Bush’s Right Or Duty

Posted at 9:26 am on Thursday, January 12, 2006, in Bush Administration, and tagged al qaeda, bush, iraq, stephen colbert, watergate.

I am not a fan of the Colbert Report on Comedy Central; although I have been a longtime avid viewer of the Daily Show, I feel that Colbert’s O’Reilly-esque act should be limited to three minutes or less. However, earlier this week, Colbert’s satire led to an excellent point while faux-interviewing Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein. Colbert obnoxiously asked the famed Washington Post reporter, “Our president, does he have the right to wiretap American citizens or the duty?” Which, I believe, is quite astute at this time. The president has often claimed that it his right to go to war, his right to wiretap. And when dissenters mount a case that the president doesn’t have the “right,” Bush retorts that it was his “duty.” “It was my duty to attack Iraq; it was my duty to order warrantless wiretaps…”

In an attempt to throw water on the fire, the conservative Weekly Standard published a rebuke at those who have alleged that the president acted illegally and offered an excuse for the president’s extra-legal actions.

One can begin from the fact that the American Constitution made the first republic with a strong executive. A strong executive is one that is not confined to executing the laws but has extra-legal powers such as commanding the military, making treaties (and carrying on foreign policy), and pardoning the convicted, not to mention a veto of legislation. To confirm the extra-legal character of the presidency, the Constitution has him take an oath not to execute the laws but to execute the office of president, which is larger.

Thus it is wrong to accuse President Bush of acting illegally in the surveillance of possible enemies, as if that were a crime and legality is all that matters. This is simplistic, small-r republican thinking of the kind that our Constitution surpassed when it constructed a strong executive.

Source: CBS News

The sin of this, from the president’s viewpoint, is that Bush probably would have received the appropriate warrants to conduct such surveillance. And just as “ditto-heads” state today, “I am not upset, I have nothing to fear; I haven’t been breaking the law; go ahead, Mr. Bush, you have unlimited extra-legal powers,” we can turn that on Bush and his supporters: if you were performing surveys on al Qaeda, and not the general public, why not get a warrant, if you were breaking no law? (Is this mirroring the scene from “A Few Good Men,” or is it just me?)

No related posts.