Another Sad Week for Federalism

by John Bottoms

If America ’s founding fathers could look in on their political offspring this week, I’m sure they’d be thinking, “This is just what we sought to prevent.”  The consequences of the death of federalism, which posits that the dangers of raw political power are best limited by spreading it thinly among competing groups, were starkly apparent in several recent power-grabs by our central government in Washington .  (We mistakenly call it our federal government, but any semblance to a confederation of semi-sovereign States was obliterated decades ago.)  

The feds may soon begin criminal prosecution against former UN weapons inspector and high-profile anti-war activist Scott Ritter, after federal prosecutors demanded and were given the records of his 2001 arrest for allegedly falling for a sex sting operation which used a 16-year-old girl as bait.  At the time, the case was sealed, which probably indicates a weak case with which local prosecutors didn’t think they could win a misdemeanor conviction for endangering an underage girl.  The entrapment doubtless weakened their case.  

The federal crime is that Ritter allegedly tried to lure a minor into sexual activity.  Those of us who engage in the quaint hobby of observing that nowhere in the US Constitution have the states delegated to the federal government the power to protect the public from sexual misconduct, recognize that the feds’ real motive is to discredit and silence a highly influential critic of the current junta’s policy of war on Iraq.  So far, their tactic is succeeding, as Ritter has cancelled his latest trip to Iraq .  It’s possible that the feds themselves orchestrated the sting of June 2001, sensing that Ritter may become a vocal opponent of an imperial land grab already in the planning stages.  It’s the classic honey trap borrowed from the world of international espionage.  If Ritter’s weakness had been gambling, or boys, or drugs, some other suitable enticement would have been provided.

This last week has also seen a concerted attack on the Internet, dwarfing a similar event from last October.  The FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center (brought into being by the newly-enacted Cyber Security Enhancement Act, which was eased through Congress by the previous attacks ) and Bush cybersecurity adviser Howard Schmidt, were ready and willing to “take charge” of the situation, making ineffectual but important-sounding pronouncements.  Again, of course, there is no constitutional basis for this de-facto power-grab, as the central government lays claim to the Internet as they have our entertainment, communication, transportation, and electoral infrastructure.  But it’s not like they had to muscle anybody out of the way.  This 500 lb gorilla sleeps wherever it wants.  So much for power-sharing.

The attack was obviously orchestrated by a criminal conspiracy against western countries, and the United States in particular, since Americans have the most to lose from interruption of internet service.  The most likely guilty party, the one with the means, motive and opportunity to commit such a crime is the US government, or more precisely, a shadow government within the larger entity.  But whether the guilty parties are Middle Eastern terrorists, Asian cyber-punks, or the feds, it is the latter group which benefits the most.  As I wrote a couple of months ago, these are dangerous days for the internet; more so every day.

Don’t be surprised when they begin to use this power to political advantage, just as IRS audits are used against political enemies, a “no-fly list” has been created to inconvenience and intimidate anti-government activists, and radio and television stations are kept in line with required FCC licenses.  Some new set of “security” regulations will be announced shortly, to protect the internet from future attacks, you understand.  One of the “side effects” of the new rules will be to squeeze freedom of speech and political dissent out of the internet, just as last year’s Incumbent Protection Act (a.k.a. Campaign Finance Reform) has silenced “issue ads” close to voting time, which proved so damaging to incumbents in recent elections.  Such a campaign will be their admission that we’re winning the contest for the hearts and minds of the public.

So what can we do?  There are many good ideas out there, and here’s my recent contribution.  But the first task is to understand that our central government has launched a covert war on dissent.  They’ll use the courts and the police to silence those they can, like Scott Ritter.  Their no-fly list will expand.  And we should expect them to use new internet security rules to prevent people like me from writing articles like this, and getting them published.