...more recent posts
[....]
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.”
[....]
The Bush Administration's Legal Strategy
In “The Hidden Power; The Legal Mind Behind the White House's War on Terror,” New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer examines David S. Addington--the man many believe is behind the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 legal strategy. (w/ leonard lopate wnyc)
more fatherflot links :
John Conyers released a 350 page report called "The Constitution in Crisis.
New Name Alert: According to Rummy's testimony before the Senate on Thursday it's now the "struggle against violent extremists who are determinded to keep free people from exercising their rights as free people" or SAVEWADTKFPFETRAFP, pronouced sa-ve-wad-tkfpfet-rapf.
But I still prefer the Global Clusterfuck on Terror.
I must be missing something, but given that we have zero military units ready to deploy, why wouldn't China invade Taiwan right now?
Am I misunderstand their desire to get Taiwan back? Or am I missing some leverage that we hold over them? Or are they just being rather reasonable and peaceful?
Just found this yesterday (am I late to the party?): War In Context - "Iraq + war on terrorism + Middle East conflict + critical perspectives". Seems like a fairly comprehensive listing of current pieces (mostly major media) on the war, with lots of pull quotes. Not much analysis, but a good way to keep up with all the reporting.
ny times endorses lieberman lamont.
sunday bloody sunday
this story starts out not without its amusement and then takes a hard right at the end.
the comments are telling coming from both sides.