If you were listening to Morning Edition on NPR a couple of days ago, you had a remarkable opportunity to hear the Banality of Evil demonstrated concretely for you, within your own earshot. I’m talking about Steve Inskeep’s interview with John Yoo, a former lawyer for the Bush administration. Here are some of his remarks on the recently-passed Star Chamber law. I’ll reprint them, but you really must listen to Yoo to understand it fully–there is no way to convey the sheer blandness of Yoo’s plain-spoken, calm explanation and apologetics for the most despicable sort of Stasi-statism.

Inskeep: Now [if you’re a citizen accused of being an enemy combatant] you can challenge your status in court, but if you lose that, are you entitled to a trial, as a U.S. citizen?

Yoo: No, and that’s something that the Supreme Court made clear two years ago, is that if you are an enemy combatant, there is no constitutional requirement that you get a criminal trial. You can be held until hostilities are over.

Of course, the rules for imprisoning enemy soldiers were developed in a context where hostilities meant wars between two or more particular States, which had declared beginnings and definite endings. How long will it take for these hostilities, which are part of an undeclared global war waged against a vaguely-specified enemy with no identifiable central authority, and pursued with no defined conditions for victory, for surrender, or for truce, to count as over? But we’d best hurry along. Now that you are being held, quite possibly until you die in prison….

Inskeep: Now what if you’re a non-citizen, what happens then? Same scenario. The government has some suspicions about you, they think you’ve done something, they arrest you, they say you’re an enemy combatant, you disagree. What can you do?

Yoo: Well, first, according to the law passed by Congress last week, I’d have the right to go to what’s called a combatant status review tribunal, which is set up by the Defense Department, where I’d have a hearing, where I could challenge the evidence against me, that I’m an enemy combatant.

Oh, well then. That sounds reasonable enough.

Inskeep: –Wait, let me stop you for a second. When you go to that hearing, do you get a lawyer?

Yoo: I believe you don’t get a lawyer. You have representation from an officer, but not necessarily one who’s a military lawyer.

Oh.

Inskeep: And when you say that you could challenge your detention, how would you gather evidence to show that you’re not an enemy combatant?

Yoo: Well, first you can tell your own story, and also I think you would have the abliity to see unclassified evidence against you, and to challenge it.

Um.

Inskeep: You said unclassified evidence. So classified evidence, that the government says, We have evidence against you and we can’t share it with you, that’s the end of the story?

Yoo: I believe so. I believe that classified evidence is not provided to the defendant. It’s not even provided under the military commissions, or often in civilian trials, even, for terrorism or spying.

Well.

Inskeep: If you’re an enemy combatant, who decides if you ever get a full-blown trial–a military commission trial as it’s been called?

Yoo: That’s ultimately up to the President. I think it’s still up to the President and the Secretary of Defense who’s going to be tried by a military commission.

Inskeep: The government will decide that when it’s in the government’s best interest, a trial will be held, and when it’s not, the person will be held without a trial?

Yoo: That’s right.

Full stop.

Then Inskeep asks the next question.

Inskeep: Do you think it’s inevitable that some people who are innocent are going to end up in this system, spending years and years at Guantanmo Bay?

Yoo: There’s no perfect system. I agree, Steve, there’s always the chance that there will be people who are detained who are not enemy combatants. The same is true of our criminal justice system. There’s no doubt that we have people in the criminal justice system who are innocent. That’s why we have all these processes, that’s why we have all these appeals levels, is to try to correct any mistakes that were made, and prevent errors.

Inskeep: You said there’s always the chance. I mean, isn’t a certainty, especially given that some cases have already been found, to be almost indisputably cases of people who were innocent being held at Guantanamo for a long time, or held elsewhere.

Yoo: I would say, look, in wartime, there’s always going to be people who might be picked up. It’s also the case in wartime that you have mistaken targets attacked and people killed by accident. But my only point is that you also have that in the criminal justice system. No system is going to be perfect.

Inskeep: Do you, as a lawyer who’s worked in the Bush administration, and obviously thought about these isues, think that this law does everything possible to prevent error?

Yoo: Well, I think we could probably do a lot more, but it would be a lot more expensive. I think what we have here is something that’s very close to the civilian system.

Inskeep: Are you saying it would be too expensive to give habeas corpus protection to non-citizens?

Yoo: Yeah, I think that’s what Congress decided when it passed this law last week, is that, you could have the possibility of hundreds and hundreds of habeas corpus proceedings, and they do impose a cost. They impose a cost on our judicial system. They impose a cost on our government, on our military. Think about… you’d have to pull in witnesses in from abroad, you’d have the cost of potentially releasing classified information… all this process does have a cost on our system. It’s not free.

Inskeep: John Yoo is author of War by Other Means, which is out this week.

Good night, and good luck.

No, this hasn’t anything in particular to do with anniversaries.

The Court of Star Chamber was a court of law which evolved from meetings of the king’s royal council. Although its roots go back to the medieval period, the court only became powerful as a separate entity during the reign of Henry VII. In 1487 the court became a judicial body separate from the king’s council, with a mandate to hear petitions of redress.

In a sense the court was a supervisory body; its members oversaw the operations of lower courts. As well, its members could hear cases by direct appeal. Members of the court were either privy councillors or judges drawn from the courts of common law.

The mandate of the court expanded under the Tudors to include instances of public disorder. Judges would receive petitions involving property rights, public corruption, trade and government administration, and disputes arising from land enclosures. Under the leadership of Thomas Wolsey and Archbishop Cranmer, the Court of Star Chamber became a political weapon for bringing actions against opponents to the policies of Henry VIII, his ministers and his Parliament. Although the court was initially a court of appeal, Henry VIII and his councillors WoIsey and Cranmer encouraged plaintiffs to bring their cases directly to the Star Chamber, bypassing the lower courts entirely.

Although the court could order torture, prison, and fines, it did not have the power to impose the death sentence. Under the Tudors Star Chamber sessions were public.

The power of the court of Star Chamber grew considerably under the Stuarts, and by the time of Charles I it had become a byword for misuse and abuse of power by the king and his circle. James I and his son Charles used the court to examine cases of sedition, which, in practice, meant that the court could be used to suppress opposition to royal policies. It became used to try nobles too powerful to be brought to trial in the lower courts. Court sessions were held in secret, with no right of appeal, and punishment was swift and severe to any enemy of the crown.

… Finally, in 1641 the Long Parliament abolished the hated Star Chamber, though its name survives still to designate arbitrary, secretive proceedings in opposition to personal rights and liberty.

— Tudor Place: The Court of Star Chamber (1487-1641)

Although the Court of Star Chamber did not itself have the power to order torture for gathering evidence, other commissions under the power of the Crown did, and testimony extracted under torture was often used against prisoners brought before the Court. The power of imprisonment included the power to throw convicts into prison at the King’s pleasure, to remain incarcerated indefinitely as long as the King wanted.

Mr. Hallam, who wrote most authoritatively of the English Constitution said that the course of proceeding in the Star Chamber seems to have nearly resembled that of the chancery. … The Star Chamber was established to secure good government. … The Star Chamber’s powers were directed towards preventing riots and unlawful assemblies. … In the Star Chamber there was no indictment. … In the Star Chamber there were no witnesses, and the evidence was produced in writing and read to the council. … In the Star Chamber there was no trial by jury. … In the Star Chamber the council could inflict any punishment short of death, and frequently sentenced objects of its wrath to the pillory, to whipping and to the cutting off of ears. … With each embarrassment to arbitrary power the Star Chamber became emboldened to undertake further usurpation. … The Star Chamber finally summoned juries before it for verdicts disagreeable to the government, and fined and imprisoned them. It spread terrorism among those who were called to do constitutional acts. It imposed ruinous fines. It became the chief defense of Charles against assaults upon those usurpations which cost him his life. From the beginning it defied Magna Charta in denying jury-trial, in forcing men to incriminate themselves, or what is scarcely less repugnant to reason, to manifest their innocence. … At last with the inhuman punishment administered by it to Prynn, Burton and Bastwick, the people long cultivated by the constitutional lawyers of England procured its abolition. Can the chancery courts of this country expect to escape appropriate discipline when the time shall arrive that the eyes of the people shall see that these courts have habitually over-ridden the laws of the land?

…

… For nothing relaxes objection and silences criticism upon usurpation so much as the creation of a condition which strengthens the Must-do-something policy. Nothing has helped the employer so much in the plainly lawless and forbidden use of the writ of injunction as that condition of violence which he so loudly deplores. …

— Edgar Lee Masters (1904): The New Star Chamber

The past is never dead. It’s not even past.

— William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun

Here’s the latest from the Great Patriotic War on Terror:

WASHINGTON — Adding fire to the political debate over national security, a bleak government intelligence report says the war in Iraq has become a cause celebre for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the United States that’s likely to get worse before it gets better.

A four-page summary from an April National Intelligence Estimate — released Tuesday on President George W. Bush’s orders — offers little reason for optimism over the next five years. Despite serious damage to Al Qaeda leadership, it concludes, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.

If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide, it says.

…

Bush ordered the release after portions were leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post; both papers published stories about it Sunday.

Some people have guessed what’s in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake, Bush said Tuesday.

I strongly disagree, he said, calling those views naive. With portions of the report public, everybody can draw their own conclusions, he said.

— Detroit Free Press (2006-09-27): Terror report fans flames as election draws near

It would be a logical fallacy to dismiss George Bush’s argument based on George Bush’s own failings. Arguments can and should be evaluated on their own merits, independently of your assessment of the person who makes them. But I will say that the spectacle of George Walker Bush — after the grave and gathering danger, after Mission Accomplished, after stuff happens, after we were all wrong, after the past three years of major turning points and final throes — turning around and chiding critics of his Iraq policy for naiveté about the situation on the ground simply beggars belief.

I’d also like to note that declassifying a cherry-picked selection of portions of the report for public release may not be the best way for the Decider to dispel politicized spin on selective leaks, or to encourage everybody [to] draw their own conclusions.

Further reading:

• This Modern World (2006-07-31): You were wrong about everything. You were wrong every step of the way.
• GT 2004-02-08: What you mean We?

Here’s part of a recent reply to my post on the use of the phrase moral relativism. The original post discussed a controversy over whether or not Harry Truman should be called a terrorist for knowingly and willingly slaughtering civilians — orders of magnitude more civilians than Osama bin Laden (et al.) slaughtered in the attack on the World Trade Center — for the sake of military and political strategy. Here’s how Jamie DeVries tried to make the case that we cannot draw any moral parallels between the two figures:

Here is the question we ought to ask ourselves: )Did Truman have the ability and power to incinerate each and every Japanese citizen, even after a surrender was declared? The answer is: yes. Did he or the U.S have the WILL to do so? The answer: of course not.

Well, that was mighty white of him.

In all seriousness, how much lower could the bar possibly be set for rulers of the Allied governments in World War II? Is there absolutely any atrocity in the name of unconditional surrender that the Court Intellectuals and their countless acolytes would not rush to defend, or at least to excuse? I wish this were merely a bit of pointed rhetoric. But actually I’m asking it as a serious, open question.

Further reading:

• Dulce Et Decorum Est (2006-09-16): Mozi on war and the rulers of the world

Here’s the rules:

1. Pick a quote of one or more paragraphs from something you’ve read, in print, over the course of the past week. (It should be something you’ve actually read, and not something that you’ve read a page of just in order to be able to post your favorite quote.)

2. Avoid commentary above and beyond a couple sentences, more as context-setting or a sort of caption for the text than as a discussion.

3. Quoting a passage doesn’t entail endorsement of what’s said in it. You may agree or you may not. Whether you do isn’t really the point of the exercise anyway.

Here’s the quote. This is from Stranger in the Village, the closing essay in James Baldwin’s Notes of a Native Son (1955). Baldwin has been discussing the time that he spent writing in a tiny Swiss town, which he was the first Black person ever to visit, and thence the difference in the race question in Europe and America.

When one considers the history of the Negro in America it is of the greatest importance to recognize that the moral beliefs of a person, or a people, are never really as tenuous as life–which is not moral–very often causes them to appear; these create for them a frame of reference and a necessary hope, the hope being that when life has done its worst they will be enabled to rise above themselves and triumph over life. Life would scarcely be bearable if this hope did not exist. Again, even when the worst has been said, to betray a belief is not by any means to have put oneself beyond its power; the betrayal of a belief is not the same thing as ceasing to believe. If this were not so there would be no moral standards in the world at all. Yet one must also recognize that morality is based on ideas and that all ideas are dangerous–dangerous because ideas can only lead to action and where the action leads no man can say. And dangerous in this respect: that confronted with the impossibility of remaining faithful to one’s beliefs, and the equal impossibility of becoming free of them, one can be driven to the most inhuman excesses. The ideas on which American beliefs are based are not, though Americans often seem to think so, ideas which originated in America. They came out of Europe. And the establishment of democracy on the American continent was scarcely as radical a break with the past as was the necessity, which Americans faced, of broadening this concept to include black men.

This was, literally, a hard necessity. It was impossible, for one thing, for Americans to abandon their beliefs, not only because these beliefs alone seemed able to justify the sacrifices they had endured and the blood they had spilled, but also because these beliefs afforded them their only bulwark against a moral chaos as absolute as the physical chaos of the continent in which Americans found themselves, these beliefs threatened an idea which, whether or not one likes to think so, is the very warp and woof of the heritage of the West, the idea of white supremacy.

Americans have made themselves notorious by the shrillness and the brutality with which they have insisted on this idea, but they did not invent it; and it has escaped the world’s notice that those very excesses of which Americans have been guilty imply a certain, unprecedented uneasiness over the idea’s life and power, if not, indeed, the idea’s validity. The idea of white supremacy rests simply on the fact that white men are the creators of civilization (the present civilization, which is the only one that matters; all previous civilizations are simply contributions to our own) and are therefore civilization’s guardians and defenders. Thus it was impossible for Americans to accept the black man as one o themselves, for to do so was to jeopardize their status as white men. But not so to accept him was to deny his human reality, his human weight and complexity, and the strain of denying the overwhelmingly undeniable forced Americans into rationalizations so fantastic that they approached the pathological.

At the root of the American Negro problem is the necessity of the American white man to find a way of living with the Negro in order to be able to live with himself. And the history of this problem can be reduced to the means used by Americans–lynch law and law, segregation and legal acceptance, terrorization and concession–either to come to terms with this necessity, or to find a way around it, or (most usually) to find a way of doing both these things at once. The resulting spectacle, at once foolish and dreadful, led someone to make the quite accurate observation that the Negro-in-America is a form of insanity which overtakes white men.

In this long battle, a battle by no means finished, the unforseeable effects of which will be felt by many future generations, the white man’s motive was the protection of his identity; the black man was motivated by the need to establish an identity. And despite the terrorization which the Negro in America endured and endures sporadically until today, despite the cruel and totally inescapable ambivalence of his status in his country, the battle for his identity has long ago been won. He is not a visitor to the West, but a citizen there, an American; as American as the Americans who despise him, the Americans who fear him, the Americans who love him–the Americans who became less than themselves, or rose to be greater than themselves by virtue of the fact that the challenge he represented was inescapable. He is perhaps the only black man in the world whose relationship to white men is more terrible, more subtle, and more meaningful than the relationship of bitter possessed to uncertain possessor. His survival depended, and his development depends, on his ability to turn his peculiar status in the Western world to his own advantage and, it may be, to the very great advantage of that world. It remains for him to fashion out of his experience that which will give him sustenance, and a voice.

The cathedral at Chartres, I have said, says something to the people of this village which it cannot say to me; but it is important to understand that, this cathedral says something to me which it cannot say to them. Perhaps they are struck by the power of the spires, the glory of the windows; but they have known God, after all, longer than I have known him, and in a different way, and I am terrified by the slippery bottomless well to be found in the crypt, down which heretics were hurled to death, and by the obscene, inescapable gargoyles jutting out of the stone and seeming to say that God and the devil can never be divorced. I doubt that the villagers think of the devil when they face a cathedral because they have never been identified with the devil. But I must accept the status which myth, if nothing else, gives me in the West before I can hope to change the myth.

Yet, if the American Negro has arrived at his identity by virtue of the absoluteness of his estrangement from his past, American white men still nourish the illusion that there is some means of recovering the European innocence, of returning to a state in which black men do not exist. This is one of the greatest errors Americans can make. The identity they fought so hard to protect has, by virtue of that battle, undergone a change: Americans are as unlike any other white people in the world as it is possible to be. I do not think, for example, that it is too much to suggest that the American vision of the world-which allows so little reality, generally speaking, for any of the darker forces in human life, which tends until today to paint moral issues in glaring black and white-owes a great deal to the battle waged by Americans to maintain between themselves and black men a human separation which could not be bridged. It is only now beginning to be borne in on us-very faintly, it must be admitted, very slowly, and very much against our will–that this vision of the world is dangerously inaccurate, and perfectly useless. For it protects our moral high-mindedness at the terrible expense of weakening our grasp of reality. People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.

The time has come to realize that the interracial drama acted out on the American continent has not only created a new black man, it has created a new white man, too. No road whatever will lead Americans back to the simplicity of this European village where white men still have the luxury of looking on me as a stranger. I am not, really, a stranger any longer for any American alive. One of the things that distinguishes Americans from other people is that no other people has ever been so deeply involved in the lives of black men, and vice versa. This fact faced, with all its implications, it can be seen that the history of the American Negro problem is not merely shameful, it is also something of an achievement. For even when the worst has been said, it must also be added that the perpetual challenge posed by this problem was always, somehow, perpetually met. It is precisely this black-white experience which may prove of indispensable value to us in the world we face today. This world is white no longer, and it will never be white again.

–James Baldwin, Stranger in the Village (1953), in Notes of a Native Son (1955), pp. 171-175