Kingthreehead, please be careful when you use the word Japanese whereas you are actually talking about American citizens (mostly) and think it was ok to lock them up. Yes, most of them were American citizens (not all , but many were actually born in the U.S.) Secondly they were mostly American Patriots and ready to give their lives for the U.S. Later some of the men were given the "opportunity" to join the Nisei troops. I hope you are aware these were among the bravest units and that they had to do some really dirty jobs. This "opportunity" was actually a terrible choice: you either joined this unit and go into terrible combats or you would refuse and be considered a traitor. I don't think Germans and Italians had to make this choice to prove their loyalty.
Their loyalty was beyond any doubt, and still had to prove it every day. Yes some Germans and Italians have been detained because there were some suspicions, but never have their communities been locked up in such large scales with women and chidren, taken away from their homes and locked into camps. And please don't tell me this was for their own good. It was the way it was back then, but it was totally unjustified and
these civilians had nothing to do with the atrocities committed by the Japanese army.
As to locking up millions of Iraqis just in case , I shall not even comment...

__________________

I appreciate your opinions but do not happen to share them. I also find your style of debate refreshing, thank you for a fascinating discussion.

As originally written, the US Constitution neither authorizes nor prohibits conscription of men for military service. However, as amended by the 13th. Amendment in 1865, the Constitution does prohibit "involuntary servitude" except as a punishment for criminal behavior. Since military conscription is a classic example of involuntary servitude, the US Constitution does explicitly prohibit a military draft. This simply points up the folly of invoking the Constitution as a guide for what the Federal government may, or may not, be permitted to do, especially in times of national crisis.

The Second Amendment (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) mentions the militia only as a justification for prohibiting the government from restricting citizens from owning and carrying arms. It does not authorize either state governments or the Federal government to conscript men for military service. It is, incidentally, another example of government ignoring constitutional restrictions on it's power.



Originally, the states were expected to raise units to supplement the Federal Army in time of war, but these differed from militia units which customarily were only required to serve locally. State military units were normally raised by enlistment for a specific period of time and this was considered to be a contractual arrangement as demonstrated by troops simply leaving for home when their enlistments expired. Some states provided for conscription of men for military service, but most states preferred to resort to bounties and other inducements for voluntary enlistment. It was a rare state legislature or governor who would risk the political consequences of military conscription except in the most dire of circumstances, and only then as a last resort.

The militia in this country evolved from the English militia system of having local men serve as temporary soldiers to defend the community in times of crisis. All able bodied men were expected to participate, but in fact, the governor had no means of compelling service and relied on peer pressure to insure that individuals heeded the call to service. militia troops were expected to serve only locally and only for the duration of a specific crisis. Militias might be called out by the governor of a state or any other official, or even simply turn out as a spontaneous reaction to a perceived threat.

It was not until 1863 during the Civil War that the US Federal government attempted to introduce military conscription as a means of raising Federal troops, and it precipitated widespread and violent resistance, most notably in the New York Draft riots. Suffice it to say, that both the military draft and internment of civilian citizens represent actions which are supposedly prohibited by the Constitution, but which the government routinely engages in during times of crisis. Both impose burdens on arbitrary classes of people in the interests of state security and both are disruptive of people's lives, but by and large, the American public and the judicial system support such actions so long as they are invoked during times of national crisis and appear fairly reasonable.

Right, that is what I was saying.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The US Constitution was written to delegate authority to the Federal government, not state government. Each State each has it's own constitution and (theoretically) as long as the US Constitution is not transgressed, then State governments have wide latitude in what they can and cannot do. Unfortunately, the Federal government has incrementally usurped powers that, according to the 10th Amendment, is each State's purview. Add that to it that each Senator is no longer beholding the State legislatures for their continued holding of the office but rather subject to the whims of the electorate (which is the House of Reprehensible's burden) it is no wonder that the powers of the Federal government have expanded-there is no legislative branch that has in it's best interest to limit that growth. It just kills me when reporters ask the President during an election what he going to do about education in their district. It isn't any of his business, that is the responsibility of the state and lower governments. I'm rambling, so I'll hush.
We're in the same boat.

This wasn't the first time that Abe Lincoln usurped and extended the powers of the Federal government. Writ of Habeas Corpus

Just for discussion, as this thread has gone way astray.
The other side of the coin...What is the answer to conscription in time of terrible national crisis, such as WWII, when volunteers were not enough? Look at the manpower difficulties Canada experienced during WWII due to there not being a conscription until the one-time levy in Nov 1944. Yes, they were able to raise (a herculean effort for the population) 4 infantry, 2 armored, RCAF squadrons and other combat units for overseas use, but ran into problems providing replacements later in the war and had to resort to a form of conscription, the National Resource Mobilization Act. A fifth division, the 7th Infantry Division, was made up of NRMA conscripts but could not serve overseas, although some were sent to the Aleutians Islands, as that was technically part of North America.

How many men could have been mobilized in the US had there been no draft? How would it have affected our effort in fighting totalitarian regimes? You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

I definitely agree. The Government, like all governments worldwide, does what it feels is best in times of crisis and finds ways to justify it's actions later. Sometimes, it turns out to be wrong in hindsight, but usually history vindicates it's actions. Suspension of Habeas Corpus, martial law, internment of civilians, and conscription are all measures which seriously impinge on the liberties of citizens and non-citizens alike, but generally are considered necessary at the time. These days, it is fashionable to deplore the internment of Japanese Americans as motivated solely by racism, but in early 1942, the view was much different, and the historical evidence is that it may have been closer to the truth than most critics are willing to admit today. In any case, internment was no worse than what many other Americans experienced as a result of government actions during the war. So, while I am sympathetic for what the Japanese Americans went through, I don't consider it unjustified, or racist, or something to be deplored, anymore than I consider the draft something to be deplored.