Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

AP Sues for Access To GWB Military Records (What Took You So Long?)

AP suing the Pentagon to get 100% of GW Bush's service records. It has always seemed odd to me that (1) Bush did not in fact ever make all his records available, and indeed reneged on his pledge to do so; (2) requests for the records now go through the White House; (3) there are things missing that have no right to be missing, notably the discharge papers with their separation codes; (4) no one in the press seemed to care about the loose ends in the story.

Is it a coincidence that this law suit comes just after Bush starts falling in the polls? I would hate to think the press corps was so craven that they only dare ask hard questions when they smell blood. But how else to explain the timing?

Posted in Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 1 Comment

GW Bush’s Constitution: A Graphic Depiction

Inspired by Saul Steinberg's View of the World from 9th Avenue Ernest Miller has produced a graphic depiction of The Constitution According to Bush (.pdf).

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 3 Comments

I Signed the Law Professors’ Letter on Iraq

Just thought I should mention that last week I signed the Law Professor's Iraq Letter. Its concluding paragraphs ask Congress to:

(1) assess responsibility for the abuses that have taken place, identifying the officials at all levels who must be held accountable for enabling these abuses to occur and for the failure to investigate them, and determining what sanctions, including impeachment and removal from office of any civil officer of the United States responsible, may be appropriate;

(2) decide whether the U.S. should have an official policy of coercion in connection with interrogation, and if so what form it should take as well as what safeguards it should include to protect against abuses in violation of the policy.

There were about 500 signatories, almost all law professors. I'm sure they would have had more if there had been more time to organize signatures or if were not the summer vacation season.

Posted in Iraq Atrocities | 9 Comments

Same Old Detention Rules, or Almost?

Will someone with a Wall St. Journal account please read this Talkleft item, New Guantanamo Rules Not Much Better Than Old Rules, follow it to the WSJ link, and then tell me how the so-called “alternate procedure” (described there as a contingency plan if the Supreme Court rules against the current prison regime) differs in any notable particulars from the series of one-sided hearings the Pentagon announced it planned anyway way back in February.

From the short description they sound very much alike.

Posted in Guantanamo | Comments Off on Same Old Detention Rules, or Almost?

Imagine if This Had Happened in the Clinton Administration

Since it is Clinton nostalgia week in the US, join me in a little game. (Before tenure we called these “thought experiments”.) Imagine how the press would have played it if this story had broken during the Clinton administration:

How secure is the Department of Homeland Security?:

The policy director for the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence division was briefly removed from his job in March when the Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered he had failed to disclose his association with Abdurahman Alamoudi, a jailed American Muslim leader. Alamoudi was indicted last year on terrorism-related money-laundering charges and now claims to have been part of a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah.

After a flurry of interagency meetings, however, Homeland Security decided to leave the policy director, Faisal Gill, in place, according to two government officials with knowledge of the Alamoudi investigation. A White House political appointee with close ties to Republican power broker Grover Norquist and no apparent background in intelligence, Gill has access to top-secret information on the vulnerability of America's seaports, aviation facilities and nuclear power plants to terrorist attacks.

I bet the rest is good too, but you have to register or watch ads or something to read it.

Posted in National Security | 4 Comments

Govern from Strength if You Can

Mark Schmitt, the Decembrist (a blog I like a lot) has advice for John Kerry about Negotiating With the Republicans, which amounts to, 'be a centrist, divide the Republican party'.

Brad DeLong, thinking like a smart White House staffer, thinks it is Good Advice. I beg to differ: it may be good January 2005 advice but it is rotten June 2004 advice.

I suspect that Brad's political reflexes were fixed by his service in the Clinton administration. Clinton never governed like he had a mandate (arguably, because he didn't have much of one the first time). He triangulated. He fogged about. He appointed Republicans as judges, and many Democrats who might as well have been Republicans. But that's a rotten way to govern if you have a choice when the other side uses a different play book. And Presidents early in their terms often do have a choice—even if they don't have a majority in either or both houses—so long as they can persuade Congress that they have a mandate, or create political conditions such that Congresspeople are unwilling to cross the President (think about why so many Democrats voted for Bush tax cuts).

Clinton exposed the mushiness of his political spine and his inability to use what political capital he had in the first days of his Presidency when he backed down on gay rights in the military. The signal to Congress was clear—if the guys who have a legal duty to salute and obey their commander in chief could roll the guy, there was no reason at all to give him an inch. He reaped the reward in the health care debate (OK, there were other good reasons [can you say “IRA”?] why it died, too). Clinton rarely if ever punished his enemies in Congress. He wasn't good enough at rewarding his friends, either. But that doesn't have to be the script for Kerry.

Suppose Kerry wins by a landslide — it could happen. Suppose he runs a campaign which is about restoring honor and decency to the White House, about repudiation of torture, sleaze, special interests, and, say, his limited health care plan. There's no reason to compromise on whatever he makes his signature issues. Certainly there's no reason to surrender preemptively now, before the votes are counted. Plenty of time for compromises later.

That said, if there issues where Kerry genuinely has a wedge in the Republican party, such as deficit reduction, by all means campaign on it and use it. But don't give up stuff we care about—until January at the earliest.

Posted in Politics: US | 5 Comments