There was considerable media interest in the book especially on the American West Coast and Hawaii, where the impact of relocation and internment in World War II was greatest.

This: don't be misled by the pandering of "civil rights absolutists" intent on using "legends" about the World War II experience as "multicultural group therapy…to color and poison the current national security debate."

[3]Historian Daniel Pipes writes that Malkin "broke the academic single-note scholarship on a critical subject, cutting through a shabby, stultifying consensus" to reveal how, given what was known and not known at the time, President Roosevelt and his staff did the right thing.

[10] He stated: She correctly concludes that, especially in time of war, governments should take into account nationality, ethnicity, and religious affiliation in their homeland security policies and engage in what she calls "threat profiling."

These steps may entail bothersome or offensive measures but, she argues, they are preferable to "being incinerated at your office desk by a flaming hijacked plane.

[11]Reviewing the book for the American libertarian magazine Reason, Eric L. Muller of the University of North Carolina Law School wrote: [T]he evidence Malkin deploys [...] is — at best — mere speculation.

This speculation might be worth a moment's reflection if Malkin also addressed the voluminous historical research that has shown the impact of racism, nativism, political pressure, economic jealousies, and war panic on the government's policies toward Japanese Americans.