NDAA and the Japanese camps: Repeating history of indefinite detention (VIDEOS)?

Wednesday, February 20, 2013. New York City – On February 19, 1942, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the relocation of Japanese Americans and those of Japanese descent to internment camps.

February 19, 2013 marked the 71st Anniversary of Executive Order 9066. On the other hand, on February 6th, 2013, the 2nd circuit court of appeals heard oral arguments in the lawsuit against section 1021 of the NDAA. The Justice Department asked an appeals court to reverse a judge’s earlier decision blocking indefinite detention, saying the ruling would hamper its ability to fight terrorism.

NDAA and the Japanese camps: Repeating history of indefinite detention?

Japanese internment ended in 1946. Japanese Americans who challenged Executive Order 9066, such as Fred Korematsu (below) have emerged as defenders of civil liberties.

Executive Order 9066 authorized the evacuation of all persons deemed a threat to national security from the West Coast to relocation centers further inland.

Following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, approximately 120,000 people of Japanese descent were forced from their homes and incarcerated in military-guarded camps from 1942-1946. Although the majority of those interned were US citizens, they were not notified of their charges, nor were they guaranteed the right to a trial.


Published on July 25, 2011. Japanese Internment during WW II
“After America was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 consigning 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry to internment camps. Fred Korematsu challenged the internment all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In “Korematsu v. United States” (1944), the Court sided with the government.

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA).

The National Defense Authorization Act is a bill passed into law each year. It allows the government to continue funding national security interests and the military for the next fiscal year. This year’s bill, however, was different: It contains a series of striking provisions which violate basic principles of American jurisprudence, and which we believe to be unconstitutional.

The 2012 NDAA greatly expands the power of the federal government to fight the so-called War on Terror. Many — including some of the law’s sponsors — assert that the NDAA seeks to authorize the US military, for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing.


Published on February 7, 2013. Chris Hedges: NDAA Lawsuit Update.
(The NDAA is being challenged in the lawsuit Hedges v. Obama. Last year, a New York district court ruled against the indefinite detention clause, however, Obama administration lawyers have appealed the ruling.)

The language of this law is dangerously vague, but many — including several of its sponsors — believe that it grants what are essentially dictatorial powers to the federal government to arrest any American citizen (or anyone, anywhere) without warrant and to indefinitely detain them without any charge. Suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore prisons and kept there until “the end of hostilities.” It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.

Section 1021 defines a “covered person” – one subject to detention – as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces” that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

As it stands, the law violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments of the US Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights.

The law, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.” As it stands, the law violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments of the US Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights.

For more information, visit the website of StopNDAA.org and watch the videos bellow.

Turlock, Calif.--Evacuees of Japanese ancestry waiting their turn for baggage inspection for contraband, upon arrival at this Assembly point. They will then be assigned places in the barracks until transferred to a War Relocation Authority Center to spend the duration. -- Photographer: Lange, Dorothea -- Turlock, California. 5/2/42


Published on Jan 10, 2009. Japanese Relocation – U.S. Gov’t Explanation 1942 (Japanese Internment Camps).
A short film distributed by the U.S. government during World War Two to explain why Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals living on the West Coast were relocated to internment camps away from the coast. Posted by David Burns for the Fasttrack American History Project.


Published on September 17, 2009. Akiko Kurose recalls how her teacher treated her after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
This clip is an excerpt from Akiko Kurose’s oral history interview conducted July 17, 1997 (denshovh-kakiko-01-0013), created for use with the Densho Civil Liberties Curriculum). To see the complete interview, visit the Densho Digital Archive (www.densho.org/archive).

In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership”. The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans.”


Published on February 18, 2013. The Stream – A repeating history of indefinite detention.
(Japanese citizens say NDAA echoes US policies of Japanese internment).


Published on February 6, 2013. Challenging NDAA Indefinite Detention, First Panel.
Plaintiffs and supporters in the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit challenging the controversial indefinite detention provision set forth in § 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg, NDAA Case Coordinator Tangerine Bolen, lawsuit counsel Bruce Afran & Carl Mayer, David Segal, Executive Director of Demand Progress, and journalist Alexa O’Brien, moderated by Natasha Lennard of Salon.com and Matt Sledge of The Huffington Post.discuss the profound erosion of liberties cemented by the 2012 NDAA, a pattern of abuse and intimidation on the part of the Obama DOJ toward publishers, whistleblowers and activists, and the creative efforts of the widely disparate groups that have joined the lawsuit team and its supporters from around the world. Earlier in the day, February 6, 2013, was argument before the 2nd Circuit in which the US appealed the historic ruling by Judge Katherine Forrest in favor of the plaintiffs.
Sponsored by RevolutionTruth, Demand Progress, The Sparrow Project, New York Civil Liberties Union, Young Professionals, Culture Project’s ‘Blueprint for Accountability’ Series.
camera, edit: Joe Friendly


Published on February 11, 2013. Michael Moore, Chris Hedges on Challenging NDAA Indefinite Detention and the “Corporate Coup d’État”.
Democracy Now: “The ability of the U.S. government to jail people without charge or trial is now back in court. A group of reporters, scholars and activists are suing the Obama administration over the controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, saying it could allow for the indefinite detention of journalists and others who interact with certain groups.”

More pictures and videos on stream.aljazeera.com, the official Facebook page of the NDAA lawsuit and Japanese Internment Camps War Relocation Authority Photos.

If you like this, leave a comment bellow and share it on social networks. You can also “LIKE” my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter. You can contact me directly by filling out this form.

Scroll Up