NIXON - BUSH DOCTRINE
NIXON-BUSH DOCTRINE
We're at "war." The President believes that tapping phones of Americans without a warrant is constitutional despite being unlawful because in time of war, presidents can to anything they want to anyone and, "by definition," it becomes legal.
That's the approach that President Nixon took, and even openly stated in an interview with David Frost, and we all know what happened to him. Now, his ideological successor, George W. Bush is saying the same thing. He can designate anyone as an "Enemy Combatant," hold them in a secret place without charges, a lawyer, or a court, and keep them there forever in that state. Moreover, if he thinks it is necessary for "National Security," he can torture them, wiretap anyone's phone . . . in effect, negating all constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and avoid all those "messy," and inconvenient checks and balances.
There are those, on both sides of "the aisle," who would agree that in wartime, this is necessary to protect our nation. They truly cannot see why people are getting so upset with these tactics. After all, they're only meant to protect us from our sworn enemies in time of war. Besides, we all know that no president would abuse such powers. This is America, not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China, or even King George the III (Hmmm, I seem to remember a war being fought over that one sometime in 1776).
There are two major problems to this approach that people, on both sides of the aisle are only now beginning to see. First, there is the proverbial "slippery slope." If we allow the usurpation of a small amount of freedom today, it becomes much easier to justify its extension tomorrow. If we can tap international telephone calls without a warrant today, it's not a very big step to say, tomorrow, that since there are probably terrorist cells operating in the U.S., we need to be able to listen in on anyone to make sure they're not talking to terrorists.
Well, that's not so bad, I hear you say. I'm not saying anything wrong. What do I have to fear? Besides, even if they hear me say something wrong that is unrelated to terrorism, it can't be used in a court of law without having obtained a warrant. True, but then we've also granted the right for the government to arrest anyone and hold them indefinitely without charges or trial, so who cares about whether evidence is admissible? Who needs a warrant for a search if we can simply arrest people on the order of the President (or his designee like Gonzales, Cheney, your local IRS agent, etc.)?
If you can tap phones or search and seize without a warrant, arrest someone without charges or trial and hold them incognito, indefinitely, and torture them at the presidential discretion, what's to stop the president from ordering their execution? Besides, since no one would even know where they are or even what happened to them (they would simply go out of milk one day and never return), who would know, anyway? I think I read somewhere that we're supposed to be the "good guys." We've fought and died for hundreds of years to gain the liberties and constitutional protections we have, yet after three buildings and four planes are attacked by terrorists, our President has assumed dictatorial powers and our Congress and courts seem powerless (or too timid) to stop him.
The second problem with this, and perhaps even more to the point, is that this "war," is not one that will EVER end. There is no definable point at which we can declare victory. A single individual with a few sticks of dynamite and a grudge is a terrorist that is, essentially unstoppable. So, do we give up all of these freedoms forever? What about elections? Shall the President suspend elections because the huge gatherings of people would make too easy a target for terrorists?
Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "[p]eople willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." Personally, I'd rather take a chance with a terrorist than allow our cherished democracy to slip into an autocracy. I choose not to give up my freedom in return for "order."
I will never hail, "George V," King of the United States, Lord of the Americas and, by the grace of (his) god, Emperor of the American Empire.
We're at "war." The President believes that tapping phones of Americans without a warrant is constitutional despite being unlawful because in time of war, presidents can to anything they want to anyone and, "by definition," it becomes legal.
That's the approach that President Nixon took, and even openly stated in an interview with David Frost, and we all know what happened to him. Now, his ideological successor, George W. Bush is saying the same thing. He can designate anyone as an "Enemy Combatant," hold them in a secret place without charges, a lawyer, or a court, and keep them there forever in that state. Moreover, if he thinks it is necessary for "National Security," he can torture them, wiretap anyone's phone . . . in effect, negating all constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and avoid all those "messy," and inconvenient checks and balances.
There are those, on both sides of "the aisle," who would agree that in wartime, this is necessary to protect our nation. They truly cannot see why people are getting so upset with these tactics. After all, they're only meant to protect us from our sworn enemies in time of war. Besides, we all know that no president would abuse such powers. This is America, not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China, or even King George the III (Hmmm, I seem to remember a war being fought over that one sometime in 1776).
There are two major problems to this approach that people, on both sides of the aisle are only now beginning to see. First, there is the proverbial "slippery slope." If we allow the usurpation of a small amount of freedom today, it becomes much easier to justify its extension tomorrow. If we can tap international telephone calls without a warrant today, it's not a very big step to say, tomorrow, that since there are probably terrorist cells operating in the U.S., we need to be able to listen in on anyone to make sure they're not talking to terrorists.
Well, that's not so bad, I hear you say. I'm not saying anything wrong. What do I have to fear? Besides, even if they hear me say something wrong that is unrelated to terrorism, it can't be used in a court of law without having obtained a warrant. True, but then we've also granted the right for the government to arrest anyone and hold them indefinitely without charges or trial, so who cares about whether evidence is admissible? Who needs a warrant for a search if we can simply arrest people on the order of the President (or his designee like Gonzales, Cheney, your local IRS agent, etc.)?
If you can tap phones or search and seize without a warrant, arrest someone without charges or trial and hold them incognito, indefinitely, and torture them at the presidential discretion, what's to stop the president from ordering their execution? Besides, since no one would even know where they are or even what happened to them (they would simply go out of milk one day and never return), who would know, anyway? I think I read somewhere that we're supposed to be the "good guys." We've fought and died for hundreds of years to gain the liberties and constitutional protections we have, yet after three buildings and four planes are attacked by terrorists, our President has assumed dictatorial powers and our Congress and courts seem powerless (or too timid) to stop him.
The second problem with this, and perhaps even more to the point, is that this "war," is not one that will EVER end. There is no definable point at which we can declare victory. A single individual with a few sticks of dynamite and a grudge is a terrorist that is, essentially unstoppable. So, do we give up all of these freedoms forever? What about elections? Shall the President suspend elections because the huge gatherings of people would make too easy a target for terrorists?
Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "[p]eople willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." Personally, I'd rather take a chance with a terrorist than allow our cherished democracy to slip into an autocracy. I choose not to give up my freedom in return for "order."
I will never hail, "George V," King of the United States, Lord of the Americas and, by the grace of (his) god, Emperor of the American Empire.
posted by Diogenes @ 2/08/2006 06:16:00 PM
0 comments
