Question

of the united states. i think thats the comparison thats the comparison thats probably more interesting. which is, why did you treat enemy soldiers from japan better than you treated citizens of the united states of japanese heritage. karen: and he says, very simply, that with prisoners of war, its because we had a rule. springer: governing international law... karen: like the geneva conventions. springer: theres no similar law at that time that says what you can and cant do towards your civilian populations. jad: thats interesting. so its like, maybe were not racist or noble. but both. and its like rules that allow us to be our better selves. karen: i mean, heres what i take from this. i think that in a time of war, its incredibly difficult to be good to your enemy. its not just about aspiring to be good, this american ideal, its about having 97 really tiny tedious rules to tell you what you can do. and what you cant do. because it would just be so easy not to be the person that you want to be in that moment. guiding questions why does paul springer believe the u.s. treated japanese americans the way we did? a there were no laws or rules holding the u.s. to higher standards of treatment towards japanese americans. b there were no international laws on how to treat japanese prisoners of war. c there was proven evidence that many japanese americans were spies and traitors. d like germany, america had lots of racism towards non - white citizens, leading to its own

Explanation:

The text mentions that with prisoners of war, there was governing international law (like the Geneva Conventions), but there was no similar law at that time regarding treatment of civilian populations (Japanese - Americans).

Answer:

A. There were no laws or rules holding the U.S. to higher standards of treatment towards Japanese - Americans.