FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The War on Terror is Not a Suicide Pact

If the FBI kicks down your door tonight and whisks you off to a military Gulag, you can’t be sure you’ll ever again be permitted to see the inside of a courtroom or the outside of your cell.

Of one thing, however, you can be all but certain: Tomorrow, the whole dirty business will be condoned by some flatulent “expert” in the name of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.

Since September 11, pundits have routinely excused every escalation in Bush’s war against the American people with some variation on the following sentence: “As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said, ‘The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.'” It’s been used to justify, among other things, racial profiling (Floyd Abrams), concentration camps (Richard Posner), and torture (Jonathan Alter).

Most recently, when U.S. citizen Jose Padilla was summarily imprisoned without charge, time limit, or the right to counsel-a wholesale and unprecedented trashing of both Article III and the Sixth Amendment-the New York Times asked Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe for comment.

Dithered the eminent scholar, who appears to be suffering from a terminal case of the post-9/11 whim-whams: “It is a source of concern, but the constitutional question it presents is deeply perplexing, given that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” (A regular Solon, this Tribe.)

Considering the offhandedness with which Justice Jackson’s phrase gets tossed around these days, you might think it has some kind of legal force (it doesn’t), or that Jackson was arguing in favor of suspending civil liberties in time of emergency (he wasn’t).

In fact, the suicide-pact quote is not law at all, but a rhetorical flourish lifted from Jackson’s dissenting opinion-he was on the losing side, you’ll note-in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949), a free speech case involving a fascist orator who was busted for inciting a riot. The court ruled that the police had exceeded their authority; Jackson, remembering Nazi mob-rule tactics, argued that the state had a right to intervene in order to prevent a punch-up. Here’s the quote in full: “There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

What we have here is a somewhat sententious expression of an unexceptional position-that a sensible balance needs to be struck between civil liberties and public order. In no conceivable sense is this a blanket endorsement of Bush’s nascent police state.

On the contrary, Jackson wanted local authorities to handle this kind of problem precisely because he feared the creation of a Federal Gestapo. Here’s the section of Jackson’s Terminiello dissent that you won’t see quoted in the dailies:

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation is, and should remain, not a police but an investigative service. … In my opinion, locally established and controlled police can never develop into the menace to general civil liberties that is inherent in a federal police.”

In the same passage, Jackson warns against “arbitrary exercises of military power” of the sort sustained in Korematsu v. United States (1944), one of several notorious decisions by which the Supreme Court permitted the detention of thousands of Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps. Despite tremendous pressure from the experts of his day, Robert Jackson was one of three justices courageous enough to dissent from a landmark betrayal of American values.

I suspect you won’t be hearing much about Korematsu during the dark days to come. Although it’s probably the strongest legal precedent for mass preventive detention, it’s also the textbook example of bad law created in an atmosphere of wartime hysteria, so it’s just too embarrassing to cite. (Instead, Ashcroft and his pet pundits will continue to rely on Ex Parte Quirn (1942), which is off-point but less overtly malign).

Nor are you likely to encounter Jackson’s true opinion of imprisonment by Presidential fiat, as memorably expressed in Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953): “Fortunately it still is startling, in this country, to find a person held indefinitely in executive custody without accusation of crime or judicial trial. Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

Clearly, Justice Jackson would have seen the current assault on the Constitution as disgraceful and dangerous. Tribe, Abrams, Posner, and the rest of the suicide-pact crowd know this very well-they’ve read the cases-just as they know that the Terminiello quote does not mean what they want you to think it means. So why are they blowing smoke?

Apart from sheer intellectual laziness, there’s only one explanation that makes sense: the World Trade Center attacks have scared our leading jurists out of their sheltered, overprivileged wits. In their panic, they stand ready to jettison major sections of the Bill of Rights-and if there’s no sound legal precedent for doing so, they’ll happily invent one. Odds are they’ll live to regret their cowardice, but by then it may be too late.

By contrast, Robert Jackson never deviated from his commitment to habeas corpus and, more generally, the rule of law. That’s probably because, as chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg tribunal, he came to understand what happens when a government of laws collapses under pressure from a popular and ill-intentioned strongman.

In his magisterial opening statement at Nuremberg, Jackson pinpointed the historical moment at which German democracy gave way to the Nazi lawlessness. On February 28, 1933, he recounted, Adolph Hitler seized upon an act of terror-the burning of the Reichstag-as the pretext for an arbitrary suspension of habeas corpus, the right to a public trial by jury, and other guarantees of individual liberty contained in the Constitution of the Weimar Republic.

From that point onward, “secret arrest and indefinite detention, without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel, became the method of inflicting inhuman punishment on any whom the Nazi police suspected or disliked.”

In Germany, mind you, it took a gang of ruthless thugs to murder constitutional government. Here, with the genteel acquiescence of the legal punditry, constitutional government is about to commit suicide.

Jacob Levich is a writer and editor living in Queens, N.Y. He can be reached at: jlevich@earthlink.net

 

More articles by:

Jacob Levich is a university administrator and independent researcher who tweets as @cordeliers.

November 14, 2018
Charles Pierson
Unstoppable: The Keystone XL Oil Pipeline and NAFTA
Sam Bahour
Israel’s Mockery of Security: 101 Actions Israel Could Take
Cesar Chelala
How a Bad Environment Impacts Children’s Health
George Ochenski
What Tester’s Win Means
Louisa Willcox
Saving Romania’s Brown Bears, Sharing Lessons About Coxistence, Conservation
George Wuerthner
Alternatives to Wilderness?
Robert Fisk
Izzeldin Abuelaish’s Three Daughters were Killed in Gaza, But He Still Clings to Hope for the Middle East
Dennis Morgan
For What?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Government is Our Teacher
Bill Martin
The Trump Experiment: Liberals and Leftists Unhinged and Around the Bend
Rivera Sun
After the Vote: An Essay of the Man from the North
Jamie McConnell
Allowing Asbestos to Continue Killing
Thomas Knapp
Talkin’ Jim Acosta Hard Pass Blues: Is White House Press Access a Constitutional Right?
Bill Glahn
Snow Day
November 13, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Midterm Results are Challenging Racism in America in Unexpected Ways
Victor Grossman
Germany on a Political Seesaw
Cillian Doyle
Fictitious Assets, Hidden Losses and the Collapse of MDM Bank
Lauren Smith
Amnesia and Impunity Reign: Wall Street Celebrates Halliburton’s 100th Anniversary
Joe Emersberger
Moreno’s Neoliberal Restoration Proceeds in Ecuador
Carol Dansereau
Climate and the Infernal Blue Wave: Straight Talk About Saving Humanity
Dave Lindorff
Hey Right Wingers! Signatures Change over Time
Dan Corjescu
Poetry and Barbarism: Adorno’s Challenge
Patrick Bond
Mining Conflicts Multiply, as Critics of ‘Extractivism’ Gather in Johannesburg
Ed Meek
The Kavanaugh Hearings: Text and Subtext
Binoy Kampmark
Concepts of Nonsense: Australian Soft Power
November 12, 2018
Kerron Ó Luain
Poppy Fascism and the English Education System
Conn Hallinan
Nuclear Treaties: Unwrapping Armageddon
Robert Hunziker
Tropical Trump Declares War on Amazonia
John W. Whitehead
Badge of Shame: the Government’s War on Military Veterans
Will Griffin
Military “Service” Serves the Ruling Class
John Eskow
Harold Pinter’s America: Hard Truths and Easy Targets
Rob Okun
Activists Looking Beyond Midterm Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Mid-Term Divisions: The Trump Take
Dean Baker
Short-Term Health Insurance Plans Destroy Insurance Pools
George Wuerthner
Saving the Buffalohorn/Porcupine: the Lamar Valley of the Gallatin Range
Patrick Howlett-Martin
A Note on the Paris Peace Forum
Joseph G. Ramsey
Does America Have a “Gun Problem”…Or a White Supremacy Capitalist Empire Problem?
Weekend Edition
November 09, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Louis Proyect
Why Democrats Are So Okay With Losing
Andrew Levine
What Now?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Chuck and Nancy’s House of Cards
Brian Cloughley
The Malevolent Hypocrisy of Selective Sanctions
Marc Levy
Welcome, Class of ‘70
David Archuleta Jr.
Facebook Allows Governments to Decide What to Censor
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Zika Scare: a Political and Commercial Maneuver of the Chemical Poisons Industry
Nick Pemberton
When It Comes To Stone Throwing, Democrats Live In A Glass House
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail