Monday, June 30, 2008

Civil rights in wartime

I must say that I strongly disagree with Supreme Court Judge Hugo Black on his opinion about the Korematsu v. United States.
The case was about a man of Japanese descent who refused to go to the detainment camps in 1942, was found guilty, appealed his case up to the highest court, and was still found guilty of refusing to submit to, in my opinion, racism.
I understand that in WWII the powers that be in our country decided that there was a national threat, and I think I agree with those who would say that national security against enemy countries is just as important as civil liberties because the government is protecting those rights and liberties against foreign enemies who would take them away.
But there is a limit to what I believe any government should be allowed to do to "protect" those freedoms. Benjamin Franklin once said something along the lines of "those who would give up their freedom to protect their safety deserve neither" and I believe that he was right. If, in trying to protect the rights of our citizens, we deny some of them rights, we have destroyed the very thing we hold so dear. Even to keep our citizens and country safe, to turn down the path of tyranny (which is what this amounted to) undermines everything that this country stands for, and all that it has that is worth protecting.
There were undoubtedly some Caucasian dissenters, and surely dissenters of every race and creed, but we focused our efforts only on people of Japanese descent. This is so incredibly unjust that it boggles the mind to think that the highest court in our country upheld discrimination like that. I am disturbed to think that we only abide by "innocent until proven guilty" when it suits our government to do so.

No comments: