當選總統(tǒng)唐納德·特朗普在就職典禮籌委會主席全球晚宴上發(fā)表講話,，2017年1月17日（周二），華盛頓,。

當選總統(tǒng)唐納德·特朗普就行使權力表達了近乎獨裁的觀點，這讓許多人擔心他會玩弄保護美國人自由的法律,。9.11之后,，美國就領教過這樣的行為方式——小布什總統(tǒng)宣稱自己在保衛(wèi)國家時不受法規(guī)和條約約束,。貝拉克·奧巴馬總統(tǒng)反對這種觀點，他說和所有人一樣,，總統(tǒng)也得遵守法律,。

但奧巴馬這份值得稱道的遺產也有另外一面。除了刑訊逼供這個顯而易見的例外,，奧巴馬在恢復法制的過程中其實并沒有和小布什格外寬廣的權力視野劃清界限。相反,，奧巴馬想鞏固其法律根基,，有時是在國會或法院的幫助下,，有時則僅僅闡明了政府行為的法律依據。

實際情況或許會證明,，這樣的選擇有著決定性的影響,。奧巴馬用法律認可了一些小布什主張的最令人窒息的權力，矛盾的是,，這可能降低了特朗普濫用這些權力的難度,。這種風險在以下四個方面尤其突出：

監(jiān)聽

美國國家安全局未經授權的監(jiān)聽活動是小布什政府最大的丑聞之一。但美國國會非但沒有反對這項違法活動,，甚至還從根本上使之合法化,?！锻鈬閳蟊O(jiān)視法》（FISA）2008年修正案允許國安局在未經授權的情況下收集美國人和外國人之間的通信資料，前提是國安局證明監(jiān)聽目標是外國人（不需要證明其存在不當行為）,，而不是美國人,。

任參議員時，奧巴馬對這項法案投了贊成票,；當了總統(tǒng)后，他支持讓該法案再次生效,。2011年,，奧巴馬政府極大的擴展了此項法案的覆蓋范圍——經秘密的FISA法院批準，美國聯邦調查局（FBI）探員可以在國安局收集的通信資料中搜索美國人的信息,。

這次“后門搜索”授權可能讓特朗普掌握監(jiān)聽無辜美國人的工具。他會怎樣使用這樣的工具呢,？特朗普曾明確呼吁加強對穆斯林社區(qū)的監(jiān)視,。此外，他從不隱藏自己對政治對手的不滿,，他的代理人還質疑過和平政治抗議的合法性。人們或許很容易就能想象出特朗普治下的FBI在國安局的大量數據中挖掘信息的情景,，而這些信息會被用于對付少數族裔,、持不同政見者以及他自己的仇家。

無限期扣留

小布什政府率先在關塔那摩采取了未經審訊就無限期扣留恐怖嫌疑分子的做法,。小布什宣稱憲法本來就授權了這樣的扣留，奧巴馬沒有采納他的說法,，而且承諾要關閉關塔那摩監(jiān)獄,。但奧巴馬沒有否認基于極寬松標準來無限期扣留“敵方戰(zhàn)斗人員”的權力。對于被扣留者要求獲釋的案件,，奧巴馬持反對態(tài)度，他說2001年《軍事力量使用授權》（AUMF）是關押這些人員的法律依據,。

由于未能關閉關塔那摩監(jiān)獄,，奧巴馬為無限期扣留所找的法律依據現在有可能為特朗普再次把人送進關塔那摩的計劃開綠燈,。雖然AUMF只針對參與9.11的人員和團體,，但“敵方戰(zhàn)斗人員”的寬泛定義得到了奧巴馬治下司法部的支持,，也得到了法院認可,，這給了特朗普巨大的自由空間。被他關起來的可能不光是外國的基地組織或塔利班武裝人員,，還可能包括被指“支持”各色國際恐怖組織的美國人。

定點清除

小布什政府用無人機消滅海外敵對勢力嫌疑成員時沒有公布相關法律程序或依據,。奧巴馬政府雖然極大地擴展了無人機的使用范圍,，但也建立了錯綜復雜的內部審查體系，并且起草了支持此類行動的法律備忘錄,。然而，特朗普有可能徹底拋棄這個審核程序,。至于奧巴馬政府的法律解析,，有學者批評說這樣做扭曲了國內和國際法律。

按照奧巴馬政府的法律解釋,，特朗普對無人機的使用就不會限于仍在交戰(zhàn)的地區(qū)，而且目標或許會包括美國公民——奧巴馬時期已經有了先例,。雖然只有帶來“迫切威脅”而且逮捕方案“不可行”的美國人才有可能成為目標,，但或許基于目標參與恐怖活動的程度就可以將其視為迫切威脅，而且如果逮捕具有“過大”安全風險,，就可能認為逮捕方案不可行。

這些解釋可能讓特朗普拿到對美國人使用致命武力的特別許可證,。奧巴馬顯然沒有大量使用這張許可證,，但特朗普會不會像他一樣自律還非常不明朗。

《反間諜法》指控

小布什政府用過《反間諜法》,，后者旨在懲罰間諜和叛徒，同時威懾并在某些情況下起訴向媒體泄露國家安全事務的政府雇員,。讓許多人感到意外的是,，奧巴馬政府在這方面變本加厲——它提起的泄密訴訟超過了此前歷屆政府的總和，而且在其中的幾起案件中,，被告是為了曝光濫用權力的行為,；同時，奧巴馬政府還讓這種不尋常的法律手段常態(tài)化,。

此外,，在獲取福克斯新聞記者詹姆斯·羅森的電子郵件以確定泄密源頭的過程中,，奧巴馬治下的司法部采取了前所未有的行動,，那就是指控羅森密謀違反《反間諜法》,。雖然司法部后來表示絕沒有打算用法律來對付新聞記者，但它的做法為指控那些曝光政府不當行為的記者打開了大門,。

特朗普對媒體的敵意眾所周知,，人們有充足的理由擔心他可能會闖進這扇大門，小布什和奧巴馬為《反間諜法》配備的寬廣視角以及法院對此的認可則會為特朗普鋪平道路,。

有風險的賭博

上述事例的教訓顯而易見。小布什政府對行使權力的看法很危險,，這不光是因為他們試圖為明顯違法的行為辯護,，還因為他們贊成把行使大權置于公民的生命和自由之上。從法律上認可這些權力時,，奧巴馬政府,、國會和法院都相信總統(tǒng)可以明智地予以使用,。這樣的賭博存在風險。

今后,，只問特朗普是否守法還不夠,，我們還得問問他對自己繼承的這些無上權力的使用是否符合我們的權力、自由和價值,。在后9.11時代占據上風的權力使用觀點影響深遠，我們則必須啟動一項早就應該開始的審查,，看一看在特朗普政府及其后繼者治下,，這種觀點能否竭誠服務于我們的憲政民主。

作者伊麗莎白·戈伊坦是紐約大學法學院布倫南司法研究中心自由和國家安全項目聯合負責人,。（財富中文網）

譯者：Charlie

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during the presidential inaugural Chairman's Global Dinner, Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2017, in Washington.

President-elect Donald Trump has expressed a near-autocratic view of executive authority, leading many to worry that he will play fast and loose with the laws that protect Americans’ freedoms. After 9/11, USA had a taste of this approach, as President George W. Bush claimed he was not bound by statutes or treaties when acting to protect the nation. President Barack Obama rejected that view, maintaining that the president, like everyone else, must obey the law.

But there is another side to this admirable aspect of Obama’s legacy. With the notable exception of torture, in restoring the rule of law, he did not actually renounce Bush’s extraordinarily broad vision of executive power. Instead, Obama sought to put it on firmer legal footing—sometimes with help from Congress or the courts, sometimes simply by articulating a legal justification for government actions.

This choice may prove to have fateful consequences. By buttressing with legal authority some of the most breathtaking powers asserted under Bush, Obama paradoxically may have made it easier for Trump to abuse them. This risk will be particularly acute in the following four areas:

Surveillance

The National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program was one of the Bush administration’s greatest scandals. Yet instead of decrying this lawless conduct, Congress essentially legalized it. The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act of 2008 allows the NSA to collect communications between Americans and foreigners without a warrant, as long as the agency certifies that the foreigner—not the American—is the “target” of the surveillance (a designation requiring no showing of wrongdoing).

As a senator, Obama voted for the law, and as president, he supported its reauthorization. In 2011, his administration greatly expanded its reach by obtaining permission from the secret FISA Court for FBI agents to search the communications collected by the NSA for information about Americans.

This “backdoor search” authority gives Trump a potent tool for surveillance of innocent Americans. How might he use it? Trump has expressly called for more surveillance of Muslim communities. Moreover, he makes no secret of his grudges against political opponents, and his surrogates have questioned the legitimacy of peaceful political protests. One could easily imagine a Trump FBI mining the NSA’s massive data haul for information to use against vulnerable minorities, political dissidents, and personal enemies.

Indefinite detention

The Bush administration initiated the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay. Obama abandoned Bush’s claim that the Constitution inherently authorized such detention, and he pledged to close the facility. But he did not disclaim the authority to hold people indefinitely as “enemy combatants” based on extremely loose criteria. He opposed lawsuits by detainees seeking release, citing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as legal justification for their imprisonment.

Having failed to close Guantánamo, Obama’s legal defense of indefinite detention could now serve as a green light for Trump’s plan to repopulate the prison. The broad definition of “enemy combatant” espoused by Obama’s Justice Department and endorsed by the courts—notwithstanding the AUMF’s narrow focus on people and groups involved in the 9/11 attacks— gives Trump enormous leeway. He could potentially imprison not merely foreign Al Qaeda or Taliban fighters, but Americans who are deemed to “support” a wide array of international terrorist groups.

Targeted killings

The Bush administration employed drones to kill suspected members of enemy forces overseas without disclosing its legal process or justification. The Obama administration, while vastly expanding the use of drones, created an intricate system of internal review and crafted legal memoranda to support the practice. But Trump could abandon this review process altogether. As for the Obama administration’s legal analysis, scholars have criticized it for distorting domestic and international law.

Under the Obama administration’s legal interpretation, Trump’s use of drones will not be constrained to active theaters of war. His targets may include American citizens—a precedent set under Obama. Although Americans may be targeted only if they pose an “imminent” threat and capture is “infeasible,” an imminent threat may be assumed based on the target’s level of involvement with terrorism, and capture may be deemed infeasible if it would pose “undue” safety risks.

These interpretations could give Trump extraordinary license to use lethal force against Americans. Obama appears not to have made extensive use of that license. It is far from clear that Trump will exercise the same self-restraint.

Espionage Act prosecutions

The Bush administration used the Espionage Act, a law intended to punish spies and traitors, to intimidate and occasionally prosecute government employees who leaked information about national security matters to the media. To the surprise of many, the Obama administration doubled down on this practice, prosecuting more media leak cases than all former administrations combined—including several cases in which the defendants had sought to blow the whistle on executive abuses of power—and normalizing this unorthodox use of the law.

Moreover, in seeking access to Fox News reporter James Rosen’s e-mails to determine the source of leaks, Obama’s Justice Department did something unprecedented: It accused Rosen of conspiring to violate the Espionage Act. Although the department later renounced any intent to use the law against journalists, its actions opened the door to the prosecution of reporters who disclose leaked information about government misconduct.

There is ample reason to fear that Trump, who is openly hostile toward the media, will charge through that door. The expansive view of the Espionage Act put forward by Bush and Obama and endorsed by the courts will smooth his path.

A risky gamble

A clear lesson emerges from these examples. The Bush administration’s views of executive authority were dangerous, not only because they purported to justify conduct that was plainly illegal, but because they countenanced the exercise of enormous powers over the lives and freedoms of citizens. In giving these powers legal sanction, the Obama administration, Congress, and the courts were trusting that presidents would exercise them wisely. That was a risky gamble.

Going forward, it is not enough to ask whether Trump is obeying the law. We must also ask whether he is exercising the formidable authorities he will inherit in a manner that is consistent with our rights, liberties, and values. And we must begin a long overdue examination of whether the far-reaching view of executive power that has triumphed in the post-9/11 era will best serve our constitutional democracy under the Trump administration and administrations to come.

Elizabeth Goitein is the co-director of the Liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.