[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21469-21470]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       REJECTING HATEFUL RHETORIC

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for more than 235 years, the United States 
has served as a beacon of hope and opportunity for millions coming to 
our shores seeking a better life. Ours is a nation founded upon the 
ideal of freedom, and throughout our history, there have been moments 
when this most fundamental ideal has been challenged. The complicated 
history of our Nation is not without its dark moments, but at every 
turn, we have sought to recommit ourselves to our basic ideals and 
principles, always moving to be a more inclusive society.
  Today, as some continue to espouse hate-filled views that demonize 
those of a certain faith, we need thoughtful voices to speak out and 
remind us all of what we stand for as Americans. In his column this 
weekend in the Rutland Herald, veteran journalist Barrie Dunsmore did 
just that. He reminded us that in the wake of the attacks on Pearl 
Harbor, our own government rushed to judge Japanese Americans and 
imprisoned them in internment camps out of fear they sought to do us 
harm. This was a deplorable response to a national tragedy that remains 
a stain on our history. Mr. Dunsmore reflected on how this fear was 
perpetuated by news media professionals who enabled these scare tactics 
through their reporting and the response by some elected leaders who 
also promulgated this fear through their own actions.
  Fear is what drove the racist and unconstitutional response to 
Japanese Americans in the wake of the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941. 
And fear is what is encouraging some to recklessly hurl suspicion on 
Muslim Americans today in the wake of a terrorist attack in San 
Bernardino, CA, and unrest around the world. As Americans, we must 
categorically reject the divisive and corrosive rhetoric of fear that 
only serves to undermine us as a nation.
  Americans cannot let themselves be coerced by the politics of fear 
today. If we do, then the terrorists and extremists will have won. 
Terrorists want us to be afraid, and they want us to be a nation 
divided. Groups like ISIS actively promote the narrative that Muslims 
are not welcome in the United States, and the xenophobic, hateful 
rhetoric espoused by some today plays into our enemies' hands. It also 
demeans us as a democratic nation founded on the principles of freedom, 
equality, and liberty. We should not let our country be defined by 
irresponsible fear-mongering. We are better than that.
  Columns like the one written this weekend by Barrie Dunsmore are 
important reminders of just how far we have come as a nation. We cannot 
turn back now, and we cannot turn against our fellow Americans now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Barrie 
Dunsmore's column from Sunday, December 13, 2015, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Rutland Herald, Dec. 13, 2015]

                       Fear in the Driver's Seat

                          (By Barrie Dunsmore)

       ``Nothing in modern politics equates with the rhetoric from 
     candidate Trump.'' So wrote Dan Balz this past week in The 
     Washington Post.
       Balz is the Post's veteran and scrupulously nonpartisan 
     senior political correspondent. He also wrote: ``Trump's call 
     for a ban on Muslims entering the United States marked a 
     sudden and sizable escalation--and in this case one that sent 
     shock waves around the world--in the inflammatory and 
     sometimes demagogic rhetoric of the candidate who continues 
     to lead virtually every national and state poll testing whom 
     Republicans favor for their presidential candidate.'' 
     Evidence of Trump's support can be seen in polls

[[Page 21470]]

     since the Muslim ban idea was proposed, in which a 
     substantial majority evidently agrees with him.
       In offering a defense for his latest scheme, Trump cited 
     President Franklin Roosevelt's decision to intern thousands 
     of Japanese-Americans shortly after the Japanese attack on 
     Pearl Harbor in 1941. News reports this past week have 
     mentioned this comparison--which was probably news to many 
     Americans. When I was teaching a semester at Middlebury 
     College, a senior who was an A student, told me he had never 
     heard of the Japanese internment. That inspired me to give 
     the subject extra attention in class, and to recall that 
     period of history in this newspaper nearly a decade ago. What 
     follows are elements of that column.
       On Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbor, 
     killing more than 2,000 people and destroying much of the 
     U.S. Pacific fleet. On Feb. 19, 1942, President Roosevelt 
     signed executive order No. 9066.
       Over the next eight months, 120,000 individuals of Japanese 
     descent were ordered to leave their homes in California, 
     Washington, Oregon and Arizona. Two-thirds were American 
     citizens representing almost 90 percent of all Japanese-
     Americans. No charges were brought against these individuals; 
     there were no judicial hearings.
       After being temporarily held in detention camps set up in 
     converted race tracks and fairgrounds, the internees were 
     transported to concentration camps in the deserts and 
     swamplands of the Southwest. There, they were kept in 
     overcrowded rooms with no furniture other than cots, 
     surrounded by barbed wire and military police. There they 
     remained for three years.
       Why did this happen? In a word: fear. But it was a fear 
     that was incited, encouraged and exploited by political 
     players of many stripes. In the weeks that followed the 
     attack on Pearl Harbor, California was teeming with rumors of 
     sabotage and espionage. The mayor of Los Angeles, Fletcher 
     Bowron, spread the story that Japanese fishermen and farmers 
     had been seen mysteriously waving lights along the state's 
     shoreline. The top American military commander for the 
     region, General John DeWitt, reported as true rumors that 
     enemy planes had passed over California--and claimed that 
     20,000 Japanese were about to stage an uprising in San 
     Francisco. All of these stories were false.
       The news media also did its share of rumor-mongering. The 
     Hearst columnist Damon Runyon erroneously reported that a 
     radio transmitter had been discovered in a rooming house that 
     catered to Japanese residents. Even the respected national 
     columnist Walter Lippmann warned of a likely major act of 
     sabotage by ethnic Japanese.
       It would not be long before virtually all West Coast 
     newspapers, the American Legion, the L.A. Chamber of 
     Commerce, a host of other business and fraternal 
     organizations--not to mention the area's top political and 
     military leaders--were demanding that all persons of Japanese 
     ancestry be removed from the West Coast. Many of these 
     demands were overtly racist, such as that of the attorney 
     general of Idaho, who proclaimed all Japanese should ``be put 
     into concentration camps for the remainder of the war . . . 
     We want to keep this a white man's country.''
       Professor Geoffrey Stone points out in his book, ``Perilous 
     Times: Free Speech In Wartime,'' ``There was not a single 
     documented act of espionage, sabotage or treasonable activity 
     committed by an American citizen of Japanese descent or by a 
     Japanese national residing on the West Coast.''
       President Roosevelt was not being pushed by his own 
     advisers to sign the order for the internment. Attorney 
     General Francis Biddle opposed it. So did FBI Director J. 
     Edgar Hoover who described the demands for mass evacuations 
     as ``public hysteria.'' Secretary of War Henry Stimson 
     thought internment was a ``tragedy'' and almost certainly 
     unconstitutional.
       Professor Stone concludes, ``Although Roosevelt explained 
     the order in terms of military necessity, there is little 
     doubt that domestic politics played a role in his thinking, 
     particularly since 1942 was an election year.'' And, of 
     course, the U.S. had been attacked and was now involved in 
     another world war.
       Those civil libertarians who opposed interment and thought 
     that the Supreme Court would ultimately reverse Roosevelt's 
     order would be disappointed. Two related cases eventually 
     reached the court, and in both, the convictions were upheld.
       Years later some of those directly involved would publicly 
     express regret for their decisions in these cases. The 
     famously liberal Justice William O. Douglas later confessed, 
     ``I have always regretted that I bowed to my elders.'' The 
     also noted liberal Chief Justice Earl Warren, who as attorney 
     general of California played a pivotal role in the process, 
     wrote in his memoirs in 1974 that internment ``was not in 
     keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights 
     of citizens.''
       On Feb. 19, 1976, as part of the national bicentennial, 
     President Gerald Ford issued a proclamation noting that the 
     anniversary of Roosevelt's internment order was ``a sad day 
     in American history'' because it was ``wrong.'' Ford 
     concluded by calling upon the American people ``to affirm 
     with me this promise: that we have learned from the tragedy 
     of that long ago experience'' and ``resolve that this kind of 
     action shall never again be repeated.''
       But fast forward four decades: another war, another 
     election. And many Americans seem perfectly willing to repeat 
     what was resolved never again to be repeated. Once again, 
     fear--dare I say--threatens to trump this country's better 
     instincts.

                          ____________________