<Begin Segment 24>

MN: Now, what happened after he told you his past? Did you offer up, you know, "Maybe we could clear the DB Boys' names"? Or what started this movement?

PM: Well, he told me for a reason, you know, and frankly, I don't recall as I sit here who had the first ideas to move forward with this. But it just kind of occurred that, yes, we should try to do something to clear the air about this incident, because he had the stigma of a dishonorable discharge and a court martial conviction at that point in time, and I felt that there was certainly some explanation to that that may render that being an unjust verdict that occurred, particularly in view of the history that had occurred since that time. And so I felt that maybe there was something that could be done. I had no experience whatsoever with respect to military matters, but I knew enough to know that the laws with respect to those matters are substantially different than what I was taught in law school and what I was tested on in the bar. So one thing led to another, and we ended up going to a military rights, veterans military rights organization up in Los Angeles, very near USC, on Adams Boulevard. And they explained what it is that we could do. And so I read up on it and studied up on it, and we then decided to approach the rest of the DB Boys and see if they would be willing to go along with it. As with any group, some of the men were gung ho, and some were not. Some chose not to participate, and some were right there and in the moment and wanting to go forward with it. In particular, Mr. Kataoka, he was one of the more interested men involved, and some of the others were quieter about it but still had the, their conviction about this, I mean, their moral conviction about it that they wanted to do something about it, and we assembled a group.

MN: Correct me if I'm wrong, but there were twenty-one convictions?

PM: Yes.

MN: And of that twenty-one, how many joined your group?

PM: I believe there was eleven.

MN: And I know Mr. Edmund Zane had been working on it way earlier. How helpful was he to you when you started, reopened this in 1980?

PM: Mr. Zane made a valiant effort to try to get something done in the '50s, late '40s and into the '50s. And the time just wasn't right. He, he made a very detailed presentation to the, to whoever would listen to him at that time, and he made a lot of effort to contact different political and legal contacts in order to try to get some help. And he put together some briefs that analyzed the trial transcripts and the court martial convictions, and tried to make arguments about why the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and so forth. He had it on 8 1/2 x 14 sheets of paper that was single-spaced, and it went on for, I don't know, hundreds of pages. And so the presentation to me seemed very difficult to understand. But most importantly, I think the time was just not right for his efforts. His efforts were gonna, were not gonna be listened to like they were when I started to do something because civil rights hadn't occurred. Whereas it had by the time that I took up my efforts. So it was all in the timing, as most things often are. And his wasn't at the right time. But he sure put an effort into it on behalf of his friend Mr. Kataoka.

MN: And, of course, by 1980, yes, the civil rights movement, and then the redress movement was just starting and the coram nobis cases were being opened. Did that influence how you approached the military, and do you think it influenced the final verdict of the military?

PM: Well, I would think that it did, yes. It didn't influence me in particular in the way that I presented the case. But I can't help but think that the historical perspective was of overwhelming importance. Because a lot of things had happened since World War II with respect to racial equality. We came along at a time when those things had already occurred and we were riding on the backs of those people who had done that to a large extent. Because ours was a case of racial discrimination, and that's what these men were protesting and resisting in the military. Of course, their situation was different and more compelling because they were in the military, and it put a different dynamic on this. Because these weren't just civilians not wanting to be inducted or being conscientious objectors. These were military men who were charged with evading orders or disobeying orders. And so there was that dynamic that was going on as well.

MN: So were you satisfied with the final verdict that they gave to all the men?

PM: Satisfied, no. Because we had requested that the court martial convictions be set aside. But I certainly understood it, and I understood where they were coming from. And I respect that, you know, that they didn't overturn the convictions. We took this in a two-part process. In 1980, we applied for basically, it was a clemency type of petition. And they were granted their honorable discharges as opposed to dishonorable. But we took the second step a couple of years later asking that the court martial convictions be overturned, and that they be reinstated to the benefits that they had. And so we got as much out of it as one might reasonably expect, I think, under the circumstances. So I think the bottom line is, is that these were still military men, and despite the feelings that they had about what was going on socially and the particular effects that these, that the internment and the war had on these men in particular, they, they were still military men that had to obey orders. So I could certainly respect that. And so that's why I think the conviction was not overturned completely.

<End Segment 24> - Copyright © 2010 Densho. All Rights Reserved.