The unitary executive theory is a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President controls the entire executive branch. The doctrine is based upon Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the United States in the President.

Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine.^[1] It can be said that some favor a "strongly unitary" executive, while others favor a "weakly unitary" executive.^[1] The former group argue, for example, that Congress's power to interfere with intra-executive decision-making (such as firing executive branch officials) is limited, and that the President can control policy-making by all executive agencies within the limits set for those agencies by Congress. Still others agree that the Constitution requires a unitary executive, but believe this is a bad thing, and propose its abolition by constitutional amendment.^[2]

In several states, in contrast to the federal government, executive officers such as lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller, secretary of state and others are elected independently of the state's governor, with Texas being one example. This type of Executive structure is known as a Plural Executive.

The theory[link]

The Vesting Clause of Article II provides, "The executive Power [of the United States] shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that this language, along with the Take Care Clause ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."), creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President."^[3]

The general principle that the President controls the entire executive branch was originally rather innocuous, but extreme forms of the theory have developed.^[4] John Dean explains: "In its most extreme form, unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters."^[4]

According to law professors Lawrence Lessig and Cass Sunstein, "No one denies that in some sense the framers created a unitary executive; the question is in what sense. Let us distinguish between a strong and a weak version."^[1] In either its strong or weak form, the theory would limit the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch. The "strongly unitary" theory posits stricter limits on Congress than the "weakly unitary" theory.^[1]

Some scholars oppose even the "weakly unitary" theory and favor creating a plural executive, as in the many state governments that separately elect an attorney general.^[2] However, those scholars acknowledge that a constitutional amendment would be required to eliminate the federal unitary executive.

Proponents of a strongly unitary theory argue that the president possesses all of the executive power and can therefore control subordinate officers and agencies of the executive branch. This implies that the power of Congress to remove executive agencies or officers from Presidential control is limited. Thus, under the strongly unitary executive theory, independent agencies and counsels are unconstitutional to the extent that they exercise discretionary executive power not controlled by the president.^[3]

The judicial branch implications are that a part of the executive branch cannot sue another part because "the executive cannot sue himself." If the federal courts were to adjudicate disputes between executive agencies, it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.^[5]

Adoption of constitutional provisions[link]

The phrase "unitary executive" was discussed as early as the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, referring mainly to having a single individual fill the office of President, as proposed in the Virginia Plan. The alternative was to have several executives or an executive council, as proposed in the New Jersey Plan and as promoted by Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason.^[6][7]

At the Pennsylvania ratifying convention in 1787, James Wilson emphasized the advantages of a single chief executive, including greater accountability, vigor, decisiveness, and responsibility:

[T]he executive authority is one. By this means we obtain very important advantages. We may discover from history, from reason, and from experience, the security which this furnishes. The executive power is better to be trusted when it has no screen. Sir, we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person the weight of his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he makes. We secure vigor. We well know what numerous executives are. We know there is neither vigor, decision, nor responsibility, in them. Add to all this, that officer is placed high, and is possessed of power far from being contemptible; yet not a single privilege is annexed to his character; far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.^[8]

In 1788, the letters of the Federal Farmer were published, generally considered among the most astute of Anti-Federalist writings. The pseudonymous Federal Farmer defended the proposed unitary executive, arguing that "a single man seems to be peculiarly well circumstanced to superintend the execution of laws with discernment and decision, with promptitude and uniformity."^[9]

Meanwhile, Federalists such as James Madison were emphasizing an additional advantage of a unitary executive. In Federalist No. 51, he wrote that an undivided executive would strengthen the ability of the executive to resist encroachments by the legislature: “As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided [into branches], the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.”^[10]

Alexander Hamilton later pointed out that the Constitution grants executive power and legislative power in different ways, with the legislative powers of Congress being expressly limited to what is "herein granted," unlike executive powers which are not expressly limited by an enumeration. Hamilton wrote:

In the article which gives the legislative powers of the government, the expressions are "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States." In that which grants the executive power, the expressions are "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States." The enumeration ought therefore to be considered, as intended merely to specify the principal articles implied in the definition of executive power....^[11]

In other words, the principle of expressio unius may be more applicable as a limitation upon congressional power than upon executive power. According to Hamilton, the unenumerated executive powers that are vested solely in the President "flow from the general grant of that power, interpreted in conformity with other parts of the Constitution, and with the principles of free government."^[11]

Those other parts of the Constitution include the extensive powers granted to Congress. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to make laws, which the President then must execute, provided that those laws are constitutional. Article I, Section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution known as the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution all Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". The Constitution also grants Congress power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." The theory of the unitary executive can only be legitimate insofar as it allows Congress to wield its constitutional powers while ensuring that the President can do the same.

Judicial decisions[link]

According to Dana Nelson, a professor of American studies at Vanderbilt University, "the theory of the unitary executive, first proposed under President Reagan, has been expanded since then by every president."^[12] In fact, the unitary executive was a matter of controversy long before the Reagan administration. For example, in the 1926 case of Myers v. United States, the United States Supreme Court decided that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body. The Court also wrote:

The ordinary duties of officers prescribed by statute come under the general administrative control of the President by virtue of the general grant to him of the executive power, and he may properly supervise and guide their construction of the statutes under which they act in order to secure that unitary and uniform execution of the laws which article 2 of the Constitution evidently contemplated in vesting general executive power in the President alone.^[13]

Subsequent cases such as Humphrey's Executor v. United States (Presidential removal of certain kinds of officers), United States v. Nixon (executive privilege), and Bowsher v. Synar (control of executive functions) have flexed the doctrine's reach back and forth. Justice Scalia in his solitary dissent in Morrison v. Olson argued for an unlimited presidential removal power of all persons exercising executive branch powers, which he argued included the independent counsel; the court disagreed, but later moved closer to Scalia's position in Edmond v. United States.^[14]

Criticism of the strong version of the theory[link]

Loyola Law School Professors Karl Manheim and Allan Ides write that “the separation among the branches is not and never was intended to be airtight,” and they point to the President’s veto power as an example of the executive exercising legislative power. They also cite other examples of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial power being exercised by the executive branch, as necessary elements of the administrative state, but they contend that ultimately all administrative power belongs to Congress rather than the President, and the only true "executive" powers are those explicitly described in the Constitution.^[15] In this understanding, Manheim and Ides follow in the footsteps of Lessig and Sunstein.^[1]

Professors David Barron and Martin Lederman have also criticized the strong version of the Unitary Executive Theory. They acknowledge that there is a compelling case for a unitary executive within the armed forces.^[16] However, they argue that the Constitution does not provide for an equally strong unitary executive outside the military context, and they argue that the Commander in Chief Clause would be superfluous if the same kind of unitary presidential authority resulted from the general constitutional provision vesting executive power in the President.^[17]

Contrary to claims of some authors,^[18] the first administration to make explicit reference to the "Unitary Executive" was not that of President George W. Bush. For example, in 1987, Ronald Reagan issued a signing statement that declared: "If this provision were interpreted otherwise, so as to require the President to follow the orders of a subordinate, it would plainly constitute an unconstitutional infringement of the President's authority as head of a unitary executive branch."^[19]

The George W. Bush administration made the Unitary Executive Theory a common feature of signing statements.^[20] For example, Bush once wrote in a signing statement that he would, "construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."^[21] Critics acknowledge that part of the President's duty is to "interpret what is, and is not constitutional, at least when overseeing the actions of executive agencies," but critics accused Bush of overstepping that duty by his perceived willingness to overrule U.S. courts.^[22]

Footnotes[link]

See also[link]

• Independent agencies of the United States government
• Federal Reserve Board
• Executive branch
• Signing statement
• Imperial Presidency summary
• The Imperial Presidency book
• War on terror
• State of exception

Bibliography[link]

• Barilleaux, Ryan J., and Christopher S. Kelley, eds. The Unitary Executive and the Modern Presidency (Texas A&M University Press; 2010) 242 pages; essays by presidential scholars on the origins, history, use, and future of the unitary executive theory, with particular attention to the presidency of George W. Bush.
• Calabresi, Steven and Yoo, Christopher. The Unitary Executive; Presidential Power from Washington to Bush (Yale University Press, 2008).
• Kurland, Philip and Lerner, Ralph. The Founders Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1.
• Latham, Joshua. The Military Munitions Rule and Environmental Regulation of Munitions
• Percival, Robert V. (2001). "Presidential Management of the Administrative State: The Not-So-Unitary Executive". Duke Law Journal (Duke University School of Law) 51 (3): 963. DOI:10.2307/1373182. JSTOR 1373182. http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?51+Duke+L.+J.+963. 
• Rudalevige, Andrew. The New Imperial Presidency
• Yoo, Christopher and Calabresi, Steven (2003). "The Unitary Executive during the Second Half-Century". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 26. http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/3585817-1.html. 
• Yoo, Christopher et al. (2004). "The Unitary Executive During the Third Half-Century, 1889-1945". Notre Dame Law Review 80. SSRN 559581. 
• Yoo, Christopher et al. (2005). "The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945-2004". Iowa Law Review 90 (2): 601. SSRN 690822. 

Glenn Greenwald
Born	(1967-03-06) March 6, 1967 (age 45) Queens, New York
Nationality	United States
Citizenship	United States
Education	B.A., 1990 J.D., 1994
Alma mater	George Washington University New York University Law School
Genres	non-fiction, political and legal commentary
Subjects	US politics, law
Notable work(s)	How Would a Patriot Act? A Tragic Legacy
salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. Greenwald worked as a constitutional and civil rights litigator before becoming a contributor (columnist and blogger) to Salon.com, where he focuses on political and legal topics.^[1] He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times,^[2][3][4] The Los Angeles Times,^[5] The Guardian,^[6][7][8] The American Conservative,^[9] The National Interest,^[10] and In These Times.^[11][12]

Greenwald has written four books, three of which have been New York Times bestsellers: How Would a Patriot Act? (2006); A Tragic Legacy (2007), and With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, released in October 2011. He also wrote Great American Hypocrites (2008).

In March 2009, he was selected, along with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone and devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism. The selection panel cited Greenwald's "pathbreaking journalistic courage and persistence in confronting conventional wisdom, official deception and controversial issues."^[13]

In October 2010, he won the Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary, for his investigative article on the arrest of U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning as the alleged leaker to WikiLeaks.^[14] The same year, he was a Finalist for the National Magazine Awards category of "excellence in online reporting and commentary published as a blog."^[15]

His commentaries "on surveillance issues and separation of powers" have been cited in The New York Times, in The Washington Post, in United States Senate floor debates, and in House "official ... reports on executive power abuses,"^[16] and he appears on various radio and television programs as a guest political pundit.^[17]

Background[link]

Greenwald was born on March 6, 1967, in Queens, New York City, the son of Arlene and Daniel Greenwald.^[18] Shortly after his birth Greenwald moved with his family to South Florida.^[1][19] He earned a B.A. from George Washington University in 1990 and a J.D. from New York University Law School in 1994.^[1] During law school, he worked as an intern and Summer Associate at the New York law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and after graduation, he practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton (1994–1995); in 1996 he co-founded his own litigation firm, called Greenwald Christoph & Holland (later renamed Greenwald Christoph PC), where he litigated cases concerning issues of U.S. constitutional law and civil rights.^[1][19]

One of Greenwald's most notable First Amendment clients was Matthew Hale, a leader of the organization now known as the Creativity Movement. On April 6, 2005, Hale was sentenced to a 40-year prison term for soliciting an undercover FBI informant to kill federal judge Joan Lefkow.^[20] and was incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado.^[21] Although he "represented Hale and his organization in several civil cases" and was not involved in Hale's criminal defense case, after the subsequent killing of Judge Lefkow's mother and husband while Hale was incarcerated for the earlier conviction, Greenwald was approached by Hale's mother, Evelyn Hutcheson. She asked Greenwald to deliver a purportedly "encoded message" from the imprisoned Hale to one of his supporters on the outside; Greenwald declined to do so.^[22][23]

In his entry in Unclaimed Territory for July 10, 2006, Greenwald states, "I decided voluntarily to wind down my practice in 2005 because I could, and because, after ten years, I was bored with litigating full-time and wanted to do other things which I thought were more engaging and could make more of an impact, including political writing."^[19]

In the same entry, Greenwald observes that he has been openly gay for 20 years and that, while he has lived in the United States all his life, he divides his time between New York City and Rio de Janeiro, the hometown of his partner:

Revealingly, American law prevents the recognition of our relationship as a ground for him to live in the United States, while Brazilian law recognizes same-sex relationships for visa and immigration purposes. As a result, for the past year [2006], I have spent substantial time in Brazil while also having a residence in New York. Spending substantial time in another country does not make one an 'expatriate.' And even those American citizens who do give up American residence and live abroad retain full rights of citizenship, including voting rights. But I have not done so.^[19]

An April, 2011 Out Magazine profile describes Greenwald's six-year relationship with his Brazilian partner, David Michael Miranda, and explains that "he lives in Rio de Janeiro" because he is "barred from moving to the United States" with Miranda^[24]. Another profile of Greenwald, from a New Zealand political magazine in 2012, says the interview with Greenwald was conducted from "Rio de Janeiro, where he lives with his husband and 10 dogs, which they keep rescuing from the streets^[25].

According to Ken Silverstein's interview with Greenwald published in Harper's Magazine on February 22, 2008, conducted by telephone while Greenwald was in Brazil, he lives there "much of the time."^[26] On July 22, 2008, when Greenwald participated in a debate with Cass Sunstein, an adviser to then Senator Barack Obama, moderated by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, their exchange was also conducted by telephone from Brazil.^[27]

In a May 2008 interview, Greenwald explained that "even though Brazil has the largest Catholic population of any country in the world" and "was a military dictatorship until 1985": "I’m able to obtain from the Brazilian government a permanent visa because my Brazilian partner's government recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly 'free,' liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition."^[28]

Political views[link]

Greenwald is critical of actions that have the support of both Democrats and Republicans, writing: "the worst and most tyrannical government actions in Washington are equally supported on a fully bipartisan basis."^[29]

In the preface to his first book, How Would a Patriot Act? (2006), Greenwald begins by giving some of his own personal political history, describing himself as at first neither liberal nor conservative but as one who had taken positions that can be ascribed to both liberals and conservatives, voting neither for George W. Bush nor for any of his rivals, indeed not voting at all.^[30] Bush's ascendancy to the U.S. Presidency "changed" Greenwald's previous uninvolved political attitude toward the electoral process "completely":

Over the past five years, a creeping extremism has taken hold of our federal government, and it is threatening to radically alter our system of government and who we are as a nation. This extremism is neither conservative nor liberal in nature, but is instead driven by theories of unlimited presidential power that are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding"; for, "the fact that this seizure of ever-expanding presidential power is largely justified through endless, rank fear-mongering—fear of terrorists, specifically—means that not only our system of government is radically changing, but so, too, are our national character, our national identity, and what it means to be American."^[30]

Believing that "It is incumbent upon all Americans who believe in that system, bequeathed to us by the founders, to defend it when it is under assault and in jeopardy. And today it is", he stresses: "I did not arrive at these conclusions eagerly or because I was predisposed by any previous partisan viewpoint. Quite the contrary."^[30]

Resistant to applying ideological labels to himself, he emphasizes repeatedly that he is a strong advocate for U.S. constitutional "balance of powers"^[12] and for constitutionally-protected civil and political rights in his writings and public appearances.^[1]

Throughout them he has relentlessly criticized the policies of the George W. Bush administration and those who support or enable it, arguing that most of the American "Corporate News Media" excuse Bush's policies and echo administration talking points rather than asking hard questions.^[26][31]

Entitling his Unclaimed Territory blog entry for January 16, 2006, "Bush Followers Are Not Conservatives", Greenwald explains this position:

It has long been clear that there is nothing remotely "conservative" about this Administration, at least in the sense that conservative ideology has stood for a restrained Federal Government which was to be distrusted. There has been a long line of decidedly un-conservative actions by this Administration – from exploding discretionary domestic spending to record deficits to an emergency convening of the Federal Government to intervene in one woman's end-of-life decisions to attempts to federalize, even constitutionalize, marriage laws – all of which could not be any more alien to what has been meant by "conservatism" for the past 40 years.^[32]

The New York Times describes Greenwald as a liberal.^[33][34]

In his various media guest appearances and publications, Greenwald elaborates his political views, which he also summarizes succinctly in responding to "six questions ... about political campaign coverage and the media" that Ken Silverstein posed to him in an article published in Harper's Magazine on February 21, 2008.^[26]

Greenwald holds a favourable view of drug liberalization. He conducted research, commissioned by the Cato Institute, on the effect of the abolition of all criminal penalties for personal drug possession in Portugal, which occurred in 2001. According to Greenwald, "decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success... It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does".^[35]

He also opposes capital punishment on the ground that it is "unjust."^[36]

In a discussion about civil liberties in the age of Obama, he elaborated on his conception of change when he said, "I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that [two-party electoral] system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it."^[37] He did, however, raise money for Russ Feingold's 2010 Senate re-election bid ^[38], Bill Halter's 2010 primary challenge to Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln ^[39], as well as several Congressional candidates in 2012 he described as "unique"^[40].

[edit] Unclaimed Territory

Greenwald started his blog Unclaimed Territory in October 2005, focusing initially on the investigation pertaining to the Plame affair, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and the federal indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Two months later, when the National Security Agency warrantless surveillance controversy became news, he began to focus primarily on that issue. In January 2006 Greenwald attracted national media attention after he wrote in Unclaimed Territory that U.S. Senator Mike DeWine had proposed an easier standard for domestic eavesdropping by federal agents in 2002 but that the administration had declined any interest in the legislation and advised him that it would probably be unconstitutional, a direct contradiction of much of the later rationale for the NSA warrantless domestic spying program once it was known; Dan Eggen, of The Washington Post, for example, observed that "The DeWine amendment" — "the latest point of contention in a fierce political and legal battle over the NSA monitoring program" — was "first highlighted ... by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald and widely publicized yesterday by the Project on Government Secrecy, an arm of the Federation of American Scientists...."^[41]

In March 2006, Senator Russ Feingold quoted Greenwald's comments in Unclaimed Territory on the floor of the U.S. Senate when he introduced Senate Resolution 398, to censure President Bush.^[42]

In April 2006, Unclaimed Territory received the 2005 Koufax Award for "Best New Blog".^[1]

In February 2008, during a debate over the FISA and Telecom Immunity bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate broadcast on C-Span, Senator Chris Dodd quoted Greenwald's comments posted in Unclaimed Territory.^[43]

Salon.com[link]

In February 2007, Greenwald became a contributing writer at Salon.com, and the new column and blog superseded Unclaimed Territory, though Salon.com prominently features hyperlinks to it in Greenwald's dedicated biographical section.^[44][45]

Joe Klein[link]

In his Salon.com column of November 21, 2007, Greenwald documented factual errors in a national column written by Joe Klein in Time magazine.^[46][47][48] In response to such criticism, Time subsequently added an intended clarification (or quasi-retraction) in an online version of Klein's disputed column — "In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets. Republicans believe the bill can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't." — but Greenwald observed that the text of the legislation does not require court review of individual targets, and Time's response repeating "what each side says" disregards that point.^[49][50] Pertaining to this controversy, Time published letters from U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and others in its later issues of the magazine.^[51][52]

Anthrax reporting[link]

In August 2008, following the apparent suicide of terror suspect Bruce Ivins, Greenwald wrote a series of long entries, detailing the evidence that there has been a cover-up by individuals in the US government and ABC News in the 2001 anthrax attacks, calling for "a full-scale Congressional hearing or even an external Commission of the type that investigated the 9/11 attacks – endowed with full subpoena power – to examine all of the unresolved issues here."^[53] Greenwald also expressed interest in the identity of the individual who allegedly told ABC News' Brian Ross falsely in 2001 that the anthrax contained bentonite and falsely linking the anthrax attack to Saddam Hussein and argued that the broadcasting of this claim by ABC News was instrumental in guiding the US media and public opinion towards war with Iraq; subsequently, according to Dan Gillmor, who prominently cites and links to Greenwald in an article published in the guardian.co.uk, Brian Ross refused to divulge the identity of the individual who purportedly misled him.^[54]

John O. Brennan[link]

After U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's victory in November 2008, the media reported that former CIA official John O. Brennan, who had served as Senator Obama's top intelligence adviser during his 2008 election campaign, was the leading candidate to be named by Obama as either the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (D/CIA) or the next Director of National Intelligence (DNI).^[55] In a lengthy essay published in Salon.com, Greenwald argued that Brennan had supported many controversial detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, including "enhanced interrogation tactics" and extraordinary rendition.^[56] Other notable writers such as Andrew Sullivan credited Greenwald's Salon.com essay as the impetus for their opposition to Brennan's nomination.^[57] On November 24, Brennan wrote a letter to President-elect Obama withdrawing his name from consideration for any top intelligence posts, citing "strong criticism in some quarters."^[57] Media reports and other political pundits cited the "firestorm in liberal blogs" as the cause of Brennan's withdrawal.^[58][59]

Bradley Manning[link]

On December 15, 2010, Greenwald wrote of the detention conditions in which U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeaks leaker, was being held. Based on interviews with Manning's visitors and officials at the Marine brig where he was being held, Greenwald reported that the Army Private was being held "under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture": specifically, that he "has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions."^[60]

Greenwald's reporting ultimately led to a formal investigation by the U.N. high official on torture,^[61] denunciations by Amnesty International,^[62] and the resignation of State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley after he publicly criticized Manning's detention conditions.^[63] Since then, Greenwald has been a strong supporter of Manning. He calls Manning "a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives", and "a national hero similar to Daniel Ellsberg."^[64]

Hacking of security company HBGary's email servers by Anonymous revealed that as a result of his advocacy on behalf of Manning and WikiLeaks, Greenwald has been targeted in "[a] bizarre plan" — outlined in a report by Palantir Technologies, HBGary Federal and Berico Technologies — "saying that his 'level of support' for WikiLeaks 'needs to be disrupted.'"^[65] The report "was developed following a request from Hunton and Williams, a law firm that represents Bank of America, as well as others", and claims that "[w]ithout the support of people like Glenn wikileaks would fold."^[65]

Greenwald said his "initial reaction to all of this was to scoff at its absurdity. . . . But after learning a lot more over the last couple of days, I now take this more seriously -- not in terms of my involvement but the broader implications this story highlights."^[66] Salon.com editor-in-chief Kerry Lauerman wrote:

We have no reason not to take the report seriously. As a result, I've asked both Hunton and Williams and Bank of America to explain any role they played and address whether HB Gary (or any of the firms) were being paid, or promised payment, for its development. . . . As bumbling as this whole saga sounds — Internet security firm can't keep its shadowy dirty tricks campaign from being hacked — what's outlined in these sets of proposals, as Glenn points out, "quite possibly constitutes serious crimes." And as it relates to Glenn and the others, it constitutes an unconscionable attempt to silence journalists doing their jobs.^[65]

Books[link]

Greenwald's first book, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok, published by Working Assets, in 2006, was a New York Times bestseller^[67] and ranked number one on Amazon.com both before its publication due to pre-orders based on attention from other bloggers and for several days after its release, ending its first week at number 293.^[68]

A Tragic Legacy, his second book, aims to examine the presidency of George W. Bush "with an emphasis on his personality traits and beliefs that drove the presidency (along with an emphasis on how and why those personality traits have led to a presidency that has failed to historic proportions)."^[69] Published in hardback by Crown, a division of Random House, on June 26, 2007, and later reprinted in a paperback edition by Three Rivers Press on April 8, 2008, it also appeared on "The New York Times Best Seller List" after its original release and was ranked number one for a day on Amazon.com's "Non-Fiction Best Seller List", before becoming number two the next day, also due to heavy "discussions and promotions by blogs – a campaign catalyzed by Jane Hamsher [at FireDogLake]", according to Greenwald.^[70]

His third book, entitled Great American Hypocrites, was published by Random House in April 2008, the same month that Three Rivers Press reissued A Tragic Legacy in paperback.^[71]

His fourth book, entitled With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. Metropolitan Books (Div. of Henry Holt and Company), 2011

Media appearances[link]

Greenwald has appeared as a roundtable guest on ABC's Sunday morning news show "This Week", NPR's "All Things Considered", as well as numerous times on C-SPAN's Washington Journal; Pacifica Radio's syndicated series Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman;^[31] on Public Radio International's To the Point; MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, "Morning Joe" and Dylan Ratigan's "Morning Meeting"; Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume;^[72] and The Colbert Report.^[73] Greenwald has also become a regular guest on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal.,^[74][75] and is a regular guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show, and was a friend and favorite guest of Hewitt's frequent guest host, Dean Barnett.

Popularity[link]

On August 24, 2008, the day before the start of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, which was held in Denver, Colorado, Dan Amira of New York magazine ranked Greenwald as number 36 in his list of "top 40" most popular American political pundits.^[76]

On January 22, 2009, Forbes named Greenwald one of the "25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media". The magazine placed him at number eighteen, just below Hendrik Hertzberg and just ahead of Andrew Sullivan.^[77]

On July 6, 2009, former MSNBC host Dan Abrams launched a new site, Mediaite, reporting on media figures. The site ranked all print and online columnists in America by influence. Greenwald was ranked # 9, immediately behind Charles Krauthammer.^[78][79]

In August 2009, the Web search engine Technorati ranked Glenn Greenwald's Salon.com blog as number 45 in its "Top 100" list of "the most popular 100 blogs based on Technorati Authority" (in its case, 2,056 blog links in the past six months).^[80][81]

In November 2009, The Atlantic launched a new site, TheAtlanticWire.com, and named America's 50 most influential political pundits ("The Atlantic 50"). Greenwald was ranked #22 on the list.^[82]

In December, 2011, Business Insider named him one of the Politix 50: The Only Pundits You Need To Pay Attention To Between Now And The Election.^[83]

In January, 2012, the British political journal New Statesman named Greenwald one of America's Top 20 Progressives^[84]

Notes[link]

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

External links[link]

• "Glenn Greenwald" – Glenn Greenwald's column and blog hosted on Salon.com.
• Unclaimed Territory, by Glenn Greenwald – Previous personal blog hosted on Blogspot.com; superseded by and moved to Greenwald's Salon.com column and blog on February 12, 2007
• Glenn Greenwald at the Internet Movie Database

Bruce Fein in September 2011.

Bruce Fein is a lawyer in the United States who specializes in constitutional and international law. Fein has written numerous articles on constitutional issues for The Washington Times, Slate.com, The New York Times, Legal Times, and is active on the issues of civil liberties. He has also worked for the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, both conservative think tanks, as an analyst and commentator.^[1]

Fein is a principal in a government affairs and public relations firm, The Lichfield Group, in Washington, D.C..^[2] He is also a resident scholar at the Turkish Coalition of America.^[3]

Early life[link]

Bruce Fein was born in 1943 and raised in San Francisco to observant Jewish parents. He received his degree in law from Harvard Law School in 1972.

Relations with the US Government[link]

Fein was a top Justice Department official under the Reagan administration. He has heavily criticized every subsequent U.S. President.

Reagan Administration[link]

Under President Ronald Reagan, Fein served as an associate deputy attorney general from 1981 to 1982 and as general counsel to the Federal Communications Commission. During that period, he wrote an extensive 30-page critique of Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruling that freed American media from much of its liability under libel law in the United States. That memorandum was briefly misattributed to Judge John Roberts while his nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States was pending.^[4] In 1987, he served as the minority (minority party) research director of the committee in the United States House of Representatives that investigated the Iran-Contra Affair.^[4][5][6]

Criticizing Bush, Clinton and Obama[link]

The George W. Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program which intercepted some communications without a warrant from the FISA court incensed him enough to propose censure or even impeachment of Bush.^[7] He ridiculed Harriett Miers's Supreme Court nomination,^[8] and was sharply criticical of then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.^[9][10][11]

In March 2007,he founded the American Freedom Agenda with Bob Barr, David Keene and Richard Viguerie.^[11][12] Notable published writings by Fein include articles advocating the impeachment of former U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and former U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney.

On September 2, 2008, Fein addressed Ron Paul's "Rally For The Republic" in Minneapolis, offering a critique of the Bush administration's interventionist policy and advocating a more non-interventionist foreign policy. Fein also harshly criticized the anti-terror policies of the Bush White House, including wiretapping and detention of terror suspects. In April 2009, Fein criticized President Barack Obama for declining to prosecute Bush administration officials for composing CIA memos justifying torture during interrogations.^[13]

In 2011, Fein proposed impeaching President Barack Obama in connection with the 2011 military intervention in Libya.^[14][15]

Discussing Genocide[link]

Sri Lankan Civil War[link]

Fein has acted "on behalf of Tamils Against Genocide" related to espouse their cause, i.e. to present parts of the Sri Lankan Civil War as Tamil Genocide. It included attempts to bring criminal charges against some American citizens who are prominent members of the Sri Lankan government.^[16]

Armenian Genocide[link]

As a scholar at the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA), and in collaboration with the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund, Fein actively participates in the Armenian-Turkish dispute with regard to their shared history and denies the Armenian Genocide constituted a genocide.

Bruce Fein has penned more than one column on the topic, including in The Washington Times and The Huffington Post.^[17] As opposed to the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Fein asserts that the fate of Armenians during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I should not be characterized as a genocide, arguing that racial, ethnic or religious motivation for the deaths cannot be proven and that a 'political or military motivation for a death falls outside the definition.' ^[3] He argued: "Armenian casualties from starvation, disease, and Ottoman Muslim killings were painfully high, perhaps 300,000-600,000. [...] The tragic Armenian losses and suffering deserve sympathy and commemoration, but no more so than their Ottoman Muslim counterparts."^[18]

Court Cases[link]

His first action as a lawyer was to participate, in the name of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations to the court case against Mourad Topalian, sentenced in 2001 for illegal storing of war weapons and explosives, linked to a terrorist group, the Justice Commandos against Armenian Genocide.^[19]

Together with David Saltzman, he was the lawyer of Guenter Lewy against the Southern Poverty Law Center. After filing a complaint,^[20] the TALDF obtained a public statement of retraction and apologies from SPLC, and a monetary compensation to Prof. Lewy.^[21] Bruce Fein is also one of the lawyers of Rep. Jean Schmidt against David Krikorian^[22] and of TCA against University of Minnesota.^[23] The House ethics committee recently found that Fein had misled Schmidt by failing to disclose to her that his fees in connection with the litigation against David Krikorian were being paid by the TCA.^[24]

Books[link]

• "American Empire: Before the Fall" Published by Campaign for Liberty, June 2010. ISBN 1-4528-2953-5

American Empire: Before the Fall, the most recent of Fein’s published works, condemns what it calls "the aggressive foreign policy of the United States" for supposedly being devoid of concrete objectives, and as such, doomed to war in perpetuity. According to Fein, foreign policy as it stands is earmarked by domination for the sake of domination and gaping wounds to the rule of law and separation of powers. Fein writes: "The larger national motivation is to dominate the world for the excitement of domination. The narrower particular motivation of the President is to reduce coequal branches of government to vassalage, to place the President above the law, and to justify secret government without accountability. James Madison’s admonitions about presidential wars have been vindicated."^[25]

Campaign for Liberty commissioned and published American Empire: Before the Fall. This was their first foray into the realm of publishing. Fein's message therein has so far been praised only by politicians and commentators from the fringe of the political spectrum. Ron Paul (via Campaign for Liberty), Ralph Nader,^[26] Glenn Greenwald,^[27] Judge Andrew Napolitano,^[28] US Representative Walter B. Jones, Jr., are the only prominent political figures so far to have publicly declared their concurrence with Fein's analysis. Glenn Greenwald wrote: "The central problem Fein examines — the nation’s conduct as a world-dominating imperial power rather than a republic — infects and exacerbates virtually every serious political and cultural problem. It drains our financial resources and threatens the country with debt-fueled collapse. It precludes spending on the welfare of American citizens for education, infrastructure and entitlements for the needy. It is what justifies the endless erosion of civil liberties and the acquiescence of limitless, unchecked power to the Executive Branch. It is what causes the nation to be plagued by a bloated, borderline-omnipotent National Security and Surveillance State. It even ironically weakens us militarily and renders us far more vulnerable to attack via overstretch and commitments beyond our means. And most of all, it degrades the American character by reducing us to a militaristic, war-fighting state, wallowing in our own fears, insecurities, hatreds and weaknesses."^[27]

• "Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy" Published by Palgrave MacMillan, September 16, 2008. ISBN 0-230-60288-6

Constitutional Peril was the first book authored by Fein intended for the general public. It was published while President Bush remained in office in 2008, and it made an impassioned argument in favor of impeachment for the President’s unparalleled expansion of executive authority and multiple defilements of the rule of law. Fein's argument was presented on national television programs including Bill Moyers' Journal.^[29]

Ron Paul is among the most notable consistent proponents of Fein's political commentary. He is quoted on the cover of Constitutional Peril saying: "Bruce Fein is one of the most important legal minds of our time. Constitutional Peril is a must-read for American lovers of liberty."^[30]

• "Significant Decisions of the Supreme Court: 1978 - 1979 Term" Aei Pr, June 1980. ISBN 0-8447-3387-3
• "Significant Decisions of the Supreme Court" AEI Press, June 1987. ISBN 0-8447-3568-X
• "Significant Decisions of the Supreme Court: 1979 - 1980 Term" Fred B. Rothman & Co, April 1985 ISBN 0-8377-1135-5
• "Significant Decisions of the Supreme Court: 1977 - 1978 Term" AEI Press, 1979. ISBN 0-8447-3360-1
• "Significant Decisions of the Supreme Court: 1975 - 1976 Term" Rowman & Littlefield, June 1977. ISBN 0-8447-3283-4
• "Significant Decisions of the Supreme Court: 1973 - 1974 Term" AEI Press, 1975. ISBN 0-8447-3176-5
• "Significant Decisions of the Supreme Court: 1972 - 1973 Term" Rowman & Littlefield, June 1974. ISBN 0-8447-1073-3

References[link]

External links[link]

• Statement of Bruce Fein Before The House Judiciary Committee Re: Impeachment 7/25/2007
• Columns written by Bruce Fein for Slate
• Bill Moyers explores the talk of impeachment of Bush and Cheney with Fein, PBS, July 2007
• Tamil statehood? By Bruce Fein on January 29, 2008 in Washington Times
• Video of Fein in a debate/discussion with Jane Hamsher on Bloggingheads.tv

David Addington
11th Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States
In office 2005–2009
Vice President	Dick Cheney
Preceded by	Scooter Libby
Succeeded by	Ron Klain
Personal details
Born	David Spears Addington (1957-01-22) January 22, 1957 (age 55) Washington, D.C.
Alma mater	Georgetown University B.S.F.S. Duke Law School J.D.

David Spears Addington (born January 22, 1957) was legal counsel (2001–2005) and chief of staff (2005–2009) to former Vice President Dick Cheney,^[1] and is now vice president of domestic and economic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation.^[2][3][4][5]

During 21 years of federal service, Addington worked at the CIA, the Reagan White House, the Department of Defense, four congressional committees, and the Cheney Office of the Vice President.^[6] He was appointed to replace I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr. as Cheney's chief of staff upon Libby's resignation when Libby was indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on October 28, 2005.^[7] Addington was described by U.S. News & World Report as "the most powerful man you've never heard of" in May 2006.^[8]

Family[link]

Addington was born in Washington, D.C., and is the son of Eleanore and the late Jerry Addington, a retired brigadier general and West Point graduate.^[9] He is married to Cynthia Mary Addington; the couple have three children. Previously, Addington had been married to Linda Werling, whom he met while the two were both attending Duke University.^[10]

Education and career[link]

Addington graduated from Sandia High School in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1974. He was admitted to United States Naval Academy and attended beginning in Fall 1974, but did not graduate. He is a graduate of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University (B.S.F.S., summa cum laude) and holds a J.D. (with honors) from Duke University School of Law.^[11] He was admitted to the bar in 1981.

Addington was an assistant general counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency from 1981 to 1984.^[12] From 1984 to 1987 he was counsel for the House committees on intelligence and foreign affairs. He served as a staff attorney on the joint U.S. House-Senate committee investigation of the Iran-Contra scandal as an assistant to Congressman Bill Broomfield (R-MI). Books and news articles have said that he was one of the principal authors of a controversial minority report issued at the conclusion of the joint committee's investigation,^[13][14] which "defended President Reagan by claiming it was 'unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws intruding' on the 'commander in chief.'"^[15] but in his opening remarks as he testified under subpoena before the House Judiciary Committee, Addington said that he had left the committee's service before the minority report was written and had no role in it.^[16]

Addington was also a special assistant for legislative affairs to President Ronald Reagan for one year in 1987, before becoming Reagan's deputy assistant. From 1989 to 1992, Addington served as special assistant to Cheney who was then the Secretary of Defense, before being appointed by President George H. W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate as the Department of Defense's general counsel in 1992.^[17] In 1993 and 1994, Addington was the Republican staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In 1994 and 1995, he headed a political action committee, the Alliance for American Leadership, set up to support Republican candidates for public office, with a principal focus on being a Presidential exploratory committee for Cheney, as the former Defense Secretary contemplated running for the 1996 Republican Presidential nomination.^[18]