New Book Details Cheney Lawyer's Efforts to Expand Executive Power
The book portrays Alberto R. Gonzales as fairly passive, not an aggressor in counterterror law. Photo Credit: By Chris Graythen -- Getty Images
By Dan Eggen and Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, September 5, 2007; Page A01
Vice President Cheney's top lawyer pushed relentlessly to expand the powers of the executive branch and repeatedly derailed efforts to obtain congressional approval for aggressive anti-terrorism policies for fear that even a Republican majority might say no, according to a new book written by a former senior Justice Department official.
David S. Addington, who is now Cheney's chief of staff, viewed both U.S. lawmakers and overseas allies with "hostility" and repeatedly opposed efforts by other administration lawyers to soften counterterrorism policies or seek outside support, according to Jack L. Goldsmith, who frequently clashed with Addington while serving as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004.
"We're going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop," Addington said at one point, according to Goldsmith.
Addington, who declined comment yesterday through Cheney's office, is a central player in Goldsmith's new book, "The Terror Presidency." It provides an unusual glimpse of fierce internal dissent over the legal opinions behind some of the Bush administration's most controversial tactics in detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects.
"As I absorbed the opinions, I concluded that some were deeply flawed: sloppily reasoned, overbroad, and incautious in asserting extraordinary constitutional authorities on behalf of the President," Goldsmith writes, referring to Justice Department memoranda issued in the two years following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "I was astonished, and immensely worried, to discover that some of our most important counterterrorism policies rested on severely damaged legal foundations."
The internal tensions peaked in March 2004 during the now-famous visit by then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to the hospital room of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, whom Gonzales unsuccessfully pressed to approve a warrantless surveillance program that Goldsmith and other Justice lawyers had deemed illegal.
Goldsmith, who was in the room, recounted in an interview yesterday that as Gonzales and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. turned and left, "Mrs. Ashcroft sticks out her tongue" to express her "strong disapproval."
Goldsmith also said in his book that -- like many other Justice Department hires -- he was quizzed about his political loyalties during his initial job interview. One of Gonzales's deputies, David Leitch, opened the conversation by asking him about an $800 campaign contribution Goldsmith had given to a law school dean who was a Democrat. "Why have you never given money to a Republican?" Leitch asked, according to the book. "Are you a Republican?"
Now a professor at Harvard Law School, Goldsmith, 44, described himself in the book as "a conservative and a Republican" who became troubled by what he saw as imprudent overreaching by the White House with support from badly-reasoned OLC memos, including at least two written or drafted by friend and fellow conservative John C. Yoo. The book was described in an article posted online yesterday by the New York Times. The Washington Post also obtained a copy.
Goldsmith portrayed the senior officials with whom he regularly met as unremittingly fearful of another terrorist attack and determined "to act aggressively and preemptively." At the same time, he wrote, they feared that they could one day be prosecuted for engaging in tactics that pushed legal boundaries. The solution was for lawyers "to find some way to make what [Bush] did legal," Goldsmith wrote.
Goldsmith for a time was in a unique position to do so, because OLC opinions carry unusual authority inside the government and are typically regarded as written in stone. Only a handful of OLC decisions have been altered by officials in successive administrations. But during Goldsmith's brief tenure, however, he wound up overturning numerous OLC decisions reached earlier in the Bush administration -- an unprecedented act.
Goldsmith's actions clearly surprised the White House. He was picked for the job, he wrote, because he had strongly supported trying detainees before military-run commissions instead of civilian courts, had opposed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court, and had spoken out against the rising influence of international legal norms on U.S. actions.
Goldsmith said in the book that he did not question the motives or integrity of Addington or others, and he portrayed them as sincerely concerned about the nation's security. But he depicted Addington, who served as "Cheney's eyes, ears, and voice" on counterterrorism matters and with whom he was present at roughly 100 meetings on the topic, as having little patience for views contrary to his own.
"After 9/11, they and other top officials in the administration dealt with FISA the way they dealt with other laws they didn't like: they blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis for the operations," Goldsmith wrote, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs spying by U.S. agencies within the United States.
Goldsmith described Addington as "the chief legal architect of the Terrorist Surveillance Program," which bypassed the secret court that administers FISA and allowed the National Security Agency to spy on communications between the United States and overseas without warrants. In a February 2004 meeting, Addington said sarcastically: "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court."
Addington is widely known as a prominent and influential advocate for presidential prerogatives and is also as viewed as one of the administration's fiercest political infighters. Bradford Berenson, a former White House lawyer, told the New Yorker magazine last year: "David is like the Marines. No better friend -- no worse enemy."
Addington reacted angrily to many of Goldsmith's legal opinions, telling him in reference to one concerning detainees in Iraq: "The president has already decided that terrorists do not receive Geneva Convention protections. You cannot question his decision," according to the book.
"He and, I presumed, his boss viewed power as the absence of constraint," Goldsmith wrote. "They believed cooperation and compromise signaled weakness and emboldened the enemies of America and the executive branch."
Gonzales, by contrast, is depicted in the book as a passive figure at the White House who mostly would "sit quietly in his wing chair, occasionally asking questions but mostly listening as the querulous Addington did battle with whomever was seeking to 'go soft.' "
After Goldsmith decided to resign in 2004, however, he recalled sitting down with Gonzales for what he described as a cordial conversation. Gonzales raised the issue of the memos on interrogation policy that Goldsmith overturned. "I guess those opinions really were as bad as you said," Gonzales told him, according to Goldsmith. Gonzales, now the attorney general, announced his resignation last week.
Goldsmith learned to be a tough interagency player during his tumultuous nine-month stint at the OLC. When he decided to suspend a classified March 2003 legal opinion justifying harsh interrogations conducted by U.S. military personnel, he "didn't inform the White House about my decision" because "I knew that running the matter by Gonzales and especially Addington would make it much harder to fix the opinions."
And when he later decided to suspend an August 2002 legal opinion by Yoo that sharply limited the kind of interrogations that could be considered torture, Goldsmith handed in his resignation at the same time because he believed the timing "would make it hard for the White House to reverse my decision without making it seem like I had resigned in protest."
In all, Goldsmith writes, he drafted three resignation letters while on the job.
Goldsmith accused Bush in his book of being "almost entirely inattentive" to factors that would have brought him greater success, including the need for consultation, deliberation, "the appearance of deference," and publicly expressed support for constitutional and international values.
Bush got less in the end from Congress when he finally asked for legislative sanction than he would have gotten from more compliant lawmakers immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to Goldsmith. "It was said hundreds of times in the White House that the President and the Vice President wanted to leave the presidency stronger than they found it. In fact, they seemed to have achieved the opposite," he wrote.
Staff writer Barton Gellman and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Oxford Union told to review holocaust denier invite 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
The head of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission asked Oxford University's debating society on Sunday to review its decision to invite holocaust denier David Irving to speak at a free speech forum.
British historian Irving will be a speaker at Monday's event, which has been organized by the Oxford Union's inner debating chamber, as will British National Party leader Nick Griffin.
.. Thanks for this series of articles you pulled together -
... I have always found it so disturbing that America has been in denial over the Armenian Holocaust .. and that if Americans could see that this denial is absolutely no different than what they get so enraged about regarding The Holocaust Deniers .. this has gone on forever .. and if I remember correctly - there is more American denial over other genocides - holocausts , whatever you wish to call them - ...."crimes against humanity" .. certainly no different than what 'some ' nazis were tried & convicted for - dare I say - even & especially, currently - Iraq - which of course, we really do not have an accurate count of just 'how many have been killed ' -
Just as nazi Germany effected/infected the whole world - we now openly join them - yes - the names & groups are different - but the crimes against humanity are the same . What disturbs & depresses me . the most ... is that these moves have been going on for such a long time - and that the majority of people are so blind to it ... just as I was, until you educated me, as to even Carter - o.kaying the attack on Afghanistan in the late 70s, early 80's - knowing very well - that a way of life & civilization would be all most destroyed . ,, http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=22503898&txt2find=afghanistan http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=22511066&txt2find=afghanistan
Actually - this all overwhelms me - mainly due to the fact that a solution to these horrors seen impossible - and even if all the countries took responsibility for all their atrocities - what then ??? .. utopia .. ?? .. we all know better than that ..& we all know this will not happen - especially by the US.
The above piece - about Oxford - being 'asked' to reconsider inviting the 'Holocaust Denier' to speak - provoked all these thoughts, along with & most importantly having read what you posted earlier ....The Armenian Denial of just about everything - starting with the American Natives - has been going on in our country for longer than I am alive - yet - we persecute others for the exact same delusional thinking ... ah .... ;) .. What a GREAT DAY is it to be in AMERICA .. ;) .. !!! .. . now - I will go back to 'simple chit - like doing the morning dishes ..
QUITO, Ecuador — President Rafael Correa complained on Saturday he did not receive special diplomatic treatment at a Miami airport security checkpoint earlier this month and will now avoid traveling through the U.S.
In his weekly radio address, Correa said he accepted an apology issued Tuesday by U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador Linda Jewell, who said U.S. officials learned of his travel plans only hours before and "didn't have time to make all the arrangements necessary to receive a head of state."
Correa received "discourteous treatment" at Miami International Airport, where he'd stopped to change planes Nov. 15 on the way to a summit of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries summit in Saudi Arabia, the Foreign Ministry said in a letter to the U.S. Embassy in Quito last week. The letter gave no further details of his encounter.
"We accepted (the ambassador's apology) but personally I'm not going to stop to change planes in the United States until they learn what civilization is," Correa said.
He said the U.S. has been gripped by "psychosis" since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and security agents "treat the people very poorly" as a result.
"The minute they knew that I was a head of state, they should have had a protocol, but the Americans don't understand that," Correa said.
And so many more in Iraq .. Rwanda .. et al, today; to the excepts ..
"But Niemoller broke very early with the Nazis. In 1933, he organized the Pastor’s Emergency League to protect Lutheran pastors from the police. In 1934, he was one of the leading organizers at the Barmen Synod, which produced the theological basis for the Confessing Church, which despite its persecution became an enduring symbol of German resistance to Hitler.
"The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God." ... "
"From 1933 to 1937, Niemoller consistantly trashed everything the Nazis stood for. At one point he declared that it was impossible to “point to the German [Luther] without pointing to the Jew [Christ] to which he pointed to.” [from Charles Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict]
He rejected the Nazi distortion of “Positive Christianity” (postulating the ‘special virtue’ of the German people), as opposed to “Negative Chistianity” which held that all people regardless of race were guilty of sin and in need of repentance. An excerpt from a sermon of his printed in TIME Magazine [Feb 21, 1938, pg 25-27]:
“I cannot help saying quite harshly and bluntly that the Jewish people came to grief and disgrace because of its own ‘Positive Christianity!’ It [the Jewish people] bears a curse throughout the history of the world because it was ready to approve of its Messiah just as long and as far as it thought it could gain some advantage for its own plans and its own aims for Him, His words and His deeds. It bears a curse, because it rejected Him and resisted Him to the death when it became clear that Jesus of Nazareth would not cease calling [the Jews] to repentance and faith, despite their insistence that they were free, strong and proud men and belonged to a pure-blooded, race-concious nation!
“‘Positive Christianity,’ which the Jewish people wanted, clashed with ‘Negative Christianity’ as jesus himself represented it! ... Friends, can we risk going with our nation without forgiveness of sins, without that so-called ‘Negative Christianity’ which, when all is said and done, clings in repentence and faith to Jesus as the Savior of sinners? I cannot and you cannot and our nation cannot! ‘Come let us return to the Lord!’”"
fuagf: On reading the above, while saying, well done Niemoller!, and while applauding his disparaging comments with regards to 'Positive Christianity', to me, his position of 'Negative Christianity', feels as damaging to the human condition as the other.
I walk under ladders and I step on sidewalk cracks. As a child, in my distaste for the concept of 'original sin' and in my contrariness to the idea of a singular, human-image, 'God', these statements against what felt superstition were practiced on purpose. Crankily, I would step on a crack while saying, "stuff superstition". Now I don't notice, it just doesn't matter one way or another. Who in there right mind would want a dictatorial God, I thought. Now, I feel the whole thing just may represent an abrogation of human responsibility. God, will take care of it. No sweat, don't worry. We are the chosen people and, in the end, 'God' will look after us. Who, are we? Well, some Jews in their minds; some whites in theirs and some others in their individual ones. Some individuals who believe it too much end up in hospitals or prisons. Oh!, scientologists are very special, too, aren't they.
I see black cats for just what they are, so they never scare or upset me, more than white one's do; it feels that would be most unfair, in a sense i guess would be racist. So, that brings me back to the dictatorial God concept, which affords powers independent of the human mind. Maybe that's what bothers me so much. It feels an abrogation of human responsibility, to fellow human beings. I don't know; but to those who, say they know the unknowable, I ask why do you feel so content in the believe that a dictator God will look after you? Why do you believe that your God concept is any more right and real than any others? There is no justification. It feels, to deny that just may be one of the greatest encompassing and, just perhaps, one of the most damaging denials of all the denials today.
No, we shouldn't ban the word God, but rethinking can't hurt.
from another ..
Victims of Religion "This page is dedicated to those well-meaning but ignorant Christians who ask me "Why must you be so negative towards religion? It's never done anyone any harm!" Sad to say, it has. On top of overt physical harm, religion can also result in wasting one's life chasing fantasies- and these billions of followers will never get back the time (or effort) they wasted on their religions. There is also psychological harm inflicted on millions of believers and their families, religion having emotionally crippled them for life. For any who doubt what I say regarding the psychological harm religion has inflicted on society, they need only to visit the nearest psych ward to see for themselves that it is over-flowing with religionists, not Atheists. To all the victims of religion my heart goes out to you, and to you I dedicate this page, in the hopes that you may be SET FREE and thus spared any future pain." http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://jcnot4me.com/images/Jonestown.gif&imgrefurl=http://jcnot4me.com/items/cults/victims_of_religion.htm&h=148&w=107&sz=517&tbnid=kiHdvzllunkJ:&tbnh=148&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djonestown&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=3
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
