Circle of Bush Lawyers Sought a "New Paradigm"

[question everything]

Circle of Bush Lawyers Sought a "New Paradigm"

April 22, 2009
By JESS BRAVI
WSJ

Washington - In the aftermath of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, lawyers at the Justice Department and elsewhere in the Bush administration sought to construct a "new paradigm" for dealing with enemy prisoners, in the words of former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who later served as attorney general. Even before thee attacks, several of the lawyers working for the adminstration of former President George W. Bush had expressed strong views on issues such as the scope of presidential authority and the limits that international treaties place on U.S. actions.

(snip)

Many of these lawyers shared a conservative academic pedigree, including associations with the Federalist Society and clerkships under influential federal judges such as Laurence Silberman and Michael Luttig of the apellate courts and Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court.. Domestically, they largely adhered to "unitary executive" theory, which in its most aggressive form posits that the president enjoys exclusive and nearly unlimited powers to protect national security as he wishes. The theory ascribed expansive meaning to the Constitution's description of the president as holding "the executive power" of government and being "Commander in chief" of the armed forces. When relying on such intrinsic and undefined powers, courts and Congress had little or no authority to limit presidential action, they believed.

Mainstream legal opinion, however, saw federal powers more evenly balanced among three branches of government, and several Supreme Court opinions delivered during Mr. Bush's term rejected the claims of unreviewable authority. By the end of his presidency, the Justice Department conceded that many of its earlier legal views were in error.

Mr. Gonzales resigned as attorney general, under fire from some Republicans as well as many Democrats. Mr. Flanigan's nomination as deputy attorney general under Mr. Gonzales died, after Democrats questioned his role in setting legal policy. Mr. Haynes' nomination to a federal circuit court collapsed under opposition from key Senate Republican, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, over his role in interrogation and other matters. Mr. Yoo returned to Berkley and Mr. Bybee, who signed some of the memorandums, including two August 2002 opinions sanctioning harsh methods, was confirmed for a seat on the federal appeal court in San Francisco before the memorandums were disclosed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124036199017441673.html (subscription)


======

I read this story in the print edition, and while I provide a link, the online version is a lot tamer, with only Gonzales, Yoo and Rumsfeld names mentioned.

[Canuckistanian]

1. How's that working out for them, I wonder? n/t

[spanone]

2. torture is an old paradigm

[question everything]

5. I thought that promoting absolute power of the presidency

was more interesting that the torture memos themselves.

Wonder whether they would still promote this with Bill Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House.

They should have watched the Frost-Nixon interview when Nixon finally dug himself deep in a hole when he said that "when the President does it it is not illegal."

[gratuitous]

3. "New paradigm," huh?

I've heard it called a lot of things (Divine Right of Kings, Final Solution, etc.), but it always comes down to one thing, and that is a grab for unchecked power. It's not surprising that a legacy Yale student would operate in that fashion, and he'd surely surround himself with lackeys who'd share his warped, unamerican viewpoint. What's most disturbing is the number of good Americans who knew better and who still lined up behind this little tinpot dictator.

[DCKit]

4. Interesting that Rupert's WSJ would edit after publishing, but hardly surprising. K&R anyway. n/t