二战时期美国政府对日裔美国人的监禁（下续）
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2014-8-7 20:36 编辑二战时期美国政府对日裔美国人的监禁（下续）
我本来是打算这一节同前一节合在一起发，但是越写越长，就把它们分开，也多赚点分。由于上中下都用过了，编号只好就改成下续了。
二战结束后不久，美国人开始反思战时监禁日裔的决定。出于道德上的负罪感，对Nisei在二战战场上英勇作战的感谢以及回应国际社会对美国战时监禁政策的批评，1948年国会通过了Japanese-American Claims Act，对日裔在迁移，监禁过程中遭受的财产损失进行赔偿。这一法案有很多不尽人意之处。每个人的赔偿上限被定为2500美元（大约等于当时美国人5个月的工资）。40%的赔偿要求超过这一上限，这些人需要通过一个非常缓慢的特别审查过程。赔偿要求必须要有文件或其他证人发誓的证词支持才可以。由于迁移过程非常匆忙，包括地契等好多文件都被丢失，许多赔偿要求证明起来很困难。而且赔偿只是关于财产损失，对精神上、名誉上以及其它经济上（比如在监禁时期丧失的可能收入）的损失不予涉及。根据1948年的法案对日裔的补偿至1965年才结束。共有26000日裔提出补偿要求，总额1亿4千万美元。实际赔偿总额只有3800万美元，平均每个人1400美元。
最高法院也在二战后废除了一系列对在美国居住的外国公民歧视性的法律。在Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission里，Torao Takahashi 是个渔民，1907年移民到美国。1945年从安置营返回以后，发现加利福尼亚1943年通过法律，禁止授予日本公民商业捕鱼许可，向法院起诉。1948年最高法院判决这一法律违宪。同一年在Oyama v. California，最高法院判决加利福尼亚1913年的禁止亚裔移民拥有土地的法律违宪。最高法院还在Duncan v. Kahanamoku里限制了紧急时期军管政府的权力。夏威夷在珍珠港之后发布戒严令。1942年，Lloyd C. Duncan因为喝醉酒打架被捕，被军事法庭判了6个月。Duncan提出了habeas corpus的要求。1946年最高法院判决即使在戒严时期，只要是civilian法庭仍然能正常运作的话，军事法庭就没有权力将其替代。
监禁日裔美国人政策的直接参与者有的也在战后公开反思。司法部部长 Francis Biddle尽管本人反对监禁政策，但是在公众舆论和总统罗斯福的压力下选择让步。他在1962年出版的自传里写道
The evacuation subjected Americans to the shame of being classed as enemies of their native country without any evidence indicating disloyalty… American citizens of Japanese descent were not even handled like aliens of the other enemy nationalities – Germans and Italians – on a selective basis, but as untouchables, a group who could not be trusted and had to be shut up only because they were of Japanese descent.
Because of a lack of independent courage and faith in American reality, the nation missed a unique opportunity to asset the human decencies for which we were fighting.
罗斯福的内政部部长Harold Ickes在二战时反对对日裔的监禁。二战后他说服杜鲁门支持通过Japanese-American Claims Act。1946年在接受采访时他提到
As a member of President Roosevelt's administration, I saw the United States Army give way to mass hysteria over the Japanese...Crowded into cars like cattle, these hapless people were hurried away to hastily constructed and thoroughly inadequate concentration camps, with soldiers with nervous muskets on guard, in the great American desert. We gave the fancy name of 'relocation centers' to these dust bowls, but they were concentration camps nonetheless.
最高法院法官Wiley Rutledge后来称在Hirabayashi和Korematsu的赞成票是他作为法官最痛苦的决定。他的传记作者认为他的过早去世（1949年，享年55岁），同对这几个案子的负罪感有一定关系。我前面提到Hugo Black即使在后来也认为自己当年的判决意见是正确的。但是William O. Douglas 在1980年去世前表示这几个判决总是压在他的良心上，让他感到内疚。另一方面，他又觉得他们的决定也不是孤立的，而是当时美国人恐惧，焦虑的反映。
Earl Warren 在 1942年时是加利福尼亚的attorny general，在驱逐、监禁日裔的决定中发挥了很大的作用。他成为最高法院首席法官后，对民权运动特别的支持，好多人推测部分原因就是出于对当年监禁日裔决定的反思。在他1977年出版的自传里，谈到
I since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was notin keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens...Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends, and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken...it was wrong to react so impulsively, without positive evidence of disloyalty.
随着美国人对战时政策的反思和Japanese American Citizens League的争取，70年代的时候，绝大多数美国人都接受当年监禁日裔是非常大的错误。在1976年美国人庆祝建国200周年的一系列活动中，总统福特发表声明
In this Bicentennial Year, we are commemorating the anniversary dates of many great events in American history. An honest reckoning, however, must include a recognition of our national mistakes as well as our national achievements. Learning from our mistakes is not pleasant, but as a great philosopher once admonished, we must do so if we want to avoid repeating them.
February 19th is the anniversary of a sad day in American history. It was on that date in 1942, in the midst of the response to the hostilities that began on December 7, 1941, that Executive Order 9066 was issued, subsequently enforced by the criminal penalties of a statute enacted March 21, 1942, resulting in the uprooting of loyal Americans. Over one hundred thousand persons of Japanese ancestry were removed from their homes, detained in special camps, and eventually relocated.
…
We now know what we should have known then--not only was that evacuation wrong, but Japanese-Americans were and are loyal Americans. On the battlefield and at home, Japanese-Americans -- names like Hamada, Mitsumori, Marimoto, Noguchi, Yamasaki, Kido, Munemori and Miyamura -- have been and continue to be written in our history for the sacrifices and the contributions they have made to the well-being and security of this, our common Nation.
…
I call upon the American people to affirm with me this American Promise -- that we have learned from the tragedy of that long-ago experience forever to treasure liberty and justice for each individual American, and resolve that this kind of action shall never again be repeated.
1980年美国国会建立了Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians 来复查当年监禁日裔的决定。委员会由前任国会议员，最高法院法官，政府内阁成员等组成，听取了700多人的证词，同时公开了几百份此前被列为机密的文件。1983年，委员会完成的报告认为
The wartime mistreatment of Japanese Americans was not justified by military necessity, and the decisions which followed from it – detention, ending detention and ending exclusion – were not driven by analysis of military conditions. The broad historical causes which shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership.
根据委员会的建议，1988年国会通过了Civil Liberties Act，8月10日总统里根正式签署。法案宣布
Congress recognizes that a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II. These actions were carried out without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.
这一法案对二战时的监禁政策进行了官方正式道歉。同时对每个遭监禁的日裔（当时活着的还有6万人）赔偿2万美元。
1991年12月7日，在珍珠港事件爆发50周年纪念日，总统布什签署了另一项正式道歉
In remembering, it is important to come to grips with the past. No nation can fully understand itself or find its place in the world if it does not look with clear eyes at all the glories and disgraces of its past. We in the United States acknowledge such an injustice in our history. The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry was a great injustice, and it will never be repeated.
1992年国会通过法案，在华盛顿建造纪念碑，来纪念二战期间日裔美国人在战场上的巨大牺牲和他们被监禁的遭遇。纪念碑于2000年建成，雕塑的设计师Nina Akamu是日裔，她的外祖父在二战时期遭遇了监禁。海明山视在前一节的跟贴里贴了好几张很好的照片。1992年国会还通过法案，Manazar的安置营被指定为National Historic Site，由国会拨款修建纪念馆，还修建了当年的岗楼和居民区房屋的复制。纪念馆于2000年开始接待游客，每年大约有8万人参观。
80年代初，根据新近解密的官方档案，加利福尼亚大学的教授Peter H. Irons发现司法部在Korematsu一案的legal brief里隐瞒了证据（见前一节）。根据他的研究，1982年，Koremastsu 和 Hirabayashi 向法院发出 coram nobis，因为政府在案件中的不当行为，要求将他们的定罪撤销。法官Marilyn Patel批准了他们的要求。她的判决意见写道
Supreme Court’s decision stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees…that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. The judiciary must be prepared to exercise its authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused.
这样当年最高法院作决定的事实基础就是错误的，因此对 Koremastsu 和 Hirabayashi 的定罪被撤销。但是就宪法问题政府是否在战时有监禁某个种族的权力这个问题来说，下层法院无权推翻最高法院的判决，Korematsu 仍然是美国的法律。不过现在绝大多数的法律界人士包括最高法院法官都认为这个判决是错误的，没有precedent的效力。911之后，美国的国家安全受到了恐怖主义的威胁，最高法院又必须面对公民自由和国家安全的问题上的矛盾。对最高法院的法官来说来说，非常重要的一点就是防止第二个Korematsu 错误决定的出现。他们一系列的判决中大大限制了政府关押enemy combatant的权力。比如Hamdi v. Rumsfeld （2004）一案。Yaser Esam Hamdi 的父母是移民，他出生在美国是美国公民，但是小时候就随父母返回到了沙特阿拉伯，在沙特长大。2001年夏天20岁的他离家跑到阿富汗，在塔利班的军营接受训练。11月的时候被 Northern Aliance 俘虏，转交给了美军。美军将其指定为 enemy combatant 关押在 Guantanamo Bay。后来发现他是美国公民，被转为关押在美国本土的监狱，但是一直没有对他进行起诉。2002年6月他的父亲提出 habeas corpus的要求，认为政府是非法关押。2004年最高法院以8比1判决政府的做法违反了第五宪法修正案的due process clause。必须要么对他起诉（以及由此而来的宪法权利保护，比如Miranda，律师等等），要么将他释放，不能无限期的关押。最后政府同他达成协议，他放弃美国国籍，政府将其释放，并驱逐回沙特阿拉伯。在这个案子中，发到最高法院的legal brief里很多提到了二战时对日裔的监禁作为反例，Korematsu本人也向法院发了brief。可以说最高法院现在对反恐怖主义中公民自由和国家安全平衡尺度的看法，很大程度上都是对二战时期监禁日裔政策反思的结果。
Dracula好文，读后非常有收获。谢谢了！
页:
[1]