In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The Legal Mind Behind the White House

Man am I missing my New Yorker subscription right now.

Luckily, my dad is apparently still taking the time to peruse the magazine, as he sends this piece onto me — with the fitting comment, “This is an excellent article about a very scary man.” I think that about sums it up.

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.”


That is a very scary “new paradigm,” and a radical legal view.

Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, who voted for Bush in both Presidential elections, and who served as associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department, said that Addington and other Presidential legal advisers had “staked out powers that are a universe beyond any other Administration. This President has made claims that are really quite alarming. He’s said that there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it, to collect intelligence, to open mail, to commit torture, and to use electronic surveillance. If you used the President’s reasoning, you could shut down Congress for leaking too much. His war powers allow him to declare anyone an illegal combatant. All the world’s a battlefield—according to this view, he could kill someone in Lafayette Park if he wants! It’s got the sense of Louis XIV: ‘I am the State.’ ” Richard A. Epstein, a prominent libertarian law professor at the University of Chicago, said, “The President doesn’t have the power of a king, or even that of state governors. He’s subject to the laws of Congress! The Administration’s lawyers are nuts on this issue.” He warned of an impending “constitutional crisis,” because “their talk of the inherent power of the Presidency seems to be saying that the courts can’t stop them, and neither can Congress.”

When you have conservatives and Republican legal advocates saying these things, you know this guy is bad news.

Read the whole article. Frightening stuff.


13 thoughts on The Legal Mind Behind the White House

  1. Hopefully the recent Hamdan decision will bring an end to these legal shenanigans.

    Not likely. In the administration’s view, Court decisions are just another legal boundary to be ignored in a time of war/conflict/police action. This administration believes it has absolute authority in times of war (and that would include the authority to determine what and how long the time of war is), and there is oh so very little the courts can do about it.

    The probably apocryphal Andrew Jackson line comes to mind: “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” It’s going to take Congress getting off its ass to slow or stop this administration.

  2. The view that the legislative and judicial branches should have no oversight authority over the executive has been held by quite a large number of the wingnut elite/powerful. It has only been that under Bush, a docile press and an apathetic or ignorant populace combined, have they been able to implement their strategy.

    What is their strategy? To secure an Imperial White House and run a government that is friendly to their interests of international global trade without the ever cumbersome constitution and bill or rights to get in the way.

    Also, having a docile and ignorant population will help also and they’re are working to ensure people know nothing and those that do don’t know it for long.

    Attorney General whatshisname (can’t remember) of Bush’s first term was a big supporter of this as well and placed many of the peices of this into the Patriot Act.

    This has been going on for at least four years now, if not longer and will not stop without some fierce and long resistance from the public.

    Of course, I’m oversimplifying, but the end is all the same.

  3. Somehow, Addington is a really ominous last name on its own.

    “All right, we’ll have to call in Addington.”
    “Addington? Why does Addington have to know about it?”
    “Addington already knows.”

    That kind of stuff.

  4. Hopefully the recent Hamdan decision will bring an end to these legal shenanigans.

    Not necessarily bring “an end” but at least we now know that the Supreme Court still values it’s job as an institutional check on the Executive (unlike say, Congress), and that they don’t exactly buy the Addington/Yoo theories of an unchecked executive (wartime or not). There is still hope for us!

    (that is of course, given Justice JPS doesn’t keel over in the very near future)

  5. I realize some my dismiss this comparison right off of the bat, but I see some eerie similarities between this line of reasoning and that espouse by the German legal theorist Carl Schmitt, particularly with regard to the notion that in a time of crisis, there can be no limits on executive power.

  6. Hi, this is my first time on your site.

    I’m a fellow law student, and I’ve been interested in this Administration’s interpretation of executive authority for quite some time.

    I’ve been writing about the “Unitary Executive” theory that Justices Roberts and Alito came up with during the Reagan administration in the DOJ. A theory that eventually led to the somewhat publicized signing statements the preznit has been adding in.

    These people are big advocates of executive authority in general, Scalia, Alito, Roberts basically invented the notion of an all powerful–or at least a very powerful–executive branch of government.

    So it was no suprise to me that Addington was an Aide to Reagan for a year in 87. I’d be interested to know about his relationship with the budding lawyers-now supreme court justices Alito and Roberts.

    What’s more scary? Having this guy’s interpetation of the constitution running around in this white house, or having 3 justices on the Supreme Court who heped come up with the idea in the first place?

  7. John Ashcroft is the guy you’re thinking of.

    Thanks Robert. Although I’ve been accused of not reading thoroughly enough here or looking up everything, crise if I did that, I swear I’d never get anything done. Bad enough I can’t resist coming here and then find something else on the web….and shit, its three hours later and the house plans only have one more stud drawn in…

  8. You wont be in too much trouble unless he starts talking about your president not stepping down till the war is over.

Comments are currently closed.