FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Invading the Courts

by Judith Resnik Legal Times

The press tells us that regulations are in draft to fill out the president’s Nov. 13 order establishing a military commission to determine the fate of people the government thinks might be terrorists. A special ABA committee just issued a report calling for procedures to provide a full and fair trial, presumptively open proceedings, and defendants’ rights to choose lawyers and to have appellate review. The military has also begun building a detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and transporting captured opponents there.

So, the question again on center stage is what kind of process to provide for those suspected of threatening or causing — in the words of the executive order — “injury or adverse effect on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy” (or those harboring others so suspected).

The Nov. 13 order invents something new and untested. Unilaterally, the president has taken on power to decide who will be subjected to procedures that he creates and that are carried out by people of his own choosing.

The public debate thus far has blurred the issues by talking about the commission as a “military tribunal.” We should not use that term, which gives the commission an aura of legitimacy it does not deserve.

WITHOUT JUSTICE

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a tribunal as a “court or forum of justice.” But the Nov. 13 order gives no assurance of justice. Its text allows military personnel, acting only on a suspicion of terrorism, to try and convict individuals, and by a two-thirds vote sentence them to death — all in proceedings they can decide to close and without any right of review.

Lawyers have focused on whether the order is “legal.” That question is really two questions. First, are there precedents for the order, such that a court might uphold it? Second, ought it to be legal?

As to the precedents, the quick answer (and one that all lawyers know before it is even given) is that there are always some precedents that can be invoked. But consider what they are.

Apologists for the order invoke case law from several decades ago, notably the 1942 decision Ex parte Quirin, in which the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and executions of German saboteurs. Many of us who teach that case had grouped it with other “war cases” — the 1940s decisions in Korematsu and Hirabayashi, upholding curfews, evacuations and internment of Japanese-Americans, and the Civil War case of Ex parte McCardle, upholding congressional retraction of Supreme Court jurisdiction in a case pending before it. All these cases are painful reminders that, in times of war, courts often do not protect against incursions on civil liberties. Up until recently, we would likely have taught our students not to rely on such cases because they represent aberrant and largely abhorrent moments in our constitutional history.

Further, we know now that the restrictions on civil rights tolerated by the Supreme Court were unnecessary and wrong. Quirin, the German saboteur trial, was “secret” in the sense that the public was not permitted to attend. But it was “public” in the sense that the public knew it was ongoing. As one Justice Department lawyer involved in the case later wrote, the government’s strategy was to use the drama of the proceedings to rally public support for war efforts. In contrast, given current worldwide criticism of the order, using it is neither necessary nor wise public relations.

And as to the Japanese-American internment cases, in 1986 a federal appellate court vacated Gordon Hirabayashi’s conviction on the grounds that it was based on racial classifications that could no longer be understood as constitutional. In 1993, the president publicly apologized, and today in Tucson, Ariz., a monument stands dedicated to Mr. Hirabayashi for his commitment to the rule of law.

Further, as every first-year law student learns, these precedents are old. Old, meaning that many years of more recent precedents have reduced their meaning and cordoned them out of mainstream jurisprudence. All of these cases predate the equality law of Brown v. Board of Education, the right of counsel protected in Gideon v. Wainwright, and decades of developments in due process and rights of access to courts. Further, after those precedents, the United States joined the Geneva Protocols of 1949 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both committing us to fair process through independent judges.

A BETTER PRECEDENT

And there is other, more recent precedent that has not been a part of the debate. In 1978, Hans Tiede escaped from what was then East Berlin by hijacking a plane to freedom in West Berlin, where he was warmly greeted. But because the United States and other countries had just signed a treaty with the Soviet Union against hijacking, the United States undertook to try the offender in Berlin.

The State Department asked a sitting federal judge — Herbert Stern — to preside. At trial, the government argued that the United States, as an occupying force, could conduct the trial free from the U.S. Constitution and free from judicial review. Whatever rights belonged to the defendant, said the government, came from the secretary of state, because the court was an implementing arm of U.S. foreign policy.

Judge Stern, himself a former prosecutor, disagreed. He explained, in United States v. Tiede, that “it is the first principle of American life — not only life at home but life abroad — that everything American public officials do is governed by, measured against, and must be authorized by the United States Constitution.” Judge Stern required that the defendant be accorded due process of law. The defendant was tried by a jury, which convicted him.

As Tiede demonstrates, judges can adapt familiar procedures to complex circumstances. Other examples come from current international courts. Last summer, as I watched proceedings at the Hague of the International Criminal Court for the Territories of the Former Yugoslavia, I saw some of the technology of protection. Spectators sit behind thick glass walls; when necessary, shades can be closed and witnesses’ voices can be scrambled. Around the world, democratic countries have crafted courts to address horrific terrorism while keeping the values of due process intact.

Contemporary legal precedents and practices could thus support a court’s rejection of the Nov. 13 order; none have upheld as extreme a proposition as this order. But, as the older precedents warn, when judges are scared, they can be too forgiving of constitutional lapses and too eager to support a president.

So it is the second question that is central: What should be legal? Our law should only sanction a system that protects the rights and procedures reflecting this nation’s fundamental commitments to fairness and equality. To accomplish this, the best response would be to withdraw the order. Let the president use that action to demonstrate that deliberative democracies produce public exchanges that actually make changes in policy.

The more likely response will be that implementing regulations will address some complaints about the order. Rumors describe regulations that will require a unanimous vote of commissioners to execute defendants, give defendants a presumption of innocence and permit some public access.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS

But those proposals do not respond to three fundamental flaws: the grab of power by a single branch, the failure to guard individuals against government excesses, and the absence of a truly independent decision maker.

If the executive branch circulated draft regulations for notice and comment and then responded to criticism, the order would do less harm to separation of powers. If the regulations explicitly incorporated procedures used in courts-martial or (even better) in federal courts, and specifically guaranteed appellate review, the regulations could help to turn the commission into a real tribunal. As Tiede teaches, executive tribunals need not ignore the rights of defendants. And Tiede provides an example of how to get a neutral adjudicator even in extraordinary circumstances. If the regulations required a truly independent judge, the commission might eventually take on the character of our current courts of law.

Why has that not yet occurred? Why are we afraid of using our own processes? Trials are emblematic of both the possibility of knowledge and the risk that information could come affecting judgment of those accused. The profoundly emotional response to the tragedy and horror of Sept. 11, 2001, has created an environment afraid of deliberation. The effort to preclude that process represents a desire to ensure punishment.

Despite the terrorist attack on the United States, the presidency has continued to function. And although disrupted by anthrax, Congress still works. Why should we accept the order’s premise that the federal judiciary cannot similarly do its job of sorting the guilty from the innocent? Now is not the time for a radical form of alternate dispute resolution. Rather, it is a time to display our courts and our constitutional processes as proudly as our flag.

Judith Resnik is the Arthur Liman Professor at Yale Law School. She helped author a letter, signed by more than 700 law professors nationwide, detailing objections to the Nov. 13 order establishing military commissions.

More articles by:
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered, Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail