Eugene Volokh gravely considers the danger that a number of people designated by the government as enemy combatants — or rather, a number of Al Qaeda agents, or rather, 50,000 alleged enemy soliders of some foreign power — might avail of Rasul v Bush and file an avalanche of habeas corpus writs claiming they aren’t really enemy soldiers.1 Thus, he fears, one of the fundamental tenets of the rule of law, affirmed this week by the Supreme Court, becomes a deadly weapon in the hands of our litigious enemies. I see a mini-series, Stalag Law, set in the not-too-distant future. In a nation suffocated by habeas writs inappropriately filed by malicious captured soldiers from their hotel-like detention centers, a tiny remnant of the 82nd Airborne Paralegal Division fights to clear the appalling backlog of cases …
Brad DeLong and (more appropriately) the Medium Lobster have already given this the treatment it deserves. I just want to add that this is the same Eugene Volokh who declared himself unwilling to discuss the topic of actual lawyers employed by an actual government of the United States searching for a legal rationalization for actual torture that members of that administration actually authorized. Look, like I said, blog about whatever you want. But here’s a hypo for you: Let’s say that you’re a respected legal scholar with strong interests in the protection of individual freedoms from the dead hand of the state. And let’s say that your government is found to have tortured people. And let’s say that its lawyers produce threadbare rationalizations saying that’s no big deal. And let’s say that in response you avoid the topic because it’s disgusting and because “if I had a choice in how to invest my scarce time, I’d rather not invest it here.” And let’s say that, instead, you choose to focus on the possibility that a captured foreign army might sue its way to victory within the U.S. courts. What conclusions might your readers draw given such (admittedly far-fetched) circumstances?
1 “Your honor, I swear, I have no idea why all 50,000 of us are dressed in similar uniforms.”
We can only pray that Osama Bin Laaden is not monitoring the Volokh Conspiracy. Can you imagine the scene, as thousands of terrorists arrive at Guantanamo Bay, already in their blindfolds and orange overalls, taunting the guards? And then, some poor farmboy from Indiana makes the fatal mistake of throwing them into prison, all 50,000 of them! Little did he know that the lawyers were waiting over the ridge, habeas corpus writs in hand…
“We were all dressed the same because we were having this really large theme party.”
I was really shocked at how idiotic Volokh’s comment was—usually he doesn’t let his politics warp his judgment on legal issues.
The possiblity that some people will abuse the legal system by bringing meritless claims is no reason to bar people with arguably valid claims from suing. Sorting out the valid from the meritless is THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING A COURT SYSTEM.
Why, we could all troop down to court tomorrow and sue the president for sexual harrassment! The suits would be thrown out of court, but think of the burden on the poor president! Obviously, we should no longer allow anyone to sue anyone for anything—it might be abused.
Isn’t Volokh missing the quite crucial point that the reason for Rasul v. Bush is the refusal of the US administration to treat the X-ray prisoners as POW’s?
Oh lord. That is so lame, I can’t believe this guy ever graduated at all, nevermind become a professor.
Also, he forgets that in WWII, the fight was both against “national governments” and insurgent forces still loyal to the regimes even after they’d collapsed. Just like today.
I don’t see anywhere in the opinion, motoko, where the court relies on the fact that the detainees are not being treated as prisoners of war. The opinion does make something of the fact that the detainees are not “enemy nationals,” a simple fact not the doing of the Bush administration. The dissent suggests that, based on the Rasul holding prisoners of war may in the future bring habeas petitions, and the main opinion does not, as they often do, drop a footnote denying that interpretation. So I don’t understand the basis for your reading. I also don’t take the relevance of mc’s point: as I read the opinion, every German POW could have filed a habeas petition.
“What conclusions might your readers draw given such (admittedly far-fetched) circumstances?”
That his libertarian mask is slipping? If he’s a law professor, he should know far better.
What was really hilarious was a bunch of right-wingers on Brad’s site who thought that his parody was sound reasoning.
1) The hypo is totally implausible.
2) If we are arguing by hypothetical, the hypo of our government disappearing and torturing people in a place over which we exercise complete and indefinite authority is much, much more plausible.
3) Rasul was a statutory holding. Congress could change the statute.
4) I agree that the majority opinion in Rasul was sloppily written. But a lot of that stuff is non-binding dicta or simple lack of clarity. It can easily be fixed in a later case. Kennedy showed how to decide this one on narrower grounds. I don’t know why he didn’t end up writing the majority, but I would bet good money that should the “enemies charging over the hill with habeas writs” theory ever came true—or even a situation far short of that—O’Connor and Breyer, and quite possibly Souter and Ginsburg, would adopt his reasoning.
I just don’t understand how you think like this and call yourself a libertarian.
“What conclusions might your readers draw given such (admittedly far-fetched) circumstances?”
That he’s more interested in the legal consequences of a Supreme Court decision than the merits of a dubious legal opinion from a bunch of government lawyers?
I was fascinated to read another few thousand words this morning in my newspaper on Alvarez, the Alien Torts Case. The Court concentrated on an area as much as I have ever seen it do before. I suppose it is more a question for law blogs, but does a foreign national have no recourse if the US gov’t violates a commercial treaty? No standing?
Reminds me of some arguments about the President, who really is above the law, may kill, steal, rape etc and the only recourse is impeachment. I guess the only treaty enforcement mechanism is war.
As far as Eugene Volokh goes, he is a partisan Republican, and a very smart one. He will discuss FMA, because he knows it will not affect Bush’s re-election chances significantly. Torture is like, icky.
Read Volockh’s post carefully. Its’ not “soldiers of a foreign power” that are the problem. They’re already covered by the laws of war and won’t trigger US habeas petitions. Its “insurgents in a an allied country,” not natives of any country officially at war with us, that could conceivably trigger habeas. These types of forces, who by the way won’t be wearing all the same uniforms, who could, depending how you read Rasul, automatically have access to US courts, no matter where they’re held. So, the Taliban, conceivably Al Queada.
I’m afraid I can’t regard that prospect as casually as the rest of you. Either the full panopoly of US criminal process will be applied, making detentions almost impossible, given the “crime scene” is a war zone. Or a massively watered down set of protections will be set up, with potential to spread to US citizens accused of terrorism. Indeed we already see this with the plurality in Hamdi. Scalia’s set of positions looks pretty good compared to this.
Don’t worry rd. If 50,000 insurgents in an allied country are captured, 50,000 people who are not prisoners of war, 50,000 people who will not be the responsibility of that allied country, 50,000 people who could possibly take advantage of this ruling… I’ll get the monkeys flying out of my butt to help you with the paperwork.
What is Eugene’s problem here?
The government has a simple out, under the companion Padilla case: just keep moving the prisoners around, or keep switching commanding generals around— that way, Al Qaeda will be defeated on grounds of personal jurisdiction when it keeps naming the wrong defendants! Eugene is usually more creative in his defenses of the imperium; I’m disappointed.
Maybe, “smart but not wise” might sum up his general approach.
“As far as Eugene Volokh goes, he is a partisan Republican”
That’s quite absurd. No one with even a passing familiarity with his work could say that.
“passing familiarity with his work could say that.”
I do, and do. If you care to cite a couple things he has said that are dead certain to preclude from a Republican appointment to the bench, do so. Something that would lead Hatch to say: “No way, not Volokh, withdraw it.”
IN defense of Volokh, whose hypothetical may have not been the best, this subject (Rasul;Soros v Alvarez) is discussed today by Will Baude at Crescat Sententia, Unlearned Hand, and has been discussed at the Int’l blogs like Beautiful Horizons. Complicated enough to leave to the lawyers, tho my gut inclination is that victims of American Geneva Violations should have recourse.
If you care to cite a couple things he has said that are dead certain to preclude from a Republican appointment to the bench, do so. Something that would lead Hatch to say: “No way, not Volokh, withdraw it.”
How about Volokh’s defense of legalizing incest? See here or here. That’s not exactly a popular position, much less something that a partisan Republican would say.
As Jim Henley said, the explanation is simple — it’s all about Volokh’s lust for a Federal Circuit Court judgeship.
Volokh’s supposed psychological distaste for addressing the Bush Administration’s legal fig leaves for torture was simply his recognition that at least one pending Circuit Court nomination was dead because of the nominee’s penning of one of the abominable legal memos, that Jay Bybee would never have gotten confirmed had his role in same been known in time; and that out of sheer expediency Volokh wanted to avoid advocating for torture, which would make him unconfirmable; against torture, which would make him less likely to be nominated; and cleverly being neither clearly for nor against, which would be too much effort, might not work anyway, and would certainly not win him any advocates. Sheer expediency.
“And this be a law that I’ll maintain,
until my dying day, sir:
that whatsoever king may reign,
still I’ll be the Vicar of Bray, sir.”
To help you out, Randy Barnett’s libertarian interpretation of the Ninth Amendment gives some support to Roe v Wade. He will never get a Republican judgeship.
Volokh is quite careful in what subjects he talks about, and how he discusses them. There have been many Republicans who have condemned the “torture memos” vigorously, Tacitus for example. I believe Volokh knows that implacable enemies can be created here.
Hasn’t Volokh also advocated drug legalization?
forget the numbers involved. If voloch’s hypo doesn’t apply, its b/c the Court won’t extend its ruling beyond Gitmo to American bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. In which case, the lesson the Court hands down is that the govt should have just kept everybody at the Bagram Air Force base, where we know prisoner conditions are just outstanding. A triumph for civil liberties! If it does extend to bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems Voloch’s hypo holds completely.
“If you care to cite a couple things he has said that are dead certain to preclude from a Republican appointment to the bench, do so.”
I don’t think drug decriminalization is a high priority for the GOP.
( here )
“question of whether the government should criminalize our consensual sex lives (I think that such criminalization is indeed outrageous, though I’m not sure that it’s unconstitutional), not to the quite plausible analogy that Santorum draws.”
Will draw some questions, but wouldn’t keep him off the bench. Much of his discussion of the FMA tended toward “let the states decide”, and I see not much here that would disagree with Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence.
Sorry, the link didn’t code properly. Here: http://volokh.com/2003_05_04_volokh_archive.html#200255867
Holds completely?
Don’t tell me - these 50,000 prisoners are going to be captured by monkeys flying out of George Bush’s butt. I guess he really is the Wicked Witch of the West.
Honestly, where the hell do you think all these prisoners could possibly come from?
“Hasn’t Volokh also advocated drug legalization?”
Again, the man is a smart and careful libertarian and constitutionalist. And may even see the obvious trends in that direction for Republicans and the country. (IMO, the religious right is in its last desperate gasp).
It is one thing to hypothetically say that pot should be legal. It would be quite another thing to say that all federal and state pot laws are unconstitutional. This is the game Volokh plays that many other libertarians do not.
Why don’t we just draft lawyers next time a war breaks out?
—Kynn
In Volokh’s defense, coming up with wacky hypotheticals is sort of what law professors are paid to do. This hypothetical, admittedly, doesn’t play out so interestingly, to 95% of readers, but that’s not morally blameworthy.
Also, remember that he’s blogging, not writing a journal article. He makes an off-the-cuff observation; lots of people make off-the-cuff flames in response; and we all go on. Just let’s not decide the guy’s a reactionary jerk on the basis of his wondering whether there’s a loophole in Rasul v. Bush.
Hypotheticals have to be at least semi plausible to have any weight, in politics and law at least. It is at least possible that one day the US President will discover that the Supreme Court, Senate, and Congress are being controlled by invisible aliens, who will blow up the entire planet if he tells anyone about his discovery. Should we give the president the power to fire the other branches of the government, just in case? Should we withdraw the power of Senate and Congress to impeach a president, in case they end up being mind-controlled by aliens? Of course not.
Should we give the President the power to arrest anyone, hold them indefinitely without charge, and refuse them any access to the courts, because otherwise he won’t be able to detain 50,000 surrendering terrorists? Apparently so.
We have allies? Really?
As I said, forget the numbers involved, whether its 50,000, 5,000 or 500. We are and will be detaining insurgents in Afghanistan who could fit the court’s definition in Rasul for individuals who can sue in US courts if they’re in a place under US “exclusive jurisdiction and control.” Will US bases in Afghanistan count as such places, along with Gitmo? If so, Voloch’s hypo holds. If not, then the lesson of the court’s decision is that the US could have avoided all problems by keeping detainees in overseas bases under even less outside oversight and worse conditions than in Gitmo.
> In Volokh’s defense, coming up
> with wacky hypotheticals is sort of
> what law professors are paid to
> do.
OK, but I think that honesty would then compel one to continue with, “let’s look at the other side of the coin. Say you wake up tomorrow and John Ashcroft has arrested 50,000 US citizens and shipped them to Gitmo. Including your next-door neighbor. Do any of them qualify for h.c.? Can they all be held indefinatly without charges? Why or why not?”
Cranky
1) Volokh’s hypo is that habeas petitions will disrupt things enough to impede the war effort, so it’s entirely dependent on the numbers.
2) You can almost always make an argument that a court decision protecting individual rights just gives the government incentive to violate those rights in new ways. Scalia’s line of decisions gives the government an incentive to hold prisoners at Guantanamo instead of the U.S. He says U.S. citizens are protected even in Gitmo but his rationale is not clear. Even it were clear, you could argue that this gives the government an incentive to make naturalization harder, or just disappear detainees entirely & make it physically impossible to file habeas petitions. You could argue that all these decisions except Thomas’, combined with the ruling on the Alien Tort Claims Act, give the government the incentive to send people to Egypt or Syria to be tortured instead of interrogating them ourself. You could argue that drawing a bright line between citizens and non-citizens destroys any possibility that non-citizens rights will get any protection at all. You could argue that any Supreme Court decision enlarging individual rights at the expense of the war on terror gives Bush an incentive to disobey the Supreme Court.
I don’t think the proper response to these arguments is to throw up our hands and agree that laws are silent in times of war. We can close a lot of these loopholes without jeopardizing our ability to protect ourselves or the President’s constitutional authority. To the extent that we can, we should.
The government has incentives to keep detainees in secure places far from battlefields. Gitmo is almost certainly more secure than Bagram. We also have incentives to keep people where we have complete control and we know we can hold them indefinitely. I believe these factors apply more to Guantanamo than Bagram.
“plugging loopholes” is fine, but I can’t think that taking the final consequences of a decision into account is somehow unprincipled. Assuming that the court’s decisions aren’t extended to Afghanistan or other overseas bases, I think the end result for detainees is likely to be more dangerous and less protective of human rights than Gitmo.
A couple of points on Rasul.
One: Congress can always suspend habeus, making it all moot.
Two: Has anybody stopped to think that the CONSTITUTION ITSELF is antithetical to the United States invading foreign countries? It was built in the 18th century, at a time when the country pretty much just wanted to be left alone. Now, constitutions evolve, and decisions are dependent on context. But I don’t see why we should willy-nilly avoid the constitution because it goes against wars of aggression that occur because our commander in chief needs to get re-elected. If you don’t like it, let the people amend it. If it’s an emergency, the CIC can always give em the good old Andrew Jackson treatment.
Volokh’s hypothetical is a joke, if only because under those circumstances, the results would change. The Supreme Court isn’t going to allow the Republic to end in the name of stare decisis.
A couple of points on Rasul.
One: Congress can always suspend habeus, making it all moot.
Two: Has anybody stopped to think that the CONSTITUTION ITSELF is antithetical to the United States invading foreign countries? It was built in the 18th century, at a time when the country pretty much just wanted to be left alone. Now, constitutions evolve, and decisions are dependent on context. But I don’t see why we should willy-nilly avoid the constitution because it goes against wars of aggression that occur because our commander in chief needs to get re-elected. If you don’t like it, let the people amend it. If it’s an emergency, the CIC can always give em the good old Andrew Jackson treatment.
Volokh’s hypothetical is a joke, if only because under those circumstances, the results would change. The Supreme Court isn’t going to allow the Republic to end in the name of stare decisis.
I think its far more plausible to say that Rawls, Nozick, Davidson and the like are analytical philosophers that attempt to articulate and examine the bigger picture.
英国留学 women garments 出国留学 porcelain insulator 出国留学咨询 耳机 surfing scooter pocket bike mini chopper gas scooter foot scooter electric motorcycle mini e-bike electric-bike mini e-scooter electric-scooter gas scooter surfing scooter gas scooter 耳机 tomato paste green raisin
electric scooters pocket bike mini chopper skate board q scooter
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review