Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

David Addington Is A Seriously Evil Man

Posted by Phoenix Woman on January 29, 2007

The guy currently testifying at Scooter Libby’s trial is a seriously evil man. Let us count the ways:

-From an article by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, June 7, 2003:

White House lawyers, in particular, Vice President Cheney’s counsel David Addington (who is now Cheney’s chief of staff), pressed Mueller to use information from the NSA program in court cases, without disclosing the origin of the information, and told Mueller to be prepared to drop prosecutions if judges demanded to know the sourcing.

-From US News and World Report:

Bruce Fein, the Republican legal activist, suggests that, in Addington’s view, the President could kill someone in a public park if he deemed the person to be an enemy combatant.

And more from Jane Mayer:

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.”

And guess who gave Cheney — and then Bush — the idea to abuse the presidential use of “signing statements”, of which over 750 (more by far than have been used by all other presidents combined) have been made by Bush to date? Yupper, David Addington:

According to the Boston Globe, Addington has been the “leading architect” of these signing statements, which have been added to more than seven hundred and fifty laws. He reportedly scrutinizes every bill before President Bush signs it, searching for any language that might impinge on Presidential power. These wars of words are yet another battlefront between Addington and Congress, and some constitutional scholars find them troubling. Few of the signing statements were noticed until one of them was slipped into Bush’s signing of the McCain amendment. The language was legal boilerplate, reserving the right to construe the legislation only as it was consistent with the Constitution. But, considering that Cheney’s office had waged, and lost, a public fight to defeat the McCain amendment democratically—the vote in the Senate was 90–9—the signing statement seemed sneaky and subversive.

Earlier this month, the American Bar Association voted to investigate whether President Bush had exceeded his constitutional authority by reserving the right to ignore portions of laws that he has signed. Richard Epstein, the University of Chicago law professor, said, “What’s frightening to me is that this Administration is always willing to push the conventions to the limits—and beyond. With his signing statements, I think the President just goes too far. If you sign these things with a caveat, do the inferior officers follow the law or the caveat?”

Bruce Fein argues that Addington’s signing statements are “unconstitutional as a strategy,” because the Founding Fathers wanted Presidents to veto legislation openly if they thought the bills were unconstitutional. Bush has not vetoed a single bill since taking office. “It’s part of the balancing process,” Fein said. “It’s about accountability. If you veto something, everyone knows where you stand. But this President wants to do it sotto voce. He wants to give the image that he’s accommodating on torture, and then reserves the right to torture anyway.


9 Responses to “David Addington Is A Seriously Evil Man”

  1. Eli said

    An evil man in the Bush administration?


    Yesss… You like the WordPress… Join us… Join us…

    Room for one more…

  2. Heh! I had to. Haven’t decided whether or not to pony up for WP 2.0, but dang your site looks impressive.

  3. Eli said

    Thanks! Most of the impressive is thanks to ::matthew with a little kibbitzing from me, but I can at least take credit for the header text (and photos)…

  4. Palau said

    Addington has been one of my pet projects for a while. He’s a true Wormtongue.

  5. Nice site!

  6. Charles said

    Somehow I don’t think you came for the waters, Abogado.

    I won’t take your post down because it’s undoubtedly the most interesting piece of commercial spam I’ve ever seen, work-safe, etc. But it’s spam, so– please no more.

  7. kharbxuj mokegv hnoikbwj vflwbz mjyf fxzpnmsy ojgwxtqm

    [URL corrected by siteowner]

  8. Stormcrow said

    kharbxuj mokegv hnoikbwj vflwbz mjyf fxzpnmsy ojgwxtqm

    Now there’s a new low.

    No, I won’t click on the link. Something tells me that wouldn’t be a very good idea.

  9. Charles II said

    You can click it now, Stormcrow.

    It now goes to the Wasilla Assembly of God where, like the poster, they also speak in tongues

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: