Logos

Major disclaimer here: we're saying that the rhetorical approach this doc takes was based on logic. What we're not saying, by any stretch of the imagination, was that this E.O. was itself logical.

Because it wasn't. Racist? Yes. Logical? Nopity, nope, nope.

But back in the day, the public demanded that something be done to secure the peace and safety of the nation in the face of Japanese aggression and the dangers of World War II. Executive Order 9066 was FDR's logical conclusion to that demand.

The first line states as much:

Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104); (5)

It's difficult to decipher because it's steeped in a dense vocabulary called "legalese," but FDR is saying, "Hey, if we're going to make it through this war successfully, we have to take care of ourselves. One way of doing that is to take action against possible spies."

Note: the operative word here is "possible."

The remainder of the text is a play-by-play of how this action will start to take place, by whom, and with what authority. Since it's basically a set of instructions, there's not much in the way of emotional appeal. In terms of ethics, well, there's that bit of legal citation (Section 4, Act of blah-blah-blah), which makes it at least temporarily lawful. However, if you want a broader discussion about the ethics of E.O. 9066, check out the "Why Should I Care?" section.