Is That Legal?

Masugi's argument is largely an emotional one relying on the well-chosen example: since one, therefore (maybe, possibly) all. Of course, many things are POSSIBLE, but one cannot justify taking away the rights of a community based on "possibility."

One could claim that since AT LEAST ONE (and many more) Christian fundamentalist has bombed an abortion clinic, or has killed someone based on race, that ALL Christian fundamentalists ARE ABLE (not even likely) to commit such actions. They must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they won't, and if they cannot (and how can they? With some "written test"?), then keep them away from the rest of us.

Such a policy would represent an egregious abuse of power, even if it were done with good intentions--national security. Indeed, the legitimate goal of "national security" has often been irresponsibly cited to justify any number of human rights violations. It is a classic fascist approach to seizing power. Replace "Christian fundamentalist" with any group--"presumably loyal Japanese-American," "American Muslim," "communist"--and one still has the same weak argument. One does not equal all--unless you prove it. Not all potential become real. Not all acorns become trees.

The burden is on Malkin and Masugi and other defenders to prove that they are NOT offering a hasty generalization, and that they are NOT arguing guilt-by-association based on race/ethnicity, but rather that many more Japanese-Americans had the same response as did the couple in Hawaii.

I think inductive reasoning would require quite a few more examples than what has been shown by M&M for a valid conclusion to be reached.

Obviously such over-reaching generalizations as Malkin et al. have shown a penchant for cannot stand.

If they had any substance, I would be on the look out for a blue-eyed, dirty blonde-haired, clean-cut American with a U-haul truck filled with ammonium nitrate fertilizer soaked in nitro-methane and diesel fuel.

Excellent post. Your arguments also bring to mind recent calls to "crack down" on Muslims. And when a person in the pertinent ethnic group makes a statement supporting this sort of faulty logic, it's taken as a sign that the racist policy must be correct. Scary stuff.

Here we go again. I'll try to avoid repeating what I said on a recent string of a few weeks ago.

Kristallnacht, etc.:

Taking tyrannical action against a group for the failings of a lunatic is a common tactic. Perhaps the lunatic acted at the instigation of the tyrant(s). The question then would be whether the lunatic's behavior was so out of line with what might be concluded of others that the common good required a radical deprivation of rights.

The comparison of the WW II situation and the Christian terrorist is inapt: we're talking about racial ties. Where is the Christian leader endorsing terrorism? (Cf. Pat Robertson on assassinating Chavez; he was roundly denounced.) WW II featured a fascist nation making racial appeals. The problem was whether those appeals would prove seductive and compelling once issued, as was apparently the case on Niihau, as Malkin effectively argues.

Thus the Nazis in WW II were not simply Germans; they murdered other Germans. It made no sense to intern Germans here without some screening. The Imperial Japanese appeal was rather different.

The problem with Glen Bowman's last paragraph is that he would have to allow for complete liberty until the traitorous act occurred. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor that would have been irresponsible, just as it is in the aftermath of 9/11. That leaves open a variety of responses, which is the issue we should be debating.

I think this is a choice people make for others, rarely themselves. Freedom and Security. It's not easy to think about. It's a shifty, emotional issue that we feel differently about from one circumstance to another. I'm not surprised he comes down on the side of security, it's hard to accept the idea of pointless suffering.

Mr. Masugi,

Your past posts on Professor Muller's site suggests you would rather change the subject than actually address the one in question.

Can you prove, with evidence and not with baseless speculation, that many more Japanese-Americans had the same response as did the couple in Hawaii? If not, then just admit it already.

You are not going to wiggle out of this one.

Mr. Masugi said "The problem with Glen Bowman's last paragraph is that he would have to allow for complete liberty until the traitorous act occurred. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor that would have been irresponsible, just as it is in the aftermath of 9/11. That leaves open a variety of responses, which is the issue we should be debating."

There is no such thing as complete liberty--I never said that, and I think every reasonable American knows that living in a free nation does not mean that one is free to do anything one wants, esp in times of war. You are seeing the issue as an either/or, black/white, "complete liberty" or "relocation" question.

As I pointed out in a previous exchange last month, there were many other possible alternatives to what you admit was, in part, a racist process of relocating and interning Japanese-Americans, alternatives that would have maintained national security and treated Japanese-Americans as, well, Americans entitled to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and other fundamental rights.

In defense of my liberty, I think it perfectly defensible to lock up all nutcases who say I can be locked up for my race (I'm Asian). That's much more "reasonable" than your argument, Ken Masugi.

And locking up Fundamentalist Christians does parallel your argument. A violent Fundamentalist Christian terror network called the Army of God calls on all Christians to kill abortion providers.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/army_god.html
"There are three editions of the Army of God manual, published about a year apart and each advocating escalating acts of violence. The third edition advocates the murder of abortion providers as the only way to really stop abortion."

One of their members shot Bernard Slepian. Eric Rudolph was not a member, but was inspired by their writings. That's twice as many traitors as the Japanese emperor inspired.

Sorry, you don't seem to be interested in addressing arguments but rather making snide comments. It's precisely the point of my post--if read with some care, or at all--to show how the argument was NOT black and white. The argument is not (Bowman, 11:41 pm) that other Japanese "had" the same reaction. The problem is how many might have had the same reaction but for their removal from an area where such reactions might be induced and acted on. Was the reaction to Niihau (see my original argument: http://www.claremont.org/localliberty/archives/003952.html ) a reasonable supposition or a mere racist reaction or an utterly silly notion?

I'm wondering whether any of you commenters would regard post-9/11 American policy toward Muslims here or abroad as racist?

Unlike our gracious host, I do think I understand what Mr. Masugi is saying. He's saying that it doesn't matter if the trigger is a fabrication, as long as the deprivation of rights can be rationalized (not justified, perhaps, but rationalized, and I can't tell if he is taking the fictitious causus into account) in retrospect.

Mr. Masugi, and others like him, claim that they are taking a "precautionary" attitude rather than a reckless libertarian one: in fact, they are making greater trouble than then are solving, and they are decidedly selective about what risks -- those posed by visible minorities, primarily -- warrant action.

Eric Muller's parallel is indeed apt, and Mr. Masugi, Ms. Malkin, and others who find their arguments "refreshing" need to realize that not all slippery slopes are fallacies.

Please see that I've updated the main post with a quote of what you say in response to the Kristallnacht example, and that I don't understand your response at all. Could you explain your "lunatic" point a little bit?

Re: "Was the reaction to Niihau a reasonable supposition or a mere racist reaction or an utterly silly notion?"

You speak of the government's "reaction to Niihau." Would you please share with us the historical evidence that those who planned and executed the program that you're defending--mass eviction and multi-year detention--(a) knew about the Niihau incident, and (b) thought the Niihau incident demonstrated a larger truth about Nisei proclivity to action dangerous to national security on the mainland?

I understand, Ken, that you think the Niihau incident demonstrated that your parents and every other Japanese American on the Coast were potential saboteurs, but before debating Niihau as a reasonable predicate for mass racial exclusion and incarceration, I'd like to see some evidence that it actually did serve that function.

(Hint: I've never seen a single word about it in any of the documents or conversations among the brass in January and early February of 1942.)

I'm with you Eric,I don't understamd it either. I think the problem is Ken uses the word "lunatic," which means insane person,or someone who's thoughts or actions are indeed out of line with the vast majority of the human race. I guess one could argue that all Japanese people are luntics, but at most that would only get one a book deal from a conservative publishing company.

Ken then argues that the Nazis were not simply Germans: they were evil Germans and there were other good Germans. No argument here, but why not offer the same courtesy to the good Japanese people who surely also existed at the time?

Wasn't Kristallnacht a night (or two, I don't recall) of widespread, wonton violence and terror perpetrated against Jews? As bad as the internment was, can it really be equated to that?

Eric, sorry I was unclear. I was actually strengthening your case-- the lunatic in this case was an agent provacateur who was used as an excuse for round-ups, pograms, etc. But that was not the case with the Niihau couple.

Re your "hint": Lofgren in his Claremont Review essay
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/summer2005/Lofgren.html

observes some connection between Niihau knowledge and later policy, but it is unclear what it added. (See my quote from him, below.) Malkin touches on this too, but it is history that needs to be developed. Common sense suggests that a great deal would be made out of this. (I never said "demonstrated" by the way; this demand for certainty would make public policy of any kind virtually impossible.) If you, who have examined the documents say there is nothing there, I would say more searching needs to be done. (Are you excluding Lofgren's findings, below, from your research? Why do you limit your search citations from January-Feb.? What about December?) Moreover, did you find evidence that the Niihau behavior was dismissed as an odd exception? That I'd like to see as well. Maybe it was simply accepted as what would naturally happen with Japanese descendants.
That would be of interest too (though of course it wouldn't constitute proof of the sort you want to see).

Some other history here: What of pro-Japanese in the relocation centers who terrorized those who expressed support for the war? What does the establishment of Tule Lake as a "segregation center" for openly disloyal ethnic Japanese suggest? (My parents were there initially but then sent off to Minidoka after Tule Lake's transformation.) In other words, what the posts above do is ignore the actual behavior of those who were relocated, while demanding that I produce evidence of disloyalty. It is there, even in popular anti-relocation histories of Japanese-Americans (Bill Hosokwawa).

Lofgren:

"Malkin would have done better by redirecting her efforts into a more careful investigation of the true role of intelligence reports in the decision to relocate the Issei and Nisei. The episode on Niihau Island in Hawaii, involving the downed Japanese pilot returning from the Pearl Harbor raid, is one example. The behavior of the Japanese-American couple that aided the pilot was "shockingly disloyal," as Malkin correctly labels it, and naval intelligence was right to take it seriously. Yet with respect to the naval intelligence reports on the episode that were filed in late January 1942, just after the release of the report by the Roberts Commission, Malkin only concludes that they "reinforc[ed] Roberts's assertions and, presumably, further exacerbat[ed] concerns among military leaders about the so-called 'Japanese situation'" (my emphasis). Did the Niihau reports from late January actually affect assessments of the situation on the West Coast? We don't find out, or even learn who received them. But one may doubt whether they added much to the felt urgency of the situation in late January, as suggested by Malkin, because on January 7 the Roberts Commission itself had heard similar testimony about the Niihau incident from Lieutenant George P. Kimball, a naval intelligence officer in Hawaii. (Malkin does not mention Kimball's testimony.)"

Ken Masugi appears to do little more than dodge the question:

The argument is not (Bowman, 11:41 pm) that other Japanese "had" the same reaction. The problem is how many might have had the same reaction but for their removal from an area where such reactions might be induced and acted on.

The problem is that you are assuming that other Japanese would have had the same reaction, without compelling evidence to do so. Your sentences here, simply dodges that point, by pretending the fact that the vast majority of the interned population appear to have had no plans whatsoever to engage in espionage or sabotage is not germane. It is, in fact, very important here. And if you want to answer it you will have to do so by providing systematic evidence to prove your point.

Unfortunately for you, such evidence does not exist.

Defending the internment of ethnic Japanese in this country in World War II is certain to be controversial.

As such, it should be relatively easier to argue more cogently against Mr. Masugi’s post than you do here. You explain how the blogger’s “Godwin’s law” does not apply, since you “apply the identical analysis.” It is not entirely clear to me, however, that you have not committed that very “argumentum ad Hitleratum” fallacy.

It does seem, however, that you cannot avoid the fallacy of Petitio principii, in that your conclusions are assumed by your premise.

That is, by substituting Mr. Masugi’s reasoning regarding America and the Japanese-Americans to make your hypothetical defense of Nazi Germany’s treatment of the European Jews you assume what you are presumably trying to prove: that this country’s action was unjust and comparable to other unjust, ethnically-motivated government-sanctioned atrocities, differing only by matter of degree.

Since the relation of the U.S. to Imperial Japan and to the Japanese-Americans was clearly different than the relation of Nazi Germany to its Jewish population, and since the U.S. was not, in general, Nazi Germany’s moral equivalent, the above simple substitution of text is invalid.

This does not necessarily make the internement right, only the initial argument above against Mr. Masugi incorrect.

On another site, Mr. Masugi wrote "Muller regards the Japanese who resisted the draft as the true heroes of the relocation centers, not those who entered the army to fight fascists."

Anyone who has followed this blog knows that this is a gross, even comical misrepresentation of Professor Muller's views.

A clear, obvious straw man. Yet another example of Masugi's poor reasoning.

Also at the Claremont blog, Masugi laments "the reception I've been getting" at this blog.

The reception you have been receiving, Mr. Masugi, has everything to do with your sloppy, often incoherent argumentation. Instead of addressing the questions of others, you distort their responses; instead of answering the questions you raised, you change the subject.

Speaking of which, I will try again, for the THIRD time: Can you prove, with evidence and not with baseless speculation, that many more Japanese-Americans had the same response as did the couple in Hawaii? If not, then just admit it already that you are basing your conclusion on one example: a hasty generalization, obviously.

Looking forward to your (hopefully non-) response. :-)

Mr. Bowman: You don't seem to be reading my postgs. It is not my responsibility to prove that "many more Japanese-Americans HAD the same response" as did the couple in Hawaii (emphasis added). That is completely irrelevant. The purpose of the relocation policy was to prevent the same response. That some JAs might have responded in the same way is indicated by some of the facts I cited above. Now, would you please address those arguments. I'm not the one being evasive and dogmatic.

Eric has stated that he doesn't understand what Mr. Masugi is saying, and others have expressed similar sentiments. So what I'd suggest is taking some time periodically to visit the Claremont site and read some of the articles to get a better understanding of Mr. Masugi's thinking. To say that this group is "right wing" would be an understatement. Fascists speaking in code would be more accurate.

What a fascinating exchange, and one, I'm afraid, that I'm not smart enough to judge very well.

I will say, though, that although Mr. Masugi refers to evidence indicating that the US government had good reason to worry about the loyalty of Japanese Americans, he hasn't yet presented any.

Since no one has responded to his previous question about whether US policy is racist towards Muslims, I will respond: I am not well-informed enough about this government's treatment of Muslims since 9/11 to say, outright, that the treatment is racist. However, what I do know gives me grave concern. The government's policy of holding Muslims without any legal recourse; the media's increasing acceptance of blatant racist statements against Islam; it's all very troubling to me. I also note that my Muslim co-workers lead very different lives than I do, not because they have a different religion, but because they must watch what they say and do in a way that I need not, for fear of being questioned by the authorities. And these are no war-mongers! How can I look at all this and not at least suspect racism?

Ken Masugi makes the same error, yet again:

Mr. Bowman: You don't seem to be reading my postgs. It is not my responsibility to prove that "many more Japanese-Americans HAD the same response" as did the couple in Hawaii (emphasis added). That is completely irrelevant. The purpose of the relocation policy was to prevent the same response. That some JAs might have responded in the same way is indicated by some of the facts I cited above. Now, would you please address those arguments. I'm not the one being evasive and dogmatic.

This is simply bad thinking. The classic example is the rock I cary arround with me to prevent tiger attacks. Don't see any tigers arround me do you? So the rock must be working!

Masugi needs to provide evidence to demonstrate his case. Yet he wants to shift the burden, and suggest that in the default case we assume that the interned were criminals. This would obviously justify most any action. For example I could shoot Eric Muller in the head an insist that I had to do so because he was a cold blooded murder. When it is pointed out that he didn't kill anyone, I can simply reply "yeah, that's because I shot him dead." It is entirely insufficient, and cleary ludicrous to suggest that we take seriously the position that the evidence justifying internment would have existed if only we hadn't had internment.

No, Mr. Masugi, YOU are the one trying to evade.

You wrote, "If a presumptively loyal, apolitical Japanese-American would come to aid of an invader, what might we expect from other Japanese on the mainland?...Yet a reasonable argument could be made...that ethnic Japanese on the west coast, who suffered discriminatory treatment, might not all be loyal, when subject to the test the young couple on Niihau took and failed...The relocation—which my parents endured—might well have ended sooner and might have been carried out differently, but it remains defensible as a reasonable post-Pearl Harbor response."

Remember?

I noted earlier that your argument is an emotional one centered on the well-chosen example: since one "presumptively loyal, apolitical Japanese-American" (YOUR WORDS) then (maybe, possibly) all, as in "other Japanese on the mainland."

When you use words such as "might," as in "ethnic Japanese on the west coast, who suffered discriminatory treatment, might not all be loyal, when subject to the test the young couple on Niihau took and failed," a reasonable person has to think that you mean that since one Japanese-American failed the test, then MAYBE "maybe, possibly" all might. This is a hasty generalization and obviously poor reasoning, yet often the basis of racism.

You then conclude the "relocation...remains defensible."

Broken down,

PREMISE 1: a young Japanese-American couple from Hawaii failed the loyalty test
PREMISE 2: many other Japanese-Americans might (NOT WERE, but MIGHT--possibility, potential) not all be loyal
CONCLUSION: relocation is defensible

Those are YOUR words. Take responsibility already.

Mr. Bowman, you are making no sense at all. I am at a loss to figure out what you're trying to say.

I see a comment I had posted is not yet up, but I'll note for now that "not all be loyal" does not equal "all are disloyal" I never maintained the absurd proposition that all Japanese were disloyal. I said it was difficult to judge loyalty, and that national security required some sort of action.

Sigh. Show me how my argument (as stated by me, not misstated by you) is wrong.

Since an earlier post I submitted did not go through,let me repeat my response to Michael Benson: But U.S. authorities did not take such extreme measures as you suggest might be justified by my logic. This is actually some evidence, is it not, that whatever racist sentiments existed for relocation, they were restrained by better judgment. Moreover, while about 90% of all ethnic Japanese were relocated, those outside the coastal areas were not (e.g., in Spokane and Salt Lake City). If one thinks about why this exception was made, one might come to a different understanding of the episode.

The comparison of the WW II situation and the Christian terrorist is inapt: we're talking about racial ties. Where is the Christian leader endorsing terrorism? (Cf. Pat Robertson on assassinating Chavez; he was roundly denounced.)

He was weakly denounced, and his violation of the law has, to date, been ignored. Even his clarification was a call to commit an illegal act (kidnapping) and that act to be committed on a foreign sovereign.

Further, we can't know what lunatics he might be inspiring to carry out such acts (which would be detrimental to the national security, so the parallel is still apt.

WW II featured a fascist nation making racial appeals. The problem was whether those appeals would prove seductive and compelling once issued, as was apparently the case on Niihau, as Malkin effectively argues.

Since religion has been a powerful force in the reshaping of continents (The Thirty Years war, the Civil War in England, the expansion of Islam by conquest, the Crusades, the catalyst for the Sepoy Mutiny (which had other factors, but would not have been set off as it was were it not for the belief that religions were being scorned; which is parallel to the rants of such people as Robertson and Phelps, Falwell and Robers who say the lack of respect for their religion is the reason America was attacked by Middle Eastern religious fanatics) and a host of others.

The problem with Glen Bowman's last paragraph is that he would have to allow for complete liberty until the traitorous act occurred.

Ignoring the idea of complete liberty (I'm not sure what you mean, as I live in a place with limited liberties, stealing, murdering, even driving to fast are prohibited and meet with various levels of punishment, scaled to the severity of the, percieved, harm to the body politic), liberty ought not be denied further than is needed to avoid the harms of such things.

People will steal, they will murder, they may even decide to engage in terrorism (McVeigh and Rudolph come to mind). Since we can't know who will do such things before hand (and certainly not if they follow the lone-wolf model, a la the Unibomber) we ought not commit an associational guilt, just because there are some in a community who might elect to do bad things.

Mr. Masugi later adds
Some other history here: What of pro-Japanese in the relocation centers who terrorized those who expressed support for the war? What does the establishment of Tule Lake as a "segregation center" for openly disloyal ethnic Japanese suggest? (My parents were there initially but then sent off to Minidoka after Tule Lake's transformation.) In other words, what the posts above do is ignore the actual behavior of those who were relocated, while demanding that I produce evidence of disloyalty. It is there, even in popular anti-relocation histories of Japanese-Americans (Bill Hosokwawa).

I read that and I see an indictment of the entire system. There were the camps meant just to lock up citizens who happened to be of of Japanese descent, and there were camps for those who were actively disloyal.

If they weren't the same, then they ought not have been treated in similar fashions (and they were all locked up, so the treatment, while perhaps not identical, was of a type.

Proud confession: I'd prefer another terrorist attack to a country which re-commits an atrocity like that of the camps.

TK

Mr. Masugi,

Alas, even you yourself do not understand what you yourself had written. I am not surprised at all.

You say "Show me how my argument (as stated by me, not misstated by you) is wrong." I DID; I used your OWN WORDS (note the quotation marks). You remind me of the autobiographer who claimed to be misquoted in his own biography.

Are you claiming to be misquoted with words from your own blog?! LOL