Positive Liberty

Dean Esmay has a post here with a political philosophy question coming out of my favorite TV series, Battlestar Galactica. (Thanks to the Unofficial Battlestar Blog for the pointer). Here are my thoughts on the legitimacy of arresting President Roslin.

We can’t really answer this question, I don’t think, at least without knowing more about the Constitution of the Twelve Colonies. If it were anything like the Constitution of the United States, the answer would be obvious that Commander Adama is in the wrong, since the President would be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and therefore superior in rank. But we know from early on in the series that Adama and Roslin have an agreement that “military decisions” are solely Adama’s to make. Roslin agreed to this, probably because she lacked the military power to refuse; it was way too hard a bargain, especially given that “military decisions” is not easily definable, and I would say that Roslin sending Starbuck on a secret mission is arguably not a military decision (although it interferes with military decisions). But aside from that, is such an agreement legitimate or enforceable? And that depends, at least, on what sort of constitution the Twelve Colonies have.

Nothing inherent in political philosophy forbids the separation of the military and civil powers, so far as I know. But the whole problem demonstrates the absolute importance of subordinating the military to the civil power. As Hamilton writes in Federalist 74, “[o]f all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.” In fact, among the charges against George III in the Declaration of Independence is that he attempted to subvert the principle that the civil power should control the military. This principle has become so much a part of our own Constitution that it is often said to be unthinkable that a genuine military coup could occur in the United States. Although there has been some thoughtful speculation about it.

As for the situation on Galactica, one of the great things about the way the story is presented is that—like a classical tragedy—nobody is really in the wrong here. Adama can hardly know whether the scriptures are really true or not, but he can hardly be blamed for doubting it. It would be deeply irresponsible for him not to, even if he personally believed in the scriptures. In her position, however, Roslin’s only hope for the survival of the race appears to be to move forward on the assumption that the scriptures are true. Is her order, therefore, legitimate? Lawrence Solum would probably say no, because Roslin has failed to articulate her views in the forms of “public reasons.” But, like Adama, she has no time to do so. She must act now if she is to save humanity—and yet it could all be a fantasy. The tragic aspect of this (and I mean tragic in its true, technical definition) is that Adama is concerned with saving the fleet; Roslin with saving humanity—and the two have come into conflict due to circumstances beyond their control. There is just no simple answer to any of it.

That all being said, I lean in the direction that Adama is wrong. Roslin has not seriously threatened the fleet by her actions, and her decision was (arguably) not in violation of her deal with Adama. She has, at most, acted erratically, but it is not for Adama to unilaterally declare an elected official incapacitated. Casey at The Gantry Launchpad, on the other hand, argues in defense of the arrest. He contends, first, that this was not a coup, because what Roslin did was a violation of the Constitution, and therefore it was proper for Adama to arrest her. While I think it’s true that a military officer might be in the right to arrest a President for a blatant violation of the Constitution, it is not clear that that is what happened here. At most, it violated the agreement between Adama and Roslin (which is of questionable legality) and perhaps statute law. It may have violated the Constitution (which, again, we don’t know), but it seems unlikely. This, I think, is revealed by the fact that Casey switches right away to a second argument: Roslin is an “domestic enemy” of the Constitution. That contention is very far from being clear. Finally, the fact that Adama has committed this act on his own behalf—that is, he has seized power for himself, rather than seized power and given it to some disinerested third party, which is what would happen in the event of a military officer arresting an American president—also ought to undermine his contention. Adama is acting as the judge in his own case (especially since, with the incapacitation of Vice President Baltar, Adama is probably next in line for the presidency anyway!)

Casey’s argument does not clearly exonerate Adama as a legal matter. He ought to have immediately transferred the Presidential authority to some third party. By simply seizing power for himself, he has engaged in a coup d’êtat.

Trackback URI |