Symposium Parrhesiastic Accountability: Investigatory Commissions and Executive Power in an Age of Terror Jonathan Simont CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: WAR, RESPONSIBILITY, AND TRUTH TELLING ............. 1421 I. WAR AND RESPONSIBILITY ................................................................. 1423 II. TRUTH TELLING AND GOVERNING: THE INVESTIGATORY COMMISSION AS A PARRHESIASTIC AGENCY ................................... 1427 A. The History of the Investigatory Commission ............................ 1428 B. The Structure of the Investigatory Commission ......................... 1430 III. NATIONAL COMM ISSIONS ................................................................. 1437 A. PearlHarbor and the Roberts Commission ............................... 1437 B. The Warren Commission............................................................ 1440 t Associate Dean, Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program; Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt hall). I am indebted to my colleagues David Caron, Harry Scheiber, and John Yoo for their comments on drafts of this article and to Jude Eagan (BoaltIJSP J.D. 2004, Ph.D. expected 2005) and Ariel Meyerstein (Boalt J.D. expected 2006, Ph.D. expected 2008) for their amazingly fast and reliable research assistance. Whatever the merits of this article, it has been greatly improved since the version first read by The Yale Law Journal Symposium Committee. Thanks especially to John Coyle and his collaborators for their expert editing. 1419 ImagedHeinOnline with the --Permission 114 Yale L.J. of 1419 Yale 2004-2005 Law Journal 1420 The Yale Law Journal [Vol. 114:1419 C. The 9/11 Commission ................................................................. 1443 1. Distinctive Characteristics.................................................. 1443 2. The Commission's Role as ParrhesiasticTruth Teller........ 1449 D. From Investigatory Commissions to Truth Commissions: The Role of the Victims .............................................................. 1451 C ON CLU SION ........................................................................................... 1455 ImagedHeinOnline with the --Permission 114 Yale L.J. of 1420 Yale 2004-2005 Law Journal 2005] Parrhesiastic Accountability 1421 INTRODUCTION: WAR, RESPONSIBILITY, AND TRUTH TELLING John Hart Ely's classic book War and Responsibility chronicles and critiques the behavior of American constitutional actors in the conduct of the Vietnam War.' At its core, War and Responsibility is concerned with the problem of checking executive power in the area of national security. Ely's solution rests heavily on his strong belief in legal process, the2 underlying presumptions of which have been subjected to much criticism. It seems clear that in light of the expansive assertions of executive power recently made by the Bush Administration in its prosecution of the War on Terror, there is an urgent need for new mechanisms to ensure executive accountability in the national security context. This article suggests that investigatory commissions may represent an effective supplemental check on the power of the Executive. The experiences of the 9/11 Commission-on which this article draws- demonstrate that an actor outside of the three branches of government may, in certain contexts, play an important role in influencing the behavior of these branches. This article argues that the reason for this newfound power stems from a transformation in our understandings of truth-and of truth telling. Investigatory commissions have long been associated with expert technical knowledge that is gathered scientifically and applied dispassionately. Like investigatory commissions of the past, the 9/11 Commission mobilized these so-called "analytics of truth"3 in the course of its detailed investigation of government decisionmaking on and before September 11, 2001. Unlike its many predecessors, however, the 9/11 Commission also engaged in a different mode of truth telling, one associated not with technical experts but with ordinary individuals transformed by the violence of September 11. This mode-which I call "parrhesiastic" truth telling-emerged alongside the analytics of truth in ancient Greece and has been translated by Michel Foucault to mean "fearless speech."4 In his words, 1. JOHN HART ELY, WAR AND RESPONSIBILITY: CONSTITUTIONAL LESSONS OF VIETNAM AND ITS AFTERMATH (1993). 2. For two prominent critics of legal process, see Laurence H. Tribe, The Puzzling Persistence of Process-Based Constitutional Theories, 89 YALE L.J. 1063 (1980); and Jules Lobel, The RelationshipBetween the Process and Substance of the NationalSecurity Constitution, 15 YALE J. INT'L L. 360 (1990) (book review). 3. MICHEL FOUCAULT, FEARLESS SPEECH 170 (Joseph Pearson ed., 2001). The concern "with determining how to ensure that a statement is true," something that Foucault called an "'analytics of truth,"' id., is valued as essential to the political process, not only in commissions but also in the routine operation of executive agencies, congressional committees, and courts. 4. Though Foucault titles his book Fearless Speech, the term parrhesia is more commonly translated as "free speech." Id. at 11. Parrhesia,along with such rights as isegoria (equal right of ImagedHeinOnline with the --Permission 114 Yale L.J. of 1421 Yale 2004-2005 Law Journal 1422 The Yale Law Journal [Vol. 114:1419 [P]arrhesia is a verbal activity in which a speaker expresses his personal relationship to truth, and risks his life because he recognizes truth-telling as a duty to improve or help other people (as well as himself). In parrhesia,the speaker uses his freedom and chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy.5 Parrhesiadoes not function by leading listeners to a truth through the performance of reasoned argument or the manipulation of less reflective instincts (as philosophy or rhetoric might). A parrhesiastic speaker produces a truth that comes uniquely from her self and her experience and is directed critically at a listener whose power places the speaker in potential danger. In the classic Athenian mode, a parrhesiastic speaker confronted a god, a sovereign, or the assembled citizenry through a direct revelation of experienced truth. As such, parrhesia is dangerous speech, raising the possibility that those with power will retaliate against the speaker as much as the possibility that the holder of power will be shamed or otherwise moved to redress the wrong. Because of its risk parrhesia was not a form of self-interest or therapy. Rather, it was a recognition of a duty to another or to society as a whole. The right of parrhesiameant that speakers with a personal knowledge of the folly of choices made by the sovereign (whether democratic public or king) could confront leaders with their failures. The Athenian tradition demanded that sincere parrhesiastesbe heeded and left unharmed, but the risk of a less worthy response (i.e., retaliatory violence) also guaranteed the reliability of the critique. Parrhesiawent into decline in Greece during the fourth century B.C. and has largely been ignored by modem theories of government. Today, victims have emerged as perhaps the most important source of parrhesia.6 By reproducing the violent emotions they have experienced, victims who choose to speak parrhesiastically can destabilize political and legal authority. For much of the past two decades, this practice has been directed at the criminal justice system, as violent-crime victims have spoken out against the courts, parole boards, and other decisionmakers whose management of dangerous criminals has failed them. With the 9/11 speech) and isonomia (equal participation in governance), was a political right guaranteed by the Athenian constitution. Id. at 22. 5. Id. at 19-20. 6. See Jonathan Simon, Fearless Speech in the Killing State: The Power of Capital Crime Victim Speech, 82 N.C. L. REV. 1377, 1402 (2004). ImagedHeinOnline with the --Permission 114 Yale L.J. of 1422 Yale 2004-2005 Law Journal 2005] Parrhesiastic Accountability 1423 families and their alliance with the 9/11 Commission, parrhesia has moved out into a far more general critical engagement with government. To a degree unprecedented in the history of federal commissions, I contend, the 9/11 Commission relied on the power of parrhesiastic truth telling by its own members (and leaders), by some of its witnesses, and most importantly by the victims of violence to impose a measure of accountability upon the executive branch. The Commission's relationship with the victims transformed it from an institution anchored completely in the analytics of truth into one infused with parrhesiastic truth. The victims operated almost as a chorus in Greek drama, providing an onstage audience for the central public hearings of the Commission. This chorus gave voice to public criticism of the Commission, the President, and other political actors who stood in the way of discovering the truth behind the events of September 11. The parrhesia of the victims (both actual and threatened) helped shape the decisions made by the political actors. This dynamic was best exemplified by the testimony of Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official in several administrations, whose words unquestionably belong to the parrhesiastic tradition. Parrhesia, even amplified by a national commission, is no substitute