FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

American Civil Liberties After 9/11

by EDWARD LAZARUS

On the eve of the first anniversary of September 11th, the New York Times Op Ed page brought into focus the deepening debate over the protection of civil liberties in a nation newly vigilant to the danger of large-scale terrorist attack. Among a dozen essays published by the Times were diametrically opposed assessments by two leading public intellectuals–Judge Richard Posner, the polymath who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and Kathleen Sullivan, the highly respected Dean of the Stanford Law School.

In Judge Posner’s view, September 11 has brought a welcome reassessment of the scope of our civil liberties which, according to Posner, previously “seem[ed] immune from critical reflection.” These liberties, Posner asserted, are simply the creations of Supreme Court justices based on brief and obscure snippets of constitutional text. As such, they are appropriately expanded or constricted as “the balance shifts” between our concern for public safety and our concern for personal liberty. In short, as Posner would have it, our civil liberties are relative and contextual–and must be redrawn now as the nation faces what Posner assesses to be the greatest danger to national security since Pearl Harbor.

Kathleen Sullivan draws the opposite conclusion. For Sullivan, America’s historical tendency to constrict civil liberties in wartime is a subject of profound regret, not an acceptable trade-off of liberty for security. Sullivan memorably observes that “Constitutions, like diets, are meant to restrict us most when temptation is greatest.” Indeed, in her view, a Constitution that defies the contextualization and relativism Posner champions “is our greatest protection from terrorism in the first place.”

Posner’s and Sullivan’s comments capture the views expressed by various conservative and liberal thinkers, yet their comments–more clever abstraction than trenchant analysis–shed little light on what concerns we should or should not have about the real changes that are taking place post-September 11.

Why Sullivan and Posner Are Both Right–And Why They Don’t Reach the Real Issue

Surely Posner is right that our civil liberties depend at least in part on circumstance and exigency. These notions are built into the text of the Constitution itself, as in the Fourth Amendment’s ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ promise of due process of law.

Inevitably, whether a search or seizure should be deemed “unreasonable” will depend on context. In the face of more serious and immediate threats to public safety, judges–reflecting society as a whole–are sure to tolerate a greater level of intrusion on personal privacy. Similarly, our collective sense of how much process is “due” before government takes certain actions will vary with the exigencies of the time.

What is unreasonable in time of peace (arduous airport searches) may be reasonable in time of war. In wartime, less process may be due in some instances and–though this is rarely noted–more may be due in others. Indeed, the “flexible civil liberties” position is not necessarily a conservative or anti-defendant one; it simply reflects the reality that rights can and do change with the push and pull of history. At base, then, Posner’s view is a mere truism.

At the same time, surely Sullivan’s view is a truism at its heart as well. Sullivan is surely right–and few, indeed, would deny–that the need for a vigilant application of constitutional principles (even contextual ones) is heightened during times of national emergency. If history is any guide, exaggerated claims of national security have been used to cover a multitude of sins–and with the acquiescence of the judiciary.

The Japanese internment during World War II–which combined the military’s exaggerated security concerns with a hefty dose of plain old racism and an exceedingly timid judiciary- provides the classic example. (The Supreme Court famously blessed the atrocity in Korematsu v. United States.) But from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the McCarthy hearings of the Cold War, every crisis (real or imagined) has left a record worthy of some regret.

The real question then is how to reconcile two truths: first, that the Constitution itself accommodates a tightening of civil liberties to provide for national security; and, second, that the nation has a mixed history of appropriately fashioning such an accommodation.

How Can We Render Civil Liberties Flexible But, At the Same Time, Indestructible?

The answer, it seems to me, depends on a rigorous scrutiny of exactly what government proposes to do in the name of national security and the justifications that government offers for its proposals. The constitutional contract between the people and their government is flexible enough to meet the needs of a true emergency. But when government seeks to bend the usual rules, it owes a duty of explanation and demonstration. How will a particular new procedure advance our security? By how much? And how do we know?

Say, for instance, that the government wants to use ethnic profiling to screen for terrorists. I’ve never been a fan of such profiling. It has the unavoidable effect of subjecting totally innocent people to intrusive government scrutiny merely on account of an immutable characteristic–making them feel, quite rightly, like second-class citizens.

However, I suspect that government could make a pretty good case for suspending the usual rules, now that we are confronted with a terrorist threat that, generally speaking, fits an ethnic (as well as gender and age) profile. Frisking Chinese-American grandmothers at the airport, for instance, seems to be a waste of valuable law enforcement resources. And the corollary may be that increasing airport scrutiny on young men who originate from countries the U.S. has listed as supporting terrorists makes some sense. Obviously, harassment is never justified, but targeted luggage searches might be.

The Need to Justify Civil Liberties Infringements By Giving Specific Reasons and Evidence

Unfortunately, the civil liberties trade-offs that the Bush Administration has demanded have, to date, come with inadequate explanations. For instance, in plain terms, how does the mass closure of immigration hearings advance our security? Wouldn’t closing them on a case-by-case basis, when security concerns are at their height, more than suffice?

Similarly, what is the non-political justification for vastly expanding the category of “enemy combatant”–so that it encompasses even American citizens such as Jose Padilla? And, for that matter, what are the non-political justifications for holding U.S. citizens in military brigs without access to counsel, and for seeking to curtail judicial review of executive branch actions?

Obviously, detaining citizens forever, regardless of the justification, and never having a court overrule the President’s action are both good for the executive branch–which then never has to face the embarrassment of having let free a wrongdoer, or getting rebuked by a court. But are these policies good for the American people, over the long run? The case has not yet been made.

Without More Information, It is Impossible to Tell If Liberties Are Wrongly Constricted

By failing to provide compelling justifications (and by pursuing strategies that appear impossible to justify plausibly, so broad-sweeping are they), the Administration actually undermines our security in a deeply troubling and potentially significant way.

It’s bad enough that the lack of justification calls into question some of the Administration’s specific initiatives. But far worse, the Administration’s high-handed, everything-must-be-secret, we-know-best approach sows seeds of doubt around any proposed trade-off of liberty for security. Even well-justified tradeoffs may seem arbitrary. Even sensible actions may seem irrational if the reasons behind them are never revealed.

Simply put, it’s hard to know where the executive branch power grab stops, and real security needs begin. And that uncertainty will make lots of people, not to mention judges, reluctant to make any trade-offs, even those that society would be better off making.

Many of the choices are damn hard. I’m inherently suspicious of the secret foreign intelligence court that approves wiretaps in national security cases. But if the executive branch did not seem to be so cavalierly overreaching in other areas, I’d be much more likely to entertain the thought that it might actually be a good idea to vest additional powers in such a court.

In sum, as a matter of theory, I’m happy to buy into Posner’s trade-off of liberty for security. But the government has to tell me what the specific price of freedom is, and what I’m really getting in the bargain. That’s one sales pitch I yearn to hear.

EDWARD LAZARUS is a former supreme court clerk and law professor. He is the author of two highly acclaimed books: Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation Versus the United States, 1775 to the Present and Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court.

 

Weekend Edition
May 06, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Dave Wagner
When Liberals Run Out of Patience: the Impolite Exile of Seymour Hersh
John Stauber
Strange Bedfellows: the Bizarre Coalition of Kochs, Neocons and Democrats Allied Against Trump and His #FUvoters
Rob Urie
Hillary Clinton and the End of the Democratic Party
Joshua Frank
Afghanistan: Bombing the Land of the Snow Leopard
Bill Martin
Fear of Trump: Annals of Parliamentary Cretinism
Doug Johnson Hatlem
NYC Board of Elections Suspends 2nd Official, Delays Hillary Clinton v. Bernie Sanders Results Certification
Carol Miller
Pretending the Democratic Party Platform Matters
Paul Street
Hey, Bernie, Leave Them Kids Alone
Tamara Pearson
Mexico Already Has a Giant Wall, and a Mining Company Helped to Build It
Paul Craig Roberts
Somnolent Europe, Russia, and China
Dave Lindorff
Bringing the Sanders ‘Revolution’ to Philly’s Streets
Margaret Kimberley
Obama’s Last Gasp Imperialism
Carmelo Ruiz
The New Wave of Repression in Puerto Rico
Jack Denton
Prison Labor Strike in Alabama: “We Will No Longer Contribute to Our Own Oppression”
Jeffrey St. Clair
David Bowie’s 100 Favorite Books, the CounterPunch Connection
David Rosen
Poverty in America: the Deepening Crisis
Pepe Escobar
NATO on Trade, in Europe and Asia, is Doomed
Pete Dolack
Another Goodbye to Democracy if Transatlantic Partnership is Passed
Carla Blank
Prince: Pain and Dance
Gabriel Rockhill
Media Blackout on Nuit Debout
Barry Lando
Welcome to the Machine World: the Perfect Technological Storm
Hilary Goodfriend
The Wall Street Journal is Playing Dirty in El Salvador, Again
Frank Stricker
Ready for the Coming Assault on Social Security? Five Things Paul Ryan and Friends Don’t Want You to Think About
Robert Gordon
Beyond the Wall: an In-Depth Look at U.S. Immigration Policy
Roger Annis
City at the Heart of the Alberta Tar Sands Burning to the Ground
Simon Jones
RISE: New Politics for a Tired Scotland
Rob Hager
After Indiana: Sanders Wins another Purple State, But Remains Lost in a Haze of Bad Strategy and Rigged Delegate Math
Howard Lisnoff
Father Daniel Berrigan, Anti-war Hero With a Huge Blindspot
Adam Bartley
Australia-China Relations and the Politics of Canberra’s Submarine Deal
Nyla Ali Khan
The Complexity of the Kashmir Issue: “Conflict Can and Should be Handled Constructively
Josh Hoxie
American Tax Havens: Elites Don’t Have to go to Panama to Hide Their Money–They’ve Got Delaware
Ramzy Baroud
The Spirit of Nelson Mandela in Palestine: Is His Real Legacy Being Upheld?
Alli McCracken - Raed Jarrar
#IsraelSaudi: A Match Made in Hell
George Wuerthner
Working Wilderness and Other Code Words
Robert Koehler
Cowardice and Exoneration in Kunduz
Ron Jacobs
Psychedelic Rangers Extraordinaire
Missy Comley Beattie
It’s a Shit Show!
David Macaray
Our Best Weapon Is Being Systematically Eliminated
Colin Todhunter
Future Options: From Militarism and Monsanto to Gandhi and Bhaskar Save
Binoy Kampmark
The Trump Train Chugs Along
John Laforge
Dan Berrigan, 1921 – 2016: “We Haven’t Lost, Because We Haven’t Given Up.”
Tadeu Bijos
The Wants of Others
Norman Trabulsy Jr
John Denver and My 40th High School Reunion
Charles R. Larson
Being Gay in China, Circa 1987
David Yearsley
Skepticism, Irony, and Doubt: Williams on Bach
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail