Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Newsweek: Cheney & Addington's Goal-"A Legal Equivalent of Outer Space"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 11:16 PM
Original message
Newsweek: Cheney & Addington's Goal-"A Legal Equivalent of Outer Space"
The Gitmo Fallout
The fight over the Hamdan ruling heats up—as fears about its reach escalate.
High Court Fallout

By Michael Isikoff and Stuart Taylor Jr.
Newsweek

July 17, 2006 issue - David Bowker vividly remembers the first time he heard the phrase. A lawyer in the State Department, Bowker was part of a Bush administration "working group" assembled in the panicked aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Its task: figuring out what rights captured foreign fighters and terror suspects were entitled to while in U.S. custody. White House hard-liners, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and his uncompromising lawyer, David Addington, made it clear that there was only one acceptable answer. One day, Bowker recalls, a colleague explained the goal: to "find the legal equivalent of outer space"—a "lawless" universe. As Bowker understood it, the idea was to create a system where detainees would have no legal rights and U.S courts would have no power to intervene.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773997/site/newsweek/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. If you talk to anyone opposed to closing Gitmo, ask
Edited on Sun Jul-09-06 11:22 PM by Eric J in MN
...why the Gitmo prison was setup in the first place.

The intent was to stop the reach of human rights laws and US courts and the laws of any other nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. Just LOVE This...
Edited on Sun Jul-09-06 11:51 PM by WillyT


<snip>

Defenders of the administration's position put the blame for any such troubles on a Supreme Court they say is once again meddling where it doesn't belong. Historically, they argue, courts have given the president wide latitude during wartime. "It shows that the imperial judiciary thinks that, in addition to abortion, affirmative action and religion, war should be within its grasp," says John Yoo, now a Berkeley law professor, who was one of the chief authors of the administration's antiterror legal doctrines. But other insiders concede that the White House, by going too far, provoked the court to step in.

<snip>

Link: Same article.

Well John... you can kiss your SCOTUS ambitions good-bye!!!

:evilgrin:

Onedit: K & R !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The taxpayers of California have to pay John Yoo's salary.
Great move of UC Berkely to hire him. I'm sure that no one with a sense of decency could have been found to teach those law classes (sarcasm.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. John Yoo: A Pig in Prada.
Where does Berkley get off calling Yoo a "legal scholar"?

This legal lightweight advocates roughly the same legal position utilized by the Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition-- torture with no bounds or oversight-- , calls it "The New Paradigm" and gets a tenure position at UC Berkley.

Oh those zany liberals at Berkley. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Someone who interprets US law as bestowing dictatorial powers
...on the president, doesn't belong on the public payroll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. this statement is just plain weird
"It shows that the imperial judiciary thinks that, in addition to abortion, affirmative action and religion, war should be within its grasp,"

SINCE WHEN does the SCOTUS NOT have jurisdiction over these?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. The "imperial judiciary?"
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 05:59 PM by Marie26
Dear God they're deluded. That statement is so telling - they think the SC shouldn't be able to rule on religion, abortion, civil rights, or anything meaningful that might interfere w/the President's actions. They want an executive branch w/absolute power. They whine about an "imperial judiciary" because they really want to create an "imperial executive". :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-11-06 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. They've already created the "imperial executive" for years.
Edited on Tue Jul-11-06 01:41 AM by Amonester
And "they" really R determined not to let 'anyone' 'interfere' with it. It's their revolutionary process (as stated in PNAC) and their goal is to dominate the world.

They wrote they needed a "New Pearl Harbor" to create it, and - Surprise, Surprise - they got just what they needed to justify all the crimes they commit 24/7.

How convenient...

They'll hold on to it at any cost (for others than themselves...), SCOTUS or not SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. Was this article posted anywhere on DU, about David Addington?
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 02:05 AM by MagickMuffin
HE HIDDEN POWER
The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060703fa_fact1

It's a very detailed article about how Addington is basically Cheney's brains. He would label anyone who questioned his methods as being "soft on terrorist" and therefore would be shut out of meetings. Powell was one of those people.

He also insist that the role of the president is that of Commander in Chief.

A Commander-in-Chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces. In the latter case, the force element may be defined as those forces within a particular region or those forces which are associated by function. As a practical term it refers to the military competencies which reside in a nation-state's executive, head of state or government. Oftentimes a given country's Commander-in-Chief need not be or have been a commissioned officer or even a veteran, and it is by this legal statute that civilian control of the military is realized in states where it is constitutionally required.

They are using the Commander in Chief to a whole new meaning. They think that includes all American citizens which is not the case AT ALL!

From the article:

On December 18th, Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, joined other prominent Washington figures at FedEx Field, the Redskins’ stadium, in a skybox belonging to the team’s owner. During the game, between the Redskins and the Dallas Cowboys, Powell spoke of a recent report in the Times which revealed that President Bush, in his pursuit of terrorists, had secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without first obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by federal law. This requirement, which was instituted by Congress in 1978, after the Watergate scandal, was designed to protect civil liberties and curb abuses of executive power, such as Nixon’s secret monitoring of political opponents and the F.B.I.’s eavesdropping on Martin Luther King, Jr. Nixon had claimed that as President he had the “inherent authority” to spy on people his Administration deemed enemies, such as the anti-Vietnam War activist Daniel Ellsberg. Both Nixon and the institution of the Presidency had paid a high price for this assumption. But, according to the Times, since 2002 the legal checks that Congress constructed to insure that no President would repeat Nixon’s actions had been secretly ignored.

According to someone who knows Powell, his comment about the article was terse. “It’s Addington,” he said. “He doesn’t care about the Constitution.” Powell was referring to David S. Addington, Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff and his longtime principal legal adviser. Powell’s office says that he does not recall making the statement. But his former top aide, Lawrence Wilkerson, confirms that he and Powell shared this opinion of Addington.

Most Americans, even those who follow politics closely, have probably never heard of Addington. But current and former Administration officials say that he has played a central role in shaping the Administration’s legal strategy for the war on terror. Known as the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share—namely, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside. A former high-ranking Administration lawyer who worked extensively on national-security issues said that the Administration’s legal positions were, to a remarkable degree, “all Addington.” Another lawyer, Richard L. Shiffrin, who until 2003 was the Pentagon’s deputy general counsel for intelligence, said that Addington was “an unopposable force.”

The overarching intent of the New Paradigm, which was put in place after the attacks of September 11th, was to allow the Pentagon to bring terrorists to justice as swiftly as possible. Criminal courts and military courts, with their exacting standards of evidence and emphasis on protecting defendants’ rights, were deemed too cumbersome. Instead, the President authorized a system of detention and interrogation that operated outside the international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war established by the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Terror suspects would be tried in a system of military commissions, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, devised by the executive branch. The Administration designated these suspects not as criminals or as prisoners of war but as “illegal enemy combatants,” whose treatment would be ultimately decided by the President. By emphasizing interrogation over due process, the government intended to preëmpt future attacks before they materialized. In November, 2001, Cheney said of the military commissions, “We think it guarantees that we’ll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve.”


Everyone should take the time to read this fascinating history of Addington.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. So, if Dickhead Cheney thinks you deserve torture, that's what you get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Laws We Don't Need No Stinkin Laws
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 02:38 AM by MagickMuffin





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Or, we'll change them stinkin' laws to make torture legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. We are the Law!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazzgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Magic, you and Swampy are having a "best picture"
contest, LOL! You guys are too merch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Yes. I have the transcript from Mayer's interview on Fresh Air, if anyone
would like it. PM me.

Excerpt:

Terri Gross - You say that sources told you that David Addington played a key role in a lot of the major documents that set policy for how the Bush adminstration is conducting the war on terror. What are some of those documents and what can you tell us about his role?

Jane Mayer - That's true. People in the administration tell me that he played a very key role in drafting many of these memos and authorizing many of the memos, at the very least. There was a series of them really pretty - they kind of followed one another after Sept. 11. There was a Sept. 25 memo that authorized the president to fight back worldwide against anybody that he deemed to be in any way associated with terrorism. It went way beyond what the Congress had authorized about two weeks earlier. After that, there was a memo that came out in November that allowed the government to detain enemy combatants outside of the law in Guantanamo and to try them in tribunals with rules that they pretty much improvised on the spot that were neither following the laws of the uniform code of military justice nor domestic law; later on, among the most controversial memos, of course, was one that people now refer to as the 'torture memo,' that basically allowed the president to sidestep the conventions against torture if he deemed it absolutely necessary - it said that the U.S.government could torture a suspect in terrorism if he felt it was necessary to do so. That, and many of these other memos, were later amended by other lawyers who came in and said they were too extreme, and, as we know, some of these positions were also struck down by the Supreme Court.

TG - There's another document I want to ask you about, and this is an Executive Order from November 2001, that set up the military commissions. President Bush signed the order and sources told you that DA actually wrote this memo. What was the order and its significance, and this gets to the Supreme Court decision of last week 'cause that decision challenged this memo?

JM - That's right. Yeah. He and a handful of lawyers wrote it together, apparently, but he was the driving force behind it. What they did was they tried to set up a system of military tribunals that would try the detainees in Guantanamo and elsewhere. Their hope was to try to create a kind of swift system of justice that would not be bogged down by providing defendants' rights the way they are provided under the American domestic law and under military law. I mean, basically, what they came up was a process that was very stripped down and - the detainees were not necessarily allowed, for instance, to attend their own trials. They were not necessarily allowed to see the evidence against them. The evidence could be obtained through coercion or torture from others so that it could have been possibly extorted out of people in situations that might not have gotten to the truth, and in many other ways - it was problematic from the standpoint of defendants' rights in so many different ways that it created a - there was a furor over it almost from the start. It wasn't just what the tribunals said, it wasn't just the rules for how they were set up which were problematical, but it was also the way that the tribunals were created, which was in the hands of a couple of lawyers, basically Addington and a few others, without consulting almost any of the other experts in the government or the Cabinet members who oversaw the areas of the state department, the National Security Council. It was really kind of a back room product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. From the article I posted above:
There are various plausible explanations for Addington’s power, including the force of his intellect and his personality, and his closeness to Cheney, whose political views he clearly shares. Addington has been an ally of Cheney’s since the nineteen-eighties, and has been referred to as “Cheney’s Cheney,” or, less charitably, as “Cheney’s hit man.” Addington’s talent for bureaucratic infighting is such that some of his supporters tend to invoke, with admiration, metaphors involving knives. Juleanna Glover Weiss, Cheney’s former press secretary, said, “David is efficient, discreet, loyal, sublimely brilliant, and, as anyone who works with him knows, someone who, in a knife fight, you want covering your back.” Bradford Berenson, a former White House lawyer, said, “He’s powerful because people know he speaks for the Vice-President, and because he’s an extremely smart, creative, and aggressive public official. Some engage in bureaucratic infighting using slaps. Some use knives. David falls into the latter category. You could make the argument that there are some costs. It introduces a little fear into the policymaking process. Views might be more candidly expressed without that fear. But David is like the Marines. No better friend—no worse enemy.” People who have sparred with him agree. “He’s utterly ruthless,” Lawrence Wilkerson said. A former top national-security lawyer said, “He takes a political litmus test of everyone. If you’re not sufficiently ideological, he would cut the ground out from under you.”

Another reason for Addington’s singular role after September 11th is that he offered legal certitude at a moment of great political and legal confusion, in an Administration in which neither the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, nor the national-security adviser was a lawyer. (In the Clinton Administration, all these posts, except for the Vice-Presidency, were held by lawyers at some point.) Neither the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, nor the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, had anything like Addington’s familiarity with national-security law. Moreover, Ashcroft’s relations with the White House were strained, and he was left out of the inner circle that decided the most radical legal strategies in the war on terror. Gonzales had more influence, because of his longtime ties to the President, but, as an Administration lawyer put it, “he was an empty suit. He was weak. And he doesn’t know shit about the Geneva Conventions.” Participants in meetings in the White House counsel’s office, in the days immediately after September 11th, have described Gonzales sitting in a wingback chair, asking questions, while Addington sat directly across from him and held forth. “Gonzales would call the meetings,” the former high-ranking lawyer recalled. “But Addington was always the force in the room.” Bruce Fein said that the Bush legal team was strikingly unsophisticated. “There is no one of legal stature, certainly no one like Bork, or Scalia, or Elliot Richardson, or Archibald Cox,” he said. “It’s frightening. No one knows the Constitution—certainly not Cheney.”

Conventional wisdom holds that September 11th changed everything, including the thinking of Cheney and Addington. Brent Scowcroft, the former national-security adviser, has said of Cheney that he barely recognizes the reasonable politician he knew in the past. But a close look at the twenty-year collaboration between Cheney and Addington suggests that in fact their ideology has not changed much. It seems clear that Addington was able to promote vast executive powers after September 11th in part because he and Cheney had been laying the political groundwork for years. “This preceded 9/11,” Fein, who has known both men professionally for decades, said. “I’m not saying that warrantless surveillance did. But the idea of reducing Congress to a cipher was already in play. It was Cheney and Addington’s political agenda.”


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Excellent interview!
I heard that last week on NPR.

Addington is evil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
12. Not just militarily, but economically.
Cheney was just trying to apply the way he practiced his style of predatory business to the military world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kick !!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC