Is That Legal?

I suppose a more charitable reason might be imagined for answer B. Maybe the California attorneys thought they needed a rationalization that might go down better with anti-Japanese Americans than simply defending the civil liberties and rights of the internees.

This is so wrong-headed that I'm amazed that you've posted it.

The "evacuees" weren't detained because they were America's enemies. Haven't you spent a few thousand words on that theme?

There's no reason to think that anyone asked any of these questions (or their contemporary analogues) before undertaking the questioned representations. There is little reason to think that the correct answer to the questions is the same.

Do I take it that you agree with the description offered of the military trial approved by Ex parte Quirin?

ELM: From General John DeWitt's justification of his removal and detention of those of Japanese ancestry along the West Coast, June 1943:
"More than 115,000 persons of Japanese ancestry resided along the coast and were significantly concentrated near many highly sensitive installations essential to the war effort. Intelligence services records reflected the existence of hundreds of Japanese organizations in California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona which, prior to December 7, 1941, were actively engaged in advancing Japanese war aims. These records also disclosed that thousands of American-born Japanese had gone to Japan to receive their education and indoctrination there and had become rabidly pro-Japanese and then had returned to the United States. Emperor-worshipping ceremonies were commonly held and millions of dollars had flowed into the Japanese imperial war chest from the contributions freely made by Japanese here. The continued presence of a large, unassimilated, tightly knit and racial group, bound to an enemy nation by strong ties of race, culture, custom and religion along a frontier vulnerable to attack constituted a menace which had to be dealt with."

You were saying, anon?

I had thought--wrongly, I now see--that DeWitt's proferred rationale was merely a cover for a racist policy to strip Japanese-Americans of their rights and their property. Apparently I was to take the man at his word, and recognize the military necessity of the detention of those many people. I certainly appreciate your clarification of that--until now, I'd thought you were opposed to the detention, and that you thought it a stain on the nation's honor.

ELM: Oh, please. I don't even know why I'm bothering with you, especially since you don't even have the guts to put your own name to your comments.

An even earlier example--John Adams defending British soliders accused of murdering colonial civilians, after the Boston Massacre" of 1770.

Should we ask why John Adams hated America?

Inouye introduces bill to investigate WWII internment, Associated Press

From: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jan/25/br/br7950628431.html

Senator Inouye states The lessons of history can be painful, but that pain can also strengthen our nation and our commitment to its democratic ideals, which include equal justice for all."

Does the Senator really believe in equal justice for all or is this just spin for the press? If he truly believed in equal justice for all wouldnt he introduce a bill that advocates for all victims of internment that were taken involuntarily from Latin American countries during WWII and not just those of Japanese ethnicity. Frankly, I am disgusted by such dishonesty.

Inouye further states They were taken from their homes in countries such as Brazil, Panama and Peru, stripped of their passports, involuntarily brought to the United States, and interned in American camps. They apparently had only one purpose on U.S. soil to be used for prisoner exchanges with Japan," he said. The sad truth is the same scenario played out for German and Italian Latin Americans as well. The travesty is that Senator Inouye knows this, but chooses to ignore this fact when introducing his bill. It is time for the Senator to stop the hypocrisy and just disclose he is an advocate for those of Japanese ancestry and cares nothing about democratic ideals and justice for all!

Your supposed analogy is more of a simile; Apples and Oranges, my none-too-observant friend. You TEACH law yet can't see the distinctions? The Japanese interned during WWII were living in the U.S.. Most were U.S. citizens and therefore subject to the U.S. Constitution's protections. The vermin in Club Gitmo are NOT citizens of the U.S.. and have not resided in the U.S. They do NOT fall under the umbrella of the either the Rules of Land Warfare (as they were not conducting their affairs in accord with same nor are they signatories of the Geneva Accords) nor those of the U.S. Constitution and are, in effect, nationless rabble subject only to the protection provided mercenaries and/or pirates.