All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime

That Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist's analysis of civil liberties in wartime is entitled All the Laws but One hints where he comes down on the subject. Rehnquist acknowledges and criticizes the excesses of civil liberties violations in wartime--during World War I, for example, editorial cartoonists critical of the government were prosecuted for sedition. But he defends the need to curtail some liberties in emergency situations--including, surprisingly, some instances of the evacuation and relocation of Japanese Americans that took place during World War II. Rehnquist's style can be disjointed at times--as when cursory biographical information of key players seems to have been tacked on to fill out the otherwise slim volume--but the historical analysis of martial law and other Civil War controversies, which comprises the overwhelming majority of the book, remains fascinating. --Ted Frank

---

All Customer Reviews
Average Customer Review:
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Writ of Habeas Corpus / Civil Rights in War Time, 2008-06-24
This is a brief book written by the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist. If you want a brief overview of U.S. civil rights and their suspension during war, this book is for you. It is a short, but interesting history, and it cites all the main cases up to its time (i.e., before the latest Iraq War and the War on Terror).

The book discusses Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War and the suspension of the ability to obtain a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the famous suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus). A Writ of Habeas Corpus (which generally translated means a "writing to bring me the body"). It is generally the ability to go into U.S. federal court and have the judge issue the writ to government (including, the military) to bring a prisoner before the court in order for the court to be able to determine if his or her detention is legal. This provides the person detained with the ability to have his detention reviewed by a court to determine if the detention is legal or not. Thus, this is one of the most important rights a U.S. citizen has; it is a right that allows him or her to go before a judge in order to protect all his or her civil and other rights. It provides legal review against illegal or arbitrary detention, etc.

Among other topics, the book also discusses FDR's and the U.S. government's internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese origin or descent, generally those residing in California and other western U.S. states, into internment camps, during World War II.

Thus, this book is a good, interesting, history of the topic of U.S. civil rights during war and national emergency and thus is relevant to today. It is good book for attorneys, civil rights activists, as well as people interested in their rights as citizens of the U.S. In time of war and emergency, civil rights are often violated, we as citizens need to be on guard.

The ancient Roman Senate, in times of certain critical emergencies, including some wars, used to appoint a "dictator" - usually for a six-month term, which term was sometimes renewed. It gave the dictator power, and he was free from following certain laws (most laws) in order to remedy the emergency. This is where we get the term "dictator". The U.S., thankfully, does not have this system, and we cannot allow anyone to say that an emergency suspends the rights of its citizens or gives our leadership power free from the operation of law. The U.S.'s founding fathers studied Roman history (as well as Greek), and learned from it. There is no provision for a dictator to be appointed. We have a tri-partite system that checks itself. However, it requires the vigilance of the courts, but most importantly, the vigilance of its citizens. You can read Rehnquist's book to see if you agree with Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and the courts, and whether you believe they were right or wrong, or whether there should have been more pressure from ordinary U.S. citizens.



0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Huge Disappointment, 2008-05-23
Chief Justice William Rehnquist's "All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime" is one of those books that doesn't live up to its potential. Rehnquist is a brilliant legal mind but wrote a mediocre, themeless history, focusing almost exclusively on famous Civil War cases (170 of 225 pages are on the Civil War). The balance of the book covers World War I and World War II, and he omits any coverage of pre-Civil War legal case or legal cases during non-declared wars.

At times, Rehnquist seems more interested in the history of the times than the cases. The book begins by describing Lincoln's difficult journey to Washington, D.C., and focuses on too many other tangential or irrelevant background facts such as General Burnsides' career, the professional experience of every Supreme Court justice in each case discussed, or the demographics of the Midwest during the Civil War. But there is little legal analysis or discussion of the legal aspects of the cases he covers; instead, Rehnquist is more interested in the personalities and their actions.

While focusing almost the entire book on the Civil War, Rehnquist covers WW I in one short chapter (despite the plethora of egregious laws enacted during WWI) and only discusses the Japanese internment cases in WWII. He discusses the important WWII Quirin German saboteurs case in less than one page, and that as part of his lengthy discussion of the Milligan Civil War case. There is no context for the Civil War cases, no discussion of the Alien and Sedition Acts, or any other pre-Civil War legal cases.

Finally, Rehnquist never develops a theme in the book, nor does he offer much insight or analysis into the cases. Although he does criticize a couple of decisions, and in his final chapter he tries to tie many of the cases together, this book is heavy on history and light on legal analysis. I expected an informed analysis of civil liberties during wartime, but instead I got a light history of some popular Civil War legal cases.



1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

"A citizen is a person owing allegiance to some organized government, & not a person in an idealized 'state of nature...'", 2006-09-12
"Without question the government's authority to engage in conduct that infringes civil liberty is greatest in time of DECLARED war" (emphasis added). But what exactly is meant by the notion of civil liberty? "It is not simply 'liberty' but CIVIL liberty of which we speak" (emphasis in Rehnquist's original). "The word 'civil', in turn, is derived from the Latin word 'civis', which means 'citizen.' A citizen is a person owing allegiance to some organized government, and not a person in an idealized 'state of nature' free from any governmental restraint." "This book,' Rehnquist states, is "limited to cases of declared war, together with the Civil War" (the equivalent of a declared war---and takes up 170 pages of this book; but excludes all others wherein Congress never specficially declared war, whether Congress authorized the use of force or not). Rehnquist: "There are marked differences between the government's conduct during the Civil War, during World War I, and during World War II. One of the main differences is that in the Civil War, the Lincoln administration relied on presidential authority or on the orders of military commanders to curtail civil liberties, while in the 20th century wars, the executive branch resorted much more to laws passed by Congress." Rehnquist concludes that "the President may do many things in carrying out a congressional directive that he may not be able to do on his own." But, regardless from the point of view of governmental authority under the Constitution "there remains a sense that there is some truth to the maxim 'Inter arma silent leges,' at least in the purely descriptive sense." "Inter arms silent leges" is latin for 'In the face of arms, the law falls mute,' or 'In time of war the laws are silent.' Hence "the reluctance of courts to decide a case against the government on an issue of national security during a war." Thus a main point of this work by William Rehnquist (written in 1998) is that a declaration of war makes even more of a difference during time of hostilities. (And it is why Tony Blankley in his book "The West's Last chance" has called for a declaration of war against Islamists.) "In any civilized society the most important task is achieving a proper balance between freedom and order. In wartime, reason and history both suggest that this balance shifts to some degree in favor of order---in favor of the government's ability to deal with conditions that threaten the national well-being. It simply cannot be said, therefore, that in every conflict between individual liberty and governmental authority the former should prevail" (Rehnquist's other main theme). As Lincoln asked in a message to a special session of Congress, July 4, 1861: "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" In support of this view Rehnquist quotes Judge Learned Hand who opined that "A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only the savage few...." Cheers


5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

Brilliant and prescient, 2005-05-30
Rehnquist wrote this before Sept 11, but it is a book that has added meaning today. Mostly the Chief Justice focuses on the suspecnsion of Habeas Corpus by ABraham Lincoln and its ramifications for Civil Liberties and the abuse of them during war time. This is not a lively account, but it is accurate, well thought out and makes for interesting reading, having added strength of authority by nature of its author.

Seth J. Frantzman


4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

An Informative Read, 2005-04-29
I rated this book at 4 stars, but probably would have given it 3.5 if I had that option. It is a good book -- better than average -- but is less than it could have been.

Rehnquist examines the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus during three periods of war in American history: the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Roughly 2/3 of the book is given to the Civil War issues, and one senses that the other two sections were added primarily to fill out the work. Rehnquist does a fine job of setting up the relevant historical background of each of these eras and of outlining the opposing viewpoints considered in the Supreme Court cases that resulted. At times, it is difficult to discern Rehnquist's own opinion regarding the events and decisions he describes. In the end, however, he stakes out a moderate position, acknowledging that at times the government had justifiable reason for exercising a Constitutional option to suspend habeus corpus while also arguing that in many of these instances authorities had overstepped their bounds.

The main criticism of the work is its cursory nature. What Rehnquist gives the reader is good. One only wishes he had given us more.

Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.