Habeaus Corpas
The War against Terror as War against the Constitution
Jackson A. Niday, II
Abstract: This essay examines rhetorical dynamics in the 2004 US Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. News reports suggested the court split 8-1 or 6-3. However, case texts show substantive disagreements created a 4-2-2-1 split in the court. Moreover, while the justices on the bench split into four camps rather than two, those camps were not defined along ideological lines. This essay argues that pragmatism, the legal philosophy that held sway in the case, achieved practical expediency at the expense of judicial and constitutional coherency. In the end, the court found a majority through neither persuasion nor principled conviction but, rather, through reluctant compromise in order to achieve a partial resolution rather than none. In other words, argumentation failed and consensus followed from necessity rather than persuasion. The essay explores the question of whether constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties were violated in the ruling. Keywords: US Supreme Court, rhetoric, Hamdi, Rumsfeld, terrorism, illegal combatant, enemy combatant, Scalia, jeremiad ´ ´ ´ ´ Resume : Le present essai jette un coup d’oeil sur la rhetorique dynamique ˆ ´ du cas Hamdi c. Rumsfeld entendu par la Cour supreme americaine en 2004. ´ ´ ´ ´ ` Les rapports des medias ont suggere que la Cour avait statue a huit voix contre une ou six voix contre trois. Toutefois, les textes du cas indiquent ´ ˆ ´ ´ que des desaccords substantiels avaient entraıne une repartition des voix ` ´ ´ ´ de 4-2-2-1 a la Cour. En outre, bien que le juges sur le banc aient ete divises ˆ ´ ´ en quatre camps plutot que deux, ces camps n’etaient pas definis selon des ´ lignes ideologiques. Selon cet essai, le pragmatisme, la philosophie ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ juridique qui a predomine dans ce cas, a ete basee sur un opportunisme ` ´ ´ pratique aux depens de la coherence juridique et constitutionnelle. A la fin, ´ ´ ´ la Cour a statue en majorite
Jackson A. Niday, II
Abstract: This essay examines rhetorical dynamics in the 2004 US Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. News reports suggested the court split 8-1 or 6-3. However, case texts show substantive disagreements created a 4-2-2-1 split in the court. Moreover, while the justices on the bench split into four camps rather than two, those camps were not defined along ideological lines. This essay argues that pragmatism, the legal philosophy that held sway in the case, achieved practical expediency at the expense of judicial and constitutional coherency. In the end, the court found a majority through neither persuasion nor principled conviction but, rather, through reluctant compromise in order to achieve a partial resolution rather than none. In other words, argumentation failed and consensus followed from necessity rather than persuasion. The essay explores the question of whether constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties were violated in the ruling. Keywords: US Supreme Court, rhetoric, Hamdi, Rumsfeld, terrorism, illegal combatant, enemy combatant, Scalia, jeremiad ´ ´ ´ ´ Resume : Le present essai jette un coup d’oeil sur la rhetorique dynamique ˆ ´ du cas Hamdi c. Rumsfeld entendu par la Cour supreme americaine en 2004. ´ ´ ´ ´ ` Les rapports des medias ont suggere que la Cour avait statue a huit voix contre une ou six voix contre trois. Toutefois, les textes du cas indiquent ´ ˆ ´ ´ que des desaccords substantiels avaient entraıne une repartition des voix ` ´ ´ ´ de 4-2-2-1 a la Cour. En outre, bien que le juges sur le banc aient ete divises ˆ ´ ´ en quatre camps plutot que deux, ces camps n’etaient pas definis selon des ´ lignes ideologiques. Selon cet essai, le pragmatisme, la philosophie ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ juridique qui a predomine dans ce cas, a ete basee sur un opportunisme ` ´ ´ pratique aux depens de la coherence juridique et constitutionnelle. A la fin, ´ ´ ´ la Cour a statue en majorite
Cited: ACLU. ‘‘Supreme Court Says Courts Can Review Bush Administration Actions in Terrorism Fight.’’ 28 Jun. 2004. 21 Aug. 2005 < http://www.aclu. org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID ¼16019&c¼280>. Aristotle. The Politics. Penguin: New York, 1992. Bush, George W. ‘‘Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People’’ 20 Sept. 2001. 30 Aug. 2005 . Eberhart, Dave. ‘‘Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why.’’ Newsmax.com. 12 Oct. 2002. 25 Aug. 2005. < http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/11/194543.shtml>. Falk, Richard and David Krieger. ‘‘No War Against Iraq.’’ Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 23 Aug. 2002. 27 Aug. 2005 < http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/08/23_falk_no-war.htm>. Grieve, Tim. ‘‘Bush Gets Checked and Balanced.’’ Salon.com. 29 June 2004. 5 Sep. 2005 . James, William. Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth. Harvard: Cambridge UP, 1975, 1996. ‘‘Legal Pragmatism.’’ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 4 Aug. 2005. 5 Sep. 2005 . Lithwick, Dahlia. ‘‘Nevermind—Hamdi Wasn’t So Bad After All.’’ Slate.com. 23 Sept. 2004. 30 Jul. 2005 . ‘‘Strict constructivism.’’ Black’s Law Dictionary. 8th ed. St Paul, MN: Thompson, 2004 US Constitution. Article I, Sect. 9; Article III, Section 3; Fifth Amendment. 1 17 ¤ ¤ Revue canadienne d’etudes americaines 38 (2008)