MIA > Archive > Draper > Militarization
From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 13, 27 March 1950, p. 7.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
|
This is one of a series of articles on the militarization of American government and life, based on the findings of a committee of nationally known liberals, the National Council Against Conscription, including Pearl Buck, Albert Einstein, Victor Reuther, Ray Lyman Wilbur, the presidents of Fisk University and the University of Detroit, etc. The series is based on the pamphlet published by the NCAC in February 1949, New Evidence of the Militarization of America. The quotations and information in the present series come from this booklet. |
Few Americans realize what the army means by its planning for “total war.” They read of total mobilization, conscription of men and women, labor and capital, without any clear picture of what this would do to our civil liberties.
Yet during this past war the army provided us with an illustration of army rule in Hawaii.
In these islands of about 425,000 people, many of them American citizens, the army decreed that people must work or go to jail, carry personal identification cards, get military passes to be out after 10 p.m. and observe a host of other army rules.
Any violation of army law was judged by a military provost marshal whose decisions were rapid and whose punishments were frequently severe. One of America’s precious rights, that of access to a court and trial by a jury of one’s own peers, was suspended.
When Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, the territorial governor, J.B. Poindexter, under the stress of the emotion and danger of the day, asked the army to proclaim martial law. A few weeks later, when General Emmons assumed control of Hawaii on Dec. 17, he assumed all the prerogatives of military governor without further proclamation from the civilian governor.
Before another year had elapsed, news began to filter through to the mainland that the civilian population was chafing under army rule and was asking for the return of freedom. The New York Times reported on December 8, 1942, that Hawaiian newspapers had complained of the suspension of “many civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and press.”
The Times also reported that the congressman from Hawaii, Joseph R. Farrington, had said that continuance of military rule was not only contrary to every American tradition “but in face is a positive detriment to the total war effort.”
As a result of the growing complaints and dissatisfaction with army rule, President Roosevelt in January 1943 announced “substantial restoration of functions to the appropriate civilian authorities.” Martial law including the suspension of the write of habeas corpus remained in effect, but censorship of civilian mail, price anti-rent control, rationing and certain other problems were turned over to the civil authorities.
Among the army abuses of civilians was the arrest of hundreds of loyal civilians, frequently on petty charges. For example, the army arrested a member of the territorial senate on the charge of possessing a Japanese flag, though there was no law forbidding such possession. The senator publicly burned the flag but was continued in army detention.
When the Honolulu Central Labor Council (AFL) asked that all labor control in Hawaii be delegated to the civil authority, General Richardson, the military governor said,
“Both the army and navy are of the opinion that ... vital defense projects which are now under construction ... (must remain under) the existing stabilized labor program which includes wages, hours and employment regulations.”
General Richardson later referred to a Supreme Court decision approving the army’s removal of Japanese-Americans from California as justifying “the army in retaining control over labor on military projects ...”
The most celebrated controversy between civilians and the military arose over the army’s suspension of the write of habeas corpus. Two Americans of German ancestry who had been interned by the army, were granted write of habeas corpus by U.S. District Court Judge D. Metzger. However, when U.S. marshals attempted to serve the papers on General Richardson, they were forcibly prevented by military police from doing so.
The New York Times reported that 1,479 persons had been interned in Hawaii and that there had been no information about legal proceedings against any of them, with one exception. If the army could be forced to accept the jurisdiction of a court in two cases, it would have to do so in the case of all of its internees.
Judge Metzger ruled the general to be in contempt of court for failing to produce the two internees in court. The general retorted that “Hawaii is a theater of war in which (my) determination as military commander as to what is necessary for military purposes is conclusive and not subject to review by this court.” General Richardson was backed by the War Department in his position.
The general then forbade anyone connected with any court from applying for, issuing, serving or accepting a plea for a write of habeas corpus, making violation by Judge Metzger or anyone else subject to a five-year sentence and a $5,000 fine.
The issue became so hot that it looked as if Congress would be forced to decide. The War Department then got together with the Justice Department and as a face-saving measure. General Richardson was requested by Washington to withdraw his military order forbidding court action. It was reported in the press that Judge Metzger might be asked thereupon to withdraw his contempt citation against the general.
The situation was temporarily resolved or rather avoided by the army’s transferring the two internees out of Judge Metzger’s jurisdiction to the mainland, where they were freed. The judge then reduced his contempt citation against the general to $100.
General Richardson and Admiral Nimitz maintained throughout that the military should have the power of martial law. They pointed out that if the military lost control the army would lose the right to enter private homes, to confiscate prohibited articles, to control labor and to intern dangerous citizens.
An article in the December 1943 California Law Review which discussed the habeas corpus controversy, stated, however:
“Many high-ranking officers of both the army and navy have openly said the danger of invasion had passed; for some time now the people have gone about their business in a manner normal for any community in wartime ... The mere fact that Hawaii was attacked on December 7, 1941, is no justification for the continuance of martial law two years after.”
Judge Metzger continued civil court functions in Hawaii by ruling that military government of the islands was invalid. The secretary of war shortly thereafter stated that he felt martial law still necessary.
Before long, the federal Circuit Court was brought into the controversy through an appeal by the provost marshal of the army. A civilian lawyer who appeared before the court declared that in one period before the court declared that in one period “819 people had the hardihood to plead ‘not guilty’ and stand trial” before provost courts.
“You would be amazed to know how many were convicted – 819. People were deprived of their constitutional rights. They were judged by people who never were in a law court before ... A lawyer who tried to object would be locked up in jail.”
The White House in October 1944 finally ended martial law and restored the right of the writ of habeas corpus. The president had, several months earlier, in April, pardoned General Richardson of the contempt charge, though the press reported that the cabinet was of a divided opinion about the matter.
Despite the pardon and the ending of martial law, the controversy did not stop. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in January 1946 recommended by unanimous vote that an injury into the administration of martial law in Hawaii during the war would be held.
Many complaints had been received of injustices at the hands of the army. Only a few months later American citizens were to sue army generals for illegal arrest. One suit by Alfred B.M. Smith was for illegal arrest and detention in prison from December 7, 1941, until July 31, 1943, without any specification of charges.
Nothing more was done by the Senate committee until March, 1947, when the chairman named a subcommittee to consider an investigation of martial law in Hawaii. Despite the appointment of a subcommittee, no further action was undertaken and the investigation was never held. Some congressmen have stated their belief that army influence was responsible. A powerful figure in the army, Major General Thomas H. Greene, now judge advocate general of the army, was, as a colonel in Hawaii, the man who carried on the system of martial law.
Although the Congress failed to act, the courts finally rendered a decision. The Supreme Court, after months of delay, ruled in a six-to-two decision that the military had no power to try civilians. In brief, the decision held “that the only relationship that can constitutionally subsist between the civil power and the military in connection with law enforcement is one in which the latter has the role of an adjunct police taking orders from the former.”
Justice Black, speaking for the court, noted that (1) conditions in the islands at the time of the military trials had not required the evacuation of civilians from any areas where the civil courts did business; (2) Hawaii was not enemy territory and was loyal; (3) no interference with the enforcement of military orders was involved; (4) the term “martial law” is not mentioned in the Constitution and has never been defined by Congress.
The Harvard Law Review (July 1946), in comment on the Supreme Court decision, said that in the opinion of the late Chief Justice Stone trial in a civil court would no more have endangered the public safety than the gathering of the populace in saloons and places of amusement which had been permitted by the military authorities. “Military thinking runs to absolute solutions.”
Although the Supreme Court decision is a significant one for civil liberties, it has by no means settled the problems which Americans face at the hands of the military. The army not only does not want, to acknowledge its mistakes in Hawaii or permit a civil investigation of its acts, but it has promoted the officer who administered martial law in Hawaii to be the head of the army’s legal system.
In addition, the army continues its planning for what it calls total war. This planning, judging from the army’s own publicity, is aimed at military control over men, women and children, over capital and labor, production and distribution, and numerous other civilian activities.
Last updated on 9 March 2023