Jack Balkin on the torture memo.
The stench of corruption permeates the pages of this report. Legal minds, blinded by ideology, and seduced by power, have willingly done the Administration’s dirtiest work— apologizing for torture and justifying violations of the most basic human rights. They have mangled the law and distorted the Constitution, manipulating legal sources to maximize power and minimize accountability. It is the sort of legal reasoning that twists law to destroy the Rule of Law. It is the sort of legal reasoning that brings shame on our nation and our people. It is the sort of legal reasoning that makes me ashamed to be a lawyer.
As Jim Henley says, what is troubling is not only the memo’s attempt to provide legal cover for torturers, but the arguments that it uses to back up its claims. The memo argues that the Constitution grants the President “complete discretion” to determine how enemy combatants should be questioned, without Congressional oversight, and that “laws that seek to prevent the President from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks on the United States” are unconstitutional. In short, the President can do whatever he sees fit to protect national security - his powers are unbounded on issues that touch on war-making. This fits into a more general line of administration argument - as witness the US administration’s claim that it can unilaterally designate a US citizen as an “enemy combatant” and deny him basic rights.
There’s a precedent for this kind of argument, and it’s not a very reputable one - Carl Schmitt’s theory of emergency powers. Schmitt was a notorious skeptic of parliamentary democracy; Oren Gross has a nice short article that lays out his views. Schmitt argues that war - the existence of peril to the state - provides an exception that allows for the law to be side-stepped by politics. In his later work, he suggests that it is the sovereign who decides not only how to deal with an exception, but also what an exception is.
The precise details of an emergency cannot be anticipated, nor can one spell out what may take place in such a case … The most guidance the constitution can provide is to indicate who can act in such a case. If such action is not subject to controls, if it is not hampered in some way by checks and balances, as is the case in a liberal constitution, then it is clear who the sovereign is. He decides whether there is an extreme emergency as well as what must be done to eliminate it.
Emergency powers, under this interpretation, aren’t limited by the existing constitutional order - instead, the sovereign may unilaterally decide what is, or is not necessary, given the emergency. In Gross’s exegesis of Schmitt.
The result is that the sovereign is not only the one who decides on the exception, but also the one who definitely decides whether the normal situation actually exists. It is only the sovereign dictator who can authoritatively distinguish the exception from the normal and decide whether to take state action. At the same time, Schmitt considers sovereignty and the powers attached to it as indivisible. Thus, one cannot say that only part of the sovereign’s powers are operational at any given moment. Subject to the personal decision of the sovereign dictator, the sovereign’s unlimited powers may be put to use at any time. No external, objective limitations may be imposed on the exercise of these powers. Hence, should the sovereign dictator so desire, his unlimited powers - originally designed to apply to the exceptional case - may come to control the norm, indeed be the norm.
Schmitt states baldly the underlying argument of the torture memo and indeed of the administration’s contentions regarding Padilla - that in cases where the security of the state is threatened, the sovereign should have unlimited discretion in his efforts to defend the public interest. This is a tough argument to make in a constitutional system like that of the US, which is based on checks and balances. The drafters of the torture memo square this circle by arguing that these checks and balances don’t apply to war-making. The problem is that the US administration is claiming not only that it can deviate from the law, but that it can also decide when such deviations are appropriate without reference to anyone else. Schmitt draws this argument to its logical conclusion - these powers effectively allow the sovereign to remake the constitutional order as he sees fit to defend national security. Even apart from the specific issue at hand (torture), this should give pause to defenders of the current administration. The notion that the President has complete discretion to break laws in his role as Commander in Chief is a fundamental and direct challenge to basic democratic principles and to the notion of limited government. This should not only be highly offensive to left-wingers, but to any libertarians who are worth their salt.
The “torture memos” and the arguments they make are among the most vile things ever to be put forth at the high levels of our government. And there are serious lawyer Web sites defending these, too. How the Bush administration has used the rage and fear from Sept 11 to divide and batter the nation is amazing. I fully expect a justification for slavery to be the next straw.
Balkin’s post is extraordinary, and the connection to Schmitt is interesting, especially given the right wing refusal to acknowledge their steady slide into totalitarian reasoning.
bobcox, I apologize for my brethren. I wish I could say they know not what they do, but I think that would be a lie, and there are more than enough lies on the table already
The most important implication of the “torture memos” is that we have reached a point from which there is no incremental way back.
I’ve long held that “Would you trust this power in the hands of your worst enemies?” is an excellent test of the overall desirability of any proposed power. I presume that Bush’s advisors would not in fact endorse the idea that, say, Clinton or Carter should have been allowed to do this stuff.
But I also confess that I really have to struggle to maintain any sort of composure or distance on the matter. Back in 2000, I thought that the more extreme critics of candidate Bush were being shrill and (more importantly) disproportionate…but they weren’t. Short of full-blown theocracy and avowed fascism, everything the doomsayers said proved right, and then some. I am, despite all that’s happened since then, freshly shocked and angered. It’s a shame at times like this that running around shouting like so many grunts in Halo won’t actually do any political good.
Without suggesting any equivalencies, I just wanted to note that Avalon at Yale has the Nuremburg transcripts available online. See http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm .
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