While the President’s Billionaire tax cuts helped grease Warren Buffet’s transfer of thirty large to Bill Gates, they have forced the federal government into some convoluted choices when it comes to domestic spending. Despite a foiled plot to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel, the Department of Homeland Security pinched $83 million from Gotham’s anti-terrorist coffer because the risks of an attack on New York (or D.C.) apparently pale in comparison to the peril of losing Conrad Burns’ (R-MT) Senate seat. Yet fiscal constraints demanded that immediately after DHS pumped $4.5 million into Montana’s budgetary hole, the Justice Department scrunch up its nose and feltch back a full third of the gloppy load. In the sticky aftermath, Flathead County Sheriff James DuPont was left to complain that federal anti-drug money has dwindled from $2.5 million to $958,000, and that local governments can no longer absorb further cuts.
What, then, could provoke Bozeman authorities to arrest two former Montana State University athletes, Branden Miller (basketball) and John LeBrum (football), for merely supplementing law enforcements flagging efforts? So they shot a cocaine dealer and dumped his remains in the school’s agronomy farm; they should not be condemned, but rather commended for providing 175 lbs. of fertilizer along with a valuable community service. And the same goes for Kim Jong Il. I see no problem in lobbing a couple of missiles towards Tokyo, now that Japan has resumed hunting whales. In fact, why don’t we drop a couple of bombs on Norway while we’re at it? Hunting, like chewing tobacco, is pointless and barbaric, though I must admit it would be far more interesting if the animals had equivalent means to defend themselves.
Just ask Harry Whittington who mistook Dick Cheney for a quail, or was it, perhaps, the other way around? And then there’s Qwest executive Jeffrey Garret, killed by Oscar DeLaCruz during a turkey hunt. And although the Vice President was visibly drunk at the time of his mishap, he wasn’t even questioned by the local sheriff. DeLaCruz, on the other hand, is rotting away in some Mexican jail. In the final analysis, the lesson here is more about immigration than animal rights: even though the right wing can steal presidential elections in Mexico just as effectively as here in the U.S., we still consider our southern neighbors a lesser caste. In fact, Republicans (even those who may soon face criminal prosecution) have rebounded sharply in the polls by fomenting xenophobia. Foreign-born Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), who publicly stated, “Securing our borders is a law enforcement function, and what we need are more Border Patrol agents, not SS, er, I mean National Guard troops who are neither trained nor suited for this purpose,” is up ten points after sending 1500 Guardsmen to Tijuana.
It’s true; our government has developed an unhealthy penchant for using the National Guard to remedy the unsolvable. Filling sandbags against a rising tide or quelling a forest fire are noble, if pedestrian endeavors. So why is it exactly that we deploy into cities where rival factions of swarthy non-English speakers kill each other across rubble hewn streets, while corrupt politicians siphon away reconstruction subsidies? Why do we deploy to Kandahar, to Fallujah, to New Orleans?
All these poor slobs wanted to do was supplement their income a couple of weekends a year but now, because of stop loss orders, they find themselves trapped indefinitely in forlorn combat zones where they readily lose limbs, spouses and jobs. Not to mention their sanity. They fight against, in Mr. Bush’s own vernacular, a “shadowy” adversary that “does not wear a uniform or [sic] represent a nation state.” Yet they are expected to discern friend from foe, find non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and subsist on Halliburton’s rancid meat and polluted water. It’s no wonder that there have been episodes of abuse and “conduct unbecoming.” There are currently five investigations into civilian deaths in Iraq, none more sensational than the case of former Pfc. Steven D. Green, who allegedly raped a Mahmudiya woman before killing her and three other family members. Green, baptized as a born-again Christian before shipping out to Iraq from Texas, was subsequently discharged from the military for anti-personality disorder. Though it’s fair to ask: when you spend your days shooting at people (including five-year-olds), how chummy can they expect you to be?
Regardless, the victim, unlike Ann Coulter, did not in any way deserve to be raped and murdered. Outraged Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Malaki: “We do not accept the violation of the Iraqi people’s honor as happened in this case. We believe that the immunity [from local prosecution] granted to international forces has emboldened them to commit such crimes in cold blood. There must be a review of this immunity.” Which sounds good until you consider that, as of last month, three of Saddam’s defense attorneys had been gunned down in broad daylight. In other words, the prospect of obtaining a fair trial in Baghdad rivals the odds of Rush Limbaugh attaining his own erection in Santo Domingo.
The President, by way of contrast, displays far more tumidity when exercising his executive privilege. In fact, his “signing statements” appear downright steroidal when compared to those of his predecessors. While putting his John Hancock on the McCain anti-torture amendment, Mr. Bush stipulated he would “construe [the law] in a manner consistent with… protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.” Or to paraphrase, “it’s okay to wire the balls of detainees if I feel like it.” Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) grumbled that such a contrivance affords “the power to nullify all or part of a statute… [by] unilateral action.” Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) is holding hearings on the subject because “It’s a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution.” Well, so is the illegal wiretapping of domestic telecommunications and warrantless interception of banking transactions, but no one’s holding hearings over those. Be that as it may, the administration, when it comes to every facet of its contentious behavior, categorically points to 9/11 as the animus.
How then to explain the fact that the National Security Agency asked AT&T to help implement domestic call monitoring seven months before the 2001 attacks? This inconvenient tidbit surfaced in New York federal court pursuant to a breach of privacy case filed against Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T. The suit alleges that the telcos conspired with the NSA and the White House to violate the Telecommunications Act of 1934. And while the last six years have seen the federal courts packed with reactionary zealots, the administration shouldn’t blithely count on wining every time out. Why just the other week, the Supreme Court held that so-called “enemy combatants” could not be incarcerated without due process and that the government could not adjudicate them by means of military tribunals. Curiously, this comes in the wake of a non-ruling on the more fundamental issue of torture. It is a small leap to conclude that the savage treatment of Pfcs. Thomas Lowell Tucker and Kristian Menchaca, who were kidnapped and painstakingly butchered in Iraq by al Qaeda operatives, was a direct consequence of our despicable treatment of Muslim prisoners. Yet despite such high stakes, the black robes seem to be saying, “Torture the bastards all you want, just make damn sure, once the blood is mopped up, that they have unfettered access to Alan Dershowitz.”