Fear and sacrifice

California and Virginia celebrate January 30th as "Fred Korematsu Day" in honor of the Japanese-American who challenged the United States' internment of 110,000 of its own citizens during World War II. His case made it to the Supreme Court in 1944, where the court declared the government's detention was justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril." [Source] In retrospect, is was a bad decision, but the Court didn't have all the facts.

In 2011, the U.S. government revealed that the solicitor general at the time, Charles Fahy, had deliberately withheld information from the Office of Naval Intelligence that concluded the Japanese-Americans on the West Coast did not pose a military threat. [Source] In doing so, Fahy chose political loyalty to President Roosevelt over his ethical duty to present the case to the Court with absolute candor. In related news, President Trump recently signed an executive order temporarily halting admissions from seven Middle Eastern countries and freezing the United States refugee program. [Source] According to Breitbart news, the decision was made as a "security measure," despite lack of evidence that refugees have played any role in terror attacks within the U.S. As Dilbert author Scott Adams explains, the move is rational if you consider the potential for future attacks, but I would point out that the Japanese-American internments could have been viewed the same way, and that has turned out badly.

To my mind, the president's decision may very well decrease the risk of a terrorist attack in the U.S. in the short term, but at what long term price? (Even some of the president's biggest Christian supporters find it hard to support.) [Source] Such decisions hurt the United States' international reputation, and feed the radicalized Islamist narrative that the U.S. is a hostile to Muslim nations. Roughly 1000 employees in the State Department have circulated a letter protesting the order. [Source] Put simply, we just don't win friends by treating refugees as enemies.

As an appropriate counterpoint to history, Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates refused to defend the president's order, and lost her job for it. [Source] It's regrettable, but that's what happens when you publicly defy the guy who can fire you. I agree with Josh Blackman -- the right way to do it would have been to speak privately, resign, and then speak out -- but it let's face it. That wouldn't have gotten as much attention. But I wouldn't characterize it as a "betrayal" either. Speaking as someone who has also taken the Oath of Office, we swear to defend the Constitution, not the person who holds the presidency, and no less a person than JEFF SESSIONS had questioned her about just such an occasion.

It's unfortunate to see this situation, but I believe Ms. Yates will at least enjoy a better reputation than Charles Fahy in the long run. And hopefully, Sally Yates' defiance may one day redeem us from all these acts we've committed out of our own unjustified fears.