Memo to Bush White House staff

While it seems obvious, it is also crucial to ask, "Is it legal?" White House lawyers need to ask this question a lot and be able to answer it affirmatively. In formulating your answers, I recommend you use interpretations of the law that are well established in statute and precedent, and do not rely on hazy, loose definitions of what you think words like "national security," "commander in chief," "trust fund," and the like might be tortured into meaning. It will help you lawyers, too, to be constantly vigilant to any violation of the Bill of Rights.

You must wholly and completely comply with the letter and spirit of White House ethical rules. In response to the many offers of gifts you'll receive, there's one rule: "Just say no." Accept nothing of more than nominal value that is being offered even remotely because of your position. No rides on corporate jets. No vicuna coats. No pets for your children, especially cocker spaniels. Avoid any whiff of a conflict of interest. Remember, "special trust" is being placed in your integrity.

If the plumbers had seriously asked, "Have I thought this through?" or "What are the consequences for the president and the country if this covert action is uncovered?" or "Is it legal?" the answers would at the very least have prompted second thoughts and, one hopes, a different result.

Is it right?

The second question relates to the more commonly accepted definition of integrity in its moral sense. This idea of rightness relates to truth, justice, honesty, honor, fairness, trustworthiness, and humanity.

If you haven't already discovered this, you will find out that there is enormous pressure on the White House staff to get results. And you will experience pressure to go along unhesitatingly with your colleagues, in a collective "group think." Results-oriented, group-think mental states do not encourage taking time to reflect on whether an action is right.

But you must.

When I wrote my statement to the court before being sentenced to prison in 1974 for violating Fielding's rights, I pointed out to Judge Gerhard Gesell that not once during the deliberations of the plumbers did we ask the question, "Is it right?" We asked all the operational questions, such as, "Who can do this?" and "Can we avoid having it traced to the White House?" But we didn't ask, "Is it right?"

We just assumed we were right because the president was pressing for action and we were working in the White House on his behalf. Assumptions are not sufficient.

You cannot imagine the shame I felt in August 1974, shortly after I was released from prison after 4-1/2 months and Nixon had just resigned, when I visited Fielding in Beverly Hills to ask forgiveness for what we had done. We had stripped this kind, good man of his right to privacy without a second thought.

Of equal pain was my visit the next day to Nixon in his San Clemente office, where I told him how deeply I regretted my role in the sinking of his presidency.

So there you have it. If you can answer "yes" to those two key questions, not only will your work probably "play in Peoria," but you will also avoid being abandoned by your colleagues to twist slowly in the wind.

Most important, your president and country will be well served, and your fellow citizens will be grateful. Bon voyage.

Egil (Bud) Krogh, former deputy counsel to President Nixon, practices energy law in Seattle.

(c) Copyright 2001. The Christian Science Publishing Society

Page: 1 | 2