japanese was alive and well during this time; my opponent cannot contest this [2]. Civil Rights ViolationsThe Supreme Court did not rule that the removal and forced internment of Japanese-Americans was unconstitutional; however, historians and legal analysts can easily identify the violations that have occurred. First AmendmentFreedom of ReligionFreedom of SpeechFreedom of PressRight to AssembleThe Japanese religion of Shinto was prohibited in the camps, as was Buddhism while Christianity was promoted [3]. The Japanese were not allowed to use the Japanese language in public without censorship, which violated their right to free speech [4]. The right to hold mass meetings (assemble) was violated, as was their right to petition. When some people demanded due process from the government, they were sent to isolation camps via the War Relocation Authority [5].Fourth AmendmentFreedom from Unreasonable Searches and SeizuresRight to an Indictment or to be Informed of the ChargesRight to Life, Liberty and PropertyRight to Confront and Call WitnessesThe FBI tore apart Japanese-American's homes without warrants and confiscated "questionable" items like radios. These people were not given the opportunity to defend themselves or call witnesses. They did not have access to a speedy trial, and were not even told what the charges were against them. Furthermore they were not given legal representation. Fifth AmendmentRight to a Speedy and Public TrialEighth AmendmentRight to Reasonable BailFreedom From Cruel and Unusual PunishmentFifteenth AmendmentRight to VoteAnd those are just violations of constitutional amendments. Violations of constitutional articles include: the right to Habeas Corpus (to be brought before a court); freedom from bills of attainer and ex post facto laws; rights against involuntary servitude; and the right to equal protection under the law. The Niihau Incident Pro brings up The Niihau Incident and argues that the potential for such disloyalty is the (only) reason to disregard the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans. However it would be significantly misguided to use this one example as the basis for sweeping legal action - especially since it involved the actions of a small few. Comparatively, suppose the race or ethnic background of a shooter or terrorist was used to lock up everyone of the same background. By that standard, the vast majority of Americans would have no rights, as people from every background (color, creed, country of national origin, etc.) have committed heinous crimes in this country. Indeed there are even "homegrown terrorists" who are born and raised in the U.S., but then join terrorist organizations that fight against the U.S. and are deadlier than jihadists [6]. By Pro's logic, everyone from the country of these terrorists should be locked up... but wait, that would be all of us Americans. Another thing. Just 1/16 of Japanese blood was sufficient to make the bearer subject to deportation [7]. This means that having just one great-great-grandparent of Japanese ancestry would be enough to get you locked up -- ancestors that were not even alive when you were born. This is a far stretch to claim the potential for disloyalty. Moreover, how could this be an argument for locking up children, the elderly and mentally ill? Pro claims people would be more loyal to their race (Asian) than nationality (American). But given there were hundreds of thousands of Asians, including Japanese, in the U.S. then why wouldn't Japanese-Americans feel loyal to their Asian-American peers? Again you cannot use one incident as the standard of judging hundreds of thousands of people. The loyalty of those that were locked up was never tested. While locked up, the overwhelming majority of them signed loyalty agreements to the U.S.; some refused based on the way they had been treated. However these people were never put on trial or not selected for any specific reason other than their bloodline. Even Eleanor Roosevelt said, "These people were not convicted of any crime but emotions ran too high, too many people wanted to wreak vengeance on Oriental looking people." MAGICPro argues that the threat of Japanese spying was significant, yet there is little proof to back up this claim. There is no convincing evidence that the national security threat posed by Japanese Americans was a sufficient reason for the draconian nature of the deportations. Instead, Pro suggests we simply trust President Roosevelt's knowledge -- as if the president at that time could not be misinformed, racist or misguided. Examination of Japanese archives after the war revealed no evidence that Japanese Americans provided useful intelligence prior to the internment. This will likely be a point of contention next round. However unless Pro can single out the specific compelling evidence, we have no reason to assume it exists. I will highlight research showing that such compelling information does not exist. Counter Plan and Conclusion The U.S. was fighting a war against not only Japan, but Germany and Italy as well. Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Thailand, Finland and other countries were all associated with the Axis powers. Operation Pastorius was a failed German intelligence plan for sabotage inside the United States during World War II [8] yet German-Americans were not detained in camps. Evidence has shown that Germany and Italy also were unsuccessful in getting valuable intel from Americans of those ancestries [9]. Just because treason was requested doesn't mean it would be done. Pro claims the threat of the Japanese was very real, but he does not prove the threat of 127,000 Japanese Americans was very real. He also claims that detainment protected them from racism and mass hysteria. I doubt the judges need emphasized convincing on why most would choose to be free and experience racism, than be locked in camps under pretty terrible conditions. I'll expand on those harsh conditions in the next round. But it comes down to this: during wartime, the Bill of Rights has often become less important to Americans than the need for national security. According to Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the goal is to achieve “a proper balance” between civil liberties and protection. Once again, the government is held to a different standard and must comply with the Constitution in all of its actions. 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. At this time, the Civil Rights Act was not yet in place. This means 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. This would have inhibited the vast majority of relevant information any potential spy could have obtained. Any other information (like monitoring shipments) was readily available by all citizens and all U.S. travelers alike. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...