Could Hannah Arendt’s 1963 book influence the Boston Marathon bombing trial and coverage?
In 'Eichmann in Jerusalem,' Hannah Arendt portrayed the SS officer as a self-deluded functionary whose mindset allowed him to facilitate murders on a massive scale. Would anyone argue the same for those who murder in the name of jihad?
(Page 2 of 2)
How much typeface should be allotted to defendants who declare that they cannot be judged by laws of men, but only by their convictions, their faith, and their god? The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom and precludes government (through law enforcement, legislation, or the judiciary) from interfering with the exercise of religious beliefs. Would someone actually propose that the First Amendment’s protections extend to being faithful and obedient to religious protocols, commandments, and convictions – higher orders – that dictate and commend killings?Skip to next paragraph
Random House's Grinch campaign encourages children to do selfless deeds over the holidays
'Burial Rites' author Hannah Kent finds mystery in Iceland
Harry Potter Alliance brings together fans to affect social change
Thanksgiving: A look back at Norman Rockwell's iconic illustration 'Freedom From Want'
Improv Everywhere's Harry Potter takes Penn Station commuters by surprise (+ video)
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Arendt wrote extensively about Eichmann’s childhood and his initially undistinguished career path – his aspirations, delusions, and disappointments – even as some in today’s press have summoned the personal histories of both Hasan and the Tsarnaev brothers. Could their reputed struggles, frustrations, disappointments, slights, and indignities be viewed as extenuating circumstances? Can evil be mitigated by sociological and psychological dispensation?
Because Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem” was initially published in installments in The New Yorker, it was edited by William Shawn, the magazine’s venerated editor. Yet Arendt's collection of facts and semi-facts, hearsay, recollections, accounts, suppositions, exculpations, exonerations, red-herrings, and blame-shifting “scholarship” were not sufficiently tamed editorially.
I was editorial counsel at The New Yorker from 1976 to 1994 and I read every manuscript Mr. Shawn bought for publication during those years. Arendt’s sheaf of onion-skin pages arrived on his desk 14 years before I got there. Still, my impressions may be telling. It seemed to me that Shawn was timid in dealing with female writers. Not as to the grammar, syntax, and art of their manuscripts, but as to their personalities and assertions – timid in questioning their methods, procedures, processes; their predispositions and assumptions.
As to Arendt’s manuscript, Shawn’s edits and queries were not as exacting and challenging as they might have been. And the book version did not pick up on his deletions and fixes – the places where he tempered and reined in her contempt, accusations, and condemnations.
Shawn traveled the world through his writers but, to my knowledge, (by the 1970s, anyway) his voyages, in the main, were between his Fifth Avenue apartment and the magazine’s midtown office, spelled – in the summer months – by daily journeys to the office from a Bronxville, N.Y., vacation rental. He trusted his writers. And in 1962 and 1963 when he was going over Arendt’s work, there was, to be sure, no Google or other Internet search engine to aid the checking process.
The manuscript’s extensive bibliography and attributions were surely impressive and daunting. From what I heard, the piece’s fact-checker did not have the time or the resources – and neither the mandate or the “portfolio” – to challenge what Arendt had delivered. The manuscript was so long that it had to be published in five issues. Also, at any time, did Arendt ever fully disclose that she had not attended all the trial sessions? I don’t know the answer.
So, with the indulgence of Shawn and the deference of her publisher, what can be found today on library bookshelves is an example of journalistic wrongdoing that could be useful to lawyers who defend those who kill for jihad.
What about those alleged to have aided and abetted the hijackings and attacks of September 11, 2001; the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012; and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole? What about those who are alleged to have impeded the work of investigators following the Boston Marathon bombing by hiding or destroying clues and incriminating material?
Could they find shelter and dispensation in Arendt’s reporting? Will “Eichmann in Jerusalem” provide a precedent and a template for such exculpatory thinking and “reporting”?
I can only hope not.
Joseph H. Cooper was editorial counsel at The New Yorker from 1976 to 1996.