As you suggested, there's quite a literature on this. I looked it over a few years ago, and from what I recall these were the main positions:

1. Local Japanese in Hawai'i weren't interned because they were essential to the Hawaiian economy. If I recall correctly, there were 200,000 Japanese living in Hawaii in 1941, and many held positions that were essential to maintaining the islands' infrastructure. Therefore, the military security argument that was applied on the West Coast of North America could also be applied here, but it was reversed -- the mass of local Japanese couldn't be interned because it would have been a threat to military security.

2. The hero narrative of Delos Emmons, Hawaii's military governor. Not surprisingly, this was a favorite of Emmons himself. The idea was that Emmons personally resisted Washington's suggestions that a larger-scale interning take place on the islands. That seems to have been true, to some extent, but it's self-serving and doesn't really offer a complete explanation.

3. Local Japanese in Hawai'i weren't interned because they didn't need to be -- the entire territory was placed under martial law, which in some readings is more oppressive. That line of argumentation might also focus on the smaller-scale arrests that did take place in Hawai'i during the war. Here's a short website with some images from the five camps that were established on Hawai'i to detain various community leaders here.

I'm reasonably convinced by the first and third of those positions. I think that Japanese in Hawai'i weren't interned because it would have been too logistically difficult (not because Washington didn't want it), but that the repressive measures that were enacted are meaningful -- and militate against the frequently heard claim that Japanese in Hawai'i weren't interned at all. There was an interning here, but it happened along different lines.

I'm happy to go back through my sources and dig something up for further reading if you'd like.