Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts "Fresh Air" [and Bill Moyers] on Executive Power and the Department of Justice
|
Friday, September 07, 2007
"Fresh Air" [and Bill Moyers] on Executive Power and the Department of Justice
Marty Lederman
Fresh Air aired interviews in the past couple of weeks with --
Comments:
The NPR interview of Goldsmith reminds me of their interview of Suskind. Both authors were measured and balanced as they swatted down the insinuations in the loaded questions of the interviewer such as the slanderous nonsense that Addington and the other WH personnel could not wait for the next al Qaeda bombing of America to establish some sort of fascist legal structure.
Interestingly, Goldsmith apparently saw the same intelligence reports as the others and observed a very real threat. He also appeared to have no problem with the policies in the MCA and the recent FISA reform nor did he contend that the most if not all the interrogation methods being used were unlawful. Where Goldsmith disagreed with Addington and much more with Yoo was over the powers of Congress to affirmatively limit the President in a war. Apart from portions of the Yoo memo, Goldsmith does not attack the others' legal opinions as categorically wrong. Rather, he simply came to a different conclusion where to draw the line when there were no guides. Refreshingly, Goldsmith admitted that he was "desperately unhappy" about some of his own legal conclusions because they tied the President's hands in ways that Goldsmith thought would be dangerous. He thought the vague criminal laws placed the CIA and other agencies in impossible positions while trying to defend the country. However, he also wanted to give the President his honest interpretation of the law. Fascinating stuff.
The most striking piece of information in all of the recent Goldsmith interviews emerged in an interview with Terry Gross broadcast yesterday on NPR. At minute 3:38 into the interview, we hear the following exchange [my transcription and emphasis]:
Gross: Another sentence that has been quoted a lot from your book, you write that during a tense meeting at the White House in February 2004, in referring to the FISA Court, the court that has to approve warrants related to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, Addington said to you "We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious court." People are interpreting that that he just couldn’t wait for the next bomb so that they could get rid of the FISA court. How do you interpret what he meant by that? Goldsmith: I don’t think that’s quite an accurate interpretation. I think that the gloss I would give is that he certainly did not like the FISA court. He thought that the entire FISA structure that required the commander in chief to go to a court to get a warrant to find out where the enemy was- He thought that was invalid and an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s power. And he believed that FISA was constraining the President in a way that may get a lot of people killed, and I think what he meant by that is that when the next attack comes, and the attack is attributable to a legal system that constrains the President, we’ll get rid of that legal system. For the first time, we have a clear description of the controversy over The Program. Goldsmith notes that Addington's concern was the requirement to go to the FISA court for a warrant "to find out where the enemy was". Doesn't this indicate they were likely acquiring information without regard to location of the communicator? Sounds like Goldsmith wanted FISA warrants to cover the acquisition of Domestic info...?
I found two segments of Goldsmith's interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR especially interesting:
1) At one point (at about 11:30) he addressed his differences with John Yoo over sweeping assertions Yoo made at the conclusion of a famous OLC opinion Sept. 25, 2001. It said: In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make. Although Goldsmith agrees with much of body of the opinion, he finds the conclusion gratuitous and ill-founded. He told Gross: The thrust of that opinion is about the president's power to thwart terrorist attacks ... on his own without any affirmative authorization from Congress. And I certainly agree that the president has very, very broad powers to do that. ... Near the end of the opinion ... it shifts to different issue -- not about whether the president can act in the absence of congressional authorization, but whether the president can act in the face of congressional constraints. And that sentence is a good example of the extraordinarily overbroad assertions of power. It moved from saying that the president can act against terrorists without affirimative authorization from Congress to saying that the president can act against terrorists and do whatever he wants, regardless of congressional restriction. And it was a throwaway paragraph at the end, and it didn't have any citations. Goldsmith, of course, is following precisely the distinction that Justice Jackson made in his bedrock Youngstown concurrence. That is the core of the constitutional difference between Yoo, who fundamentally dismisses Jackson's Youngstown framework, and mainstream conservatives like Goldsmith who embrace it. 2) At another point in the NPR inteview (about 22:00) Goldsmith criticizes the "tendentious tone" of some of Yoo's OLC opinions, in this case the famous torture memos: Tone is really important. ... It's very important for the Office of Legal Counsel to take a very detached attitude toward legal interpretation, and to appear to take a very detached attitude toward legal interpretation. And this opinion, as one senior official in the Justice Department put it to me, wasn't the usual detached OLC analysis, but rather, as this person put it, read like a bad defense counsel's brief. It basically read as if it were stretching to find ways to immunize people who were going to be doing very, very aggressive interrogations. And instead of doing a kind of neutral detached analysis of the meaning of torture statute -- and in parts it did try to do that -- it had the discussion about defenses to prosecution, and self-defense and the like that seemed extraneous to the interpretation of the torture law. [Contrary to the spin being spun in some quarters, the interviewer did not exactly have to drag these criticisms out of Goldsmith. After all, however much he is at pains to sympathize with the patriotic objectives of the Bush administration, and concurs on some issues, he did have some very serious disagreements over the way the law was treated there.]
I will give Terry Gross and NPR a small measure of credit. Their slant is palpable, but Gross did briefly touch upon Goldsmith's theme of the unprecedented legal obstacles to war fighting in her last question and NPR (unlike 60 Minutes, CBS News and the NYT) does not edit out the content provided by a subject which does not fit the theme of their commentary posing as news.
Some of the most interesting news showing the progress of the war effort comes out of NPR interviews with the actual participants that would be generally edited out or simply not covered by the major media outlets.
drational said...
Post a Comment
For the first time, we have a clear description of the controversy over The Program. Goldsmith notes that Addington's concern was the requirement to go to the FISA court for a warrant "to find out where the enemy was". Doesn't this indicate they were likely acquiring information without regard to location of the communicator? Ummm, yes. The TSP as it has been reporting concerns the monitoring of telephone numbers captured from the enemy to determine if heretofore unidentified enemy may be using these numbers. The reason FISA represents such an obstacle to such intelligence gathering is that there is generally no individualized probable cause that any particular number is being used by the enemy. The TSP is all about developing that probable cause.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |