[faithandlife] JUDGE AND LEGAL PROFESSOR AIR VIEWS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : September 2002 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: "Charles Scott" <crscott@...>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 00:40:22 +0000
Richard Posner

The United States is at war. It is common in war for nothing much to happen 
for months on end; think of the "phony war" that followed Hitler's conquest 
of Poland in 1939.

Now a diffuse but dangerous enemy, itching to get its hands on weapons of 
mass destruction, apt to precipitate state-level wars in the Middle East and 
Central Asia, wants to kill us. There are daily reminders at airports and 
public buildings that we are at war; one has only to walk around the White 
House to sense a nation at war.

Perhaps not since 1941 has the nation itself been in greater danger; it is 
not just its overseas allies or its status in great-power politics that is 
in peril. Recognition of this has bound Americans together. Our racial, 
ethnic, religious and class differences suddenly are less important. The 
enemy does not discriminate among us; the foreigner, with rare exceptions, 
will not help us. The common enemy unites America.

And no longer do our civil liberties seem immune from critical reflection. 
They are not, as the naïve suppose, engraved in the Constitution. They are 
the creation of Supreme Court justices playing variations on themes stated 
in that document with notable brevity and looseness. They are the point of 
balance between public safety and personal liberty, and as the relative 
weights change, the balance shifts. Endangered more gravely than we had 
supposed possible by an enemy that cannot be defeated by military methods 
alone, the nation redraws the line between security and liberty.


Richard Posner is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Seventh Circuit.
--------------------------


Kathleen M. Sullivan



In a national security crisis, constitutional rights and liberties are often 
the first to go.

President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus without the consent of 
Congress, allowing Northern troops to detain Southern sympathizers without 
recourse to courts. The Supreme Court later chastised him, but only after 
the Civil War had ended. President Roosevelt allowed the mass internment of 
Japanese and Japanese-Americans on the West Coast after the bombing of Pearl 
Harbor. Congress later authorized reparations, but only after many of the 
internees were long dead.

Since Sept. 11, the Bush administration, like previous administrations in 
times of national security crisis, has claimed that exigency trumps ordinary 
procedure. True, we have seen no mass quarantine of Middle Eastern 
immigrants, nor yet the use of military tribunals to do civil courts' work.

But we have seen immigrants placed in secret deportation proceedings, and 
American citizens suspected of terrorist ties denied counsel and placed in 
military brigs. We have watched as Congress sped to approve new 
antiterrorism measures that increased surveillance of e-mail messages and 
expanded the power of a secret foreign intelligence court to approve 
wiretaps. We have heard government lawyers argue for dramatic expansion of 
the category of enemy combatants.

Such measures draw little public outcry, for swift and decisive action 
against amorphous danger is naturally popular, and civil rights and 
liberties seem a luxury reserved for safer times. But constitutions, like 
diets, are meant to restrict us most when temptation is greatest. And our 
constitution, unlike many others, contains no emergency clause providing for 
its own suspension.

In a series of bold decisions, federal judges have acknowledged as much and 
sought to enforce traditional constitutional values — opening deportation 
proceedings to the press, requiring access to counsel and questioning the 
foreign intelligence justifications for domestic surveillance.

Such decisions, if upheld, offer us a chance to break the cycle of excessive 
deference to executive prerogative in national emergencies. A continuous 
constitution is our greatest protection from terrorism in the first place, 
and now is the time to hold true to its principles.

Kathleen M. Sullivan is dean of Stanford Law School.

-----------------------
copyright  New York Times






_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx