Why do you act as if the Bush Doctrine is such a bad thing?
Probably because it IS a bad thing.
Can you imagine the Bush Doctrine being applied to everyday life? Let's assume for a moment that a family member of mine is indiscriminately killed in a drive-by shooting. If I were to hunt down and kill the gang members directly responsible for the shooting, some people would agree that my actions were just. A jury of my peers might even let me off the hook with a ruling of "justifiable homicide."
Taking it a step further, let's assume that I not only kill the gang members responsible, but I start shooting other gang members simply because they pose a "potential threat" to the safety of my home and family. Would my actions be justified? No. And there wouldn't be a jury in the nation that would acquit me.
Can you imagine yourself, as an individual person, being comparable in magnitude of power, and in magnitude of responsibility, to a nation-state and a republic?
There are a number of avenues, in America, whereby an individual can challenge, or establish, provisions of the law and their interpretation. Most of them involve the courts, and an ordered system of law; one that has to be effective in addressing the needs of a free people.
The tattered web of law that restricts -- or more commonly fails to restrict -- nations in their behavior is by no means comparable. There is no remotely similar level of order, clarity, civility and expectation of respect for justice to be found in international law.
You can't compare the law that respects the citizens of a free and civil society to the law that respects nations. The later is still, in perilously many ways, the law of the jungle. America has every right, and every responsibility, to hack away at the undergrowth of this jungle whenever and wherever it can. America, after all, ultimately supplies the overwhelming bulk of resources towards whatever enforcement there is of international law. You can't disarm Bwahana of his machete just because it wouldn't be wise or proper (or lawful) of you to preemptively swing one at a gang-banger.
Anyway, that is where it seems to me that your proposed extension of the analogy seems to break down most seriously.