Interesting article. I note that the author is a good friend of David Addington, who he defends in the article.
The author's second paragraph description of Addington is somewhat remarkable.
Mr. Addington is chief of staff to Vice President Richard Cheney and a former colleague of mine. He's the son of a West Point man who earned a bronze star in World War II and went on to become a general. Before coming to the White House, David put in stints at the CIA, at a congressional intelligence committee, and at the Pentagon -- all giving him an expertise on intelligence and national security issues only a handful of others can match.
All well and good until you know that Addington was born in 1957 and you realize the sentence "He's the son of a West Point man...
" is a blur of his father's strong military career and Addington's administrative career. Addington was neither a General nor recipient of the Bronze Star.
In other texts, Addington is described a bit differently:
Originally Posted by The New Yorker
Most Americans, even those who follow politics closely, have probably never heard of Addington. But current and former Administration officials say that he has played a central role in shaping the Administration’s legal strategy for the war on terror. Known as the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share—namely, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside. A former high-ranking Administration lawyer who worked extensively on national-security issues said that the Administration’s legal positions were, to a remarkable degree, “all Addington.” Another lawyer, Richard L. Shiffrin, who until 2003 was the Pentagon’s deputy general counsel for intelligence, said that Addington was “an unopposable force.”
Letter from Washington: The Hidden Power: The New Yorker
How much of this would NOT be a story, how much would NOT be of any significance if only we, as a country had simply obeyed the laws of the land, obeyed the Constitution, obeyed the Geneva Conventions, obeyed the mores of common decency.
Omar Khadr is not to be sympathized or coddled or given a free ride for his crimes. He is, however a human being and has to be treated with both respect and within the framework of the law. We EXPECT the same from an enemy that captures our highly trained soldiers [or trained killers as they are called by our enemies].