Politics & Policy

Too Much Disbelief to Suspend

How would the Daily Planet report Hamdan?

It is a standard element in the art of fiction that the reader of a story (or the viewer of a movie or play) is called upon to engage in the “suspension of disbelief” — to still the voice whispering “preposterous” in the mind’s ear, to entertain the unlikely and even the fantastic, so long as there is some element of internal consistency, plot logic, and verisimilitude, this last understood not as real-world plausibility but as conformity with reasonable expectations, within the world conjured by the artist, about events, characters’ actions and motivations, and so forth.

#ad#So, in the six decades since the invention of Superman, the reader or viewer has been asked, for the sake of the story and its message, to suspend disbelief in the planet Krypton, in the hero’s speed, strength, invulnerability, X-ray vision, and so on.  Little things can undermine verisimilitude: Accept everything else about him, and isn’t it just too much that none of Clark Kent’s friends notices that he looks just like Superman with glasses on?

Whether it’s little things or big ones, the fiction of Justice John Paul Stevens needs a lot of work before most American citizens — if they had the patience to wade through his 73-page novella masquerading as the plurality opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — would accept the tale and take its message to heart.

Here are the things in which the reader is required to suspend disbelief, in order to take Stevens’s “opinion” seriously as a story of law and war:

‐That when Congress enacted a statute in December 2005 providing that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider” habeas-corpus petitions from detainees at Guantanamo, without exception or qualification, it really meant to include an exception that all detainees whose lawyers were clever enough to file petitions before the statute’s enactment could still press their claims, and the Court will act on that exception that Congress surely intended but did not say.

‐That when the same law gave “exclusive jurisdiction” for the review of detainees’ status, and of their trials by military commissions, to a federal appellate court, it didn’t really mean that either.

‐That Congress’s explicit, unquestioning references in this law to those military commissions and their trials did not indicate a legislative approval of the president’s orders creating those commissions and their trial procedures.

‐That the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress, when it gave the president power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against the enemies who attacked us on September 11, 2001, was intended to give no authority to the president to try combatants, captured by U.S. forces, for violations of the laws of war.

‐That no overt acts undertaken by Osama bin Laden and his gang prior to September 11, 2001, can be prosecuted as violations of the laws of war, since such acts occurred before the commencement of a state of war.

‐That conspiracy to violate the laws of war is not itself, and never has been, an offense that can be charged as a violation of the laws of war.

‐That the previous statement represents a fixed principle because, unlike the Constitution, which is infinitely malleable at the hands of the Court, the common law of war is frozen in place and cannot be adjusted by military officers and their civilian superiors to the changing circumstances of modern war against terrorists.

‐That an unspecific reference, in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to “the laws of war” as governing trials before military commissions, implicitly incorporates any terms of the Geneva Conventions that might be brought to bear on such trials, making those Geneva principles enforceable individual rights in American courts even though Geneva by its own terms contemplates no such enforceability.

‐That by virtue of this move, military commissions are to be condemned as not “regularly constituted” under Geneva, despite their recognition in American law and their active, orderly, rule-bound use in American wars since 1847.

‐That under Geneva, our conflict with al Qaeda is not “international” in character, because al Qaeda is not a nation, nor was it ever an auxiliary force in support of a national regime in Afghanistan.

‐That departures, in the military commissions, from some trial procedures used in courts martial, even though such departures are permitted by the law where abiding by those procedures strikes the president as not “practicable,” are to be condemned because the president did not say “Simon says” and declare any particular court-martial procedures “impracticable.”

‐That anyway, if he had said “Simon says,” it doesn’t matter because the Supreme Court gets to say what is “practicable” and “impracticable” in time of war.

‐That the Court cannot think of any departures from court-martial procedures for which there is any “evident need” dictated by “military necessity,” which last is another thing the Court knows better than the president and his military and intelligence advisers.

‐That it is unthinkable that there could ever be a need to conceal from the terrorist unlawful combatant defendant, on trial before a military commission, what is the precise provenance of the evidence brought to bear against him, even when it is known to his appointed military defense lawyer who has a “secret” security clearance.

I think I’m going to go see the new Superman movie.  There I might find a story I can pretend to believe for two hours.

 – Matthew J. Franck is professor and chairman of political science at Radford University, and a regular contributor to NRO’s Bench Memos blog. 

Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey.

Most Popular

White House

The Mueller Report Should Shock Our Conscience

I've finished reading the entire Mueller report, and I must confess that even as a longtime, quite open critic of Donald Trump, I was surprised at the sheer scope, scale, and brazenness of the lies, falsehoods, and misdirections detailed by the Special Counsel's Office. We've become accustomed to Trump making up ... Read More

What’s So Great about Western Civilization

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter), One of the things I tell new parents is something that was told to me when my daughter still had that ... Read More
Film & TV

Jesus Is Not the Joker

Actors love to think they can play anything, but the job of any half-decent filmmaker is to tell them when they’re not right for a part. If the Rock wants to play Kurt Cobain, try to talk him out of it. Adam Sandler as King Lear is not a great match. And then there’s Joaquin Phoenix. He’s playing Jesus ... Read More

Screw York Yankees

You are dead to me. You are a collection of Fredos. The cock has crowed, you pathetic sniveling jerks. The team I have rooted for since 1965, when I first visited the House that Ruth Built, where I hawked peanuts and ice cream a lifetime ago, watched countless games (Guidry striking out 18!), has gotten so ... Read More
White House

The Problem with the Mueller Report

So much for collusion. The media conversation has now officially moved on from the obsession of the last two years to obstruction of justice. That’s because the first volume of the voluminous Mueller report, the half devoted to what was supposed to be the underlying crime of a Trump conspiracy with Russia, ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Trump Can’t Cry ‘No Fair’

If I may jump in, I take Charlie’s point and I think he’s largely correct. I also think David is correct. There’s not that much of a contradiction in that because I think to some extent they’re talking about different things. And this reflects a larger frustration I have with many of the ... Read More