Our Ms. Brooks

It's Friday (thankfully), which means Rosa Brooks has a new column up in the Los Angeles Times. This week her focus in on a book written by one of those administration lackeys who finally quit in disgust at how the White House operated.

[Jack] Goldsmith ran the Justice Department's office of legal counsel for nine months in 2003-04 (and was briefly a colleague of mine at the University of Virginia School of Law). He and his book, "The Terror Presidency," are quoted extensively in a Sept. 9 New York Times Magazine article.

Key takeaways: Bush and Gonzales had little appetite for substance; Cheney's staff ruled the roost and insisted that the law was supposed to bend to their wishes; and top Cheney aides such as David Addington were every bit as contemptuous of their GOP colleagues in the executive branch as they were of Congress, the courts and their Democratic critics.

For instance: When Goldsmith tried to explain to Addington that terrorists and insurgents might be covered under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies to civilians (rather than under the Third Geneva Convention, which covers prisoners of war), Addington reacted with fury: "The president has already decided that terrorists do not receive Geneva Convention protections. You cannot question his decision." That's the rule of law, as understood by Cheney's office. ...

A few months after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Goldsmith had had enough. Defying Cheney's office, he withdrew the infamous 2002 "torture memo." Drafted by John Yoo before Goldsmith joined the Justice Department, the memo had been widely condemned for seeking to develop a legal rationale for interrogation techniques that arguably constituted torture and war crimes -- at least under the federal laws in force at the time. Goldsmith issued a statement informing federal agencies that the Yoo memo could no longer be relied on -- and submitted his resignation the same day.

Like so many other recent accounts of life inside the bubble, Goldsmith's raises the question of how the Bush administration juggernaut lasted so long. From the outside, the administration looked powerful and dangerous, a finely tuned machine capable of rolling over any opposition. But it was hollow and illusory -- and on the inside, many knew it.

In the end, Goldsmith concludes that the administration insiders most determined to increase executive power actually undermined it. By relying on tactics involving "minimal deliberation, unilateral action and legalistic defense," this White House has weakened the presidency as an institution. Future presidents from either party will face a suspicious Congress and skeptical courts, and will find it more difficult to advance their agendas. [Emphasis added]

That the office of the Vice-President was so powerful doesn't come as any surprise, most of us suspected as much. Still, having a member of the administration confirm that means our tin-foil chapeaus don't need adjusting. What I still find so remarkable is that it took so long for people with the kind of intelligence Mr. Goldsmith has to figure out the dangerous scam being worked by the White House, regardless of the office it emanated from.

And, like Ms. Brooks, I think his conclusion is too rosy:

...don't expect Congress or the next administration to take serious action to reverse the damage [the Bush] administration did to our constitutional fabric. On military commissions and secret surveillance, Congress has already handed the president pretty much everything he asked for. On Iraq, too, Congress seems cowed. And it goes without saying that nothing can reverse the death and destruction the administration unleashed in Iraq.

And that is the tragedy of this democracy in the new millennium.