The Nixon-Bush doctrine (When a duty to protect supercedes a duty to abide by the law)

CNN ^ | Wednesday, February 8, 2006 | Bruce Morton

[presidio9]

Presidents, in wartime, tend to think they're above the law; commanders-in-chief who rule absolutely.

President Lincoln abolished habeas corpus (the right to a trial) during the Civil War -- clearly unconstitutional, but he did it. President Franklin Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese-Americans -- U.S. citizens -- in concentration camps during World War II -- clearly unconstitutional, but he did it.

Richard Nixon probably put the case most clearly in an interview with David Frost back in 1977.

Frost: "So ... what ... you're saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal."

Nixon: "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

Frost: " By definition."

Nixon: "Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security ... then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law."

President George W. Bush, commander in chief in the war against terror, is squarely in the Nixon camp. He has asserted his right to hold American citizens indefinitely without charging them with any crime if he labels them "enemy combatants." He holds detainees of other nationalities at Guantanamo, some with access to lawyers, some not.

His attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, has referred to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war as "quaint." Bush has asserted America's right to torture prisoners. He has asserted its right to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens because they might be talking to terrorists.

[MEGoody]

So this isn't really the "Nixon Bush" doctrine. It's been the doctrine of Presidents for a very long time.

[MNJohnnie]

Isn't the law objective and the perceived need to protect, fairly subjective?

Nope. The authors OPINION of the law are subjective based on his personal political feelings. Since he is neither Judge nor Legislator his OPINION of what the law means is just so much hot air. Since the President is the chosen Representative of the people HIS opinion of what the law means is one of the few that matters here.

The President is invested by the people to exercise certain powers on our behalf. His opinions have legal standing. Bruce Moron is just some self important twit writing on a website, his feeling about the matter are irrelevant babbling. The President's opinions are the only ones that count between the two.

The President, our chosen Representative, has said, "I have these powers". Some in Congress are objecting to his position. Someone will bring suit and the Courts will decide which branch is correct. That is how our system of Checks and Balances works.

All the screaming about "illegality" by website authors and self proclaimed legal "experts" is just so much meaningless noise. Just cause Bruce Moron, based on his political prejudices, want to claim it is illegal is irreverent to the facts at hand. He has no standing to rend any such judgments. The President does. Therefore Bruce Moron is wrong.

[MNJohnnie]

Nope. It might be called the Washington Doctrine since he was the 1st President to make use of these powers invested in the President as Commander in Chief

[MNJohnnie]

Exactly, The power of the Commander in Chief to use all power of the US Govt to respond to an attack on US Civil Society clearly cover this matter. The Hysteric Leftist position, as advanced by Bruce Moron in this article, are intellectually indefensible and absurd.

[stuartcr]

OK

[JoeFromSidney]

A litle history may be in order.

Prior to WWII, the US broke the Japanese diplomatic code, and regularly read messages between spymasters in Japan and Japs in the US. There were several hundred Japs in the US who were prepared to commit sabotage and espionage if war broke out. One reason given for the "relocation" of West Coast Japs was that if the government picked up only the ones we knew were disloyal, and ignored the rest, it would tip off the Japs that we could read their messages. (Doesn't mean I agree with the relocation, but that was part of the reason given.)

During WWII, the US interecepted and read messages between Soviet spies in the US to their spymasters in the Soviet Union. Many of the results have been published as the Venona Transcripts.

During the fighting in El Salvador, the US intercepted and read messages between the the Communists in ES and their supporters in the US.

No one seems to have been upset, then or since, at the government intercepting messages between enemy agents in the US and their contacts overseas. Why now?

[MNJohnnie]

Going to be really interesting to see how this all plays out. 9-11 was really a world changing event. Our current political system really isn't designed to cope with Terrorism. It is not formal war yet it takes more then police action to combat it. We have to craft some new structures to deal with it. The Bush Administration has put forth an idea of what that structure should be.Whether that stands or is replaced with a different vision is yet to be decided.

Kind of exciting for us History nerds to watch. Going to be a real live demonstration on how the system of checks and balances will work going into the 21st Century. I am continually in awe of how brilliant (or lucky?) our founders were. That our system works so well some 220 some years later is simply amazing.

[stuartcr]

I'm 55yo, I really doubt I will see an end to terrorism in my lifetime.

[K-oneTexas]

I to am 55 and I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. I hope my children and grandchildren fare better.

[stuartcr]

I'm sure that's what our ancestors wanted too.