Det var et trist syn: President Bush på besøk hos Rumsfeld, for å ta ham i forsvar. Plutselig så de begge gamle ut. Bush forveksler lojalitet innad med troskap mot sak. Det er de gamle texanske dyder, eller skyldes det, som Anthony Lewis skriver, at USA har A President Beyond the Law ?

Bush møter seg selv i døren. Han har selv drevet gjennom at staten skal stå over loven:

Again and again, over these last years, President Bush has made clear his view that law must bend to what he regards as necessity. National security as he defines it trumps our commitments to international law. The Constitution must yield to novel infringements on American freedom.

Dette kommer ikke til å gå over. Hele Bush-administrasjonens politikk på dette området kommer til å bli satt under gransking, og blir det ingen kursendring, er det trolig at Bush vil tape valget.

Det blir unektelig PR hvis man nekter å ratifisere Den internasjonale straffedomstolen, setter seg over Geneve-konvensjonene for fangebehandling, og så avsløres som fangemishandler i Saddam Husseins verste fengsel. Stort verre PR kan det ikke bli.

One clear example is the treatment of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The Third Geneva Convention requires that any dispute about a prisoner’s status be decided by a «competent tribunal.» American forces provided many such tribunals for prisoners taken in the Persian Gulf war in 1991. But Mr. Bush has refused to comply with the Geneva Convention. He decided that all the Guantánamo prisoners were «unlawful combatants» — that is, not regular soldiers but spies, terrorists or the like.

Det er forståelig at administrasjonen ønsket seg unntakslover etter 911, men de ville ikke ha noe innsyn. Dermed brøt de med demokratiets grunnleggende regler om «adverserial review», at noen kontrollerer kontrollørene.

Knapt noe har kostet USA mer blant diplomater, politikere og jurister enn «de svarte hullene». Det som tidligere har tilhørt politikkens randsoner eller særlige fagfelt, rykker nå inn i sentrum: Ting vil bli rullet opp og satt i sammenheng. Som Den internasjonale Røde Kors-komiteen sier: Overgrepene gjelder langt mer enn Abu Ghrabi. Det er snakk om systematiske brudd.

The violation of the Geneva Convention and that refusal to let the courts consider the issue have cost the United States dearly in the world legal community — the judges and lawyers in societies that, historically, have looked to the United States as the exemplar of a country committed to law. Lord Steyn, a judge on Britain’s highest court, condemned the administration’s position on Guantánamo in an address last fall — pointing out that American courts would refuse even to hear claims of torture from prisoners. At the time, the idea of torture at Guantánamo seemed far-fetched to me. After the disclosures of the last 10 days, can we be sure?

Lewis nevner selv et eksempel: interneringen av utlendinger i USA like etter 911:

Fear of terrorism — a quite understandable fear after 9/11 — has led to harsh departures from normal legal practice at home. Aliens swept off the streets by the Justice Department as possible terrorists after 9/11 were subjected to physical abuse and humiliation by prison guards, the department’s inspector general found. Attorney General John Ashcroft did not apologize — a posture that sent a message.

Det representerer et klart brudd på demokratiske prinsipper nå Bush selv forbeholder seg retten til å betegne amerikanske borgere som «enemy combatants», uten rett til juridisk hjelp. Det er dette som skal prøves for Høyesterett.

Inside the United States, the most radical departure from law as we have known it is President Bush’s claim that he can designate any American citizen an «enemy combatant» — and thereupon detain that person in solitary confinement indefinitely, without charges, without a trial, without a right to counsel. Again, the president’s lawyers have argued determinedly that he must have the last word, with little or no scrutiny from lawyers and judges.

Jeg har tidligere tilhørt dem som har beundret Bush for hans «steadfastness». Hans ikke-intellektualisme, hans gut-politics, at han ikke tilhørte den liberale eliten, har vært et pluss for ham. Hva the chattering classes sa brød han seg ikke om. Han holdt kursen. Men en dyd kan forvandles til det motsatte, fordi forutsetningene endrer seg.

Her titter guvernøren med alle dødsstraffene frem: Bush lider av den feiloppfatning, som terroristene frister oss til å tro, at et demokratisk samfunn er svakt.

In all these matters, there is a pervasive attitude: that to follow the law is to be weak in the face of terrorism. But commitment to law is not a weakness. It has been the great strength of the United States from the beginning. Our leaders depart from that commitment at their peril, and ours, for a reason that Justice Louis D. Brandeis memorably expressed 75 years ago.

«Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher,» he wrote. «For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself.»