Ethical Dilemma in America’s Internment Camps During World War II

The moral principles that govern behavior are relatively subjective and conditional in their nature. Persons act in a way that is beneficial to them or the interests of their associated societies. An individual’s behavior can thus be determined in a conditioned way by how they have been brought up with experiences of prevailing circumstances in reality.[1]

Contrary to this argument, scientists argue that ethical values could be inherent based on the organization of the human body that directs consciousness. Inherent ethical standards are evolutionary in their nature in as much that their expression can be influenced by environment and an individual’s genetic potentialities.[2] To this aspect, moral standards can be considered subjective. Historical ethical dilemmas classically present Russell’s, The Train to Crystal City book which details on the accounts of US detainees during World War II.

Some of the ethical issues in the America’s Internment Camp during this period include; lack of due process, unjustified citizenship / immigration regulations and inequity and abuse to minority detainees.[3]

The role of ethics cuts across political, economic, cultural and social boundaries. Ethics promotes human dignity by allowing basic rights, improving on welfare, enables cultural diversity with tolerance, equitable distribution of resources and instills a sense of responsibility to life. During the period, US War Relocation Authority displaced over 120, 000 Japanese some who were her citizens by birth right  while the Alien Enemy Control Unit locked up war prisoners. In an attempt to reunite with their families, women and children joined the Crystal City Camp.[4]

In the internments, American prisoners in Germany and Japan were exchanged for the interns; some who were by right American citizens but for their Japan and German descents. One of the American children internee; Sumi Utsushigawa had to be forced back to Japan in 1945 even after the war when actually she ought have remained but natives were suspicious of spying. These patriarchs ended up starving and possibly killed in their war torn countries. Ingrid Eiserloh, a teenager in the camp born in New York to German parents got herself sexually assaulted by a US soldier.[5]  

Despite this deviance from ethical behavior, there were certain subjective ethically conscious incidences in the camp. Joseph O’Rourke -the Patrol officer in charge- worked to improve the living conditions of children and found an alternative to grinding tofu; Japanese staple food during crisis. The officer faced instances of ethical dilemma when he perceived the detainees as ‘his own family’ to treat them with compassion and at the same time enforce commands from the government. It can also be argued that measure in place were in order for the country’s security being that there existed Nazi sympathizers within the camp who would spy information like Fritz Kuhn and Ingrid’s father. In this respect, ethical standards were conditioned by a threat to National security now that Americans prisoners in German and Japan had to be exchanged back home5.

In the contemporary US society, there are clear controversies in the enactment and enforcement of the Patriot Act, Sedition Acts and the regulations in refugee camps. The ethical dilemma plays out when the country security has to be maintained by deterring terrorist acts and at the same time act within the Constitutional provisions; particularly the Bill of Rights. Patriot Act of 2001 allows federal authorities track and intercept every communication for intelligence gathering and enforcement whereas the 1918 Sedition Act caps and punishes speech expression against the government in a negative way. [6]

In conclusion, the application of ethical standards is key for a holistic development of a country through it cultural, social, economic and political prosperity. People will be most productive when their fundamental rights and freedom are guaranteed and protected through peaceful coexistence. However, the application of these rights and freedoms should be relative for a greater benefit by evaluating the outcomes in relation to prevailing circumstances. A classic example is in the current refugee influx into America’s territories from Mexico borders that not only is a threat to security but a risk for infectious diseases due to overstretched social amenities.   

Bibliography

Fox, Stephen. America’s Invisible Gulag: A Biography of German American Internment & Exclusion in World War II: Memory and History. Vol. 23. Peter Lang Publishing, 2000.

Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Normative virtue ethics.” ETHICA 645 (2013).

Irons, Peter. Justice at war: The story of the Japanese-American internment cases. Univ of California Press, 1993.

Russell, Jan Jarboe. The Train to Crystal City: FDR’s Secret Prisoner Exchange Program and America’s Only Family Internment Camp During World War II. Simon and Schuster, 2015.

Stenmark, Mikael. Scientism: Science, ethics and religion. Routledge, 2017.

Whitehead, John W., and Steven H. Aden. “Forfeiting enduring freedom for homeland security: A constitutional analysis of the USA Patriot Act and the Justice Department’s anti-terrorism initiatives.” Am. UL Rev. 51 (2001): 1081.

[1] Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Normative virtue ethics.” ETHICA 645 (2013).

[2] Stenmark, Mikael. Scientism: Science, ethics and religion. Routledge, 2017.

[3] Irons, Peter. Justice at war: The story of the Japanese-American internment cases. Univ of California Press, 1993.

[4] Fox, Stephen. America’s Invisible Gulag: A Biography of German American Internment & Exclusion in World War II: Memory and History. Vol. 23. Peter Lang Publishing, 2000.

[5] Russell, Jan Jarboe. The Train to Crystal City: FDR’s Secret Prisoner Exchange Program and America’s Only Family Internment Camp During World War II. Simon and Schuster, 2015.

[6] Whitehead, John W., and Steven H. Aden. “Forfeiting enduring freedom for homeland security: A constitutional analysis of the USA Patriot Act and the Justice Department’s anti-terrorism initiatives.” Am. UL Rev. 51 (2001): 1081.