A central player's account of the clash between the rule of law and the necessity of defending America. Jack Goldsmith's duty as head of the Office of Legal Counsel was to advise President Bush what he could and could not do...legally. Goldsmith took the job in October 2003 and began to review the work of his predecessors. Their opinions were the legal framework governing the conduct of the military and intelligence agencies in the war on terror, and he found many—especially those regulating the treatment and interrogation of prisoners—that were deeply flawed. Goldsmith is a conservative lawyer who understands the imperative of averting another 9/11. But his unflinching insistence that we abide by the law put him on a collision course with powerful figures in the administration. Goldsmith's fascinating analysis of parallel legal crises in the Lincoln and Roosevelt administrations shows why Bush's apparent indifference to human rights has damaged his presidency and, perhaps, his standing in history.

A key advisor to President Bush recounts his political clashes with powerful administration figures when he questioned the choices of his predecessors about the way the war on terror was being conducted, in an account in which he cites historical parallels.

A scathing critique of President Bush's legal advisors, who expanded the reach of his executive powers while creating highly controversial policies for fighting the War on Terror. Argues that these advisors, blinded by ideology, provided largely bad legal advice that caused great harm, and ultimately was unnecessary for national security.

Under the Color of Law constitutes a full and critical scholarly commentary to the text of five key Bush administration legal memoranda formative of U.S. counterterrorism policy from 2001 to 2009. This volume is dedicated to the idea that these documents are worthy of being read and critically examined in themselves as primary text, precisely because the act of critical assessment may yield meaningful policy reform in the ongoing debate facing the nation over balancing security interests with the preservation of civil liberties. This volume is intended to provide counterpoint for, and antithesis to, positions vigorously defended by President Bush's attorneys working at the OLC inside the Department of Justice, and it is designed to be used primarily in conjunction with and examined as response to the Bush-era documents themselves. Martin Henn investigates five central questions, each framed around commentary to a specific administration document. This work addresses the Yoo-Flanigan Memorandum of September 25, 2001, and asks whether any President has constitutional power to initiate a foreign war without congressional authorization. Regarding President Bush's November 13 executive order of 2001, Henn asks whether an emergency of war permits any President to usurp judicial and legislative powers to interpret law and define and punish offences against the law of nations. Along with many other questions these documents initiate, the author carefully analyzes and seeks to answer questions regarding the Bush administration, the use of interrogational coercion and torture in the war on terror.

In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush declared that the struggle against terrorism would be nothing less than a war—a war that would require new tools and a new mind-set. As legal sanction was given to covert surveillance and interrogation tactics, internal struggles brewed over programs and policies that threatened to tear at the constitutional fabric of the country.Bush's Law is the alarming account of the White House's efforts to prevent the publication of Eric Lichtblau's exposé on warrantless wiretapping—and an authoritative examination of how the Bush administration employed its “war on terror” to mask the most radical remaking of American justice in generations.

A key advisor to President Bush recounts his political clashes with powerful administration figures when he questioned the choices of his predecessors about the way the war on terror was being conducted, in an account in which he cites historical parallels.

Thirty years after the Church Committee unearthed COINTELPRO and other instances of illicit executive behavior on the domestic and international fronts, the Bush administration has elevated the flaws identified by the committee into first principles of government. Through a constellation of non-public laws and opaque, unaccountable institutions, the current administration has created a “secret presidency” run by classified presidential decisions and orders about national security. A hyperactive Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice is intent on eliminating checks on presidential power and testing that power's limits. Decisions are routinely executed at senior levels within the civilian administration without input from Congress or the federal courts, let alone our international allies. Secret NSA spying at home is the most recent of these. Harsh treatment of detainees, “extraordinary renditions,” secret foreign prisons, and the newly minted enemy combatant designation have also undermined our values. The resulting policies have harmed counterterrorism efforts and produced few tangible results. With a partisan Congress predictably reluctant to censure a politically aligned president, it is all the more important for citizens themselves to demand disclosure, oversight, and restraint of sweeping claims of executive power. This book is the first step.

The surprising truth behind Barack Obama's decision to continue many of his predecessor's counterterrorism policies. Conventional wisdom holds that 9/11 sounded the death knell for presidential accountability. In fact, the opposite is true. The novel powers that our post-9/11 commanders in chief assumed—endless detentions, military commissions, state secrets, broad surveillance, and more—are the culmination of a two-century expansion of presidential authority. But these new powers have been met with thousands of barely visible legal and political constraints—enforced by congressional committees, government lawyers, courts, and the media—that have transformed our unprecedentedly powerful presidency into one that is also unprecedentedly accountable. These constraints are the key to understanding why Obama continued the Bush counterterrorism program, and in this light, the events of the last decade should be seen as a victory, not a failure, of American constitutional government. We have actually preserved the framers’ original idea of a balanced constitution, despite the vast increase in presidential power made necessary by this age of permanent emergency.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution divided the federal government's powers among three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. Their goal was to prevent tyranny by ensuring that none of the branches could govern alone. While numerous presidents have sought to escape these constitutional constraints, the administration of George W. Bush went farther than most. It denied the writ of habeas corpus to individuals deemed to be enemy combatants. It suspended the Geneva Convention and allowed or encouraged the use of harsh interrogation methods amounting to torture. It ordered the surveillance of Americans without obtaining warrants as required by law. And it issued signing statements declaring that the president does not have the duty to faithfully execute hundreds of provisions in the laws he has signed. Power Play analyzes the Bush presidency's efforts to expand executive power in these four domains and puts them into constitutional and historical perspective. Pfiffner explores the evolution of Anglo-American thinking about executive power and individual rights. He highlights the lessons the Constitution's framers drew from such philosophers as Locke and Montesquieu, as well as English constitutional history. He documents the ways in which the Bush administration's policies have undermined the separation of powers, and he shows how these practices have imperiled the rule of law. Following 9/11, the Bush presidency engaged in a two-front offensive. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the administration aggressively prosecuted the "war on terror." At home, it targeted constraints on the power of the executive. Power Play lays bare the extent of this second campaign and explains why it will continue to threaten the future of republican government if the other two branches do not assert their own constitutional prerogatives.