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.

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
July 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Red State, Blue State; Green State, Deep State
Paul Street
“Inclusive Capitalism,” Nancy Pelosi, and the Dying Planet
Anthony DiMaggio
Higher Education Fallacies: What’s Behind Rising Conservative Distrust of Learning?
Kevin Zeese
Green Party Growing Pains; Our Own Crisis of Democracy
Andrew Levine
Why Republicans Won’t Dump Trump Anytime Soon
Edward Hunt
Killing Civilians in Iraq and Syria
Michael Colby
Ben & Jerry’s Has No Clothes
Bruce Dixon
White Liberal Guilt, Black Opportunism and the Green Party
Mark Harris
The Revolutionary Imagination: Rosa for Our Times
David Rosen
America’s Five Sex Panics
Jack Heyman
Class War on the Waterfront: Longshore Workers Under Attack
Kim C. Domenico
Marginalize This:  Turning the Tables on Neoliberal Triumphalism
Brian Cloughley
Trying to Negotiate With the United States
John Laforge
Activists Challenge US Nukes in Germany; Occupy Bunker Deep Inside Nuclear Weapons Base
Jonathan Latham
The Biotech Industry is Taking Over the Regulation of GMOs From the Inside
Russell Mokhiber
DC Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton Fox Won’t Let Whistleblower Lawyer Lynne Bernabei Go
Ramzy Baroud
The Story behind the Jerusalem Attack: How Trump and Netanyahu Pushed Palestinians to A Corner
Farzana Versey
The Murder of Muslims
Kathy Kelly
At Every Door
David W. Pear
Venezuela Under Siege by U.S. Empire
Maria Paez Victor
Venezuelan Opposition Now Opposes the People
Uri Avnery
Soros’ Sorrows
Joseph Natoli
The Mythos Meme of Choice
Clark T. Scott
High Confidence and Low Methods
Missy Comley Beattie
Glioblastoma As Metaphor
Ann Garrison
Organizing Pennsylvania’s 197: Cheri Honkala on Frontline Communities
Ted Rall
What Happened When I Represented Myself as My Own Lawyer
Colin Todhunter
Codex Alimentarius and Monsanto’s Toxic Relations
Graham Peebles
Europe’s Shameful Refugee Policy
Louis Proyect
Reversals of Imperial Fortune: From the Comanche to Vietnam
Jeffrey Wilson
Demolish! The Story of One Detroit Resident’s Home
REZA FIYOUZAT
Billionaire In Panic Over Dems’ Self-Destruct
David Penner
The Barbarism of Privatized Health Care
Yves Engler
Canada in Zambia
Ludwig Watzal
What Israel is Really All About
Randy Shields
Matters of National Insecurity
Vacy Vlanza
The Ministry of Utmost Happiness: Through Eyes of an Activist for Palestine
Cesar Chelala
Dr. Schweitzer’s Lost Message
Masturah Alatas
Becoming Italian
Martin Billheimer
Lessons Paid in Full
Charles R. Larson
Review: James Q. Whitman’s “Hitler’s American Model”
David Yearsley
The Brilliance of Velasquez
July 20, 2017
Sebastian Friedrich – Gabriel Kuhn
A New Class Politics
Patrick Cockburn
The Massacre of Mosul: More Than 40,000 Civilians Feared Dead
Paul Street
The Abandonment: Reflections on James Foreman’s “Locking Up Our Own”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail