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.

that occurred over the course of four decades beginning with the Nixon administration and extending up through the second Bush administration. All of these cases -- Watergate, Whitewater, and others --

Reviled as a fascist and zealot by libertarians and liberals but praised as a great patriot and devout man of God by many conservatives, John Ashcroft may have been the most powerful and polarizing attorney general in our nation's history. Looking past such oversimplified stereotypes, Nancy Baker offers the first in-depth study of Ashcroft's controversial tenure as attorney general-and as domestic commander in our campaign against global terrorism. Addressing new concerns about challenges to civil liberties in the wake of 9/11, Baker provides a critical assessment of Ashcroft's impact on national life within the context of an enormous expansion of presidential power. Baker depicts a man who even before 9/11 was in search of a mission and then found it in the "War on Terror." She explores how Ashcroft's counterterrorism actions eroded checks on executive power, arguing that the attorney general used both the formal and informal powers of his office to expand executive and law enforcement authority—and did so at the additional expense of criminal procedural rights, privacy rights, and government transparency. Baker tells how the war against terrorism, the unique legal policy role of the attorney general, and Ashcroft's presence in that office dramatically expanded the power and impact of executive power in domestic affairs. She identifies Ashcroft's rhetorical tactics that set his actions at odds with the public interest—such as browbeating critics and marginalizing dissent—and challenges the success claimed by Ashcroft and his supporters in safeguarding America by documenting the Justice Department's lack of effectiveness in key prosecutions. She also includes an enlightening analysis of the Patriot Act and its implications for both civil liberties and government power. By documenting the ongoing importance of Ashcroft's legacy—a legacy now continued by Alberto Gonzalez—Baker shows how he dramatically changed the office and disrupted our constitutional system of divided and checked powers. Her close scrutiny of Ashcroft's actions vividly highlights the role that an attorney general can play in shaping presidential power during national crises and provides a cautionary tale for anyone eager to protect our civil liberties.

The American presidency has long tested the capacity of the system of checks and balances to constrain executive power, especially in times of war. While scholars have examined presidents starting military conflicts without congressional authorization or infringing on civil liberties in the name of national security, Stuart Streichler focuses on the conduct of hostilities. Using the treatment of war-on-terror detainees under President George W. Bush as a case study, he integrates international humanitarian law into a constitutional analysis of the repercussions of presidential war powers for human rights around the world. Putting President Bush’s actions in a wider context, Presidential Accountability in Wartime begins with a historical survey of the laws of war, with particular emphasis on the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Tribunal. Streichler then reconstructs the decision-making process that led to the president’s approval of interrogation methods that violated Geneva’s mandate to treat wartime captives humanely. While taking note of various accountability options—from within the executive branch to the International Criminal Court—the book illustrates the challenge in holding presidents personally responsible for violating the laws of war through an in-depth analysis of the actions taken by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the public in response. In doing so, this book not only raises questions about whether international humanitarian law can moderate wartime presidential behavior but also about the character of the presidency and the American constitutional system of government.