-
sponsorship
In
seeking to defend the call for a novel means to prosecute persons suspected of terrorism, Ben deploys phrases like "viable trial regime" and "what we want as a society" and "another legitimate system." He contends that absent adoption of this new-fangled mechanism, "we will consequently put a huge amount of weight on whatever administrative detention apparatus we use as our fail-safe." Packed in that single paragraph are myriad assumptions. But the notions that due-process-lite tribunals can be "legitimate," and that without them "we ... as a society" will have to resort to an "administrative detention apparatus," demand debate, not positing as base-line assumptions.
A final question:
If a new form of criminal trial and/or administrative detention are the only options, how have we, as a society whose Constitution is 228 years old, survived without them?
-
sponsorship
Seeing my own words in print again, Ben, you're right, my question about criminal trials in federal courts came out a bit more gauntlet-y than I intended. Chalk it up to accumulated Guantanamo exhaustion. You've nonetheless given a good, thoughtful response, so let me offer a few quick reactions here (and figure we'll continue the discussion if not sooner at the American Constitution Society fiesta later this week).
On what existing options we have—your response seems to assume we've got federal courts or military commissions or nothing. That excludes the good old-fashioned court-martial, which I think many of us thought (at least I did and some JAGs I know) would have been just fine in cases where we needed to prosecute those picked up in Afghanistan or thereabouts. I'd still take the court-martial over the current military commissions any day: settled procedure (with room for discretion), trained participants, fair process, experienced in handling classified information, appeal to an established independent tribunal. You could perhaps still persuade me that despite all the water under the bridge, they might still work for a number of those we need to try at Guantanamo. You don't see the court-martial as an option at least for some?
On assessing how the federal courts have performed—you're quite right that simply saying they're better than the Guantanamo commissions is low praise, indeed. Too low, especially given the rather extraordinary degree of success prosecutors have had there. Instead, you say in response: It doesn't matter how well the courts have done in cases actually brought to trial, what really matters is how they would handle the whole universe of people we might ever want to detain—a universe you acknowledge is not well-defined but about which you are certain the federal courts aren't suited. Well, it would be great indeed if the administration would see fit to disclose a bit more about that whole universe of cases. In the meantime, it's hard to see how we can draw any conclusions about the federal courts' skills in that realm one way or another as long as, as you say, we don't actually have a handle on it.
More directly to your point, though, I do not argue that "the criminal law [is] the sole source of authority to detain people in the war on terrorism." Hard to know where to begin in citing my past comments on this, but you might take a look at a few of my briefs/writings here or here. The federal government has tons of detention authority beyond the (increasingly broad but still largely constitutional) criminal law—from immigration and civil commitment and material witness laws to, yes, battlefield detention under Congress' post-9/11 authorization for the use of force. Could be we disagree about the scope of the current "war," or the procedural limits the law of war imposes on executive power, but I'd be (and have been) the last to say the federal government shouldn't use its full range of lawful authority, all instruments of national power, etc., etc. in addressing the terrorist threat.
What I have suggested is that somewhere in all that existing detention power (all of which is currently supervised by existing judicial and administrative institutions), we might just already have what the detention universe demands. Now if I'm wrong about that, and the federal government needs more detention authority than it currently has, what we need isn't just (or particularly) a new court—we need a new statute authorizing the detention of some specific-enough-to-be-legal definition of others needing to be detained. But until the "new court" folks get down and dirty about who else, exactly, they want to detain, for how long, under what conditions, and why—then I can't figure how we know what kind of institution we need.
-
sponsorship
Eric, I think Joseph Heller would agree with the Catch-22 scenario you've described for the commissions at Guantanamo Bay. They truly are damned if they proceed and damned if they don't. Perhaps unintentionally, I think you've arrived at the right conclusion: The commissions are fundamentally and fatally flawed; the rule of law will prevail only if they are perpetually blocked. Specific evidence against defendants is irrelevant to the question of the tribunals' legitimacy, although I'd also argue that this evidence makes it all the more important that we find some way to try the men held at Gitmo.
Ironically, our French allies across the Atlantic might have found a way. A French court sentenced seven men to prison yesterday for aiding al-Qaida in Mesopotamia by funneling young Frenchmen to Iraq to wage war against U.S. and coalition forces there. French prosecutors brought this case in civilian court, using a combination of open and sealed (i.e., classified) evidence to prove the defendants' guilt in a six-day trial this past March. Now the defendants are headed for prison—and the French get to put points on the scoreboard in the fight against terrorism.
Maybe we can learn a thing or two from our colleagues in Paris?
-
sponsorship
America's version of banal evil lurks in the bloodless abstractions of mid-level lawyers, rather than in the gray efficiency of faceless bureaucrats.
The reference, of course, is to a term coined fully 45 years ago, in the trial reportage compiled into the book
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. As described in this
post,
Banality was philosopher
Hannah Arendt's account of that early effort by a nation-state, Israel, to prosecute an individual in its national courts for internationally condemned crimes. In describing actions "so obscene in their nature and consequences" as "'banal,'" it's explained
here, Arendt
meant to contest the prevalent depictions of the Nazi's inexplicable atrocities as having emanated from a malevolent will to do evil, a delight in murder. As far as Arendt could discern, Eichmann came to his willing involvement with the program of genocide through a failure or absence of the faculties of sound thinking and judgement. ...
Eradicating abusive policies and, at least as importantly, the institutional structures within which they found root, indeed must be a priority item on the next president's to-do list.
-
sponsorship
Diane's point is well-taken: If the evidence is tainted, it's tainted for purposes of conviction, as well as for sentencing, and it's just as tainted if the defendant gets a long prison sentence as it is if he gets a lethal injection. If the conviction is "clean," by contrast, it's clean irrespective of the nature of the sentence he receives.
Yet I think Emily is onto something anyway when she says that she doesn't "want this country to be a place where people are sentenced to die based on a prosecution that is tainted by torture testimony." Death, after all, is different in many ways, some legal, some prudential. I'm willing, for example, to see a conviction sustained on a weaker factual record than the record on which I'm willing to see a capital sentence carried out—notwithstanding the fact that as a purely legal matter, the evidentiary threshold is the same: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's why I've been cheered at times when governors (and President Clinton once) commuted death sentences to life in prison based on residual doubts about the integrity of a trial record but did not act against the conviction itself. Something similar may be at work here. The stakes in the MCA's softening of the traditional rules of evidence are particularly high in light of the availability of capital punishment in this case. Put another way, I think many people would not argue against conviction of someone who had been waterboarded upon capture if the government can prove his culpability without the use of tainted evidence. Many more, I suspect, would argue in principle against his execution, even if the evidence is clean.
-
sponsorship
Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence, and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and that he wants to return the United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.
This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Gov. Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.
As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican and a constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.
In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.
No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that, and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or a clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen.
Sept. 11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety, and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, "draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. ... wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose." Sen. Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a worldwide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby stem radical Islam's threat to civil order. I await Sen. Obama's more extended thinking upon this vital subject as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Sen. McCain in the general campaign discussion to come.
-
sponsorship
Benjamin and Emily appear to agree that, as he puts it, "[t]o the extent the eventual convictions of KSM et al rely on coerced testimony, even indirectly,... the Defense Department should not put them to death." But should the prospect of execution alone be the only concern? Benjamin does proceed to discuss "clean convictions," implying the answer is "No."
At least since the days of Mapp (1961) and Wong Sun (1963) -- or, for that matter, Bram (1897) -- the question of tainted evidence has arisen 1st and foremost at the guilt/innocence phase. If it's addressed properly there, most likely there'd be no cause for reconsideration-in-mitigation at sentencing. Seems a simple enough premise. Yet it's one away from which the U.S. criminal justice system's seemed to have moved in recent years. Example of this shift: the widely shared notion that it's a victory when a tainted-for-whatever-reason capital sentence is commuted to life.