March 4, 1909 – Newly Elected President Taft Applauds the End of Racism in the South

On this day in history, a mere twelve years after the Supreme Court sanctioned racial segregation in public facilities in Plessy v. Ferguson, William Howard Taft delivered his inaugural address, speaking in depth about all the progress made in the South toward the rights of African Americans.

U.S. President, William Howard Taft, center, reviewing the parade after his inauguration as 
President March 4, 1909.

U.S. President, William Howard Taft, center, reviewing the parade after his inauguration as 
President March 4, 1909.

The new president assured his fellow Americans, in a variation of “some of my best friends are blacks”:

I have not the slightest race prejudice or feeling, and recognition of its existence only awakens in my heart a deeper sympathy for those who have to bear it or suffer from it, and I question the wisdom of a policy which is likely to increase it.”

He then discussed the Fifteenth Amendment (which granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the “right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”).

President Taft admitted that the fifteenth amendment had not been generally observed in the past, but “the tendency of Southern legislation today is toward the enactment of electoral qualifications which shall square with that amendment.”

When President Taft took office, however, as Ira Katznelson observes in his book Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time,

By 1908, the South had perfected a political system to guard white supremacy successfully even in counties with black majorities. A host of mechanisms ensured virtually no chance to vote for African-Americans, and a low-turnout franchise for white citizens. These devices included white primaries, declarations that political parties were restricted private clubs, poll taxes, property tests, literacy tests, and understanding clauses that tested for arcane knowledge of the provisions in state constitutions.”

%22Colored%22_drinking_fountain_from_mid-20th_century_with_african-american_drinking

In fact, throughout the years since 1900, racial conflict had plagued the nation. Some of the better known race riots include incidents in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1900, Springfield, Ohio in 1904, Brownsville, Texas, in 1906 and Springfield, Illinoisin 1908.

Legislation designed to solify “Jim Crow” practices in the South also proliferated in this time period, such as anti-miscegenation laws (Alabama, 1901; Florida, 1903, Mississippi 1906, Louisiana, 1908), as well as provisions mandating separation of schools and public accommodations. The Ku Klux Klan was also gaining ground again in the South, destined to reach its peak in the 1920s.

jim-crow-laws

President Taft contradicted himself in the speech, by acknowledging that “race feeling” is in some instances “widespread and acute.” He counseled that in those circumstances, however, governments should avoid exacerbating the problem by appointing members of the negro race to local public offices. This might, after all, “interfere with the ease and facility with which the local government business can be done by the appointee.”

Above all, Taft insisted:

…so long as the statutes of the States meet the test of [the Fifteenth Amendment] and are not otherwise in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, it is not the disposition or within the province of the Federal Government to interfere with the regulation by Southern States of their domestic affairs.”

President William Howard Taft.

March 1, 1803 – Ohio Joins the Union as the 17th State (Sort of)

The settling of Ohio began in 1788 with the arrival of 48 members of an expedition sponsored by the Ohio Company, which purchased more than one and a half million acres of the Northwest Territory from Congress. Within three years, the male population of the area reached 5,000, and the settlers were given the right to elect a house of representatives.

ohiocap

On February 19, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson signed an act of Congress approving Ohio’s boundaries and constitution. However, Congress never passed a resolution formally admitting Ohio as the 17th state. The current custom of Congress declaring an official date of statehood did not begin until 1812, with Louisiana’s admission as the 18th state.

When the oversight was discovered in 1953, Ohio congressman George H. Bender introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803, the date on which the Ohio General Assembly first convened. At a special session at the state capital, the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood. A rider, George Murphy, set out from the state capital (then at Chillicothe) on horseback to duplicate the ride of Thomas Worthington in 1803 when Worthington bore the original petition for statehood to the Capitol. Murphy and his steed, however, made part of the trip by motor caravan, according to the March 10, 1953 report in the Marysville (Ohio) Journal-Tribune. Murphy arrived in D.C. six days after leaving Ohio, and handed the petition to the Congressional Speaker of the House.

On August 7, 1953 (the year of Ohio’s 150th anniversary), President Eisenhower signed a congressional joint resolution that officially declared March 1, 1803 the date of Ohio’s admittance into the Union.

Screen Shot 2014-01-17 at 5.11.38 PM

More presidents have come from Ohio than any other state. They include William Henry Harrison, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William H. Taft, and Warren G. Harding. Four of them died in office.

map

Review of “Enemy Women” by Paulette Jiles

I have read quite a few books on the Civil War, but was never that aware of how different the situation was for civilians in some of the border states until I read this absorbing book by Paulette Jiles, author of Lighthouse Island.

Enemy_Women

The author spent seven years researching the history of the Civil War in Missouri, bringing it to life with this story of a (fictional) heroine for any era, 18-year-old Adair Colley. Jiles takes us back to a time of incredible brutality in Southeastern Missouri as citizens used the cover of war to exact vengeance on personal enemies or to act upon their greed, envy, or lust in ways unacceptable in peacetime.

As the story begins, Adair’s father, a civilian and a judge, is savagely beaten and taken away, and the Colley’s home is looted and burned. Adair must find a safe place for herself and her two younger sisters, and she is also determined to locate her father if she can and plead for his return. But as she embarks on her journey with her siblings, a spat between her and other travelers results in her being denounced as a Confederate “spy” and taken to the women’s prison in St. Louis. There, she forges a bond with the Union major charged with interrogating her, but even his friendship can’t change the unhealthy miasma of the prison, or the fact that they are on two different sides of an ideological and geographical divide.

Discussion: Jiles gives the Civil War a human face and even more strikingly, one that is decidedly female. Most accounts of the Civil War focus on the men who fought. Jiles shows from her dramatization of real events some of the ways in which the women suffered as well, and how they responded to what was happening to them and their families.

Harper’s Weekly’s 1861 version of Federal soldiers searching the home of rebellious Southern women for incriminating weapons and letters.

Harper’s Weekly’s 1861 version of Federal soldiers searching the home of rebellious Southern women for incriminating weapons and letters.

Jiles’ story of what happened in Missouri (punctuated by a number of excerpts from historical documents that precede each chapter) is also valuable because it could have easily come from diaries of civilians caught up in contemporary wars. The insight the records provide into the cruel and unjust collateral damage of war is considerable.

I really liked Jiles’ more recent book,Lighthouse Island, and when I saw this earlier work by her, I was quick to grab it. I could see elements and themes in this book that would reappear in the later book, although of course the settings are quite different. But they both feature women of courage and character. For those who like strong, resourceful female heroines who do what they must to survive, this is an author not to be missed.

Evaluation: Jiles is an adept writer who manages to limn scenes of carnage and destruction with a poetic eloquence that somehow adds to the horror rather than “beautifying” it. But she also lends her poetic hand to the pain, naivety, and hope of love, resulting in an unforgettable story.

Published by William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2002

Rating: 4/5

February 25, 1960 – Anti-segregation Sit-in at the Montgomery, AL County Courthouse

On this day in history, students from Alabama State College (a traditionally African American college in Montgomery, Alabama), stated an anti-segregation sit-in at a lunch counter in the Montgomery County Courthouse. In response, the store-owners closed the lunch counter and a mob of pro-segregationists physically assaulted the students.

Student sit-in participants

Student sit-in participants

Four days later, on February 29, Alabama Governor John Patterson held a news conference to condemn the sit-in. Patterson, who was also chairman of the State Board of Education, threatened to terminate Alabama State College’s funding unless it expelled the student organizers and warned that “someone [was] likely to be killed” if the protests continued.

On March 1, more than 1000 protesters marched from the campus to the state capitol and back. On March 2, Alabama’s all-white State Board of Education unanimously accepted then-Gov. John Patterson’s expulsion resolution. Under pressure, then-ASU president Harper Councill Trenholm expelled the nine students identified as sit-in leaders and suspended 20 other students.

On Sunday March 6, protesters began to gather at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, led by Rev. Ralph Abernathy – a well-known member of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and organizer of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. A crowd of whites surrounded the church, physically assaulting some members of the march and forcing them to flee into the church. It was reported that the city fire company brought two fire trucks to the scene and used the high-powered fire hoses on retreating protesters; soon after this, the police dispersed the crowds and ended the protest.

A white man swinging a baseball bat at a black woman the day after the black students were refused service at the courthouse cafeteria

A white man swinging a baseball bat at a black woman the day after the black students were refused service at the courthouse cafeteria

More than 1000 students immediately pledged a mass strike, threatened to withdraw from the school, and staged days of demonstrations; 35 students, a faculty member, and a physician were arrested. Montgomery Police Commissioner L.B. Sullivan recommended closing the college, which he claimed produced only “graduates of hate and racial bitterness.”

Dr. King sent a telegram to President Eisenhower on March 9, writing:

MR PRESIDENT WE APPEAL T O YOU TO INTERVENE BY INSTRUCTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION IN YOUR NAME TO RESTORE LAW AND ORDER IN THE CAPI- TAL OF ALABAMA. . . . WE APPEAL TO YOU TO URGE THE CITY AUTHORITIES TO PUT DOWN THEIR GUNS, TO GARAGE THEIR VEHICLES OF AGGRESSION WE ARE UNARMED AND DEDICATED TO NON VIOLENCE THOUGH DETERMINED TO RESIST EVIL.”

Meanwhile, six of the nine expelled students sought reinstatement through a federal lawsuit. (On August 4, 1961, in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (294 F. 2d 150, 5th Cir. 1961) a federal court upheld the expulsions and barred the students’ readmission to the school.)

On February 25, 2010, in a ceremony commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the sit-in, Alabama State University (formerly Alabama State College) President William Harris reinstated the nine students, criticized Governor Patterson’s “arbitrary, illegal and intrusive” role in forcing the expulsions, and praised the student protest as “an important moment in civil rights history.” Three of the men, James McFadden, St. John Dixon and Joseph Peterson, received honorary degrees.

February 23, 1723 – Birthdate of Richard Price, Would-Be Founding Father

On this day in history, Richard Price was born in Wales. He became a Presbyterian minister in London, and joined the “Society for Constitutional Information,” a British activist group founded in 1780 to promote parliamentary reform. An avid intellectual, he also participated in the informal dining club named by Benjamin Franklin “The Club of Honest Whigs.”

Portrait of Richard Price, 1784

Portrait of Richard Price, 1784

Price achieved fame as an advocate of civil liberties and of the American and French revolutions. In early 1776 he published Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America. Sixty thousand copies of this pamphlet were sold within days, and a second cheaper edition sold twice as many copies. Price rapidly became one of the best known men in England, and his name became identified with the cause of American independence.

Price later wrote Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution and The Means of Rendering it a Benefit to the World (1784). Well-received by Americans, it suggested that the greatest problem facing Congress was its lack of central powers.

He was visited and admired by Americans Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and John and Abigail Adams, as well as a number of British politicians including William Pitt the Elder. He also consorted with philosophers David Hume and Adam Smith.

According to Sharon Bertsch McGrayne, who writes about his mathematical prowess in The Theory That Would Not Die (Yale University Press, 2011), the Continental Congress of the United States asked Price to move to America and manage its finances, and Thomas Jefferson asked Price to write to the youth of Virginia about the evils of slavery. An English magazine at the time thought Price would figure in American history as largely as Franklin, Washington, Lafayette, and Thomas Paine.

Alas, Price stayed in England, and is now more remembered for his contribution to Bayes’ Theorem on probability than his relationship with, and influence upon, the American Revolutionaries.

Guantanamo  Prisoners

Post by James A. Broderick, J.D., M.B.A.

Much debate about the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo centers on the question of whether it is unconstitutional or at least illegal to hold them indefinitely without charging them with a crime.  This memo is written in response to that sentiment. 

Guantanamo_Bay_map

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides:
       

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

The scope of the amendment is limited to “criminal prosecutions” for “crimes” committed in a “State” of the United States.  Note that none of these key terms [“criminal prosecutions,” “crimes,” or “State”] apply to the theory under which the prisoners are being held at Guantanamo. 



Instead, they are being held as “enemy combatants,” a term that first appeared in Supreme Court jurisprudence in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1  (1942).   There the Supreme Court reviewed the decision of a military tribunal to execute eight German agents who had secretly come ashore in the United States after arriving on a German submarine.  This of course happened during World War II.  They were not wearing uniforms at the time of their arrest and were found to have intended to commit sabotage.  They were captured on July 2, 1942, and by July 31, their trial and appeal to the Supreme Court were completed.  On August 8, 1942, six of them were executed in the electric chair!  Talk about “speedy” if not very “public” justice.  

The Supreme Court held that as enemy combatants they were (1) “subject to capture and detention”; (2) not entitled to the status of “prisoner of war”; and (3) subject to trial by military tribunals, not civil courts. The Court reasoned:


 … the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”

Obviously the issue of how promptly the prisoners’ status was to be reviewed by a tribunal did not arise in this case.  One suspects that the enemy combatants in the Quirin case would have appreciated a somewhat more leisurely adjudication.

One issue raised in discussions is whether the Guantanamo prisoners could legally be held without a specific declaration of war.  The answer is clearly yes.  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “to declare war,” but does not further define or elaborate the term.  Congress has enacted a specific declaration of war only five times, but has authorized military action at least 13 other times.  (The five wars declared by Congress were (1) the War of 1812; (2) the Mexican War; (3) the Spanish-American War; (4) WWI; and (5) WWII.) In an additional seven instances the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress.  The power of the military to take and hold prisoners has never been seriously questioned or litigated in any of those actions.
 

GTMO1-600x400

In 1973, Congress passed the so-called War Powers Resolution in an attempt to limit the power of the President to initiate military action as Commander in Chief without Congressional approval.  [It should be noted that Bill Clinton ignored the Resolution when he allowed American military action in Kosovo to persist beyond the 60-day grace period the law granted without congressional approval.  As Jason Kelly observed in his review of the book The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic by Eric Posner and Adrian Vermuele (Oxford University Press, 2011),  “Clinton’s actions exemplified the authority inherent in the office.”

In any event, the War Powers Resolution has never been overtly challenged by any President.   In the present conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, both Presidents Bush and Obama have relied on a specific resolution of Congress,  2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF,” P.L. 107-40) passed on September 14, 2001.  The resolution provides in part:

Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.”

So the President has Congressional authorization to “use all necessary and appropriate force against…persons he determines . . . aided the [9-11] attacks or harbored such . . . persons in order to prevent any future acts of . . . terrorism. . . . (Emphasis supplied.)”  That would seem to include the power to hold as prisoner any Al Qaeda member for as long as necessary to “prevent any future acts of terrorism.”

The rights of the prisoners at Gitmo have been extensively litigated, with several cases reaching the Supreme Court.

article-2308616-1946876F000005DC-72_634x387

In Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S. 466 (2004), the Supreme Court expressly refrained from addressing whether the detainees are being held illegally or how that question should be decided.  It stated that it decided only that “the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive’s potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing” and sent the case back “for the District Court to consider in the first instance the merits of [the detainees’] claims.”

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Court ruled on the procedural rights of a U.S. citizen who was captured in Afghanistan.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had held that Hamdi was entitled to bring a habeas corpus action, but that, because he was captured on the battlefield, the federal courts should give complete deference to the government’s decision to hold him incommunicado in military custody.   The Supreme Court ruled that, by enacting the authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan, Congress had authorized Hamdi’s detention as an enemy combatant, but that he must be given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate, with the assistance of counsel, that he was in fact an innocent civilian. Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion implied that the required evidentiary hearing could be held in “an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal” rather than a federal court. 

Guantanamo-Camp-De_2521503b

As to the nature of the grounds for detention in Hamdi, Justice O’Connor stated that the authority to detain enemy soldiers in order to prevent their return to the battlefield to take up arms again has always been a “fundamental incident of waging war.”  The laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions, recognize that uniformed members of an enemy army may be detained as prisoners of war until the end of the hostilities without charges, trial, or access to counsel. The purpose of such detention is to prevent their return to the battlefield and does not depend upon any determination that they have committed any wrongdoing. 

The law of war also recognizes that individuals captured fighting in an armed conflict who have not abided by rules (such as wearing uniforms and carrying their arms openly) that are intended to allow their identification as enemy soldiers are not entitled to prisoner of war status.  Such “irregulars” may also be detained until the end of the conflict.  These irregulars do not have a uniformed soldier’s immunity for killing, and thus are subject to criminal prosecution for murder or battery, and (as seen in Quirin) they can be executed as spies or saboteurs.  These rules are consistent with both due process and military necessity.  However, the law of war provides no authority for detaining without charge individuals not found on the battlefield. 

No serious challenge to the concept of detaining enemy combatants has been mounted since the Hamdi case.  Other litigation involving the Gitmo detainees has focused on the procedures they may employ to challenge their status as enemy combatants.  Thus the principal issue in subsequent litigation is whether the prisoner is an enemy combatant or an innocent civilian, not whether he has committed a crime.

ss2005-05-17image

After the Hamdi case, the Department of Defense set up Combat Status Review Tribunals in 2004 to review the status of prisoners.  The rules of procedure for the tribunals allowed them to hear and consider hearsay evidence, and suspects were restricted from attempting to refute or learn about evidence against them that was classified, and evidence extracted using “enhanced interrogation techniques” was deemed admissible. 

Then, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that only Congress and not the Executive Branch has the Constitutional authority to set up military commissions to try captives. As to the merits of the case, the Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies to persons captured in the conflict with Al Qaeda.  That provided the prisoners a minimum baseline of protections, including protection from “passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, [and] affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”  The Court held that the military commissions were not “regularly constituted” because they deviated too far from the rules that apply to courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice without a satisfactory explanation of the need for departing from those rules. In particular, the Court decried commission rules allowing the exclusion of the defendant from attending portions of his trial or hearing some of the evidence against him.

In response, Congress then passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in October, creating Military Commissions similar to those set up by the Department of Defense and retaining most of the features that had concerned critics.  In addition, the Act also attempted to quash all pending habeas corpus submissions on behalf of the captives.

habeas_corpus_guantanamo--450-x--31670-20090329-1

In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to habeas corpus procedures extended to all the Guantanamo prisoners despite the fact that they were not confined in the United States and that the Military Commissions Act was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. 

Following the Boumediene decision, federal judges began closely scrutinizing the quality of evidence offered by the government, and government lawyers started losing cases. The Center for Policy and Research at Seton Hall University School of Law found that between 2008 and July 2010, Guantanamo detainees won 19 of 34 of their habeas challenges in federal court, indicating that in many cases, the government did not have evidence that would pass muster in trials conducted under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  

In 2010 the D. C. Circuit began requiring federal trial judges to stop submitting the government’s evidence to such rigorous examination. After July 2010 and the appeals court ruling, only one of twelve petitions was successful.  Thus, prior to July 2010, federal judges agreed with 56% of detainees who claimed there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention. After July 2010, detainees won only 8% of their cases.  The change is attributed to rulings by the federal appeals court, which reviewed 19 of the Guantánamo habeas cases and reversed or remanded every case in which the trial judge had ordered a detainee’s release.

article-1380290-004B2E6700000258-554_634x328

In December 2011, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012 (“2012 NDAA,” P.L. 112-81), intended to codify the present understanding of the detention authority conferred by the AUMF, as interpreted and applied by the Executive and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit).  The NDAA does not address many of the legal issues involving wartime detention that have been left unresolved by the Supreme Court. A Congressional Research Service Report on the subject lists the following unresolved issues: (1) full scope of the Executive’s detention authority; (2) circumstances in which U.S. citizens may be detained as enemy belligerents; (3) the degree to which noncitizens held at Guantanamo and other locations outside the United States are entitled to protections under the Constitution; (4) the authority of federal habeas courts to compel the release into the United States of detainees determined to be unlawfully held if the Executive cannot arrange their release to another country; (5) the ability of detainees to receive advance notice and challenge their proposed transfer to a foreign country; and (6) the appropriate procedural rules and standards of evidence.  According to Jennifer Elsea, the legislative attorney who authored the report, “The full implications of the 2012 NDAA upon judicial activity concerning wartime detention remains to be seen.”  (You can reference this report, which provides an annotated list of all important court rulings bearing on this issue, here.)

Guantanamo Bay

Conclusion:
 
It is misleading (although true) to say that the Guantanamo prisoners are being held without being charged with a crime.  Instead, they are being held as enemy combatants taken prisoner in a military action authorized by Congress.  Under the generally recognized laws of war [there are a few] and recent Supreme Court cases, that means that they are subject to incarceration until the end of hostilities.  In the case of Taliban fighters, that would be until the U.S. withdraws completely from Afghanistan.  In the case of Al Qaeda operatives, that might be the rest of their lives.  

Be that as it may, they are still entitled to some adjudication of their status even if that procedure does not meet Sixth Amendment standards.  Significantly, U.S. Army Regulation 190-8 provides for military hearings [called “Article 5 hearings”] for persons captured on the battlefield to enable them to demonstrate (1) that they are entitled to be held as prisoners of war or (2) that they are in fact innocent civilians.  The regulation gives a detainee the opportunity to testify and to secure the testimony of reasonably available witnesses, but does not afford access to counsel. After the first Gulf War, the military conducted nearly 1200 such hearings, and hundreds of detainees were released as innocent civilians. After the Afghanistan invasion, however, the U.S. government refused to hold a single Article 5 hearing because President Bush declared no one was entitled to POW status. The President’s declaration was criticized by many international law scholars, and, in my opinion, was unwarranted.  I believe it was reasonable for the President to determine that no detainee captured on the Afghan battlefield qualified as a POW:  after all, none were wearing a uniform.  Nevertheless, it was not reasonable to rule in advance that no detainee was an innocent civilian. That is a factual determination which can be made only on a case by case basis. 

Although it was, and perhaps still is, impractical to hold full blown trials on the status of every prisoner, the government could have saved itself a lot of criticism by holding Article 5 hearings.  The Supreme Court has attempted to rectify the situation by extending the right of habeas corpus to Guantanamo.  In addition, and contrary to the assertions of the Bush administration, the Court ruled that the prisoners are entitled to minimal protections afforded by Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

* * * * * * * * * * *

February 20, 1809 – Justice John Marshall Declares The Power of the Federal Judiciary Greater Than That of Individual States

On this day in history, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled in United States v. Peters (9 U.S. 115, 1809) that a state legislature could not annul a judgment of a federal court:

If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery; and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals.”

Chief Justice John Marshall

Chief Justice John Marshall

Governor Snyder of Pennsylvania, against whose interests the ruling was made, and who was an avid supporter of state-rights, sent a message to the Pennsylvania legislature saying he would call the militia if necessary to prevent enforcement of the Court’s decision. The legislature obviously concurred with him:

Resolved, That, from the construction the United States’ courts give to their powers, the harmony of the States, if they resist encroachments on their rights, will frequently be interrupted; and, if to prevent this evil, they should, on all occasions, yield to stretches of power, the reserved rights of the States will depend on the arbitrary power of the courts.

Resolved, That should the independence of the States, as secured by the Constitution, be destroyed, the liberties of the people in so extensive a country cannot long survive.” 21 Annals Cong. 2265-66 (1810)

The Governor sent a letter to President James Madison, expecting his support, but received none. In a letter from Madison to Snyder on April 13, 1809, the President wrote:

…the Executive of the United States is not only unauthorized to prevent the execution of a decree sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States, but is expressly enjoined, by statute, to carry into effect any such decree where opposition may be made to it.” (21 Annals of Cong. 2269, 1810)

President James Madison

President James Madison

On April 15, the Pennsylvania legislature voted to withdraw the militia.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers