A MUST-READ New Yorker article.

Most Americans . . . 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.”

[ . . . . ]

Many constitutional experts, however, question his interpretation of
the document, especially his views on Presidential power. Scott Horton,
a professor at Columbia Law School, and the head of the New York Bar
Association’s International Law committee, said that Addington and a
small group of Administration lawyers who share his views had attempted
to “overturn two centuries of jurisprudence defining the limits of the
executive branch. They’ve made war a matter of dictatorial power.” The
historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who defined Nixon as the extreme
example of Presidential overreaching in his book “The Imperial
Presidency” (1973), said he believes that Bush “is more grandiose than
Nixon.” As for the Administration’s legal defense of torture, which
Addington played a central role in formulating, Schlesinger said, “No
position taken has done more damage to the American reputation in the
world—ever.”

Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist,
who voted for Bush in both Presidential elections, and who served as
associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department,
said that Addington and other Presidential legal advisers had “staked
out powers that are a universe beyond any other Administration. This
President has made claims that are really quite alarming. He’s said
that there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it, to collect
intelligence, to open mail, to commit torture, and to use electronic
surveillance. If you used the President’s reasoning, you could shut
down Congress for leaking too much. His war powers allow him to declare
anyone an illegal combatant. All the world’s a battlefield—according to
this view, he could kill someone in Lafayette Park if he wants! It’s
got the sense of Louis XIV: ‘I am the
State.’ ” Richard A. Epstein, a prominent libertarian law professor at
the University of Chicago, said, “The President doesn’t have the power
of a king, or even that of state governors. He’s subject to the laws of
Congress! The Administration’s lawyers are nuts on this issue.” He
warned of an impending “constitutional crisis,” because “their talk of
the inherent power of the Presidency seems to be saying that the courts
can’t stop them, and neither can Congress.”

The former
high-ranking lawyer for the Administration, who worked closely with
Addington, and who shares his political conservatism, said that, in the
aftermath of September 11th, “Addington was more like Cheney’s agent
than like a lawyer. A lawyer sometimes says no.” He noted, “Addington
never said, ‘There is a line you can’t cross.’ ” Although the lawyer
supported the President, he felt that his Administration had been led
astray. “George W. Bush has been damaged by incredibly bad legal
advice,” he said.

[ . . . . ]

David Addington is a satisfactory lawyer, Fein said, but a less than
satisfactory student of American history, which, for a public servant
of his influence, matters more. “If you read the Federalist Papers, you
can see how rich in history they are,” he said. “The Founders really
understood the history of what people did
with power, going back to Greek and Roman and Biblical times. Our
political heritage is to be skeptical of executive power, because, in
particular, there was skepticism of King George III. But Cheney and
Addington are not students of history. If they were, they’d know that
the Founding Fathers would be shocked by what they’ve done.”

Other highlights include references to Cheney and Addington’s longstanding plans to reduce Congress to a “cipher,” based in part on their distaste for the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and their dislike of Congressional oversight.

-MAD-