Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Ex Parte America

The central problem with Alberto Gonzalez' analysis of the powers he claims AUMF granted the President, and even of his reliance on Hamdi, is Ex Parte Milligan.

And ironically, for precisely the reasons the Hamdi decision distinguished Milligan.

First, look at the facts in Milligan. Milligan was charged with "conspiring to overthrow the Government, seize munitions, and liberate prisoners of war." However, "Milligan was not a prisoner of war, but a resident of Indiana arrested while at home there." (I quote from the dissenting and majority opinions in Hamdi, respectively). On that latter factual issue the majority in Hamdi distinguished the holding in Milligan:

Had Milligan been captured while he was assisting Confederate soldiers by carrying a rifle against Union troops on a Confederate battlefield, the holding of the Court might well have been different. The Court’s repeated explanations that Milligan was not a prisoner of war suggest that had these different circumstances been present he could have been detained under military authority for the duration of the conflict, whether or not he was a citizen.
These are the facts that are of interest in the NSA wiretapping scandal.

Because the wiretapping is domestic, that is, suspects will be found in their homes, not on the battlefield. They will not be "prisoners of war," but criminal suspects; and so the protections of the criminal court system will apply. They cannot, in other words, simply be incarcerated in military prisons, subjected to military tribunals, and be denied due process. That much is clearly consistent with the holding in Hamdi.

But Milligan is interesting for other reasons. Consider the language used, and the time of the case: 1865. The civil war is over, Lincoln is dead, Andrew Jackson is in office (and soon to be impeached, the first in U.S. history), and anti-Confederacy sentiments, to say the least, are undoubtedly still running high. And yet the court says:

No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people; for it is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime, to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is, alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be, or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country, or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people.
Not exactly the language used by the Attorney General yesterday.

The Court goes on, in language that would still guide the Court today:

If there was law to justify this military trial, it is not our province to interfere; if there was not, it is our duty to declare the nullity of the whole proceedings. The decision of this question does not depend on argument or judicial precedents, numerous and highly illustrative as they are. These precedents inform us of the extent of the struggle to preserve liberty and to relieve those in civil life from military trials. The founders of our government were familiar with the history of that struggle; and secured in a written constitution every right which the people had wrested from power during a contest of ages. By that Constitution and the laws authorized by it this question must be determined. The provisions of that instrument on the administration of criminal justice are too plain and direct, to leave room for misconstruction or doubt of their true meaning. Those applicable to this case are found in that clause of the original Constitution which says, "That the trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury"; and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles of the amendments...
And here is where Gonzalez argument begins to come apart:

Every trial involves the exercise of judicial power; and from what source did the military commission that tried him derive their authority? Certainly no part of the judicial power of the country was conferred on them; because the Constitution expressly vests it "in one supreme court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," and it is not pretended that the commission was a court ordained and established by Congress. They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction."
But here is where it fails completely:

It is claimed that martial law covers with its broad mantle the proceedings of this military commission. The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it, and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his superior officer or the President of the United States.

If this position is sound to the extent claimed, then when war exists, foreign or domestic, and the country is subdivided into military departments for mere convenience, the commander of one of them can, if he chooses, within his limits, on the plea of necessity, with the approval of the Executive, substitute military force for and to the exclusion of the laws, and punish all persons, as he thinks right and proper, without fixed or certain rules.

The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true, republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty regulated by law. Martial law, established on such a basis, destroys every guarantee of the Constitution, and effectually renders the "military independent of and superior to the civil power" -- the attempt to do which by the King of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence, that they assigned it to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to declare their independence. Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish.

This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued, human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.

It is essential to the safety of every government that, in a great crisis, like the one we have just passed through, there should be a power somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war, there are men of previously good character, wicked enough to counsel their fellow-citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies; and their influence may lead to dangerous combinations. In the emergency of the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be possible; and yet, the peril to the country may be too imminent to suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required to produce the persons arrested in answer to a writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution goes no further. It does not say after a writ of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise than by the course of the common law; if it had intended this result, it was easy by the use of direct words to have accomplished it. The illustrious men who framed that instrument were guarding the foundations of civil liberty against the abuses of unlimited power; they were full of wisdom, and the lessons of history informed them that a trial by an established court, assisted by an impartial jury, was the only sure way of protecting the citizen against oppression and wrong. Knowing this, they limited the suspension to one great right, and left the rest to remain forever inviolable. But, it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation. Happily, it is not so.
The Hamdi decision distinguished Milligan in light of Ex Parte Quirin, a later case that discussed the application of Milligan. But even that distinction in Hamdi did not suspend due process for Hamdi. Nor would it authorize the President, as Gonzalez argued yesterday, to set himself up as a super-legislature and a super-court system, deciding under his "inherent powers" as Commander in Chief, what laws are constitutional, and which statutes he can override or ignore.

Gonzales even admitted his argument about inherent Presidential power didn't have any precedential support under FISA.

The last problem left now is the problem of standing. The Bush Administration is being cagier here than is widely realized. Unless an individual can show harm under this program, no one can go to court and get a ruling on its legality or constitutionality. And so long as the Administration can stonewall that evidence and insist either that news accounts are wildly exaggerated (a purposefully ambiguous response) or that national security prevents it from making further disclosures, the courts will not be engaged on this issue.

However, if they can be, the precedent for declaring this action both illegal and unconstitutional is perfectly clear.

No comments:

Post a Comment