WHEN IT COMES TO NATIONAL SECURITY, IS IT OKAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO LIE TO THE COURTS?

Lorraine K. Bannai, Enduring Conviction: Fred Korematsu and His Quest For Justice (Seattle & London: U. of Washington Press, 2015) ("The documents that Peter brought Fred were remarkable and indeed shocking. They, together with other key documents found by Aiko, showed that the government had purposefully suppressed, altered, and destroyed material evidence during World War II to ensure that the Supreme Court upheld the wartime curfew, forced removal, and--if it reached that issue--incarceration. The government had, in sum, engineered a 'win' based on a false and fraudulent record and had lied to the court, Among other things, the documents showed that the government had withheld form the court key intelligence reports at odds with its claim that its actions were justified by military necessity. They also showed that when the government learn that General De Witt's Final Report contradicted its arguments in Fred's case, the original report was destroyed and a new, altered, more consistent with the government's arguments, was given to the court." "The documents showed that the government knew of, and withheld, its own intelligence reports that refuted its claim of military necessity, In Fred's case, the government had argued that Japanese Americans posed a threat that required immediate action. In order to support that argument, the government provided the Supreme Court DeWitts's Final Report, in which DeWitt asserted that the orders were justified because Japanese Americana were prone to disloyalty and because there was evidence suggesting that they were involved in illegal shore-to-ship signaling. Solicitor General Fahy stood behind DeWitt's report in his oral argument before the Supreme Court. He asserted, '[N]ot only the military judgment of the general, but the judgment of the Government of the United States, has always been in justification of the measures taken; and no person in any responsible position has ever taken a contrary position." Id. at 139-140.).