Justice at war : the men and ideas that shaped America's war on terror / by David Cole.

Formerly CIP. Uk

Includes bibliographical references.

1. The Fundamentalist and the Facilitator -- 2. What Bush Wanted to Hear -- 3. Confronting Cheney's Cheney -- 4. Why the Court Said No -- 5. Uncle Sam Is Watching You -- 6. Are We Safer? -- 7. How to Skip the Constitution -- 8. In Case of Emergency -- Appendix. On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress.

"How did America become a nation that disappeared and tortured suspects, spied on its citizens without warrants, and let its president assume unchecked powers in matters of defense? Has justice been the greatest casualty of the war on terror?" "After September 11, 2001, the Bush administration swiftly began to rethink its approach to national security. In Justice at War, David Cole takes a critical look at the men whose decisions shaped America's response to the attacks. Attorney General John Ashcroft aggressively expanded federal law enforcement authority. John Yoo, in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, drafted secret memos that justified the torture of detainees. Yoo and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, insisted that the president's actions as commander in chief in wartime cannot be constrained. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales argued that foreign nationals were not protected by international human rights treaties, dismissed the Geneva Conventions as quaint, and seemed willing to defend President Bush's position on any issue." "Cole explores the mindset and motivations that led America into the "war on terror," and contends that the administration's strategy was flawed as a matter of principle and policy. America, he maintains, can prevail against terrorism not by limiting civil rights and dismantling our government's system of checks and balances, but by restoring them. He explains why the Supreme Court rejected Bush's plans to try enemy combatants in military tribunals under rules that violated the Geneva Conventions. And he considers skeptically the views of both conservative and liberal legal scholars who are willing to abandon fundamental constitutional principles when the nation is under threat."--BOOK JACKET.