Everything changed at 8:46 a.m. Everything changed at 9:03 a.m. Everything changed at 9:37 a.m. And everything changed at 10:03 a.m.
We all know what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. We all know that it was a tragedy that could have been avoided, if only our government had been stronger in pursuing international terrorists and if only our government agencies had stopped bickering over bureaucratic turf.
We who are among the living must never forget that day. We must never forget the pain, the agony, the rage and the thirst for justice. Just as the attacks on Pearl Harbor were the event that shaped our grandparents' generation, the attacks on the World Trade Center will shape ours.
Polluting the editorial pages of many American newspapers, including our very own Herald, are articles from civil liberties radicals, opining about President Bush's "imperial" wartime actions. Three common leftist complaints focus on the suspension of habeas corpus, the treatment of detainees and the NSA's program of warrantless wiretapping. With much pleasure, I will defend all three of the president's policies.
Many critics of the president have asserted that his "unprecedented" executive power violates the Constitution. Further they argue that the president's military order to detain citizens and non-citizens as "enemy combatants" is a clear breach of that sacred document.
I scoff at the charge that the president's executive power is unprecedented. I wonder if the president's critics are familiar with the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in several states a mere two weeks after the war began. He even ignored an appellate court decision spearheaded by Chief Justice Roger Taney, Ex Parte Merryman, which stated, "the president ... cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize a military officer to do it." However, the court did rule that Congress may suspend habeas corpus, thereby reaffirming a precedent that had been set in 1807 by Ex Parte Bollman.
However, Bush, like Lincoln, was forced to suspend habeas corpus due to extraordinary circumstances. For, as Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution declares, "(t)he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The attacks of Sept. 11 amounted to invasion. Bush did what was necessary to defend the nation at that moment of vulnerability. Though the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld eventually overruled the president's suspension of the writ, Congress vindicated him with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which suspends habeas corpus for unlawful enemy combatants.
As commander-in-chief, Bush exercised due executive authority in a time of domestic uncertainty. Alexander Hamilton, a strong advocate of executive authority and a framer of our Constitution, would have been proud.
On the matter of detainees, Bush is to be commended for his handling of suspected and confirmed terrorists, the Abu Ghraib scandal notwithstanding. If anything, his administration's policies have been too gentle, but they certainly have not violated international law. Let me elaborate.
To begin with, terrorist detainees are not prisoners of war. They are not "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;" they do not "(have) a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;" they do not "(carry) arms openly;" and they do not "(conduct) their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." In order to be a prisoner of war, according to Common Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, a prisoner must meet all four characteristics. Terrorist detainees should not be stripped of all rights, but they are not entitled to the courtesies afforded honorable combatants.
Second, the rules of war enumerated by the Convention apply only to conflicts "not of an international character," according to Common Article 3. The war on terror is, by nature, an international conflict.
Finally, this is a different kind of war. Rapid intelligence is essential in thwarting terrorist attacks and defeating terrorism. Sometimes we have to deprive terrorists of sleep, waterboard them or offend them in order to get intelligence that can then be used to save lives. Some may judge these tactics "humiliating" or "degrading," and they are entitled to that view. However, they should note that those terms are highly subjective. For instance, if a woman soldier interrogates a conservative Islamist, he would find such treatment to be "humiliating" and "degrading." Would we then be violating international law if we hired female interrogators?
Another key element of the president's anti-terrorist agenda that has come under criticism is the NSA's program of warrantless wiretapping. This program is legitimate because both sides of the wiretapped telephone call are not located in the United States. One party in each wiretapped phone call is always foreign. I do not want to patronize my readers by going into the chief purpose of a nation-state - securing the borders from outside intruders - but it must be recognized that government's duty to defend the nation concerns any form of intrusion, whether physical or electronic. Must the executive branch get court approval to defend the nation against invaders? Especially considering that 3,000 innocent American lives were already lost because of government timidity, we must unashamedly do what is necessary.
In an article for the Weekly Standard, Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield defended the president's program by writing, "To counter enemies, a republic must have and use force adequate to a greater threat than comes from criminals, who may be quite patriotic if not public-spirited, and have nothing against the law when applied to others besides themselves. But enemies, being extra-legal, need to be faced with extra-legal force."
Bush has used that force. It is imperative that he continue to use it.
Sean Quigley '10 used to dunk fellow students' heads in the toilet, and they talked.
