Neu:
24,59€24,59€
GRATIS-Versand
Nur noch 1 auf Lager
Gebraucht kaufen 4,67 €
Andere Verkäufer auf Amazon
& Kostenlose Lieferung
88 % positiv in den letzten 12 Monaten
+ 4,95 € Versandkosten
94 % positiv in den letzten 12 Monaten
& Kostenlose Lieferung
95 % positiv in den letzten 12 Monaten

Lade die kostenlose Kindle-App herunter und lese deine Kindle-Bücher sofort auf deinem Smartphone, Tablet oder Computer – kein Kindle-Gerät erforderlich. Weitere Informationen
Mit Kindle für Web kannst du sofort in deinem Browser lesen.
Scanne den folgenden Code mit deiner Mobiltelefonkamera und lade die Kindle-App herunter.


Mehr erfahren
Dem Autor folgen
OK
The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration Gebundene Ausgabe – 1. September 2007
Kaufoptionen und Plus-Produkte
- Seitenzahl der Print-Ausgabe256 Seiten
- SpracheEnglisch
- HerausgeberNorton
- Erscheinungstermin1. September 2007
- Abmessungen16.51 x 2.54 x 24.38 cm
- ISBN-100393065502
- ISBN-13978-0393065503
Produktbeschreibungen
Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende
Produktinformation
- Herausgeber : Norton (1. September 2007)
- Sprache : Englisch
- Gebundene Ausgabe : 256 Seiten
- ISBN-10 : 0393065502
- ISBN-13 : 978-0393065503
- Abmessungen : 16.51 x 2.54 x 24.38 cm
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 4,760,943 in Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Bücher)
- Nr. 3,954 in Geschichte des Terrorismus (Bücher)
- Nr. 9,949 in US-amerikanische Politik (Bücher)
- Nr. 14,919 in Staatsführung
- Kundenrezensionen:
Informationen zum Autor

Entdecke mehr Bücher des Autors, sieh dir ähnliche Autoren an, lies Autorenblogs und mehr
Kundenrezensionen
Kundenbewertungen, einschließlich Produkt-Sternebewertungen, helfen Kunden, mehr über das Produkt zu erfahren und zu entscheiden, ob es das richtige Produkt für sie ist.
Um die Gesamtbewertung der Sterne und die prozentuale Aufschlüsselung nach Sternen zu berechnen, verwenden wir keinen einfachen Durchschnitt. Stattdessen berücksichtigt unser System beispielsweise, wie aktuell eine Bewertung ist und ob der Prüfer den Artikel bei Amazon gekauft hat. Es wurden auch Bewertungen analysiert, um die Vertrauenswürdigkeit zu überprüfen.
Erfahre mehr darüber, wie Kundenbewertungen bei Amazon funktionieren.Spitzenrezensionen aus anderen Ländern

The book is an easy read and is very engaging. Goldsmith describes how he got the job at OLC and the personalities of many of the President's and Vice-President's legal advisors that he dealt with regularly. Most importantly, Goldsmith describes the most famous - and for him, most difficult - decisions that he made by withdrawing two earlier legal decisions concerning torture.
Most interestingly, and despite the misleading title (Goldsmith doesn't argue that President Bush ran a terror presidency; instead, that his presidency was overshadowed by the terror threat), Goldsmith is not very critical of the overall legal posture of the Bush presidency. Instead, he criticizes the tactics taken by many in the administration for claiming overly-broad executive power when that posture was not necessary. Instead, that extreme view has caused a reaction against the President's legal policies. He also discusses how the fears of further terror attacks drove the policies in the White House. Finally, Goldsmith argues that this new emphasis on legal opinions is the result of the criminalization of warfare and the "gotcha" investigations that pervade Washington, D.C. He claims that these attitudes unnecessarily hinder (and place in jeopardy) the intelligence and military operatives responsible for implementing policies.
This is an illuminating book, although at times it is a bit short on details that leaves the reader wanting more substance - probably because many of the issues that Goldsmith worked on were and still are classified. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the legal policies and controversies during the early years of the War on Terror.


Goldsmith took office in October 2003. His time in office, though brief, was spent thinking and opining about some of the most complex wartime decisions about executive branch power any administration has ever encountered. Little did he know that people he considered to be fellow conservatives were actually radicals who cared nothing about the separation of powers and did everything they could to undermine it and shape legal opinions accordingly.
That is what all the debate today about a "unitary executive" concerns. The radicals maintained that there were no constraints on a President in wartime. Goldsmith, a real conservative scholar, knew otherwise.
Not many people know of the OLC, or its function and its influence within the executive branch of government (including me until I read this book). As part of the Department of Justice it addresses legal issues facing executive branch decisions. OLC legal opinions, if they approve an executive branch decision, all but confer immunity from prosecution for actions taken by government officials.
Prior to Goldmith's arrival, John Yoo, a friend of Goldsmith's but a radical in conservative's clothing, had already issued the famous "torture (interrogation) memos" of August 2002 and March 2003 under the auspices of the OLC. The CIA called them the "golden shield" and others in government referred to them as "get out of jail free" cards.
Goldsmith's description of Yoo's legal reasoning in authoring the interrogation memos (one for CIA and one for DOD) shows Yoo, not the law, to be an ass. Yoo, an alleged war expert still teaches at Berkeley. If Berkeley grants him tenure after this book, shame on it.
Goldsmith, in an unprecedented action, had to withdraw the memos and subject government officials to legal liability because of Yoo's unbelievably inept legal reasoning. He resigned the same day he withdrew Yoo's memo for the CIA, June 15, 2004. He was no longer welcome in the Bush Administration.
The main villain of the piece is David Addington, Vice President Cheney's (who else?) chief legal counsel. If Addington is a conservative, Genghis Khan was just a peaceful nomad passing through European cities. Addington's extreme legal views on presidential war-making powers held sway in an administration that was panicked after 9/11 and saw Congress and the courts only as obstacles to an effective anti-terror program.
Goldsmith, realizing there were limits on presidential power even in wartime had no chance against Addington's bullying influence. Typical of a radical, Addington's basic mantra was that if you oppose unlimited executive power you are not just wrong, you are a traitor.
Other issues that Goldsmith had to address that are of great interest are the concept of extralegality, a president's prerogative power, indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, rendition, and the Geneva Conventions.
The irony is that, like many conservatives, Goldsmith ends up relying on the actions of a liberal Democrat as the ideal for how to handle controversial issues. He does an excellent job of explaining how FDR used political craftsmanship to enlist Congress, the courts, and the public at large to back the expansion of his wartime powers. Goldsmith indicts the Bush administration for its radically opposite stonewall policy.
Though intellectually honest on legal issues, Goldsmith displays the same antiquated notions as other conservatives in politics. His references to "lefties" at Harvard, "hippies" in Boston (what? they were ad-men) and Scooter Libby falling into a "perjury trap" display a political naif at work outside his area of expertise. He does need stick to the law.
He is also less than forthright regarding the Iraq War. He does not even mention it until almost three-quarters into the book. It is an obvious sign that he is reluctant in having to admit that White House deception in getting us into that war made all further anti-terrorist actions by the administration suspect throughout the world, though he finally does.
Goldsmith's complaint that wartime executive powers have been hamstrung by legal restraints by congressional action after Watergate rings hollow. This is especially true when he concludes that all of the legal problems could have been avoided if the Bush administration had only cooperated with the other branches of government rather than acting in secret and unilaterally in its anti-terror efforts.
If anything, that conclusion makes it seem even more necessary to legally constrain an executive run amok.

Mr. Goldsmith was, for a short time, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel. He quickly found out that legal opinions were most valued when they did not in any way constrict the powers of the president. This attitude was again based on the compelling need to see that no further terrorist attacks occurred in the United States. David Addington, VP Cheney's chief lawyer, is the most adamant proponent of the idea that the powers of the presidency cannot be limited during this war against terror. When Mr. Goldsmith finally told the Administration that the anything goes opinion on torture written in 2002 by John Yoo was on shaky legal ground, the response was to kill the messenger. Mr. Goldsmith resigned.
But here is the fascinating part of the book. The author spends a lot of time comparing President Bush's wartime responses to those of Presidents Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. FDR wanted to provide help to England at the beginning of WWII. The mood of congress and the nation, however, was soundly for isolationism. FDR got everything he wanted by a variety of actions. First he dismissed the Secretaries of War and the Navy, and installed two Republicans. His fireside chats to the nation forcefully presented his cause. He consulted with Congress, and even with his Republican opponent (Willkie) in the upcoming election campaign. He got what he wanted. Mr. Goldsmith feels that President Bush has gone too far along the route of secrecy, consulting with no one. His opinion is that Mr. Bush could learn from the approach of FDR.
While I do not always agree with everything Mr. Goldsmith says I did learn something from his reasoned interpretation of both current and historical events. On the other side of the coin I was somewhat frustrated with the author telling us from time to time that he engaged in various debates with White House lawyers, but due to security reasons he wasn't free to tell us what the substance of those debates were. Anyway, this is a book that should be interesting to all but those on the extremes of the right-left continuum

Jack Goldsmith, conservative lawyer and law professor tells us of his appointment as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel to the Justice Department under John Ashcroft.
The Counsel is made up of lawyers who analyze the legal ramifications of a policy the president may want to consider or promulgate. They submit their opinions on the same, and its legality. In a post 9/11 atmosphere, Goldsmith describes a White House that is anxious to expand its powers so it may fight terrorism unimpeded. This is motivated by a constant stream of intelligence that provides a daily diet of threats and plots against the USA, and a vice president's belief that any threat, no matter how marginal, must be taken as an imminent threat.
With Goldsmith's appointment in October of 2003, he began to offer his legal opinion on a number of issues. He defended these opinions at White House meetings that included the President's counsel, Alberto Gonzalez, the ever-present Vice President's Counsel, David Addington, and John Yoo who wrote several opinions giving the president carte blanche to implement virtually any policy he wanted. David Addington's long time conservatism and association with Dick Cheney gives him a great deal of power and influence. He is equally abrasive and uncompromising, insisting that presidential decisions should be without limits, and his actions not subject to the scrutiny or knowledge of the Congress or citizens of the US. He dismisses American allies saying, "They don't have a vote."
This is what eventually gets Goldsmith in a squeeze, and enhances his perception by others that he is not a team player. He begins to review some earlier opinions made shortly after 9/11. These opinions are about enemy combatant status and the legal limits of torture. He advocates that these opinions should be reversed, which alienates him from C.I.A. who have been operating under guidelines that they believed would have left them immune from prosecution. With Goldsmith's assertion that previous positions were legally untenable, this leaves several people at several levels open to legal action--retroactively. Hence, the hostility toward the author, who feels he has no option but to resign.
Then abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay unfold after he suggests reversal of opinions regarding torture and treatment. He contends that secrecy, failure to inform, and keeping Congress and the public out of the loop make it appear the government was acting illegally or immorally, a perception he contends is false. He also makes a strong point that the more success the administration had in preventing a second attack, that it "had an equally self-defeating effect of enhancing public skepticism about the reality of the threat."
The author closes by comparing the executive excesses and motives of Lincoln and FDR who were far more calculating and intuitive about public feeling and reaction. He illustrates several examples of their successful attempts through, guile, insight, and even deceit at expanding their power to preserve our freedom rather than a naked grab for power. He is very persuasive in showing the reader how President Bush's go-it-alone policies, operating in secrecy, lack of cooperation with Congress and other agencies, are ultimately self-defeating, less than pragmatic, and add to the public's mistrust of his office.
Goldsmith brought some excellent points to light. There is no doubt that he is a devout conservative and writes well and convincingly. I simply did not feel there was sufficient information to rate this book higher. This was only an appetizer, and I was looking for a feast.
This is a "one-day" book. I wish there had been more.
Other Books:
"The One Percent Solution"
"Oath Betrayed"
"The Genius of Impeachment"
"The Imperial Presidency"