| | |  | Terrorism | Home » » Power Wars: Unmasking National Security Legal Policy Deliberations Under Bush & Obama (Kindle Single) | | | | | | | Description: | | When the President’s top lawyers disagree about sensitive issues, should newspapers treat those internal arguments as front-page news – even at the risk of chilling the candor of the legal advice offered to the commander-in-chief? How should the public evaluate the work of the politically appointed lawyers who determine the rules within which executive branch policymakers may operate?
Pulitzer Prize-winner Charlie Savage, a Washington correspondent for the New York Times, makes the case for revealing the questions that executive branch lawyers struggle with behind closed doors. He argues that a crucial lesson of the post-9/11 era has been that such internal fights matter enormously, especially in national security disputes that are rarely tested in court. And, drawing on his work as an author and a reporter, he offers models to help understand the impact that the Bush and Obama legal teams have had on American democracy – and provides a framework for analyzing a recurring question: Has President Barack Obama become indistinguishable from George W. Bush as he carries forward the continuing war on Al Qaeda and its allies?
Adapted from a keynote address to the Harvard Law School-Brookings conference “Law, Security, & Liberty After 9/11: Looking to the Future,” on September 17, 2011.
| | | Product Details: | | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 2 reviews |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 2 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
13 of 15 found the following review helpful:
 Presidential power uber allesSep 24, 2011
By Rett01
Charlie Savage believes that national security policy deliberations within the executive branch of government ought to be conducted in the public view. More often than not, however, those discussions have been held in secret, behind closed doors in the White House during both the Bush (W) and the Obama administrations.
Who might you expect is the person most responsible for shutting out any public scrutiny and debate? Dick Cheney more than anyone bears responsibility for taking things secret, for leading what amounted to a transformation from a nation governed by laws and statutes to a country run by politics. All in the name of extending the power of the executive branch to act unilaterally without any congressional or judicial checks and balances and without any outside scrutiny.
Pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without even a nod toward the Senate, wiretapping without warrants, turning our backs on provisions of the Geneva Conventions and claiming to have the presidential right to imprison U. S. citizens indefinitely without trial are examples of Bush-Cheney acts, enacted secretly. All motivated by Cheney's goal to extend presidential power uber alles.
The mechanism for most all the shenanigans was something called a presidential "signing statement." It worked like this: faced with a statute or act he didn't like, the president could override it by attaching a signing statement saying that although the statute existed and was binding, in this particular instance, national security issues were involved and therefore the president could override it.
The president could append a signing statement to a bill and by invoking national security concerns he could more or less do whatever he wanted without any oversight. He could write the rules the way he wanted. And every time an override took place, it set a precedent. By the end of his presidency, Bush had used a signing bill to invoke privilege nearly 1,200 times, an unprecedented amount.
Later into the Bush-Cheney regime as things began to leak into daylight, things began to change, for the better. Extreme things, such as waterboarding stopped. And then a new administration took office and almost immediately deliberations and policy making once again began to occur in the dark more often.
The Obama team invoked executive privilege to block lawsuits involving CIA torture, warrantless wiretapping and detaining Guantanamo prisoners without trials. Authorizing drone missile strikes against human targets outside of Iraq or Afghanistan, including one U.S. citizen suspected of being affiliated with Al Qaeda is one example. When other unilateral acts by the Obama team became known, people concerned with civil liberties began paying attention. "Surveying this landscape, groups like the ACLU have said Obama and his legal team are acting like Bush and Cheney: he's claiming and exercising unchecked power."
But then things got better in the Obama camp just as they had during the later years of the Bush administration. Savage says the Obama team truly believes in acting as if we are a nation governed by laws, not politics and stays as far away as possible from anything the even smells like unilateralism. Maybe the Obama team can be trusted to be open and open to scrutiny. But then again, maybe not.
Savage seems worried that the willingness to be open may change. The Obama administration faces a number of tough national security issues and has to deal with an unfriendly Congress. The administration is going to be sorely tempted to deal with these issues out of the public eye. Savage hopes they won't do that. "As these and other such matters unfold," Savage says, "Now more than ever, I submit, national security legal policy deliberations belong in the public view."
Savage is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. His role, as he views it, is to go forth into the world of government and figure things out and then help people understand what's happening and what the stakes are. He wants to simplify without becoming simplistic.
His essay is adapted from a keynote address he gave at a September 2011 Harvard Law School conference. Savage takes on a discussion of big things, complex issues such as government checks and balances, secrecy versus openness, the exercise of power within the executive branch. He spends a lot of time parsing the information and offering background and context. He ends up making it easy to grasp these complex issues. You may not agree with everything he asserts. But for sure you'll come away knowing more about how government works. And there's no arguing with the value of that.
0 of 6 found the following review helpful:
 Left leaning testimonialOct 10, 2011
By Bob
Sure, the description of this Kindle Single paints the essay as a non-partisan effort, but the author spends a lot of time complaining about Bush/Cheney. He simply blames Obama for continuing (and expanding, to some extent) the policies that began with Bush. If you're a solid lefty who needs confirmation that Obama is straying from his far-left promises, then you may like this.
| | |
|
