What if the 'Bush Doctrine' was applied domestically in the US?

Great Debates
1

What are the limits of the Bush Doctrine to pre-emptively strike? What if this was applied by law enforcement in the US?
I.e. We think Group Y is planning to commit a crime, we have no proof, but we’ll arrest them, then search their buildings, and if we find proof, well, we told you so.
or Person X has commited a crime in the past, we think they might again, so we storm there house, and try to find the proof without enough for a seach warrant to do this, but if we find the evidence that justifies it.
Isn’t this what prevented people like Capone from being arrested and proscuted until they got him on tax evasion? Imagine how much easier it would have been to follow the Bush Doctrine and storm Capone’s residences/businesses and then find the proof to justify it.
or how about taking down those radical militia’s the goverment is watching but have no real reason to take them down? or organized crime like drug cartels? where is the line drawn?

Isn’t this against US law?

Would the US public be behind Bush if his policy was applied to them?

2

I asked a variation of this question of a pro-war friend.

“Do you own a gun?”

“No.”

“I think you do.”

“I don’t.”

“I think you do, and I think you might use it.”

“Even if I had one, I wouldn’t use it unless someone came into my house.”

“Nope, sorry, I have to kill you now because you might use the gun you might have.”

I think it’s a pretty apt analogy.

3

The Bush Doctrine has been enforced by police for several decades now if not longer. Its called probable cause. The police gather sufficient evidence to present to the judge to obtain a search warrant. They dont have to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but just enuf to convince the judge that the cause was not contribed by the police and that not acting will pose a danger to the public.

4

Regardless of whether it would be against US law (and XSlayer makes a good point), it is irrelevant. US law and US constitution doesn’t apply outside US territory.

Sua

5

Stofsky, do you oppose all gun-control laws? Americans will be sent to jail for illegal possession of a weapon.

6

The Bush Doctrine goes beyond probable cause. Its not just a search warrant, its arrest now and ask questions later. Apply this to my neighbour, he has a gun collection. I think in 5-10 years he’ll go nuts and try to take someone out, does that justify taking him out now? Thats what the Bush Doctrine is about.

I’m am not saying this war in Iraq is against US law, I am saying if this policy was applied domestically, it would be.

7

Stofsky, do you oppose all gun-control laws? Americans will be sent to jail for illegal possession of a weapon.

8

Stofsky: It’s an interesting analogy, but I think in order for it to jive, you’d have to alter it a bit:

“Hey Saddie, you know how we agreed 12 years ago you wouldn’t have a gun or any gun paraphenalia?”

“That’s your interpretation…”

“And do you remember how a couple months back, the courts agreed you had not got rid of your guns, and that we had to come back and check?”

“So you say.”

“So, do you own a gun now?”

“No.”

“I think you do.”

“I don’t.”

“But you used to own a gun, right? – several kinds in fact – even after you said you got rid of them.”

“Well, yes, but then I DID get rid of them.”

“Where’d you get rid of them?”

“I don’t recall”

“Well, you’ve been buying bullets and shells and gun-cleaning paraphenalia all along – up until not long ago – even though you said you wouldn’t. So, what happened to that?”

“I got rid of that too. I got rid of all of it. Can’t tell you where or how, but I did.”

“Even though you weren’t supposed to have it at all, you didn’t keep track of where it went?”

“Yeah, my bad…”

“How about if we come in an take a look around.”

“No, that’s okay”

“We have a search warrant here.”

“Grrr. You’re invading my sovereignty. You can look, but I won’t help you.”

“So you expect us to search this 100,000 acre ranch with two guys and a ferret?”

“Hey, your problem. I’ve told you everything.”

“Hey, what about these bullets in your garage?”

“Oh yeah, those. Oops. Forgot those, I’ll get rid of them now.”

“Okay, but how about these shotgun shells here.”

“Oh, another regrettable oversight. I’ll destroy those now. It will take me a few weeks, though.”

“Look, come clean and tell us where all the rest of it is.”

“Oh no, that’s it. You have found everything I ‘forgot’ to tell you about.”

“Are you really sure you won’t help us search the 100,000 acre ranch? My two guys are a little overwhelmed, and the ferret that the sheriff’s office sent me is actually pretty useless…”

“Too bad. Have fun! And remember, anything else you find (even though there’s nothing to find) is a regrettable oversight.”
NOW I think it’s a pretty apt analogy.

9

The one thing that is different of the Bush Doctrine and the current probable cause, is that one the powers that be determine that you are a threat, you become an enemy combatant, and have no constitutional protections. That, in my opinion, is far beyond a breech of contract of citizenship (ie constitution)

Oh yeah, December, stop trying to highjack this thread. It is not about gun control laws.

10

The problem with X~Slayer(ALE) and DrLizardo’s posts is that it doesn’t recognize that the judge hasn’t made the decision - the police (and I use that term loosely, mob may be more accurate) elected to act before the verdict was read.

11

Actually, this is a search warrant. We are in essense searching Iraq for WMD that we believe Saddam is actively hiding. He is resisting the search and we are acting accordingly to prevent harm to our troops and the Iraqi people and Saddam is not making that easy. Of course, we can already arrest Saddam for resisting the search, finding the WMD is now academic.

This is exactly the reason police tell all suspects not to resist being searched because if they dont find anything, they will be set free. If you resist, you will be arrested.

I would go so far as to say that the Bush Doctrine mimics present domestic policy. The only difference with the way the Bush doctrine is implimented is that there is no real world judge to go to for a search warrant. The UN has no real jurisdiction over US policy other than what the US agrees to follow. the ICC only handle criminal cases.

12

True, AZ, and for that reason I did not extend my version of it to the point of action.

However, one thing I like about the analogy is that it deals with a situation where the courts DO NOT have the means of action in their control. That is to say the US courts must use the police to act while the UN must use its member’s militaries (overwhelmingly the US) to act. While I think Stofsky’s version was very oversimplistic and did not accurately reflect the progression of events, it’s truly not a bad comparison.

I think that one could say that at some point, after multiple court orders and multiple violations, the police can/should/would just jump in and take care of the situation based on all that pre-existing judiciary work… To bring the analogy back to the real topic at hand, my personal view is that the term “pre-emptive” was very poorly chosen for this situation. I don’t find it “pre-emptive,” I find it reactive.

13

This is probably the most unintentionally funny thing I’ll read all week.

By your description, if Officer Bush really doesn’t find any WMDs in Iraq, is he going to rebuild the bombed buildings and reinstate Saddam in power? Fat chance.

14

Weren’t the weapon Inspectors acting on a search warrant of sorts from the UN? The US decided that wasn’t fast enough and decided to search by force, and also take down the government of a nation at the same time (as stated by Bush in his speech).

15

And if it is, it won’t be applied here. I’m still not getting the point.

Sua

16

If you stopped your snickering long enuf to read all of my post you wouldve seen the part where I said Saddam resisted the search and can be arrested just for that. As in any warranted search, if contraband is found, arrest is immediate. Saddam has already been found resisting a lawful search (resolution 1441), oppression of his own people, threatening to use contaband weapons (which Saddam says he does not have) and using soldiers dressed as civilians and using actual civilians and their property as shields.

This war isnt because the inspectors took too long. Its because it was ineffective and prolonging an ineffective search is pointless. The real irony of this is that had France negotiated a delayed action of war (as the arabs tried to do at the last minute) the threat of 250,000 trrops in Kuwait might have been sufficient to make Saddam more cooperative. As France vowed to veto any resolution under any circumstances that automatically led to war, it only helped Saddam.

17

That’s odd. I’d call it vigilantism. Did you see the Clint Eastwood movie “Magnum Force”?

The same applies to your analogy, X~Slayer(ALE).

18

It could very well be called vigilantism, AZCowboy and how appropriate you picked a Dirty Harry analogy. If you recall the theme for any of the Dirty Harry movies, Harry Callahan did what he did because the legal system and politics got so corrupt that it actually allowed the criminals to run rampant while hogtying the police in bureaucratic procedures.

[Sarcasm] Gee, I dont see any similarities to that and the UN.[/Sarcasm]

19

At the risk of making a CS post in GD…

Perhaps I don’t recall correctly, but I don’t remember Dirty Harry ever taking the law in his own hands. Sure, he was frustrated by police beaurocracy and local politics, but he worked within the law. Specifically, in Magnum Force, he single-handedly brought down a group of corrupt, vigilante cops. He was a grey figure in terms of his means, but he had the highest ideals.

Perhaps you were thinking of The Guantlet?

20

You do remember correctly. Near the end, Harry makes a short speech to this effect, to Hal Holbrook’s character, Briggs. Off the top of my head:

“Briggs, you know I hate the system. But until something better comes along, I’m working with it.”