Court should uphold
internees' lost rights
The Supreme Court, a! the request of the Reagan ad
ministration. will review the validity of a 1983 lawsuit seek
ing reparations for citizens who were interned during the
detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
The question comes 42 years after the court condoned
the government's program of placing 120.000 American
citizens and aliens of Japanese ancestry in detention camps
as a “military necessity."
The case should be heard, and the government should
defend itself in court. Of course, in this case the government
is defenseless.
A U.S. appeals court dismissed many of the claims in
the case but ruled that the case could proceed. The Justice
Department is seeking to disclaim any governmental liabili
ty and stop the case.
The court ruled that the grounds for the lawsuit were
lacking until a 1982 congressional commission urged the
United States to "redress the personal injustice" done to the
internees.
The Justice Department's appeal rests on technical
issues of jurisdiction and statute of limitations. Thus, the
government is using technicalities to obscure its respon
sibility to its citizens and residents.
A central issue the Supreme Court is sure to deal with is
false evidence President Franklin Roosevelt's administra
tion presented to the court to convince it of the “military
necessity" of the detention program.
A congressional commission released a report in 1983
saying that the program was motivated by "racial prejudice,
war hysteria and failure of political leadership" and not by
military considerations.
Roosevelt's administration fraudulently withheld vital
documents that showed the detention program was not
needed, including reports from the FBI and members of
naval intelligence that concluded careful watching of
suspicious people was all that was needed to avert the threat
of sabotage.
The administration of that time also failed to refute the
assertion that the attack on Pearl Harbor had been aided by
sabotage and espionage by ethnic Japanese in Hawaii. It
knew this assertion was false.
The conviction of a japanese-American who refused to
report for detention was overturned in 1983. largely on the
basis of the false evidence provided by the government at the
time.
Thus, the enormity of the program was worsened by the
fraud and hysteria used to support it. It is not so surprising
that the public could be so swayed, but it is shocking that
even the Supreme Court could support the internment
program.
The internment of lapanese-Americans during World
War II is a blot on American representative democracy. The
internment tamps disproved the old notion that "it can't
happen here" — referring to the concentration camps of
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union — not only can it hap
pen here, but it can happen with the Supreme Court’s
approval.
President Gerald Ford proclaimed in 1976 that the War
time detention had been wrong. However, such a proclama
tion does not help those interned recover what they lost
when they were taken from their homes during World War
n.
Though the gears of the justice machine move slowly,
even 40 years is not too long for the government to be held
accountable for violating the Constitution.
Letters
Illegal entry
If there is any "anomaly" in a
situation where it is illegal for
aliens to enter the country, but
not illegal for employers to hire
them, the fault lies in the law
that makes entry illegal (ODE
editorial. Nov.17). After all. it is
also not illegal to sell bread to
an alien, or to buy a car from
him.
The right to exchange one's
labor for money or other agreed
upon compensation is a basic
economic right of all human be
ings. not just those who have
papers issued by some govern
ment agency.
The government has no
business forcing employers to
police its arbitrary policy of
discrimination against people
on the basis of birth place and
parentage.
What principle gives John Q.
Peasant from Vietnam or Mex
ico any less right to try to make
a living and support his family
than John Q. Public from
Eugene? And who are you or
(kmgress to tell either of them
what job they may apply for?
The right way to resolve the
“anomaly" is to open our
borders to anyone who wants to
work here.
You prefer a plan where guest
workers will work for American
employers, but not as prospec
tive citizens. They won't have
Oregon Daily
Emerald
The Oregon Daily Emerald it published Monday
through Friday e«cepl during eaam week and vacation*
by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. at the
University of Oregon. Eugene. Oregon. #7403
The Emerald operate* independently ot the University
with office* on the third floor of the Erb Memorial Union
and i* a member of the Associated Press
The Emerald is private property The unlawful removal
or use of papers is prosecutable by law
Owner a! Staff
Advertising Director
Production Managei
Classified Advertising
Assistant to the Publisher
Susan Thelen
Diana Fattier
Alyson Simmons
JeanOwnbey
Advertising Sales: John Boiler / Sales Manager
Teresa Acosta Paul Anderson Ann Cola. Brent Coffins.
Beryl Israel. Janet la Heitmann Laura Goldstein. Peter
taFleur. Catherine Ltl|a. Joseph Mental. Joan
Wildermutn
MASS It
MS-3712
Sf| 1TTT
ASSAM!
ASA SS11
Editor
Managing Editor
News Editor
Spectrum Editor
Spectrum Assistant Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Editorial Page Assistant Editor
Sports Editor
Ptioto Editor
Graphic Design Editor
Night Editor
Michelle Brence
Lucinda Dillon
Michael Rivers
Curtis Condon
Stephen Maher
James Young
Michael Drummond
Capi Lynn
Michael Wilhelm
Lorraine Rath
Michael Rivers
Community
Politics
Higher Education / Administration
University Affairs
Student Government
Student Activities
General Assignment
Jolayne Houlr
Shawn Wirt*
Chris Norred
Stan Nelson
Sarah Kitchen
Tonnie Dakin
Dennis Fernandes
Reporters Sean A>maker Mary Courtis. Karen Creighton.
Gary Henley. Carolyn Lambarson. John Me Barron
Photographers Sherlyn Bforfcgren. Shu Siting Chen.
Mans CorvaHis. Oerrei Hewitt. Bobbie Lo. James Marks.
Dan Wheeler. Michael Wilhelm
ProdMCttea: Michele Ross ‘ Ad Coordinator
Kelly Aleiandre. Efuabeth Asher. Ronwin Nicole Ashton.
Swidra Bevans. Janet Emery. Manuel Flores. Shannon
Gaither. James Kenny. Donna Leslie. Curtis Lott. Ross
Martin KeHi Mason. Mika McGrow Rob Miles. Angelina
Munu. Kara Oberst Arm Pale. Juke Paul. Jennifer Peter
son. Knsttn San burg Nits Tioimn. X Kang Xie
the game status as other
workers, because they will re
main citizens of their
homelands, to which they must
return whenever the govern
ment decrees they are no longer
wanted.
This is surely a practical com
promise. with economic benefit
for both worker and employer,
but not very original. P.W.
Botha would be proud.
Joseph W. Dehn III
Eugene
Walk don't ride
It is very sad to note that in
one of the state's finest centers
of higher education there are a
number of students who still do
not read. But the surprising
coincidence that often goes un
noticed is the fact that all these
illiterate people ride bicycles!
You have probably seen them
careening down University
sidewalks, oblivious to the
bright yellow “Walk/Dis
mount" signs painted on the ce
ment beneath them. However. I
am not suggesting that all
cyclists pedal their machines
over our walkways.
Probably the majority of
cyclists at the University obey
the common-sense safety rule
that one should not speed
through crowds of pedestrians.
These people are demonstrating
their consideration and respect
for others by their behavior.
This cannot be said for the
cyclist/marauder who speeds
across campus dodging hapless
foot-bound students.
We are being oppressed by a
minority. An arrogant, rude few
are violating the rights of the
many. They use their superior
speed to force their way upon
us. and they all seem to believe
that they are the sole exception
to the “no bikes" rule designed
to protect everybody.
Now that the rainy season is
upon us. the danger of wet
brakes failing to stop before im
pact is a serious possibility.
Campus security officers are
outnumbered and have only
been able to achieve small vic
tories in this battle.
The rule of law is being rid
den upon. Do the University a
favor; read this letter to any
cycle-sidewalk riders you
know.
Randy MacDonald
Student Senate President
Intolerable
Tolerance: Is it always a vir
tuous attribute? It is often
claimed to be by many who buy
into the situational ethics of
left-wing liberalism — where
right and wrong ebb and flow
with the tide of popular opi
nion. It isn't if you believe there
are certain permanent moral ab
solutes in this universe that
must be adhered to.
Let's examine the consistency
of this open-minded liberalism
that lectures against the evils of
"intolerance" and “discrimina
tion" (a form of intolerance).
We must ignore for a moment,
however, that “consistency" is
not a required component of
situational ethics.
What about tolerance? Are
these open-minded left-wingers
tolerant of capital punishment,
abortion restrictions, laboratory
animal testing, nuke power,
snail darter depletion, creation
science. Apartheid.
intolerance?
And how about discrimina
tion? Does liberalism shun all
discrimination against conser
vative profit-motivated
businessmen, abortion clinic
picketers. strip miners, fun
damentalist Christians, out-of
the-closet monogamous
"straights” (homophobics)?
Check out the irony of the
self-righteous left-winger
hypocritically proclaiming. “If
there's one thing 1 just can't
stand, it's intolerance."
I submit that there is nothing
inherently wrong with in
tolerance. In fact, it is an ap
propriate natural counterpoint
to any deeply held conviction.
However, it is amusing to find
those who claim munificent
tolerance but who in reality are
so intolerant that they can't
tolerate intolerance in others.
Jon Wollander
Eugene