|
Though the U.S. prison population
currently stands at two million, Clinton appears to be of
the opinion that state and local authorities are not coping
with the nonexistent crime epidemic. The other day, flanked
by the revolting Janet Reno, the President was once again
fuming that Congress has yet to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention
Act. Clinton wants to set federal prosecutors on any criminal
suspect whose motive may have been determined by the victim’s
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability. "These
are not like other crimes, because these crimes target people
simply because of who they are. And because they do, they
strike at the heart of who we are as a nation," he
pontificated.
It
is a little hard to think of criminals who do not "target
people because of who they are." They tend to rob little
old ladies rather than Mike Tyson, say. Rapists tend to
target women, rather than men. And so on. Government crackdown
in search of a justification – this has been the abiding
theme of the Clinton administration. In May 1998 Clinton
signed something called Executive Order 13083. This listed
the circumstances in which the federal government had to
step in to "limit the policymaking discretion of States
and local governments." It turned out to be an amazingly
comprehensive list: "When there is a need for uniform
national standards… When decentralization increases
the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens
on the taxpayer… When States have not adequately protected
individual rights and liberties... When States would be
reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears
that regulated business activity will relocate to other
States… When the matter to be regulated significantly
or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments."
Leave
aside for a moment the dubious constitutionality of these
proposals. Doesn’t the 10th Amendment say, "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States, respectively, or to the people"? Clinton was
decreeing that on a vast range of issues unelected federal
government bureaucrats would override laws passed by elected
state legislators and governors.
Clinton’s
enthusiasm for repression is truly extraordinary. From the
moment he came to power he sought to crack down on the Internet.
His moment came with the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
When – inevitably – the Supreme Court struck it down
for violating the First Amendment, he declared plaintively:
"The administration remains firmly committed to the
provisions…that prohibit the transmission of obscenity
over the Internet and via other media... [T]here is material
on the Internet that is clearly inappropriate for children.
As a parent, I understand the concerns that parents have
about their children accessing inappropriate material. If
we are to make the Internet a powerful resource for learning,
we must give parents and teachers the tools they need to
make the Internet safe for children." To hell with
the First Amendment, in other words.
The
arrogance is breathtaking. One can easily use this argument
to justify the suppression of almost everything. It is probably
what is in Clinton’s mind anyway. At the behest of
Clinton, the FCC has ordered that all tv sets with screens
larger than 13 inches have V-chips installed. The administration
has also been censoring away happily. Recently it was revealed
that "drug czar" Barry McCaffery had been reviewing
tv scripts to make sure they were carrying the appropriate
"anti-drug" messages. The networks – greedy
as ever for profits – had been sending scripts over
to his office so as to avoid having to run public interest
ads from which they stand to make less money than from the
usual variety.
Clinton
has also presided over the militarization of the police
force. The federal "Posse Comitatus Act" unequivocally
forbids the use of the military in law enforcement. Yet
the Delta Force was involved at Waco. The Clinton administration
goes in for the idea of "warrantless searches."
In 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick explained
to a bemused House Select Committee that a president "has
inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign
intelligence purposes." Needless to say, there is nothing
in the Constitution about this. Clinton has urged the passage
of legislation that would give the FBI the power to install
wiretaps without a court order. The extraordinary thing
is that in today’s America judges do not have to be
asked twice to issue search or wiretap warrants. Clinton
was also the champion of the Communications Assistance for
Law Enforcement Act, which forced every telephone company
in America to overhaul their networks to make them wiretap-friendly.
The
Clinton Justice Department has also demanded the right to
practice double jeopardy. Several years ago a young man,
Vernon Watts, was tried and convicted of drug offenses.
Though he had a gun in his apartment, the jury acquitted
him of "using a firearm" during the drug offense.
Yet he was sentenced as if he had used guns. Watts appealed,
and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the sentence.
"[A] sentencing judge may not...rely upon facts of
which the defendant was acquitted," it ruled. Clinton
appealed to the Supreme Court to get the original sentence
reinstated. One can see why. Prosecutors who fail to get
a conviction on one set of charges can reintroduce them
at a later stage to get a conviction without bothering with
a jury.
|
