In private, Bush administration sub-Cabinet officials who have been instrumental in formulating and sustaining the legal "war paradigm" acknowledge that their efforts to create a system for detainees separate from due process, criminal justice and law enforcement have failed. One of the key framers of the war paradigm (in which the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances), who a year ago was arguing vehemently for pushing its boundaries, confesses that he has abandoned his belief in the whole doctrine, though he refuses to say so publicly. If he were to speak up, given his seminal role in formulating the policy and his stature among the Federalist Society cadres that run it, his rejection would have a shattering impact, far more than political philosopher Francis Fukuyama's denunciation of the neoconservatism he formerly embraced. But this figure remains careful to disclose his disillusionment with his own handiwork only in off-the-record conversations. Yet another Bush legal official, even now at the commanding heights of power, admits that the administration's policies are largely discredited. In its defense, he says without a hint of irony or sarcasm, "Not everything we've done has been illegal." He adds, "Not everything has been ultra vires" -- a legal term referring to actions beyond the law.Can we attach a couple of names to these two characters?
You can tell that Blumenthal wants to encourage a guessing game, hence the clues -- the Federalist Society remark and the "even now at the commanding heights of power" bit. These things usually spill out. If you call the shot, you'll get major bragging rights.
My picks: John Yoo as the Federalist guy and David Addington as the "commanding heights of power" guy.
6 comments:
John Yoo was the first name that came to my mind as well.
I read John Yoo’s “War by Other Means” for a Poli Sci class earlier this year. While I was sure that I would come away repulsed at how he had twisted the details of the constitution and mischaracterized the intentions of the framers; that was not what struck me most about the book. For sure I was repulsed by his ideas of executive powers, but what struck me the hardest was how badly and incompletely formed his ideas seemed. I found very little of the legal arguments and detailed analysis of the constitution and Supreme Court decisions that I had expected.
I had expected an expert level discussion on topics such as:
The use of “make” v. “declare” war in Article I (which is exceptionally well explained in Madison’s notes)
Korematsu v. United States
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp -- on inherent powers of the executive
Ex parte Quirin
Ex parte Milligan
AUMF
etc.
I found little to none of this. While some of these were mentioned, it almost seemed in passing. His book seemed like it could have been written by just about anyone who had read a couple books or essays on the topic. In short, it did not give the impression of being a scholarly work, written by a learned man of the highest levels, at all.
While pure supposition on my part, I think you may be right about it being Yoo. He is a relatively young man compared to his constitutional peers. He may have been caught up in a kind of irrational exuberance, with thoughts about his ability to leave his “mark” on constitutional scholarship at a key time in US history. He may now be learning that the reality of his ideas have frightening consequences, or he may simply have been demoralized by his ideology being so thoroughly rejected by all, save a minority of authoritarian extremist. Even Scalia rejected his views of presidential powers in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
John Yoo was my thought as well for the Federalist. Rather than discourse on the finer points of Constitutional arguments, the image coming to mind is that of a young punk nonchalantly tossing a book of matches in the trash, well after the building is torched.
yoo is certainly the strongest candidate for official #1. every interview with him that i've witnessed has left me utterly astounded at his lack of insight and his lack of logical rigor. moreover, he was just plain pissy and arrogant when anyone disagreed with him.
therefore, i doubt seriously that he had a moment of conscience in making those comments to blumenthal. instead, i'll wager he's as much an opportunist like the rest of them and sees the writing on the wall. surely he's kept himself apprised of the SC's rulings on these and similar matters of late, so he's got to know he's not supported by, erm, the CONSTITUTION.
aside: given scalia's rigid interpretation of that document, his totally bizarre outburst about jack bauer for godsake! what the hell is that?? the man is exposing himself for all the world to see.
i'm hoping he and/or thomas and/or roberts pull something entirely consistent with their authoritarian leanings in the next few years and leave themselves wide open for impeachment.
but first, we have to get rid of gonzo, the dick, and the bush (what a cast of characters, eh?), in that order.
seems to me that the fasco/nazis that are running this giant corporation called America Inc. have reached the zenith in their pillaging of the national treasurey..in terms of their reading of the public outrage barometer.
In order to float back to a normal political posture they are now reducing the "pull out all the stops" thrust, all over the world.
Now it will be a series o policyf changes to reduce the intense negative pressure on our population by
1. Closing Guantanamo
2. Being" perceived" as more willing to compromise with Congress
3. Negotiating more with "Axis of Evil" parties
4. Getting more involved in the Middle East political turmoil
5. Bush making all kinds of gestures and appearances that will give the public a warm fuzzy feeling towards him..like speanding more money on veterans benefits, poor folks..colored folks..etc.
And much much more. After all there is an important election a year off. They have made enough money and distressed this once proud nation enough..for awhile. We are still standing but weakly and numbly.
What just hit us? Did anyone get the license number?
I did said a little boy. It was HELL 666
Those are the first two names that came into my mine as well.
Richard Perle a distant third.
folks should check out emptywheel's guesses on these two, educated as ever.
she suggests - from a list of possibilities she supplies - that the first character is not john yoo (who, as i said above, strikes me as just too damn arrogant and rigid to shift), but viet dinh. could be; i'd also suggest it might be bybee himself. we don't hear him loudly defending the policy these days....
as for the other official, her suggestion is that, from blumenthal's careful wording, it is not likely anyone who was involved in the policy, but someone who's come in since. therefore, she suggests fred fielding. a seasoned lawyer who, upon entry into the little nightmare, recognized this for the perversion it is, not to mention the legal hell for his client and friends.
when placed beside the flack from just yesterday about the gitmo meeting that did NOT happen, fielding's role becomes more plausible. in other words, it is consistent with the seething battle between the EOP and the EVOP on such delicate matters as torture, the unitary executive, warrantless wiretapping, habeas corpus, and oh yeah, executive orders concerning submitting secret document management to oversight.
at some point the sound of all that tension snapping will be unmistakably audible, even over the media silence, diversion, and hype.
Post a Comment