Nauseating But Important Article on David Addington--Cheney's Cheney

in this week's New Yorker by Jane Mayer, only hinted at in a Q&A online. If you're like me, you'll have a difficult time sitting still and keeping yourself from wanting to put a fist through the wall while reading about the power this fascist has in the Bush administration. Especially when you realize he's nowhere near done "restoring" power to the presidency that he believes was wrongfully stolen from it in the wake of Watergate. John Dean is not alone among former Nixon men and observers of that corrupt era in believing this crew to be the most power hungry and dangerous ever.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/060703on_onlineonly01

...

Yet you write that some people—including some conservative Republicans—question whether Addington really respects the Constitution.

Some constitutional scholars have questioned whether Addington, in his eagerness to expand the powers of the Presidency, which he and Cheney see as having been unduly diminished since Watergate, gives enough weight to the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Some have suggested that he has aggrandized the powers of the President in such a way that the executive branch ignores the system of checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers, so that its actions are unchecked and unaccountable. Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, told me that he regards Addington as an adequate lawyer but an inadequate student of American history, because he believes that Addington has failed to understand that the Founders designed the U.S. government specifically to insure that the executive would not have unlimited power. Fein suggests that the Founders, unlike Addington, understood the perils of concentrated power. They had seen in George III, among others, what tyranny meant.

What is the New Paradigm?

It’s a shorthand term that comes from a memo signed by Alberto Gonzales but believed to have been written in part by Addington, in which the authors articulated that the attacks of 9/11 required a legal response beyond the confines of ordinary criminal law and ordinary military law. Instead, they said, a “new paradigm” was called for, allowing the government to emphasize detection and prevention of crime, at the expense of more traditional notions of due process. Their aim was to stop terrorist attacks before they were perpetrated. To do so, they felt they needed to interrogate, detain, and try terrorist suspects in ways that would not be permissible under U.S. or international law. The New Paradigm has come to refer to all of the novel legal policies that the Bush Administration has forged in its approach to the global war on terrorism.

It's worth it.

on Cheney and the Bush admin?

The more I learn about Cheney, the more I worry about our country's future. His drive, ambition and secrecy are pretty scary!

Soon after moving into the VP mansion, Cheney complained about the electric bill and demanded additional funding. I sent him a crisp $1 bill to help out. A couple of months later, I received a letter from Addington, who was Cheney's legal counsel at the time, with my dollar bill in it, explaining that Cheney wasn't allowed to accept my gift.

Since my letter had a somewhat sarcastic tone, I'm sure I'm in a database somewhere.

He may not have gotten the joke.