why?

Posted on Saturday 23 June 2007


September 11, 2001: Extraordinary Presidential Powers
September 11, 2001… On the morning of Sept. 11, Addington was evacuated from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House and began to make his way toward his Virginia home on foot. As he neared the Arlington Memorial Bridge, someone in the White House reached him with a message: Turn around. The vice president needs you. Down in the bunker, according to a colleague with firsthand knowledge, Cheney and Addington began contemplating the founding question of the legal revolution to come: What extraordinary powers will the president need for his response?

Before the day ended, Cheney’s lawyer joined forces with Timothy E. Flanigan, the deputy White House counsel, linked by secure video from the Situation Room. Flanigan patched in John C. Yoo at the Justice Department’s fourth-floor command center. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales joined later. Thus formed the core legal team that Cheney oversaw, directly and indirectly, after the terrorist attacks.
"Addington, Flanigan and Gonzales were really a triumvirate," recalled Bradford A. Berenson, then an associate White House counsel. Yoo, he said, "was a supporting player." Gonzales, a former Texas judge, had the seniority and the relationship with Bush. But Addington — a man of imposing demeanor, intellect and experience — dominated the group. Gonzales "was not a law-of-war expert and didn’t have very developed views," Yoo recalled, echoing blunter observations by the Texan’s White House colleagues.
September 25, 2001: Unwarranted Domestic Surveillance
Flanigan, with advice from Yoo, drafted the authorization for use of military force that Congress approved on Sept. 18. [Read the authorization document] Yoo said they used the broadest possible language because "this war was so different, you can’t predict what might come up." In fact, the triumvirate knew very well what would come next: the interception — without a warrant — of communications to and from the United States. Forbidden by federal law since 1978, the surveillance would soon be justified, in secret, as "incident to" the authority Congress had just granted. Yoo was already working on that memo, completing it on Sept. 25.

It was an extraordinary step, bypassing Congress and the courts, and its authors kept it secret from officials who were likely to object. Among the excluded was John B. Bellinger III, a man for whom Cheney’s attorney had "open contempt," according to a senior government lawyer who saw them often. The eavesdropping program was directly within Bellinger’s purview as ranking national security lawyer in the White House, reporting to Rice. Addington had no line responsibility. But he had Cheney’s proxy, and more than once he accused Bellinger, to his face, of selling out presidential authority for good "public relations" or bureaucratic consensus.
On Oct. 25, 2001, the chairmen and ranking minority members of the intelligence committees were summoned to the White House for their first briefing on the eavesdropping and were told that it was one of the government’s most closely compartmented secrets. Under Presidents George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton, officials said, a conversation of that gravity would involve the commander in chief. But when the four lawmakers arrived in the West Wing lobby, an aide led them through the door on the right, away from the Oval Office.

"We met in the vice president’s office," recalled former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.). Bush had told Graham already, when the senator assumed the intelligence panel chairmanship, that "the vice president should be your point of contact in the White House." Cheney, the president said, "has the portfolio for intelligence activities."
November 14, 2001: Military Commissions, the Geneva Conventions do not apply
Two years later, at his Nov. 13 lunch with Bush, Cheney brought the president the ultimate "oh, by the way" choice — a far-reaching military order that most of Bush’s top advisers had not seen.
To pave the way for the military commissions, Yoo wrote an opinion on Nov. 6, 2001, declaring that Bush did not need approval from Congress or federal courts. Yoo said in an interview that he saw no need to inform the State Department, which hosts the archives of the Geneva Conventions and the government’s leading experts on the law of war. "The issue we dealt with was: Can the president do it constitutionally?" Yoo said. "State — they wouldn’t have views on that."

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was astonished to learn that the draft gave the Justice Department no role in choosing which alleged terrorists would be tried in military commissions. Over Veterans Day weekend, on Nov. 10, he took his objections to the White House. The attorney general found Cheney, not Bush, at the broad conference table in the Roosevelt Room. According to participants, Ashcroft said that he was the president’s senior law enforcement officer, supervised the FBI and oversaw terrorism prosecutions nationwide. The Justice Department, he said, had to have a voice in the tribunal process. He was enraged to discover that Yoo, his subordinate, had recommended otherwise — as part of a strategy to deny jurisdiction to U.S. courts. Raising his voice, participants said, Ashcroft talked over Addington and brushed aside interjections from Cheney. "The thing I remember about it is how rude, there’s no other word for it, the attorney general was to the vice president," said one of those in the room. Asked recently about the confrontation, Ashcroft replied curtly: "I’m just not prepared to comment on that." According to Yoo and three other officials, Ashcroft did not persuade Cheney and got no audience with Bush.
Three days after the Ashcroft meeting, Cheney brought the order for military commissions to Bush. No one told Bellinger, Rice or Powell, who continued to think that Prosper’s working group was at the helm. After leaving Bush’s private dining room, the vice president took no chances on a last-minute objection. He sent the order on a swift path to execution that left no sign of his role. After Addington and Flanigan, the text passed to Berenson, the associate White House counsel. Cheney’s link to the document broke there: Berenson was not told of its provenance.

Berenson rushed the order to deputy staff secretary Stuart W. Bowen Jr., bearing instructions to prepare it for signature immediately — without advance distribution to the president’s top advisers. Bowen objected, he told colleagues later, saying he had handled thousands of presidential documents without ever bypassing strict procedures of coordination and review. He relented, one White House official said, only after "rapid, urgent persuasion" that Bush was standing by to sign and that the order was too sensitive to delay.

On Nov. 14, 2001, the day after Bush signed the commissions order, Cheney took the next big step. He told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that terrorists do not "deserve to be treated as prisoners of war." [Read Cheney’s full remarks] The president had not yet made that decision. Ten weeks passed, and the Bush administration fought one of its fiercest internal brawls, before Bush ratified the policy that Cheney had declared: The Geneva Conventions would not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters captured on the battlefield. 
Chapter 1 of the series on Cheney in the Washington Post takes one’s breath away. It takes a while to take it in. On September 11th, while still in the Bunker, Cheney is brain storming with Addington about what powers the president will need. Within two weeks, in addition to the expected war-powers having to do with the military, the unwarranted domestic surveillance program was drafted, and a month later, presented to the Intelligence Committee – a done deal. Within two months of the 9/11 attack, the policy of unlimited imprisonment for prisoners of war, Military Commissions,  and the renounciation of the Geneva Conventions was signed, sealed, and delivered. All conceived and executed by the Vice President, Dick Cheney.

So many questions. Why was Cheney even thinking about such things on September 11th? Why, for that matter, was the Vice President involved in such things? Clearly, they were already in his mind [for him to be in full implementation mode so quickly]. He ramrodded these programs through without input from the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, or the National Security Advisor, Condaleeza Rice. Where did his ideas come from?

We were all crazed by what happened on September 11th, 2001. I expect that most of us had some relatively barbaric retaliatory fantasies that week [at least, I did]. But this story goes beyond that. In the days following the attack, Dick Cheney was almost immediately scheming to grab Presidential Power [in very specific ways]:
  • to secretly monitor domestic communications without getting warrants
  • to detain Prisoners of War indefinitely with no access to the courts
  • to deprive future Prisoners of War of the treatment guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions
  • to lay the groundwork to allow torture of Prisoners of War

We would, of course, not fault him for getting to work on what to do in response to 9/11. But why did he come up with those particular things? Why didn’t he want the Cabinet to debate them? Why was he using political pressure to get them passed? Was this kind of stuff already part of his Project for the New American Century? It’s just odd stuff, that’s all. It doesn’t seem like the first order of business.

Very confusing…
  1.  
    joyhollywood
    June 24, 2007 | 6:34 AM
     

    The stuff Cheney and his accomplices do would ordinarily be considered illegal in our country but our VP just tells Addington( a lawyer now is Chief of Staff) to write a letter and tell everybody that it’s legal because he says so. AG Ashcroft tried to stand up to this nonsense and he couldn’t get anywhere. Has anybody gotten this bit of news that the then top law enforcement officer in the country was not consulted about legality and was totally ignored? When is somebody going to stand up to this very dangerous man? He sounds like a despot not an elected official. What the hell are we going to do about it?.

  2.  
    June 24, 2007 | 9:31 AM
     

    step one: make it public
    step two: yell bloody murder

    It’s pretty hard to read, isn’t it. Ashcroft was one of “their boys” and Cheney cut him completely out of the loop. Powell was our Secretary of State and our Soldier, and Cheney cut him out of the loop. Rice was our National Security Advisor, and Cheney cut her out of the loop. Bush was our President, and Cheney managed him like a hand puppet…

  3.  
    joyhollywood
    June 25, 2007 | 7:12 AM
     

    I just wrote emails to Pelosi, and my senators Lautenberg and Menendez begging them to impeach Cheney pointing out the WPseries articles on the VP.The U S attorney scandal tidbit from me is that they put a Republican named Christy in the US attorney for NJ to try to get Tom Kean’s son(former gov. of NJ and also the co-chair of the 911 commission, they always try to use 911 to their advantage) elected Senator in the 06 race by having Christy say that they were investigating Menendez just before the election, so there is another case of going against the rule about announcing anything fishy just before a vote that could influence the voting. I might also add that Sen. Menendez had already been investigated while he was a Representative in the House and he was exonorated but they still tried to affect the Senate race. I usually get really annoyed with the editoral staff of the wp but they have done some nice work thru the years Watergate, secret CIA prisons abroad and the Walter Reed scandal etc. My husband just told me that the NYTimes is costing us over $500 a year. That cost took my breath away. Do you think anything will come of the revelations in the WP about Cheney? If you have any other ideas that can be used please tell us.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.