Japanese Internment - Essay Example

Sur Japanese Internment Korematsu v. United s, which d back in 1944, was an important Supreme Court case thathappened in the United States. The ruling was that, the involvement of Japanese Internment camps by the government in the World War II period was constitutional. This firm decision emanated from Justice Hugo black. It faced a lot of controversy because it was the first time that the court had made a ruling based on racial discrimination, and in regard to a firm scrutiny standard. The case had it that the court applies this rule as a way of backing the involvement of Japanese Internment camps in relation to individual rights. Back in 1942, President Roosevelt Delano ordered anyone with ‘foreign ancestry’ to be taken to the internment camps. However, this order did not outline the specific ethnic groups that were being targeted. According to the U.S government, these individuals were considered as heightened threats to the security of the country. Fred Korematsu was one of the victims ordered to get in the Japanese Internment camp, but he declined to leave his city claiming that it was a violation of his personal rights according to the Fifth Amendment of the law. Korematsu complained of an infringement in his rights, to live in freedom, and claimed that no legal process could justify the inhuman act by the president. Consequently, he was arrested for the violation of this order. It was later confirmed that the government had not done this through racial prejudice, but rather they were in fear of invasion from the Japanese. Therefore, the segregation was deemed constitutional with much basis on ‘military urgency’. Well, in my own opinion, I do not find facts that were proposed concrete enough to have led to the temporary suspension of the parts of the constitution. In my view, this order was based on racial discrimination than just military urgency. Korematsu defied the orders and continued to live like any other American citizen. With much desperation, he underwent plastic surgeries to later his eyes so that he could look less Japanese. He went on to change his name to Clyde Sarah and later posed as a Spanish descent. In this period, everything was well until when he was arrested in California and taken to jail. In this case, the ultimate targets for the government were simply individuals of Japanese origin. These discriminatory convictions were against the freedom that was guaranteed by the stated constitution of that time. In 1944, the high court stated that the incarceration was not out of racism but had been justified by the army. The military had allegations that Japanese Americans were involved in the radio signaling of ships of the enemies along the shore; which was deemed as treason. The issue of racial discrimination had been validated by the court. Even after the release of the Japanese Americans from the camps, Korematsu still had issues when it came to marriage because there were antimiscegenation laws that forbade interracial marriage in the United States. This clearly shows that racism existed, and it affected Korematsu to the extent that he could not find any employment. This is evidence that it was more of racism and not for security reasons as alleged by the government. In my opinion, the facts presented in this case could not lead to the justification of the temporary suspension of the parts of the constitution because the constitution itself acts as a form of justice; therefore, it should hold the interests of the citizens for unlimited time without any violation of their rights irrespective of their race. According to Korematsu, it was wrong for any American citizen to be held in prison, or within camps without trial, therefore, the government had violated fundamental laws within the constitution. Some years after Korematsu was rearrested, he claimed that military authorities did not have the jurisdiction to issue relocation orders, which was another evidence of the infringement of the basic rights that are known by citizens in accordance with the constitution. In this case, the court and the government combined to make a firm hedge over what they believed rather than going in line the constitution. Consequently, the constitution lost its credibility because it was no longer serving the intended purpose. When the court sided with the government, it altered its legal structure hence it would look deeper into the rights of the Japanese American individuals who were at the moment feeling ‘deprived’ as far as their rights were concerned. This clearly leaves no doubt that ordering the Japanese Americans into camps was unconstitutional because no legal processes were followed and everything was done as a matter of urgency. (Savage, 248) The military situation did not justify the temporary suspension of the parts of the constitution. After the World War 2, the ruling that Korematsu made troubled many civil libertarians since it suggested that civil rights could lead to hysteria as well as prejudice. There was some monetary compensation given to those who had lost homes, assets as well as employment during the entire process. According to the personal justice report issued in 1983, it was clearly stated that the military did not have to go to such extents as evicting the Japanese Americans; therefore, there was some overruling of parameters in the court. This is what led to the formal apology in 1988 that was directed to citizens who had suffered and lost their property. It is clear that individual rights and freedom of humanity was interrupted in the name of ‘military urgency’. The incarceration camps were symbols of racism and were against the freedom that is supposed to come with the power of the constitution. The army’s claims should not have led to the violation of the rights within the constitution because the constitution binds the legal laws and is therefore stronger than orders from the army. In this case, there should have been a legal process involved rather than just ordering the Japanese Americans to go into the camps. According to Justice Robert Jackson, there was no evidence that would have justified the incarceration. He asserted that, in some cases, the court had the tendency of validating the principle of racial discrimination, therefore, any form of authority could advance any claim citing urgency. Korematsu’s decision to evade the internment was later overturned in 1983 when he challenged the court with a ‘Coram nobis’. This is because the government had deliberately given false information to the Supreme Court. Consequently, in 2011, the justice department issued an official notice conceding that they were in error. This clearly shows how the court failed to attend to this case with a sense of justice. Therefore, the execution order 9066, in my opinion was unconstitutional and in some way violated the fifth amendment of the constitution of the United States. Even though the provisions that confer to the congress as well as presidential powers can bring up a peaceful nation, we cannot forget the true words of justice Hughes that ‘’the war power of the government is the power to wage war successfully’ in this case, the validity of the action which was taken had to be judged fully within the context of war (Serrano 263) The action doesn’t need to be stigmatized because if it were in times of peace, it would be considered lawless. Therefore, a military order in itself that shows an allowable judgment especially in times of war needs to be done by those who have been fully entrusted with the role of conducting war. The military and judges have different spheres, but they have to fully comply with the law. The military orders denied those victims their constitutional rights; the constitution is meant to safeguard the national interest of the individuals, therefore, the power that enforced the military orders and led to the camping of Japanese Americans was unconstitutional. This minority group was subjected to despicable treatment. It is, therefore, not just about a military order, but as Korematsu affirms, this was done out of racial discrimination. In conclusion, racial discrimination has no section of a justifiable part in the world of democracy. These individuals should have been subjected to the rights and freedom that can only be guaranteed by the constitution. Eventually, Justice prevailed, and that is why Korematsu was awarded a medal of freedom in 1998. This depicts that military orders should conform to the constitution, and there is no way the court could ascertain that Korematsu was not loyal to his nation, even though someone’s antecedents are convicted of treason, the constitution protects the individual. Works cited Savage, G, David. “U.S Misconduct in Japanese American Internment cases” 2011 Serrano. S, Kiyomi. “Korematsu v United States.” A constant caution in times of crisis. 2003 Read More