The document was called to Ramsey’s attention by Greg Robinson, the history professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal who made numerous false statements last summer about Japanese internment, repeatedly mischaracterized the arguments I made in my book, and falsely accused me of changing the topic of my speech at Emory University in response to the news that he planned to show up. Virtually all of his copious errors, mischaracterizations, and false allegations remain uncorrected to this day. (I’ve made errors, too, but unlike Robinson, I have acknowledged them.)

The document that Robinson touts is a July 23, 1942, memo from Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy to Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson. It is reproduced below (sent to me by Martha Nakagawa):

The part of the memo that Ramsey and Robinson highlight is the note as the bottom, which reads:

(Added in handwriting): These people are not ‘internees’ — they are under no suspicion for the most part and were moved largely because we felt we could not control our own white citizen (sic) in California.

This Howard Coble-like explanation is deemed significant because McCloy was the main architect of the evacuation policy (see Robinson, By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese-Americans, Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 165). It is also significant because it appears to contradict McCloy’s later sworn statements before Congress that the evacuation decision was based on bona fide national security considerations, especially top-secret communications by Japanese diplomats, codenamed MAGIC, that had been intercepted and decrypted by U.S. cryptanalysts. Here’s what McCloy told Congress in 1984:

I was cleared for MAGIC, and day after day and evening after evening I was reading from this thing. To say that wasn’t a major factor, it was a very important factor in considering where we stood and what we had to do in order to avoid the consequences of this disastrous surprise attack which had so deeply damaged and maimed our first line of defense on the west coast…

See also this exchange:

Mr. Hall: “Did the MAGIC cables help shape the decisions of those who ordered the evacuation of persons of Japanese ancestry persons from the west coast?”

Mr. McCloy: “Oh, I haven’t the slightest doubt about it.”

On the surface, it appears that the 1942 McCloy document undercuts these claims. But a deeper look suggests otherwise.

In the first place, it is important to note that the document is not an original memo, but a transcription typed up by a third party. Robinson and Ramsey assume the note at the bottom was written by McCloy, but whoever transcribed the note did not identify the author. Robinson calls the note a handwritten “postscript,” but the word “postscript” does not appear anywhere in the document.

The document does not say when the handwritten note was added. Perhaps it was written in July 1942. Perhaps it was written years or even decades later. We do not know when the copy was transcribed. It is not clear from the reproduction when the document was added to the files at the Library of Congress.

Jeffrey M. Flannery, Manuscript Reference Specialist in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, and Tab Lewis, an archivist at National Archives, both examined the memo at my request. Both stated that they could not provide a definitive answer as to the author of the “postscript” without consulting the original.

I would venture a guess that McCloy probably wrote the note. But unless someone locates the original, we cannot be certain. In failing to acknowledge this uncertainty, Ramsey and Robinson are either being sloppy or dishonest.

Ramsey and Robinson barely discuss the context in which the note was written. From the body of the memo, it is clear that McCloy was trying to support what some critics considered excessively generous food to the evacuees. The handwritten note, whoever wrote it, was designed to bolster that position. A handwritten note scrawled on the bottom of a memo about food is not the venue for discussing state secrets such as the MAGIC messages which revealed extensive Japanese espionage activity on the West Coast.

(It is unclear, by the way, whether Patterson was privvy to MAGIC; he is not on Robert Stinnett’s list of 36 Americans cleared to read MAGIC messages in 1941; see Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, pp. 317-8 of 2001 paperback edition. McCloy also is not on Stinnett’s list. He got the MAGIC messages from his boss, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who had full clearance.)

The idea that most of the evacuees were not under suspicion is a widely-conceded point. The point about the evacuees not being internees, which is not accepted by many people nowadays, also is correct. So is the point that mob violence posed a threat to ethnic Japanese.

As I noted in my book:

Mike Masaoka of [the Japanese American Citizens League] noted hostility in areas where evacuees were moving and feared retaliatory “mob violence.” In a Feb. 25 memo updating the “Japanese situation,” ONI officer Kenneth Ringle noted with alarm that California was “tending toward civil strife” because of animosity by Caucasians towards ethnic Japanese, the vast majority of whom had not yet left the state. He also blamed the “failure of the federal government to apprehend or control any of the Kibei…the most dangerous element of the Japanese population.” A little over a week later, Ringle reported that unless the federal government took positive steps, “there will be uprisings, riots, lynchings, and vigilante committees active in California in 30 days.” A telegram from the San Francisco representative of the Office of Government Reports on March 5 echoed that warning, noting that there was a “serious possibility of mob violence and vigilante committees.”

I also noted:

At the Santa Fe, N.M., site, Japanese enemy alien internees actually demanded that the barbed wire fence surrounding the compound be made at least a foot taller after the camp received threats from an outside mob angered by a spring 1942 defeat by the Japanese in the Philippines. Antagonism was “so great,” according to historian Richard Melzer, “that most internees believed they were much safer within their fenced-off compound.”

Rep. Coble was excoriated for suggesting that such threats played a role in the decision to force ethnic Japanese into relocation camps. Ironically, some of Coble’s strongest critics are now are trumpeting the so-called McCloy postscript (which if anything supports Coble’s point).

What were the real reasons for evacuation? In letters written around the same time as the July 1942 memo, McCloy could not reveal the existence of MAGIC, but he did give many reasons for the evacuation, of which protection from vigilantes was just one. A June 16, 1942, letter to Reverend Charles F. Banning of Columbus, Ohio, stated:

You undoubtedly realize that a very difficult situation confronted us on the West Coast with the sudden outbreak of war with Japan, but I very much doubt if even you could have appreciated the extreme seriousness and difficulty of the situation. Not only did great cities exist along the sea coast with large populations subject to possible attack, but some of our most important manufacturing establishments from which the Army and Navy obtains vital munitions were in the same locality. A successful attack might well have had a disastrous effect upon the war. As a consequence, the entire American populations of the West Coast States were left in a condition of great excitement and apprehension, and the nature of the attack on Pearl Harbor tended greatly to inflame our people against all persons of Japanese ancestry, whether citizens or not, and irrespective of their good or evil records as citizens.

Thus, the evacuation of all persons of Japanese descent from the immediate neighborhood of these sensitive key points of our vital defense became at once imperative, not only for the safety of our country but for their own protection. The number of these persons was so large, amounting to over 115,000, that individual action which would afford adequate protection either to them or to us, was impossible in the emergency.

A January 18, 1943, letter to Congressman Louis Ludlow stated that the evacuation “was conducted by the Army as a measure of security for it was impossible to sort out the good from the bad as rapidly as the threat to the West Coast seemed to be developing after Pearl Harbor.”

Ramsey and Robinson believe the note on the bottom of an obscure food memo by an unknown author trumps everything else that McCloy said or wrote during the 1940s and the 1980s. At the same time, they breezily dismiss explicit statements of espionage in the top-secret official cables sent by Japan’s U.S.-based diplomats to Tokyo. Lest anyone forget the stunning evidence contained in those cables, I have included some excerpts in the Extended Entry.

* * *

Background (detailed responses to the critics of my book):

In Defense of Internment
Book notes
Book notes II
Arguing in bad faith
Book buzz
The end of a reasoned debate

More background:

Seattle after-action report
Forgotten internees of WWII
Book buzz
Where in the world
Radio debate
Where in the world
Robinson’s deceit
Where in the world

INFORMATION CONTAINED IN “MAGIC” CABLES (JAPANESE DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS THAT WERE SURREPTITIOUSLY INTERCEPTED AND DECRYPTED BY U.S. CRYPTANALYSTS JUST PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II)

Two cables sent from Tokyo on January 30, 1941, ordered the Japanese embassy and its North American consulates to begin establishing espionage nets designed to be able to function in a wartime environment. The first announced “we have decided to de-emphasize our propaganda work and strengthen our intelligence work in the United States.” Cable copies of the message were sent, as “Minister’s orders,” to Mexico City, San Francisco, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, New York, New Orleans, and Chicago. Detailed intelligence requirements followed, with directions to recruit agents from “our ‘Second Generations’ and our resident nationals”–as well as “U.S. citizens of foreign extraction (other than Japanese), aliens (other than Japanese), communists, Negroes, labor union members, and anti-Semites” with access to governmental establishments, (laboratories?), governmental organizations of various characters, factories, and transportation facilities.”

On February 5, a message from Tokyo to Mexico City focusing on the need to “investigate the general national strength of the United States” directed intelligence-gatherers to “organize Japanese residents, including newspaper men and business firms for the purpose of gathering information.” The message, relayed to eight Latin American consular offices, warned that “Care should be taken not to give cause for suspicion of espionage activities.”

Tokyo sent another cable to Washington on February 15 with more detailed instructions:

The information we particularly desire with regard to intelligence involving U.S. and Canada, are (sic) the following:

1. Strengthening or supplementing of military preparations on the Pacific Coast and the Hawaii area; amount and type of stores and supplies; alterations to air ports (also carefully note the clipper traffic).

2. Ship and plane movements (particularly of the large bombers and sea planes).

3. Whether or not merchant vessels are being requisitioned by the government (also note any deviations from regular schedules), and whether any remodelling (sic) is being done to them.

4. Calling up of army and navy personnel, their training, (outlook on maneuvers) and movements.

5. Words and acts of minor army and navy personnel.

6. Outlook of drafting men from the view-point of race. Particularly, whether Negroes are being drafted, and if so, under what conditions.

7. Personnel being graduated and enrolled in the army, navy and aviation service schools.

8. Whether or not any troops are being dispatched to the South Pacific by transports; if there are such instances, give description.

9. Outlook of the developments in the expansion of arms and the production set-up; the capacity of airplane production; increase in the ranks of labor.

10. General outlooks on Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, with particular stress on items involving plane movements and shipment of military supplies to those localities.

11. Outlook of U.S. defense set-ups.

12. Contacts (including plane connections) with Central and South America and the South Pacific area. Also outlook on shipment of military supplies to those areas.

Please forward copies of this message as a “Minister’s Instruction” to New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, (Chicago or New Orleans?) Vancouver, Ottawa, and Honolulu. Also to Mexico City and Panama as reference material.

The Los Angeles and Seattle consulates reported to Tokyo in May 1941 on their progress in setting up the spy network’s surveillance of military posts and bases, shipyards, airfields, and ports. A May 9, 1941, cable from the Los Angeles consulate crowed:

We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials, and report the amounts and destinations of such shipments. The same steps have been taken with regard to traffic across the U.S.-Mexican border.

The message also stated that the network had Japanese-American spies in the U.S. armed forces, and that it was maintaining close connections with the Japanese Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Japanese-language newspapers. The message was translated on May 19, 1941. Just two days later, on May 21, the chief of the Military Intelligence Division’s intelligence branch completed a classified memo paraphrasing the contents of the May 9 decrypt. The memo specifically mentioned “second generation Japanese at present in the U.S. Army or working in aircraft factories.”

A May 11, 1941, message from the Seattle consulate to Tokyo was divided into five parts. The first part outlined the consulate’s efforts to collect “intelligences revolving around political questions.” The next part, headlined “Economic Contacts,” described efforts to procure intelligence regarding war-related production:

We are using foreign company employees, as well as employees in our own companies here, for the collection of intelligences having to do with economics along the lines of construction of ships, the number of planes produced for their various types, the production of copper, zinc and aluminum, the yield of tin for cans, and lumber.

The next portion of the message, entitled “Military Contacts,” stated:

We are securing intelligences concerning the concentration of warships within the Bremerton Naval Yard, information with regard to mercantile shipping and airplane manufacturer, movements of military forces, as well as that which concerns troop maneuvers.

With this as a basis, men are being sent out into the field who will contact Lt. Comdr. OKADA, and such intelligences will be wired to you in accordance with past practice. KANEKO is in charge of this. Recently we have on two occasions made investigations on the spot of various military establishments and concentration points in various areas. For the future we have made arrangements to collect intelligences from second generation Japanese draftees on matters dealing with the troops, as well as troop speech and behavior. ——- ——- ——-.

(A series of hyphens where words should appear means that a portion of the original encrypted text was not intercepted, was garbled, or could not be decrypted.)

The fourth section of the memo, entitled “Contacts With Labor Unions” stated:

The local labor unions A.F. of L. and C.I.O. have considerable influence. The (Socialist ?) Party maintains an office here (its political sphere of influence extends over twelve zones.) The C.I.O., especially, has been very active here. We have had a first generation Japanese, who is a member of the labor movement and a committee chairman, contact the organizer, and we have received a report, though it is but a resume, on the use of American members of the (Socialist?) Party. ——- OKAMARU is in charge of this.

“OKAMARU” was apparently “Welly” or “Welley” Shoji Okamaru, a Seattle labor union member identified by the Office of Naval Intelligence as a Nisei (second-generation Japanese-American, i.e., born in the U.S.) and a “Class ‘A’ espionage suspect.”
The final part of the message stated that “we are making use of a second generation Japanese lawyer” to collect intelligence on “anti-participation” organizations and the anti-Jewish movement. Though the name of the lawyer was not mentioned, a classified MID memo written the same day the decrypt was translated—June 9—referred to “a second-generation Japanese lawyer named Ito” who “collects information on anti-war-participation organizations.” This appears to be a reference to Kenji Ito, a Nisei lawyer who was later identified by ONI as a “Class ‘A’ suspect” and after Pearl Harbor was unsuccessfully prosecuted for failing to register as a Japanese agent.

By the summer of 1941, MAGIC messages sent by Japan’s Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles made it clear that Japan’s espionage network was up and running. Throughout the summer and fall, these three consulates sent dozens of cables providing detailed information on ship movements, aircraft production, and military-related construction activities.

The Seattle consulate seems to have been especially productive. A June 23, 1941, message to Tokyo read as follows:

(1) Ships at anchor on the 22nd/23rd (?):
(Observations having been made from a distance, ship types could not be determined in most cases.)

1. Port of Bremerton:
1 battleship (Maryland type)
2. aircraft tenders (one ship completed and has letter “E” on its funnel).

2. Port of —–:
1 destroyer
11 coast guard cutters
(ships under repair)
1 destroyer
11 (appear to be) minesweepers

3. Sand Point:
2 newly constructed hangars

4. Boeing: New construction work on newly built factory building #2. Expansion work on all factory buildings.

On August 16, the Seattle consulate informed Tokyo that, “according to a spy report, the English warship Warspite entered Bremerton two or three days ago.” An August 18 message reported on the whereabouts of military airplanes, and their likely destinations. A September 4 message described the movements of “the 39th Bombardment Group (44 planes), the 89th Observation Squadron (15 planes), and the 310th Signal Company,” all of Spokane. This message also stated that the “steering apparatus (?) (diameter 8 inches, double cylinders (?), gear ratio 410 to 1 (?) for the 312 10,000 ton freighters to be leased to England are to be manufactured in two factories, one in Everett and one in New York (?)” (emphasis in original) —information potentially of interest to would-be saboteurs. A September 20 message listed the ships at the Port of Bremerton and noted the departure of a New Mexico class ship.

The San Francisco and Los Angeles consulates sent similar messages describing ship movements and cargo loads. A June 2, 1941 message from Los Angeles stated, “On the 20th, the Saratoga, and on the 24th, the Chester (?), Louisville, the 12th Destroyer Squadron and Destroyers # 364, 405, 411, 412, and 412 entered San Diego, and all of them left on the 31st.” A September 18 message from San Francisco stated that “the English warship Warspite arrived here from Bremerton on the —– and is at present moored near the (naval arsenal at Mare Island?). It has been determined that it requires two more months for repairs at Liverpool.” That message was explicitly attributed to “a spy report,” underscoring the point that Japan was actively engaged in espionage activity, not merely discussing its hopes and intentions.

Here is what they say about Michelle Malkin’s blog.

The site for columnist and author Michelle Malkin–known most for her book defending the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II–dishes conservative politics with panache. Recent entertaining entries include “Land of the Meek” about a New York City public school program to combat bullying through sensitivity training has Malkin observe, “The metrosexualization of America marches on. Who needs enemies..” There are often cute posts about her getting her daughter in on the righty antics–for example, sending a letter to Ohio Senator John Voinovich, seeking to cheer him up after he fought back tears during debate about John Bolton’s nomination as ambassador to the United Nations.

BEST: Also maintains an “immigration blog” devoted to border security.

WORST: Eliminated reader comments section. Perhaps she’s too sensitive to online vitriol.

The description seems quite fair to me except for criticizing her for shutting off comments. Michelle has received some of the ugliest, most racist and sexist e-mails and comments that I’ve ever seen. Why should she have to spend time policing a comments section for the trash that some people think it entertaining to spew at her just because they can’t stand the idea of having a woman expressing conservative ideas.

I don’t know when Forbes put this feature up but if they were doing it this week they would certainly need to take note of the terrific work that Michelle and Brian Maloney of Radio Equalizer have been doing on the Air America corruption story.

UPDATE: Kokonut Pundits wonders why Forbes didn’t turn on comments on their own article if they were so critical of Michelle for turning hers off. Unfortunately, since we’ve had to turn the trackbacks feature off today, the rest of his post on the value of trackbacks doesn’t hold for today. But it usually does on Michelle’s site, so just ignore this little anomaly.

UPDATE II: A reader points out that if Forbes had had a comments box, someone would have pointed out that it is George Voinovich and not John and they could have corrected it much more quickly rather than waiting for a note to the editor to trickle down to the author of the piece.

It seems I’ve gotten under the blithering professor’s skin. When the interview first appeared, Churchill was quoted accusing me of “blatant plagiarism” (screenshot via Shock and Blog) and lifting “a lot” of my most recent book, In Defense of Internment, “line for line” from another author, Lillian Baker. (Can you spell Freudian projection?) Yesterday I pointed out in e-mails to Counterpunch and Churchill that this allegation is completely false, as were other allegations attributed to Churchill. Whether the plagiarism allegation “is also defamatory may be for a jury to decide,” I noted.

Here’s where things get interesting. Neither Counterpunch nor Churchill issued a correction, retraction, or apology. However, my e-mail seems to have had some effect. If you look at the latest version of the interview you’ll see that the plagiarism claim has been altered. Instead of saying that I am guilty of “blatant plagiarism” and that I copied the bulk of my book line for line from author Lillian Baker, Churchill now is quoted saying falsely that the bulk of my book “derives” from Baker. There are no ellipses or brackets indicating that substantive edits have been made to the interview transcript.

Counterpunch’s editors have not acknowledged to its readers that they changed the remarks attributed to Churchill. Nor have they explained why they made these changes. They appended my e-mail to the bottom of their article, which I appreciate, but the point in my e-mail about Churchill’s plagiarism allegation appears to make no sense because it refers to comments that have been excised from Churchill’s remarks.

I’m writing the Counterpunch editors again to ask them to publish an explanation.

In the meantime, catch up on all the latest Churchill follies at Pirate Ballerina. Jim Paine shares his insights on the reasons for Churchill’s continued verbal diarrhea:

It’s increasingly clear that as long as Churchill can keep the argument (and outrage) centered on his words rather than his actions (without stepping into “incitement” territory), the outcome of the legal question of “Why is he losing his job?” will most certainly be “because he said outrageous and hurtful things.”

We pointed out here back in February that Churchill (and the Left) would work strenuously to recast the argument in First Amendment and academic freedom terms. We didn’t realize at the time, however, that Churchill would take such a proactive approach to that recasting, ensuring with each new “frag the officers” outrage that it would be more difficult for a judge to see the argument as anything but a freedom of speech issue.

And that means Churchill wins—he keeps his job or gets a huge settlement from CU, or both—and the CU system and the people of the State of Colorado lose. CU’s reputation and that of academia in general will, of course, be damaged—but not irreparably so. But that will not change the fact that Ward Churchill will have won.

Very clever.

***
Reader Andrea S. writes:

I especially like how they printed your tiny spelling error with (sic) but change their words without notice or explanation. Those jobs at the MinTruth seem to be working out for them well.

Yep.

***
Previous:

The seditious Ward Churchill, Pt II
The seditious Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill and MEChA: perfect together
Ward Churchill: bullying claim
Ward Churchill update
Press conference on Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape
One of Ward Churchill’s ex-wives speaks
Double standards at the University of Colorado
Liveblogging Ward Churchill and Bill Maher
The never-ending Ward Churchill sitcom
University of Colorado faculty members come to the defense of Ward Churchill
Another bizarre twist in the Ward Churchill saga (fake art)
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape advocating terrorism
Eason Jordan, meet Ward Churchill

Stay tuned.

Now, corrections, retractions, and apologies:

On page 123 of my book, In Defense of Internment, I wrote that Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga, a research associate for the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, “surreptitiously shared confidential documents with” attorney and now-retired law professor Peter Irons. In subsequent comments on my blog, I stated that Irons had been explicitly denied permission to copy the documents and had engaged in similar activities before. It has come to my attention that these statements are in error.

The disputed sentence in my book and my subsequent comments on my blog were based on the following passage in an article by Cal State Fullerton professor Thomas Fujita-Rony in the April 30, 2003, issue of Frontiers: A Journal Of Women Studies:

Irons was not allowed to copy any of the memos and letters he had found detailing this set of actions. The official responsible for screening records for public use was unavailable due to illness, and in the absence of clearance, permission to duplicate these vital documents was denied. Irons called Herzig-Yoshinaga, who, as a researcher for the commission, had the right to access any nonsecret document related to the CWRIC’s work. She immediately copied all the documents, which provided proof for the first time of Justice Department misconduct in the cases that upheld the exercise of presidential war powers under the Constitution.

Although Fujita-Rony did not explicitly say that Herzig-Yoshinaga behaved “surreptitiously” or that the documents in question were “confidential,” I believe these were reasonable inferences on my part given what he wrote. I clearly cited Fujita-Rony’s article as my source in my book and on my blog. I did not contact Herzig-Yoshinaga or Irons directly. The passage, as Bruce Ramsey notes, was not central to the thesis of my book.

In response to inquiries from Irons and me, Fujita-Rony now says the passage he wrote in 2003, which he acknowledges he failed to footnote, is erroneous. He has written a letter of retraction to the editors at Frontiers. Here is his e-mail to me:

Dear Ms. Malkin:

I was in error. I am retracting the assertion that Professor
Irons was at any time denied access to the archival materials
in question. I am “attaching” and inserting below the text of the
letter I am sending to the editors of Frontiers. I hope this will
clarify matters.

Sincerely,

Thomas Y. Fujita-Rony

Accordingly, I am retracting my claim that Herzig-Yoshinaga “surreptitiously shared confidential documents with” Irons. I have made a note of this on the errata page of my book. Moreover, I am directing Regnery to excise the words “surreptitiously” and “confidential” from future editions of the book.

In addition, I retract the following statements which appeared on my blog:

August 24, 2004:

Contrary to [University of North Carolina law professor Eric] Muller’s assertion that the papers shared were “publicly available documents sitting in publicly available files at archives open to the public,” the article makes clear that Irons did not obtain permission to receive the papers he acquired from Herzig-Yoshinaga.

August 25, 2004:

As I noted, these records, however, had not been cleared for public use, and Iron’s request to copy them had been explicitly denied. By the way, this was not the only time Irons engaged in these sort of shenanigans.

I apologize to Irons and Herzig-Yoshinaga for the errors.

On a related note, I’ve been meaning to comment on Mark Levin’s book, “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America. ”

Tom DeLay has been urging reporters to read Levin’s book. I’m a fan of Levin, but there’s a fundamental problem with one of his main arguments.

On page 122, Levin vigorously defends the president’s right to detain enemy combatants during wartime, including U.S. citizens who have not been charged with a crime. He writes:

Nothing in the Constitution gives parity, much less primacy, to the courts over war-related matters. Indeed, as [Clarence] Thomas argues, the Constitution assigns such authority to the president. The Supreme Court somehow believes that courts are more qualified or trustworthy to rule on detentions. But why is that? Why is it assumed that judges are more competent in weighing the rights of individuals against national-security needs? The ingrained bias against the elected branches and their ability to make well-reasoned and just judgments is destructive to the entire notion of representative government. If elected officials cannot make wise decisions about national security, then they cannot be trusted to make decisions at all.

Later on the same page, Levin attacks those who believe that detentions of enemy combatants during wartime should be treated as “garden-variety criminal matters.”

All well and good, but on page 16 of the same book, Levin makes the opposite argument during his discussion of Korematsu v. United States, the landmark 1944 case in which the Supreme Court upheld executive orders allowing the forced evacuation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast during World War II:

More than 110,000 law-abiding individuals, mostly Japanese Americans and Americans of Japanese ancestry, were removed from their homes on the West Coast, relocated to camps in the interior of the country, and detained without cause. The Fifth Amendment states that ‘no person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’ If this wasn’t a violation of the Fifth Amendment, then what is? Rather than applying the clear language of the Constitution, this activist court simply upheld FDR’s policy.

So in the war against al Qaeda, courts must defer to the president on detentions, but during World War II, when the courts did just that, they were “ignoring the clear language of the Constitution.” In the war against al Qaeda, detentions of U.S. citizens who have not been charged with a crime ought not be treated as “garden-variety criminal matters,” but during World War II the protections of the Fifth Amendment trump the president’s powers as commander-in-chief.

There may be perfectly good reasons for these apparent inconsistencies other than partisanship. The problem with “Men in Black” is that Levin doesn’t bother to explain what they are.

What a comedian. Among Cohen’s many snort-worthy complaints was this one:

Many bloggers make little effort to check their information, and think nothing of posting a personal attack without calling the target first – or calling the target at all.

Funny. Cohen himself falsely attacked my most recent book as “a warm look back on the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II” without calling me first or calling at all. I phoned Cohen immediately after his piece ran to ask him if he had actually read my book before smearing it and me. Left him a cordial message and requested that he ring me back. He still hasn’t bothered to return my call.

Hello, Adam? Hello?

Update: No, he didn’t call me. But Ace of Spades has Cohen’s number down cold.

The staff at Manzanar received nearly 200 letters, weighed both sides, and here is the verdict: (Hat tip: Xrlq and many other readers.)

Thank you very much for expressing your opinion about the presence of Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment in our Manzanar History
Association (MHA) bookstore at Manzanar National Historic Site.

Our decision to carry the book last fall followed extensive review and
consultation with historians, academics, former internees, and others. The
consensus was that, while none substantially agreed with Ms. Malkin’s
conclusions or scholarship, it is not the role of the National Park Service
to censor dissenting viewpoints, past or present. As one prominent academic
stated, “providing only one perspective is not education, it is propaganda.
There are not many books written with this general perspective, and it’s
important to include dissenting views.”

The National Park Service’s approach to telling the stories of Manzanar is
to invite visitors to experience the site and leave with memories and
emotions fueled by their own inherent values. The goal is to increase
visitors’ knowledge level without dictating their conclusions. To that end,
Manzanar History Association and National Park Service staff work closely
to identify and review titles for the store. As of May 2005, there are 749
items in MHA’s inventory, including more than 300 books. Both of our
organizations recognize the sensitivity necessary for any book selection on
a topic as important and emotional as the World War II experiences of
Japanese Americans and others.

In the end, we chose to carry In Defense of Internment for a number of
reasons, including:

Manzanar was designated a national park unit to preserve and interpret the history of the loss of civil rights by Japanese Americans during World War II. We believe that not carrying this book could ironically be viewed as denying the First Amendment rights to free speech.

We believe that it is useful to present various perspectives when reasonable. We do not actively seek materials counter to the majority opinion or materials that are innately controversial, but wish to consider books garnering national attention, as well as books recommended by visitors or others.

We feel we have an obligation to share the unique history of the site in such a way that creates context, encourages open dialogue, and fosters commitment to keep the story alive. Presenting a variety of viewpoints, when appropriate, is essential to this process.

We do not feel that by including Michelle Malkin’s book, or any others, we are inferring National Park Service endorsement of the author’s perspective and/or opinions.

In the past few weeks, we have received nearly 200 messages on this topic.
We have read every one and are grateful for your willingness to share your
concerns and comments. Your perspective is part of an important dialog that
will help all of us to come to a greater understanding of our history and
our hopes.

On behalf of the National Park Service and Manzanar History Association,
Thank You.

Sincerely, Alisa
Alisa Lynch
Chief of Interpretation
Manzanar National Historic Site

Deepest, deepest thanks to all those who wrote, called, and blogged to keep the book on the shelves. Appreciate your support, activism, and interest in the book very much. And kudos to the staff members at Manzanar for their integrity and fairness–qualities with which Professor Muller and the rest of the unhinged academics on his embarrassing “Historians’ Committee for Fairness” seem curiously unacquainted.

***
Background (my detailed responses to Muller and his co-critic, Greg Robinson):

In Defense of Internment
Book notes
Book notes II
Arguing in bad faith
Book buzz
The end of a reasoned debate

More background (in which, in the spirit of good-faith academic debate, I repeatedly referred readers to Muller’s blog and arguments; promoted radio appearances with him while on my book tour; requested and engaged in an impromptu debate about the book with Robinson after he weirdly showed up at one of my college speaking events on a totally different topic; and plugged yet another radio debate with Muller in February):

Seattle after-action report
Forgotten internees of WWII
Book buzz
Where in the world
Radio debate
Where in the world
Robinson’s deceit
Where in the world

I just watched the first episode, an interview with Jack Klamm, a Naval radioman who was stationed at Fort Ward’s Station S during WWII. It was excellent. (See the extended entry below for further thoughts on Klamm’s comments.)

Here is a list of the DVDs:

Episode #1: Interview with Klamm

Episode #2 is a planned 2nd interview with Klamm; it is not yet available.

Episode #3: WRA footage of relocation camps 1944.

Episode #4: Constitutionality of 9066, MAGIC, Tokyo Syndicate, murders of Issei loyal to U.S. at relocation centers.

Episode #5: Hirabayashi hearings, CWRIC, David Lowman’s testimony

Episode #6: Martial law in Hawaii, Niihau incident, public education about internment and relocation.

I understand Dombrowski is charging $10 per DVD to recoup the costs of production. For more information, contact her via e-mail at sparta_one@msn.com.

I was particularly interested in Klamm’s discussion of a top-secret message sent by Japan’s Seattle consulate to Tokyo on August 16, 1941–one of thousands so-called “MAGIC” messages surreptitiously intercepted and decrypted by U.S. cryptanalysts. The message read, “According to a spy report, the English warship Warspite entered Bremerton two or three days ago.” Klamm remembers the arrival of the Warspite. He says the ship entered Bremerton at night to avoid detection, and that Japan’s spies must have been very alert to observe its arrival.

My critics, such as Greg Robinson, argue that the MAGIC cables “detail various efforts by Japan to build [espionage] networks, and list hopes or intentions rather than actions or results.” However, dozens of MAGIC messages (of which the August 16, 1941, cable referenced by Klamm is just one) provided specific intelligence about specific U.S. ports, military bases, and airfields, including specific ship and airplane movements, hangar construction, and cargo loads–information that in at least two instances was explicitly attributed to Japan’s spies. The fact that Japan’s spies were able to observe Warspite’s stealthy arrival in the darkness of night is a useful reminder of how hard it was to keep such information from enemy eyes.

James Joyner of Outside the Beltway has the best review and analysis.

Kevin McCullough has an overview from Pentagon sources and details of the Congressional hearing set for this morning on the report.

Captain Ed takes note of the New York Times‘ buried lead.

Members of the faculty bought an ad in the Monday edition of the Boulder Daily Camera. The ad demands the university stop [its] investigation.

Churchill’s defenders frame this as an issue of academic freedom, but I wonder how many of these same faculty members would be singing the virtues of academic freedom if Churchill had articulated a controversial right-wing view rather than a controversial left-wing view. Would they be rallying to his support, for example, if he were under fire for defending Japanese internment, supporting enforcement of immigration laws, or opposing affirmative action?

(Hat tip: Bob in Rhode Island.)

Earlier:

Another Bizarre Twist in the Ward Churchill Saga

Ward Churchill: Caught on Tape Advocating Terrorism

Update: Ryan Damron, a student at Eastern Washington Univeristy, writes:

Ward Churchill was invited to come speak at my school some months back by the Native American student group on campus for their Native American Awareness Week in the spring. After the controversy surrounding his scheduled appearance at Hamilton College, the president of the university decided to cancel his appearance, citing security concerns. Of course, the liberal faculty rushed to his defense, citing First Amendment rights. Interestingly, about a year and a half ago, the College Republicans planned to hold an Affirmative Action Bake Sale. When word of that leaked out, the same faculty demanded that Jordan cancel that event. How hypocritical.

He has more here.

It’s also the 63rd anniversary of Executive Order 9066, the West Coast evacuation order signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. We’ve seen plenty of stories and op-ed pieces leading up to the event. Here are the highlights and lowlights:

The Bremerton Sun reports on the latest incident in the controvery over Bainbridge Island’s internment curriculum:

A parent of a Bainbridge Island sixth-grader said he will meet with a civil rights attorney after being denied access to a middle school classroom. James Olsen arrived Wednesday morning to attend a 90-minute history presentation regarding the World War II-era internment of Japanese residents but was prevented from entering by the principal and two Bainbridge police officers, he said. Superintendent Ken Crawford said Olsen was barred to protect the classroom environment. Olsen and his wife have been the most vocal critics of the district’s “Leaving Our Island” curriculum, which deals with the World War II internment of Japanese Americans.

What do the school officials have to hide?

Previous posts:
How not to teach Japanese internment
Book buzz

* * * * *

From Oregon’s Bend.com:

Mary M. Schroeder, the first woman to be named chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, will speak on what it means to be a woman in the judiciary in a Feb. 16 speech at the University of Oregon…. Among her noteworthy cases is Hirabayashi vs. United States, which held in 1987 that the World War II Japanese internment was unconstitutional.

The Bend.com article is referring to a 1987 coram nobis case in which Judge Schroeder overturned Gordon K. Hirabayashi’s 1942 convictions. While many have embraced the outcome of this case (and others like it) as proof that the West Coast evacuation of ethnic Japanese was “unconstitutional,” the coram nobis rulings did not affect the underlying constitutionality of President Roosevelt’s executive order. Despite what Bend.com suggests, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Korematsu v. United States (1944), which upheld the constitutionality of the West Coast evacuation, has never been overturned.

* * * * *

In New Jersey, the Bridgeton News notes that “West Coast Japanese Americans were imprisoned in internment camps during the war” and “were brought here to work at the Seabrook food processing facility.” How could they be “imprisoned” in camps if they (like thousands of other Japanese-Americans who were evacuated from the West Coast) were allowed to go to the East Coast to work? The reporter never explains the process by which thousands left the camps after obtaining security clearances, and does not mention that ethnic Japanese who did not live on the vulnerable West Coast were not required to enter the camps in the first place.

* * * * *

One of those, artist Isamu Noguchi, was profiled in the Washington Post on Sunday. To its credit, the Post notes:

As a resident of New York, [Noguchi] could have escaped the internment forced on Japanese Americans on the West Coast. In solidarity with them, however, he chose to join them in the camps for seven months in 1942.

In fact, hundreds of people chose to enter the relocation camps voluntarily–a fact I strongly suspect is not disclosed to schoolchildren in Bainbridge Island and elsewhere.

* * * * *

The Stanford Daily reports on a Forum exploring the connections between Japanese internment and civil liberties infringements in the War on Terror. One participant, 80 year-old Kiku Funabiki, told the tale of her grandfather (a citizen of Japan) being placed in an internment camp by the Department of Justice:

“The only evidence presented in the brief closed hearings was that he had contacts with Japanese naval vessels, that he socialized with Japanese naval officers and that he was an ardent Buddhist,” Funabiki said.

This evidence may strike Funabiki as completely innocuous now, but at the time, it would have been completely reckless for officials to ignore her grandfather’s contacts with Japanese naval vessels and naval officers. It’s not clear whether Funabiki’s grandfather was a Buddhist priest or merely an ardent devotee. Either way, law enforcement authorities were right to view devoted Buddhists with concern. The Office of Naval Intelligence, the United States’ premiere intelligence agency at the time, stated in December 1941 that most Buddhist priests were “to a considerable extent” under the direct control of the Japanese government and that many were members of subversive organizations.

* * * * *

An earlier article in the Stanford Daily said the Forum was inspired by Fred Korematsu’s attack on my book:

The idea for the event came from a Sept. 16 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which Fred Korematsu, who was detained in a Japanese internment camp from 1942 to 1945, responded to claims made by Fox News media personality Michelle Malkin.

According to the article, Malkin said that “some Japanese Americans were spies during WWII and that racial profiling of Arab Americans today is justified by the need to fight terrorism.”

However, in the 1980s a federal commission found that “no Japanese American had been involved in espionage or sabotage and that no military necessity existed to imprison them.”

A federal panel stacked with critics of internment did indeed come to that conclusion. However, the assertion that no Japanese-Americans were involved in espionage is false. See here for a list of known subversives, here for intelligence memos outlining the concerns about espionage among officials at the Military Intelligence Division and Office of Naval Intelligence, and here for some of the top-secret MAGIC messages describing Japan’s espionage activities.

Even University of North Carolina law professor Eric Muller, my loudest critic, concedes that Japan successfully recruited spies in the U.S.:

Nobody doubts that Japan and Germany wanted to set up espionage and sabotage relationships in the US with both their own nationals and others (including, but by no means limited to, children of their nationals.) And nobody doubts that in a few instances they were successful in doing this.

Muller also suggests that Richard Kotoshirodo, the Japanese-American man on the cover of my book, violated espionage statutes. (Wanting to give Kotoshirdo the benefit of the doubt, I had expressed doubts about whether Kotoshirodo’s activities rose to the level of espionage, since the information he transmitted to Japan was not classified.)

* * * * *

The Washington Times quotes Rep. John Conyers comparing the Real ID Act (which is designed to improve the security of drivers’ licenses and other government-issued ID cards) to the Japanese internment. As I point out in my book, playing the internment card is a common tactic among those who oppose beefing up homeland security today. Here’s another example from the Los Angeles Times today.

* * * * *

The Dartmouth Online continues the smear campaign against Daniel Pipes, repeating the false claim that Pipes wants to toss Muslim-Americans into internment camps:

Daniel Pipes, a New York Sun columnist who once argued that Muslim-Americans should be placed in internment camps, will bring his contentious views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Dartmouth Hall on Thursday. Pipes’ presence on campus is provoking strong feelings among students and faculty on both sides of the issue.

See here, here, and here, for bloggers repeating the defamatory accusation.

The big lie is repeated again in a noxious piece published by Final Call, Louis Farrakhan’s house organ.

*****

Finally, here’s an e-mail I received yesterday from one Kathryn Yamamoto (e-mail candycane25186@yahoo.com), indicating the abysmally low level of intellectual firepower on the other side of this debate:

Michelle Malkin,

I can’t believe you actually think what your doing is right! What you believe is bullshit! I don’t know anyone who has worst opinions than you! I know you have the right to speak your mind…..but that doesn’t mean you have to try and get people to agree. My Dad was in one of the Japanese Intern camps and he has gone to many different schools and other public places telling people exactly what went on in those camps. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO SAY THE JAPANESE INTERN CAMPS ARE OK AND RIGHT! IF YOU DO TRULY BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED TO NOT ONLY THE JAPANESE BUT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT’S TERRIBLE IN THIS WORLD THEN YOUR A FUCKED UP BITCH/SLUT/DYKE/CUNT/AND ASS HOLE! When I heard about this bullshit I got so mad for you trying to get people to believe this shit! You absolutely have no reason to be popular with your stupid little books and interviews! You and all your fans who follow you are bad people! Fuck you bitch!

~Kathryn

The woman seems, I dunno, suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.

Please excuse the extreme vulgarity of these excerpts, but they demonstrate a point about unhinged liberal hatred that I will continue to expose:

What I want to really know is whether Malkin has the ability to suck the chrome off of a trailer hitch.

I mean, she’s gotta have SOME kind of purposeful earthly use walking around on this planet, because she certainly doesn’t have one that has anything to do with her intellect or her political views.
Jeremiah Elias | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 – 2:26 am | #

Why exactly does this large toothed educated female wog believe that she will be treated as white when God chose to make her yellow?

Even her political allies see her as nothing more than a trained monkey coached into saying a few simple racial truths that would be politically damaging if put into the mouths of a white man?

Her hatred for her fellow wogs comes from an inability to accept that God did not make her a European and that God chose to make her a woman.

Please, beat her severely and set her to work in a brothel somewhere in Malaysia that services Islamic terrorists.
King Leopold | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 – 12:39 am | #

Do you think Malkin’s breezer runs horizontally instead of vertically?

Any opinions on the subject?
Jeremiah Elias | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 – 2:28 am | #

That’s Michele Mangalangawanker to you, buddy!

Seriously. The more she blogs the stupider she gets. Some people just need editors…or a smack in the head with a pillow case full of weasel shit.
tbogg | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 – 3:02 am | #

Do you think there would be a big market for “internment camp porn” starring Michelle Malkin and Chartoff? It could be like “Ernest” movies from the 1980′s “hey verne look at the filipina”
jr | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 – 3:05 am | #

Would you please use the name my parents (and our dear savior the Lord Jesus Christ) gave me? It’s Mangalangangbang, liberal swine!
Michelle Mangalangangbang | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 – 6:28 am | #

Can I fuck her up the ass?
Balanchine | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 – 6:57 am | #

You know, if Malkin had been living on the west coast in 1942, I can guarantee that she’d be just another fucking jap as far as the vast majority of the population was concerned.

Maybe what Magalangadingdong is really hoping for is that she’ll get tossed in a camp and get to live out her “Comfort Woman” fantasy that she works hard to keep under lock and key at all times . . ..
Big Daddy Mars | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 – 7:45 am | #

Look at how even aggressive educated wogs like this Michelle Malkin serve their white masters at little or no prodding simply because they desire to be white and not what they were born.

Malkin’s a whore regardless what race she was born. She’d serve any Dark Lord as long as they paid her.
Big Daddy Mars | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 – 7:52 am | #

This is the toxic filth that passes for commentary on the site of Duncan B. Black, a.k.a. Atrios, whose Media Matters biography notes that he:

has held teaching and research positions at the London School of Economics; the Université catholique de Louvain; the University of California, Irvine; and, recently, Bryn Mawr College. Black holds a PhD in economics from Brown University and is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America.

Dr. Black may believe his bottom-feeding commenters enhance his blog, but I think most fair-minded bloggers on either side of the aisle–particularly ones with such presitigious academic pedigrees as Dr. Black’s–would balk at encouraging such obscene vitriol on their sites.

Kevin Drum can pat himself and his fellow liberal bloggers on the back for their comments sections. But if the above is what passes for enhanced and enlightened dialogue, I’m proud to be guilty of what Drum derides as “tight message control.”

I call it garbage control. It’s a good thing.