Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.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
Bernard Harcourt harcourt at uchicago.edu
Scott Horton shorto 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 princeton.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.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
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
The Boston Globe reported that the president withheld a widely sought white paper “fearing it would only intensify congressional criticism, government sources say.”
This story appeared on April 4, 1973, and it referred to a White Paper laying out the legal basis for President Richard Nixon’s decision to bomb Cambodia after U.S. troops were removed from Vietnam. Barack Obama obviously isn’t Richard Nixon, but his reluctance to disclose the legal basis for targeted killings attempts to do something that Nixon also attempted: to cloak decisions about war in government secrecy, undermining political checks on the use of military force.
Nixon’s White Paper was written by the State Department’s deputy legal advisor after questions were raised about the legal authority for bombing Cambodia. It was described as contending that military action in Cambodia was “simply part of the ending of the general Indochina war. “Therefore, it argues, Mr. Nixon has the constitutional right as commander-in-chief of the armed forces to continue the bombing.” Although there was disagreement about the rationale in the State Department, Secretary of State William P. Rogers was said to have approved the White Paper, and sent it to the White House, where it remained, apparently in the hope that the controversy over Cambodia would go away.
But as the controversy continued, “delay in disclosure now is based on White House realization of the inherent weaknesses in trying to build a constitutional case for the bombing.” The administration had tested the waters, informally discussing the draft with a few members of the Senate, but “they tore the arguments apart and told the Administration people the draft would not help in offsetting any moves to prohibit legislatively continued US military acts in Cambodia.”
Whatever happened to Nixon’s Cambodia White Paper is unclear from the sources I’ve seen so far, but it was not publicly released in 1973.
Presidents use secrecy for many reasons, some legitimate, and some illegitimate. In this case, Nixon’s State Department crafted a legal rationale, but then found that its release would only fuel congressional criticism, heightening interest in limiting Nixon’s power to use military force. Deep-sixing the legal argument was part of an effort to insulate decisions about the use of force from political reaction and political restraint.
Nixon, of course, had many other problems by 1973. He would resign from office the next year amidst the Watergate scandal and impeachment. An impeachment charge proposed but not passed related to Nixon and Cambodia, particularly his effort to keep the 1969-70 bombing of Cambodia from Congress and the American people.
There is a long, if sometimes less sordid, history of secrecy for this sort of reason: to keep Congress and the American people from undermining the president’s autonomy. If President Obama is not, in this sense, Nixonian, the best way to show it would be to make public the OLC memos detailing the legal rationale for targeted killing.
The article quoted is: Associated Press, “US reportedly withholds bombing-rationale report,” Boston Globe, April 4, 1973, p. 12. Thanks to Mary Beth Chappell of the Emory University Law Library for assisting with my research on Nixon and Cambodia. Posted
by Mary L. Dudziak [link]
But he is, so he won't.
It's sad to realize that the only lessons a generation of politicians learned from Nixon were, "Don't keep records like recordings!" and "Don't hire people whose consciences might overwhelm their loyalty!"
Herbert Hoover was President when I was born (1930). I didn't know much about him at the time but I did get to know about FDR and subsequent Presidents. And via civics, history, political science courses, I learned about Hoover and his predecessor Presidents. Going back to President Lincoln and the Civil War, and moving forward, changes in the politics of the presidency seem to build on prior presidencies. Has the slate ever been fully cleared by a President? If a President tried to do so, what might be the results? Can domestic and international politics permit a President to fully clean the state? Would the party out of power permit that to happen? Perhaps as a practical matter there is no full cleansing technique, somewhat along the lines of being stuck with Original Sin of Genesis. Is the best we can hope two steps forward, one step back? Might a white puff of smoke provide for political confession followed by redemption?
I continue to be optimistic. Of course I may be wrong, but what the heck, life so far has been interesting. I remember when Nixon won in 1968, when a friend more liberal than me was livid. I tried to console him with "Don't worry, Tricky Dick won't ruin the country." And he didn't, but he came awfully close. As for Bush/Cheney, "history" will inform us in time.
In this situation to Guild Wars 2 Gold, Nixon’s State Division designed a lawful reasoning, but then discovered that its launch would be with Runescape Gold only petrol congressional critique, increasing attention in restricting to Diablo 3 Gold Nixon’s energy to use army power.
If a President tried to do so, what might be the results? Can domestic and international politics permit a President to fully clean the state? Would the party out of power permit that to happen? Perhaps as a practical matter there is no full cleansing technique, somewhat along the lines of being stuck with Original Sin of Genesis. Is the best we can hope two steps forward, one step back? Might a white puff of smoke provide for political confession followed by redemption www.joyrs.comwindows 7 professional activation keywww.rs2fun.com