Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror Hardcover – July 1, 2004
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
From the Publisher
Everything you've been taught about the World War II "internment camps" in America is wrong: - They were not created primarily because of racism or wartime hysteria
- They did not target only those of Japanese descent
- They were not Nazi-style death camps In her latest investigative tour-de-force, New York Times best-selling author Michelle Malkin sets the historical record straight-and debunks radical ethnic alarmists who distort history to undermine common-sense, national security profiling. The need for this myth-shattering book is vital. President Bush's opponents have attacked every homeland defense policy as tantamount to the "racist" and "unjustified" World War II internment. Bush's own transportation secretary, Norm Mineta, continues to milk his childhood experience at a relocation camp as an excuse to ban profiling at airports. Misguided guilt about the past continues to hamper our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks. In Defense of Internment shows that the detention of enemy aliens, and the mass evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast were not the result of irrational hatred or conspiratorial bigotry. This document-packed book highlights the vast amount of intelligence, including top-secret "MAGIC" messages, which revealed the Japanese espionage threat on the West Coast. Malkin also tells the truth about:
- who resided in enemy alien internment camps (nearly half were of European ancestry)
- what the West Coast relocation centers were really like (tens of thousands of ethnic Japanese were allowed to leave; hundreds voluntarily chose to move in)
- why the $1.65 billion federal reparations law for Japanese internees and evacuees
was a bipartisan disaster
- and how both Japanese American and Arab/Muslim American leaders have united
to undermine America's safety. With trademark fearlessness, Malkin adds desperately needed perspective to the ongoing debate about the balance between civil liberties and national security. In Defense of Internment will outrage, enlighten, and radically change the way you view the past-and the present.
About the Author
Michelle Malkin is author of the New York Times best-seller, Invasion, which ignited debate on immigration and national security in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. Her nationally syndicated newspaper column, celebrating its fifth year with Creators Syndicate, is published in nearly 200 newspapers across the country. Malkin is a FOX News Channel contributor and former editorial writer and columnist for the Seattle Times and the Los Angeles Daily News. Malkin lives with her husband and children in Maryland.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Allow me to explain -- I work in a particular field of criminal law, primarily the reforming of tough-on-crime policies that have led into a different kind of internment. Politicians are prone to biases, just as everyone else can be, but the problem is we expect our legislators to be objective and weigh the benefits and risks of passing new legislation. However, when it comes to crime, facts and figures tend to get thrown out the window in favor of anecdotes and emotion. In other words, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind."
Malkin engages in some mental gymnastics to justify internment (not to mention throughout the book, internment is in quotation marks while she prefers to use the whitewashed term relocation). I though it was funny she admits in Chapter 3, for example, that the Issei's " connection to Japan was naturally much stronger than the connection to the United States" because US immigration law denied the Issei American citizenship. She denies racism was an element yet she is forced to admit the US had an immigration policy discriminating against the Japanese.
Malkin justifies racial profiling (or, as she put it, nationality/religious profiling) by stating if those policies had been in place, we would possibly have caught the 9/11 hijackers beforehand. She reminds me of the people who pushed for Megan's Law, when they claimed if only we knew a "high risk" person is in our neighborhood, we could watch them more closely. On both counts, they were wrong. Until 9/11, almost all "terrorism" acts were homegrown and were white (Timothy McVeigh, as an example).
Again, the rhetoric that "no inconvenience is too great when it comes to public safety" is used as the ultimate justification. The problem is that attitude has justified the erosion of our own freedoms. We incarcerate more people than anyone in the world, even "Communist" countries and Middle Eastern countries. Our police are becoming more militaristic, driving around in armored personnel carriers to do even the most basic of police tasks. We are expanding registry lists and engaging in wholesale spying on our own citizens. ALL of this has come about because public safety should not be "inconvenienced." As Michelle puts it:
"It is unfortunate that well-intentioned Arabs and Muslims might be burdened because of terrorists who share their race, nationality, or religion. But any inconvenience, no matter how bothersome or offensive, is preferable to being incinerated at your office desk by a flaming hijacked plane.” [pg.xxx]
Michelle states, “The central thesis of this book is that the national security measures taken during World War II were justifiable, given what was known and not known at the time. It is unfair to judge the decision-makers of the time as though they had all the knowledge that we do today.” It makes me wonder if they had the knowledge we have today, would they still have interned around 100,000 people based on fear? We're not that far from it today. We have registries of people convicted of certain crimes, and we have camps we are using for "illegal immigrants" today, we we have the means to do so. Our best hope is that people like Malkin are not given the power to make such a decision.
The author presents a polemic which focuses solely on what she sees as the potential positive benefits of internment (which are frankly dubious) and does not at all address the negative consequences or "blowback" of such policies. Historically, everywhere internment has been practiced it has failed to benefit "national security" and instead has demonstrably undermined it (for example, in Northern Ireland, South Africa, and Israel).
If you believe that what "makes America great" is the US Constitution, in the rule of law as a cornerstone of a functioning and healthy democracy, and the importance of respecting human rights, and understand that it does not actually work to make a country "safer" and history has proven that the negative consequences have always outweighed any positive ones, then logically you must oppose any form of internment as a matter of principle. When considering the adoption of internment, remember Martin Niemöller's famous warning:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Remember, If "others" can be interned, so can you.