According to Bedford “during World War II, the United States was more careful about protecting the civil liberties of its citizens…however there was one exceptions, the “relocation centers”. How can there be an exception to human rights? The replacement of Japanese Americans into internment camps was one of the most flagrant violations of civil liberties and human rights in American history. To name a few constitutional rights that were violated in this event, the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, law enforcement and FBI searched homes of Japanese Americans without search warrants, seeking any items identified as having alliance to Japan (Bedford). In addition, the right to an indictment or to be informed of the charges, also was violated, “when the FBI came and picked him up…a guy who had followed all the rules, respected authority and was a leader in the company, all of a sudden he was behind bars for no reason as we can see the forced removal and subsequent detention of Japanese Americans without being told of their crime or the charges against them was indeed a violation of their human rights.
Issue 2: Yamashita had command responsibility to ensure law of war was not violated. The purpose of this is to ensure the safety and appropriate operation of troops. A Commanding General is personally responsible for the protection of the civilians and he must be responsible for the subordinates he leads. We see this specifically in the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. “The law of war presupposes that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the operations of war by commanders who are to some extent responsible for their subordinates.”
In the court case, they stated, “the Court nonetheless felt “that in time of war residents having ethnic affiliation with an invading enemy may be greater source of danger than those of a different ancestor.”’ (Rothenberg & Mayhew, 2014, pg. 551). They used the concept of “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch” to deal with the issues that were going on at the time. They disregard any personalities and qualities of every Japanese American. They removed the American and used only the Japanese of the term to “protection against espionage and against sabotage.” They say they are a “danger” because of what their “ancestors did.
The court felt that the government was discriminating against Arkansas Times based upon their content, which goes against the First Amendment. “It took longer than we thought but it was all worth it in the long run. The court did the right thing in the end and hopefully our case can help another newspaper or magazine that feels discriminated against,” Hanson told us after hearing the final
AFFIRMED.” Taser International Inc. cannot be held liable, based on the information available at the time, for not issuing warnings that repeated exposure to its product could lead to death, said an appellate court, in upholding dismissal of a 2004 wrongful death lawsuit. To conclude, I support the decision of the courts in the case of Rosa vs Taser International, Inc. Under tort law, strict liability the plaintiff needed to prove the defendant’s product was responsible for the death of their son. Taser International Inc. was able to prove their product met the safety standards and documentation, with the taser gun. A key point noted by the court also affirmed, the risk of lactic acidosis was not knowable in
This was in order to allow sexual history evident to be admissible as evidence. The Supreme Court of Canada declared the rape shield law that was being operated there as unconstitutional. This was illustrated in the case of R v Seaboyer. The reason the Supreme Court declared it as such was on the grounds that they violated the fundamental principle, which was that the innocent should not be punished. As result of the decision in this case, parliament enacted new provisions which were less firmly drafted, according trial judges much greater autonomy in admitting sexual history
This investigation aims to assess the extent to which Japanese-American internment from 1942 to 1946 was a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which declares that, “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The question must be asked in order to examine the legality of the actions taken by the U.S. government in opposition to American citizens of Japanese extraction (Nisei) and their immigrant parents (Issei). To determine this, the scope of this investigation will concentrate on the reasons for internment and the conditions in which the Japanese people lived during 1942 and 1946, particularly in a camp called Manzanar. One method applied is to explore an oral history interview
The outcome might have been worse after the war if the United States decided to execute the emperor because there were still people in Japan who worship him as if he is their god. The democratization was also crucial in the maintenance of the international order because there is less risk that nations fight against each other if both countries are democratic. Therefore, the United States needed to make Japan a democratic country to prevent Japan to become its
The Supreme Court Decision On several occasions, the Supreme Court has stated its view that ERISA jurisprudence is derived from the common law of trusts. The Supreme Court faulted the Ninth Circuit for failing to adequately consider principles of trust law when it rejected the Employees’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the mutual funds added in 1999. Not only is there a duty of “prudence” to select appropriate investment choices at the outset, but the Court held that there is a “continuing duty” to monitor those investment selections to “remove imprudent ones.” The Supreme Court held that the “continuing duty” is separate from the initial duty to choose investments carefully; violation of the “continuing duty” counts as a breach of the fiduciary duty under ERISA. As long as the breach of the “continuing duty” occurred within six years of the filing of the lawsuit, ERISA’s statute of repose does not bar the
The American people thought of the Japanese Americans as a security risk in the event of a Japanese invasion of the American mainland. State representatives took notice to the problems this hysteria was causing and put pressure on President Roosevelt to take action against those of Japanese descent living in the United States. On February 19th, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. This order instated the relocation of all 127,000 American citizens
The district court found that the Washington law violated both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. 4. Issue Three terminal ill patients and four doctors brought forth a case challenging Washington State’s position on assisted suicide. Was this an issue over Dr Glucksberg bringing suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Washington state law violated a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Japanese Internment The Japanese were welcome in America once until the attack on Pearl Harbor which lead Japanese to concentration camps and were watched over by americans. Was it ok to for the Japanese to be treated this way. The internment of the Japanese was Justified because of military necessity, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the US thinking there would be an invasion. The first reason why this is Justified is because of military necessity. “The security of the Pacific Coast continues to require the exclusion of Japanese from the area now prohibited to them and will so continue as long as that military necessity exists(Dewitt,1943).” So military necessity will help us become more secure and safe.