NPR: Goldsmith Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee

Goldsmith Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee

By all accounts, Jack Goldsmith is a conservative's conservative. The former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel says he strongly believes that in times of crisis, the president has the right to use special wartime powers to protect the country. But Goldsmith ended up on a collision course with the White House over the way the president went about taking on those powers.

In testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Goldsmith told senators that the White House has paid "scrupulous attention" to the legal questions surrounding the war on terror. But in his opening statement, Goldsmith also said that the president's failure to consult Congress and use of a "go-it-alone approach" to governance has been detrimental to this administration and future presidents.

Nina Totenberg reported for Morning Edition that Goldsmith has been openly critical of the White House for using legal opinions that he felt were deeply flawed to support expanded powers for the president. (A key part of Goldsmith's job was basically telling the president what he could and could not do legally.)

Goldsmith, who now teaches at Harvard Law School, details the administration's legal deliberations on terrorism and detainee issues, and why he came to strongly disagree with them, in his book, The Terror Presidency.

12:31 PM ET | 10- 2-2007 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing about the illegal (or questionably illegal) aspects of this administration... in my observations the number and voice of citizens calling for impeachments have grown dramatically. This president, vice president and a number of their political appointments are all public officials legally capable of being impeachmed, as I understand it.

I've heard the argument that they'll be out of office before the cumbersome process could even get any traction, and that it would just be wrenching to the fabric of American sociopolitics.

Gee. Like an argument for not trying someone who has been arrested, since a trial would bring up bad feelings around a crime now past... does anyone think that is a sensible way to look at criminal behavior?

I'd like to see NPR do some (or some MORE) serious stories on impeachment of this administration - backgrounders on process, cases, etc. And to avoid making these initial stories politicaly divisive, don't bother to use the recent Presidential impeachment - use the cases of lower ranking public officials.

Or just report on the various voices considering this matter - local or national ciitzen groups, schools of law and government, former congressional & justice investigators, etc.

Remove the cloak of untouchability from this important public responsibility which we, the people, are supposed to carry and treat with respect.

Sent by Bill Marston | 6:14 PM ET | 10-02-2007

Getting gaga over one more repentant conservative? My heart does not do a pitter-patter for these Johnny come lately revelations. Maybe it will sell a few books and massage one's guilt, but it's not enough and certainly sees the light of day too late for long over due remedies.

Where was the early skepticism by those who knew better? Even the best-trained dog will plot and attempt to nip at the heals of an abusive master. As a nation we could have used the information back when and who knows, maybe even come to our own conclusions. There's no satisfaction in placating ourselves with old news and an inept, slow to gauge and react congress (all should be impeached). Arrogance maybe. Dismissive, absolutely. And to top it off we are now expected to perk up just because Mr. Goldsmith now teaches at Harvard Law School? Hello, is there anyone out there who might be just a little bit real?

Not a trick question: what's the difference between the OJ hypothesis and The Terror Presidency? None, both amount to nothing short of rubber necking at the scene of an accident, both are penned in shades of guilt, and both will make a lot of money.

Sent by George Gekas | 6:45 PM ET | 10-02-2007

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:	» List of local stations (PDF)
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.