Closing Statement:
Your honors, ladies and gentlemen of the courtroom, all I ask of you today is for you to strip away any prior beliefs you have about Japanese internment. First I want you to think about the devastation of Pearl Harbor, where 2,403 innocent men were slaughtered with assistance from Japanese-American spies located in Oahu, Hawaii. I want you to think about the families this tore apart and I want you to imagine the numerous other attacks that may have occurred without Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order 34. These two measures, as a extreme as they may have been, were the only way of guaranteeing the safety of your family and my own while also protecting innocent Japanese-American citizens from the cruelty of war hysteria.
Now the question remains whether or not this order passes the test of strict scrutiny, one, having a compelling government interest, two being narrowly tailored, and three being the least restrictive means possible. Well it in fact passes all three. The government's main priority is to protect American citizens at all costs. After the attack on Pearl Harbor and the fear of another Japanese attack imminent, national security was the government's only interest, therefore passing the first test.
Now the prosecution unsuccessfully argued that this order should have only been applicable to enemy aliens, which would make the law fail to be narrowly tailored. But do you really think we could have screened 100,000 people and found every single Japanese spy? No. Frankly, if a spy is good at his job, you will never know that he is a spy. In fact, FDR previously directed the FBI to round up and intern Japanese, German and Italian enemy aliens on the West Coast, approximately 831 people. But this was not enough. On February 12, an FBI spot raid found more than 60,000 rounds of ammunition and maps of all kinds in the homes of Japanese-American citizens, along with hundreds of reports of signal lights and intercepts of unidentified radio transmissions along the coast. As you heard from the testimony of General Dewitt, enemy aliens were certainly not the only threat, making the Civilian Exclusion Order as narrowly tailored as possible.
Now was the order the least restrictive way to ensure the safety of our country? Well it is quite obvious the prosecution wants you to believe these camps were a form of torture and an unconstitutional act of cruel and unusual punishment, but that is simply not true. As you heard from the testimony of Margaret Gleason these camps were far from torturous. Any rational mind would see that the relocation camps gave these people a safe home to live in, with the promise that their family would not be admits the chaos and hatred surrounding Japanese people at the time. This decision was not just for the protection of the country, it was also for the protection of Japanese-American’s, likely saving lives and preventing injury to potentially thousands of innocent people. As for the right of due process, do you know how long it would have taken to give 100,000 people a fair trial? Certainly more time then we had, so FDR temporarily suspended habeas corpus as authorized by Article 1, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, making this the least restrictive means possible.
After Pearl Harbor, the US Navy’s Pacific Fleet was completely decimated, and the entire Pacific Coast was virtually defenseless against future attacks by the Japanese on the West Coast. These orders were not designed to condone racism, they were designed to protect the American people at all costs. Now we don’t know what could have happened without the Civilian Exclusion orders, but we do know at this moment we are safe, and that is nothing to be taken lightly.
Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order 34 pass all three levels of strict scrutiny making them both constitutional, but that’s not the only reason that with we are here. Fred Korematsu stands before us pleading to the wrong doing of the government.
Now, the prosecution wants you to believe that Fred Korematsu is a hero. But this man knowingly broke the law solely for the benefit of himself. They want you to believe that he is innocent, yet no innocent man that I know would undergo plastic surgery, change his name, and pretend to be Mexican-American to run away from the law. Fred Korematsu is a criminal and deserves to be treated as one. The defense rests our case.
Now the question remains whether or not this order passes the test of strict scrutiny, one, having a compelling government interest, two being narrowly tailored, and three being the least restrictive means possible. Well it in fact passes all three. The government's main priority is to protect American citizens at all costs. After the attack on Pearl Harbor and the fear of another Japanese attack imminent, national security was the government's only interest, therefore passing the first test.
Now the prosecution unsuccessfully argued that this order should have only been applicable to enemy aliens, which would make the law fail to be narrowly tailored. But do you really think we could have screened 100,000 people and found every single Japanese spy? No. Frankly, if a spy is good at his job, you will never know that he is a spy. In fact, FDR previously directed the FBI to round up and intern Japanese, German and Italian enemy aliens on the West Coast, approximately 831 people. But this was not enough. On February 12, an FBI spot raid found more than 60,000 rounds of ammunition and maps of all kinds in the homes of Japanese-American citizens, along with hundreds of reports of signal lights and intercepts of unidentified radio transmissions along the coast. As you heard from the testimony of General Dewitt, enemy aliens were certainly not the only threat, making the Civilian Exclusion Order as narrowly tailored as possible.
Now was the order the least restrictive way to ensure the safety of our country? Well it is quite obvious the prosecution wants you to believe these camps were a form of torture and an unconstitutional act of cruel and unusual punishment, but that is simply not true. As you heard from the testimony of Margaret Gleason these camps were far from torturous. Any rational mind would see that the relocation camps gave these people a safe home to live in, with the promise that their family would not be admits the chaos and hatred surrounding Japanese people at the time. This decision was not just for the protection of the country, it was also for the protection of Japanese-American’s, likely saving lives and preventing injury to potentially thousands of innocent people. As for the right of due process, do you know how long it would have taken to give 100,000 people a fair trial? Certainly more time then we had, so FDR temporarily suspended habeas corpus as authorized by Article 1, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, making this the least restrictive means possible.
After Pearl Harbor, the US Navy’s Pacific Fleet was completely decimated, and the entire Pacific Coast was virtually defenseless against future attacks by the Japanese on the West Coast. These orders were not designed to condone racism, they were designed to protect the American people at all costs. Now we don’t know what could have happened without the Civilian Exclusion orders, but we do know at this moment we are safe, and that is nothing to be taken lightly.
Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order 34 pass all three levels of strict scrutiny making them both constitutional, but that’s not the only reason that with we are here. Fred Korematsu stands before us pleading to the wrong doing of the government.
Now, the prosecution wants you to believe that Fred Korematsu is a hero. But this man knowingly broke the law solely for the benefit of himself. They want you to believe that he is innocent, yet no innocent man that I know would undergo plastic surgery, change his name, and pretend to be Mexican-American to run away from the law. Fred Korematsu is a criminal and deserves to be treated as one. The defense rests our case.
Direct Examination Questions:
Kaitlyn Dunn
Mike Masaoka
Part 1: Witness Examination Question and Answer
Q: What was your affiliation with the US government?
A: I helped reinstating the 44th regiment of the Army of a group of all Japanese descent to fight in the European theater. I also was part of a group called JACL (Japanese American Civilian League) advocating for Japanese people to work with the government.
Q: Tell me more about your role at the JACL?
A: I was the National executive secretary of the Japanese American Civilian league. I was a part of the FBI detaining of aliens. I made letters and posters advocating pro US government. I made the best decisions which we could with the current situation, trying to fulfill our patriotic duty. We honestly and sincerely believed that it was for the good for the majority of thoses of japanese descent in America.
Bring in evidence:
Q: Being Japanese American yourself, why didn’t you oppose the Civilian Exclusion orders?
A: I trusted the decision of the government. Being in direct correlation with Washington I saw the red flags up close and personal.
Q: What were some of the red flags?
A: As mentioned in The Final Report, the rounds of ammunition, the radio transmissions along the coast etc.
Part 2: Evidence
Conscience and the Constitution
http://resisters.com/learn-more/jacl/mike-masaokas-rebuttal-to-critics/
Summary: This is a testimony of Mike Masaoka against the critiques he received with his allegiance to the United States. He explains why he is proud to be an American citizen while providing reasons he is thankful for the government.
Quote: Every decision which we made, we made because we believed — we honestly and sincerely believed — was for the good of the great majority of those of Japanese ancestry here in the United States.Accordingly, some people may have been hurt. Some people may challenge the way we look at things. But when you have the great responsibility — the awesome responsibility — of human lives in your hands, none of us can take that trying responsibility lightly.
Benefits: This evidence shows that the Japanese people need to be grateful for the government and it gives validity to the decisions that were made by Dewitt and FDR. It admits that some of the decisions may have been important but it for the good of the life of the people.
Costs: This statement could show that this man would support the government at all cost, not that he specifically supports the internment camps.
Mike Masaoka
Part 1: Witness Examination Question and Answer
Q: What was your affiliation with the US government?
A: I helped reinstating the 44th regiment of the Army of a group of all Japanese descent to fight in the European theater. I also was part of a group called JACL (Japanese American Civilian League) advocating for Japanese people to work with the government.
Q: Tell me more about your role at the JACL?
A: I was the National executive secretary of the Japanese American Civilian league. I was a part of the FBI detaining of aliens. I made letters and posters advocating pro US government. I made the best decisions which we could with the current situation, trying to fulfill our patriotic duty. We honestly and sincerely believed that it was for the good for the majority of thoses of japanese descent in America.
Bring in evidence:
Q: Being Japanese American yourself, why didn’t you oppose the Civilian Exclusion orders?
A: I trusted the decision of the government. Being in direct correlation with Washington I saw the red flags up close and personal.
Q: What were some of the red flags?
A: As mentioned in The Final Report, the rounds of ammunition, the radio transmissions along the coast etc.
Part 2: Evidence
Conscience and the Constitution
http://resisters.com/learn-more/jacl/mike-masaokas-rebuttal-to-critics/
Summary: This is a testimony of Mike Masaoka against the critiques he received with his allegiance to the United States. He explains why he is proud to be an American citizen while providing reasons he is thankful for the government.
Quote: Every decision which we made, we made because we believed — we honestly and sincerely believed — was for the good of the great majority of those of Japanese ancestry here in the United States.Accordingly, some people may have been hurt. Some people may challenge the way we look at things. But when you have the great responsibility — the awesome responsibility — of human lives in your hands, none of us can take that trying responsibility lightly.
Benefits: This evidence shows that the Japanese people need to be grateful for the government and it gives validity to the decisions that were made by Dewitt and FDR. It admits that some of the decisions may have been important but it for the good of the life of the people.
Costs: This statement could show that this man would support the government at all cost, not that he specifically supports the internment camps.
Project Reflection:
Leading up to this project we studied many different historical documents from internment camps, such as letters and newspapers from the families of Manzanar. After careful evaluation of the camps, we were asked to choose which side of the legal team we would like to be a part of and what role we would like to take on. My first choice was to be a defense lawyer, defending the actions of the US government, which I was lucky enough to get. The main arguments defending the internment camps have to do with the safety and well being of our country which I had an inclination to believe. After studying the riots and watching the documentary on internment camps, I knew it was going to be difficult to defend internment camps. However, the legality of the argument was certainly in favor of the US government since there were many reports of suspicious activity from the Japanese people. I learned that even though the actions taken may have been drastic, they were for good reason.
Although it was definitely close, I believe the defense team won the trial. The prosecution certainly had better political and social arguments but the defense had a strong and winning legal case. Overall the presentation and execution of the prosecution definitely lost them the case. In the middle of a cross-examination the prosecution decided to move for the impeachment for one of our most important documents, it ended up being overruled but that certainly took up more time than necessary. It was very hard for the defense to make a moral argument which is something that can’t be held against them but I definitely think that the social arguments could have been played more. The idea that the internment camps were for the good of the Japanese people was really the only moral argument the defense had. As for the prosecution they could have mentioned the discrimination and hate that the Japanese people came home too which would have made their case much stronger.
Even though both teams had some improvements, they also had some very compelling arguments. The defense mostly focused on the safety and security of the country by citing specific instances of espionage by Japanese-americans. As for the prosecution, they advocated for the innocents of second-generation US born Japanese citizens, saying they posed little to no threat. The prosecution also proposed an alternative solution to internment saying there were better ways to keep watch over Japanese-americans such as curfews. Overall both teams had very compelling arguments but I think the execution of the defense team gave them the win.
Overall I enjoyed this project but that was definitely not the attitude I had a couple days before the trial. I knew that the odds were definitely not in our favor and I thought we would be completely humiliated by the opposing side, but after the trial I knew all that worry was for nothing. Our arguments didn’t seem as strong but it was more about the execution of the arguments that made our team thrive. For future student in the role of a defense lawyer, I think it is really important to try and appeal to the morality and pathological arguments of your side. It is easy to dismiss internment camps as a “bad decision” but appealing to the emotion and the safety of this country is certainly what we as a team could have done better. It was very challenging to work as a team, especially when I had no idea what the other lawyers were asking and or arguing. I was in charge of the closing statement which I felt could have been more of a team effort since I had no idea what other lawyers arguments were. This was possibly just a lack of communication on our part but it all ended up working out which is all that really matters.
Although it was definitely close, I believe the defense team won the trial. The prosecution certainly had better political and social arguments but the defense had a strong and winning legal case. Overall the presentation and execution of the prosecution definitely lost them the case. In the middle of a cross-examination the prosecution decided to move for the impeachment for one of our most important documents, it ended up being overruled but that certainly took up more time than necessary. It was very hard for the defense to make a moral argument which is something that can’t be held against them but I definitely think that the social arguments could have been played more. The idea that the internment camps were for the good of the Japanese people was really the only moral argument the defense had. As for the prosecution they could have mentioned the discrimination and hate that the Japanese people came home too which would have made their case much stronger.
Even though both teams had some improvements, they also had some very compelling arguments. The defense mostly focused on the safety and security of the country by citing specific instances of espionage by Japanese-americans. As for the prosecution, they advocated for the innocents of second-generation US born Japanese citizens, saying they posed little to no threat. The prosecution also proposed an alternative solution to internment saying there were better ways to keep watch over Japanese-americans such as curfews. Overall both teams had very compelling arguments but I think the execution of the defense team gave them the win.
Overall I enjoyed this project but that was definitely not the attitude I had a couple days before the trial. I knew that the odds were definitely not in our favor and I thought we would be completely humiliated by the opposing side, but after the trial I knew all that worry was for nothing. Our arguments didn’t seem as strong but it was more about the execution of the arguments that made our team thrive. For future student in the role of a defense lawyer, I think it is really important to try and appeal to the morality and pathological arguments of your side. It is easy to dismiss internment camps as a “bad decision” but appealing to the emotion and the safety of this country is certainly what we as a team could have done better. It was very challenging to work as a team, especially when I had no idea what the other lawyers were asking and or arguing. I was in charge of the closing statement which I felt could have been more of a team effort since I had no idea what other lawyers arguments were. This was possibly just a lack of communication on our part but it all ended up working out which is all that really matters.