« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Frontline Doc Profiles Cheney
A long, twilight struggle between Dick Cheney and the forces of evil is the subject of an impressive new Frontline documentary, "Cheney's Law," airing tomorrow on PBS. In the balance? The nation's legal traditions over interrogations, detentions, surveillance and every other liberty-security tradeoff made since the Cold War.
Here's a sneak preview:
Readers of Barton Gellman and Jo Becker's Cheney series, "Angler," will be familiar with a lot of this material. The battles fought by Cheney and his longtime legal counsel, David Addington, to expand unilateral executive authority over warmaking functions is the principal thrust of the narrative. But seeing many of the participants tell their stories on camera makes for compelling and vivid journalism. In particular, the documentary devotes a lot of time to Jack Goldsmith, the former Office of Legal Counsel chief who clashed sharply with Addington over interrogations and surveillance. Seeing Goldsmith's frustration, seriousness and occasional anguish adds a layer of complexity to the story that print can't often capture. It's a shame that neither Cheney nor Addington consented to interviews.
But that's not to say that Frontline doesn't advance the story.
It deftly ties the Ashcroft-hospital bed incident to the appointment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the subsequent U.S. attorney firings. Much of the film's final 20 minutes presents the argument that the cronyization of DOJ occurred, with Cheney's blessing, to ensure that the department didn't balk, as Goldsmith and his allies did, over torture or surveillance or indefinite detentions. "It was an effort by the White House to gain control of Justice," New York Times reporter Scott Shane tells Frontline, "to make sure there's no repeat of that rebellion of 2004."
Comments (31)
lucifer wrote on October 15, 2007 1:22 PM:this too has cheney and rumsfeld all over it
Scott L wrote on October 15, 2007 1:33 PM:read it and weep
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2188777,00.html
The making of a Banana Republic or how to piss on the graves on everyone who believed on the United States 101
irene wrote on October 15, 2007 1:53 PM:"[The Gonzales appointment] was an effort by the White House to gain control of Justice," New York Times reporter Scott Shane tells Frontline, "to make sure there's no repeat of that rebellion of 2004."
And the Republican Congress was only too happy to help.
po wrote on October 15, 2007 2:04 PM:This is all such old news. But, I'll bite and ask . . . knowing the answer to be never, but when will Congress take steps to ensure that a rebellion, such as the 2004 DOJ, happens every single time it needs to happen? Or better yet, doesn't have to happen because Congress is doing its job?
14 more months, all in an election season. Which does better, the politicians and their ad agencies, or Congress and the Constitution? None of the above.
bg wrote on October 15, 2007 2:32 PM:Actually, Frontline was well ahead of the Post in presenting a comprehensive and cogent analysis of Cheney's reach and ambition with respect to Executive power with their documentary "The Dark Side". I believe it aired in 2004. It is available online. Credit where credit is due.
Cinderell Ferret wrote on October 15, 2007 3:02 PM:bg wrote on October 15, 2007 2:32 PM:
Actually, Frontline was well ahead of the Post in presenting a comprehensive and cogent analysis of Cheney's reach and ambition with respect to Executive power with their documentary "The Dark Side". I believe it aired in 2004. It is available online. Credit where credit is due.
You are absolutely correct. I also recommend everyone go back and see the earlier Frontline documentary piece, "Rumsfeld's War" you get hints of similar issues. Frontline has been ahead of the game almost from the beginning of the War.
All of the shows are online at pbs.org.
moondancer wrote on October 15, 2007 3:04 PM:I just finished "Takeover" by Charlie Savage. It covers this quite well also. Every hire at WH or DOJ was vetted by Cheney for their view on an imperial whitehouse. Notice also, Bush SCOTUS appointees are like-minded goose-steppers. Both have long histories of jurist activism for weakening both congress and the courts in relation to the president.
If you wonder how Comey and Goldsmith slipped through.. they didn't. On paper they are extreme right wing as well. They just happened to put the constitution ahead of loyalty to Herr Cheney and his cabal.
linda wrote on October 15, 2007 3:29 PM:bg@2:32- yes, "The Dark Side" is available in its entirety at pbs.org
comey and goldsmith are not the all out good guys they are portrayed as. keep in mind that neither of these people went public with this administration's attacks against the constitution when these crimes were first initiated. in fact, had the prosecutors not been forced to go public to defend themselves against the claims they were fired for 'cause', there's a good chance this never would have been uncovered. those attorneys' were po'd and their public defense provided the opening for the congressional hearings.
and goldsmith appears to have just held onto the info until he had a nice fat book contract.
Dave Adams wrote on October 15, 2007 3:45 PM:"It was an effort by the White House to gain control of Justice," New York Times reporter Scott Shane tells Frontline, "to make sure there's no repeat of that rebellion of 2004."
You get the feeling that Cheney thinks that since 'Justice is blind' he can literally have his way with it in the biblical sense.
Rick B wrote on October 15, 2007 4:13 PM:If the President wants to do something and Congress has passed a law stating that he cannot do that, according to the Rule of Law the President is bound by Congressional law just as is every other American. Dick Cheney rejects that.
If the President wants to do something to a person that violates that person's rights of free speech, right to privacy except when a court sees evidence that such right should be abrogated, right to freedom when the government imprisons him without charges, right to not give testimony against himself, right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, and so on, that individual should have the right to counsel and the right appeal to the courts for habeaus corpus. Dick Cheney rejects that.
If the Senate wants to reject the President's nominee - as for instance, Bolton for UN Ambassador, then Cheney rejects that and has Bush give him a recess appointment.
Is there any part of the U.S. Constitution that Cheney does not reject?
I doubt it. Cheney is a Monarchist, and not of the Constitutional type. He recognizes that the founding fathers enshrined the basic ideas of Liberalism in the Constitution, with its limited powers for the President, shared powers and checks and balances, and the Bill of Rights that limit how the government can treat its citizens.
I can see why Cheney never finished his PhD in Government. He simply went directly to Mein Kampf and ignored the Constitution and democracy.
Mark wrote on October 15, 2007 4:20 PM:Thanks Linda! I have little respect for all this "after-the-damage-is-done" kiss and tell stuff by the likes of Goldsmith when it's time to write the books.
Any of these guys (and the retired generals too!) would have actually served the country if they stood up to be counted WHEN it counted.
elegiac wrote on October 15, 2007 4:30 PM:lucifer
that was quite a read . . .
lucifer wrote on October 15, 2007 4:39 PM:shouldn't the first paragraph state the struggle between dick cheney and the forces of good
Cit92 wrote on October 15, 2007 4:41 PM:The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) had a great documentary on Dick Cheney in late 2004 as well. Absolutely worth your time.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/dickcheney/
EH wrote on October 15, 2007 4:51 PM:Linda: There is no such thing as an "all out good guy."
moondancer wrote on October 15, 2007 5:09 PM:True, Linda they aren't angels, but if they did the- I dont recall, let me answer in writing, etc.. then where would this story be?
SPENCER wrote on October 15, 2007 6:31 PM:this is great! If it's at least as good as Frontline's "The Dark Side" it will be a revelation!
Goldwater wrote on October 15, 2007 6:41 PM:Cheney's efforts against the anti-American Congress has no doubt saved this country dozens of times over.
I'll take Cheney over the morons Pelosi and Reid anywhere, anytime.
Dennis wrote on October 15, 2007 6:54 PM:The U.S. Congress has had every opportunity it ever needed to address these issues - but has refused to do its constitutional duties.
The whole damned bunch, democrats or republicans, are nothing but a gang of political whores. Throw the bums out!
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
MsInformed wrote on October 15, 2007 6:55 PM:Geez, "Goldwater" Next thing you'll tell us that Cheney's Law is like Brannigan's Law...Brannigan himself does not pretend to understand it, he merely enforces it. His law is also like his love; "hard, fast and confusing."
Cheney is an EVIL moron.
Roberta wrote on October 15, 2007 7:01 PM:Linda,
I read the article Lucifer recommended:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2188777,00.html
If Comey and Goldsmith (or any other people who know things and haven't had the nerve--or relative safety net--to reveal them) know anything about Rich Barlow and his efforts to reveal the truth about Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear materials back as far as the Reagan administration, I can understand their keeping quiet.
Due to their positions, they probably knew that story about Barlow, hired to keep track of Pakistan's nuclear progress, lost jobs, lost credibility, lost his marriage, and lost any professional life after trying to tell the CIA, the White House, and the DoD about Pakistan's actual nuclear capabilities--as far back as the Reagan administration. Barlow saw the focus moving to Iraq and the "Axis of Evil," and spoke out that Pakistan was the imminent threat. He tried to blow the whistle on lies to Congress and that those in the Pentagon selling B-16s to Pakistan covered the planes' ability to carry nuclear bombs--something they swore wasn't possible.
Barlow's biggest misfortune was that the people he came up against were Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Libby, and their minions, and what Barlow had to say didn't fit in with what the neocons wanted known--and wanted to do.
Barlow's in the news because a suit against the government for his termination, loss of pension, etc., which he won but was bumped to Appeals (during Bush I), will finally get to Congress next month for final decision on recompense.
These people are powerful beyond my imagining, and I felt the way you do about Comey and Goldsmith--until I looked into it more and read about Barlow. Chilling? Cheney et al. can destroy lives without breaking a sweat.
CKT wrote on October 15, 2007 7:19 PM:For what it's worth, I seem to recall that Goldsmith is donating all the proceeds from his book. I don't remember the details. Doesn't make him a good guy, but facts are facts.
Quackers wrote on October 15, 2007 10:25 PM:Okay. Anyone paying attention has known for years that Cheney is lawless.....how many documentaries and articles have chronicled his behavior? I have to wonder though what is the point when NOTHING is ever done to stop the man. I'm beginning to wonder just what it will take to get the attention of the American public. Paris Hilton can do it with ease, so why can't the goon squad destroying our country even raise our collective eyebrows?
Tom wrote on October 16, 2007 2:49 AM:Cheney is a zionist shill.
Johann wrote on October 16, 2007 9:26 AM:"A long, twilight struggle between Dick Cheney and the forces of evil"
Talk about misinformation.
Dick Cheney has not struggled with the forces of evil, he has embraced them.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 16, 2007 9:52 AM:A long, twilight struggle between Dick Cheney and the forces of evil . . .
WTF?!? Now he's battling himself? There is a clinical diagnosis for crap like that AND medications.
I swear his heart died during its first heart attack. Any complicity by the corporate media in any attempt to revitalize this farging basatrd's 'good' name needs to be pushed by loss of profits and veiwership in this life and a rosy enternity in hell thereafter.
dras wrote on October 16, 2007 5:46 PM:Please don't miss this program. I watched it and I'll bet it will open your eyes when you see and learn how the Dickster has had his plan in the works for most of his life.
loomis wrote on October 16, 2007 11:51 PM:Most people on this board who criticize Vice President Cheney for attmepting to defend presidential power violating the Constitution do not understand the Constitution or the Founder's considerations in crafting it. All should read Federalist Papers 9 and 10 before making such criticisms.
bg wrote on October 17, 2007 3:28 AM:Loomis, Federalist Papers 9 and 10 do not once speak to the specific powers of the president or even more generally to the executive branch. They are instead broad disquistions on the unique merits of republicanism within the context of a large confederacy as against monarchism or pure democracy. If anything, these essays strongly condemn the kind of cultish, "factious" politics practiced by Mr. Cheney. Perhaps you were thinking of the Necronomicon?
Powkat wrote on October 17, 2007 11:27 AM:I watched this last night - glad it made it into a broader forum, but it was nothing new for those of us who read
djcrow22 wrote on October 17, 2007 1:32 PM:TPM and other 'liberal' websites. Just a bit more detail - my hope is that some in the Senate watched (or an aide or two) and can focus questions to the new AG nominee.
The "will of the people" does not exist for this cabal. The most chilling aspect for me was the fact that Cheney/Addington have no intention of following any law they do not agree with. The secrecy of the Dec. 30 signing statement made clear to me that to this day the White House has no respect for a nation of laws and will not think twice about ignoring the Constitution to accomplish the overthrow of the United States as we know it. The subversion of the Justice Dept.(rule of law) is a direct attack on every democratic principle that created the United States. Impeachment was designed precisely for these fascists. The treasonous actions of Bush/Cheney combined with the complicit support of the corporate media and the politicization of the military is the embodiment of fascism. The fact that the majority of American people are still asleep to what has occurred shows how well their plan is working. They have already stolen two elections. What makes anyone think 2008 will be any different.