Is That Legal?

Since you learned two new things today, can you take tomorrow off?

That habeas was not suspended, but the War Department was winning cases, would tend to indicate that the courts succumbed to the same presumption that most or many other Americans were: that Japanese-Americans were part and parcel with the Japanese Empire. Retrospectively, we recoil in horror saying "how could 'x' individual think that way?" But what should be bothersome, IMHO, is not that individuals could think so indistinctively, but that all (or most) of the individuals in an entire country could. To me this doesn't speak to the badness of America, but to the all too human tendency to be flat out wrong, especially in making finer moral/legal judgments in the face of threats.

Incredible finds. The disturbing import almost outweighs the "adventurous excitement", so to speak, of looking over your shoulder. The historical thought between this find and indefinite, invisible detainment is pretty clear.

As far as surprise #1, I seem to recall reading of similar, much smaller and localized deals being made at the end of the war. To think 10,000 trucks, some coffee/tea/chocolate/soap for 1,000,000 or more human lives - incredible. It seems like vetting this memo alone would make an incredible historical tale.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
If habeas corpus could be suspended for a specified group of people under the conditions existing in '44, what prevents Congress from suspending habeas corpus for any individual by simply asserting that he or she might support a potential rebellion or invasion? (Particularly if the only "evidence" that they were a threat was in evidence so secret that the courts, and even Congress, couldn't see it?)