Law is Reactive, not Proactive
As such, it is completely immaterial whether Bush violated the law with wiretapping (or detaining suspects, for that matter). Preventing further attacks was his primary mission since 9/11. Potentially violating the law to accomplish that mission was his duty, if it was necessary.
Just as we expect soldiers and police to risk their lives to protect us, we have a right to expect our leaders to take risks, even to include violating the law, to protect us from dangers. In no way does this mean that if Bush violated the law that he should not be punished for it, however, in the same way that soldiers sometimes lose their gamble and die.
The law will react to transgressions, but the system is built to operate so slowly, that the risk of violating the law will often bear the fruit the violation was intended to do. For example, internment of Japanese was clearly unconstitutional, but it was not until after the war that the law caught up with the act. Whether internment prevented an attack by the Japanese is not really the issue, just that there were none, which was the point of internment.
So maybe Bush will burn for this decision, but that does not mean he was wrong to do it: I expect no less from the person entrusted with his position.
I see nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to risk imprisonment in order to do what they think is right. It is a small price to pay to fulfill their duty: much smaller than we ask of our soldiers and police.
posted by Jrudkis @ 1:25 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
You must assume that the available legal means of surveillance are necessarily less effective than the alleged illegal means now at issue to believe that the Bush administration had to do what they did to protect America.
Also, some of most patriotic sentiments involve mistrust of unchecked government power. Remember, they hate us for our freedom.
There are two sides to this coin. In a way, it's a lot like the torture argument.
I think it is exactly like the torture issue (in particular the "ticking time bomb" question), and I used the same argument for it:
We expect our soldiers and police to take risks including their very lives to protect us. I think we should equally expect our leaders to take risks. If that means that they torture the ticking time-bomb suspect to prevent a million deaths, and in so doing risk being charged and tried for that torture, so be it. I don't see why we should expect any less.
Whether torture is legal or not it should not impact the outcome of that type of scenario. But by being illegal, it should prevent it from occuring very often in lesser circumstances.
But whether Bush needed to break the law (if in fact he did) is immaterial to my point, which is that I think it is his duty to do what he feels is necessary to protect the country, regagrdless of the law, and it is equally his duty to accept the punishment those decisions cause. He can't have another attack and then blame the attack on administrative barriers.
So, in a way, what you're saying is that you would support impeachment and conviction if the president broke the law, but you wouldn't dislike him for breaking the law. You would dislike him for failing to prevent something awful while obeying the law, but there would be nothing to convict him over.
I guess if someone killed one of my kids, I would be okay with going to jail for killing that person. And I would expect my friends and family to still like me in spite of it, perhaps even think more highly of me for it.
I think that sums up my point exactly. He must obey the law, or accept the punishment for violating it, but he can't blame the law for a failure.
Post a Comment
<< Home