Firstly in the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the FBI gave themselves the power to search through families’ homes without probable cause or a warrant. Then many individuals who were innocent taken by the FBI sat in jail cells for years without a trial, their right to a speedy trial, or even the families in the internment camps, they did not even have a trial. The camps were also a violation of habeas corpus, for there was no charge against the Japanese Americans, but they were fenced in with armed guards point toward them. These rights that were violated, I think create the bigger argument on the legality of the internment camps. I think it also shows that during wartime, some rights are justified to be taken away from its citizens, when it truly should not …show more content…
From looking at the cases a few names stood out, Fred Kormesato was one of the first test cases, from the “Of Civil Wrongs and Rights”, he knew he was an American and simply did not want to camp, so he did not. The courts sided on the side of the President and the military, when he was charged for living within a military area. Gordon Hirabayashi did not follow the curfew hours, he did not agree with the U.S. government treating Americans as the enemy, so turned himself in. Minoru Yasui, a lawyer, was well aware that the orders were violations against the Constitution, he also test the curfew laws. Also, a large group of individuals evaded the draft, because they asked for their rights to be returned to their families