Before the Law

Bush to New York: drop dead! No really, I mean it -- drop dead!

More from the Bush Administration in the category of, you couldn't make it up.  The NY Times headline is City Has Itself to Blame for Terror Cuts, U.S. Says, which is the Times's polite translation of the old Daily News headline from the Gerald Ford/Abe Beame era.  This time, however, considering the potential consequences, "drop dead!" seems a lot more literal . . . .

The meat of the story is that, in the most recent round of Department of Homeland Security anti-terrorism grants, New York City's allocation was slashed 40% from last year, while places like  Omaha, Louisville and Charlotte, North Carolina jumped 40%.  If that seems slightly irrational to you, then you may also be surprised to learn that Washington, DC was also cut 40% as well.  DHS's explanation is that New York's application was very poorly done, very poorly done indeed.  And it was faxed, if you can believe that, instead of being filed electronically, as the bureaucracy had specifically requested.  Oh, yeah, and one more thing -- New York has no national monuments or icons according to Homeland Security's risk analysis.  (Apparently someone at DHS later acknowledged that they might have forgotten about the Statue of Liberty.)  So you see, it is New York's own fault . . . .  All this after DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff announced in January that “[t]he department is investing federal funding into our communities facing the greatest risk and demonstrating the greatest need in order to receive the highest return in our nation’s security.”  More here and here as well.   

Well, at least they're consistent

As we know, terrorists, would-be terrorists, could-be terrorists, and couldn't-possibly-be terrorists are even more likely to use the internet for their nefarious (and their innocent) schemes than they are to use the phone lines.  Hence the Bush Administration's latest plan to track them all down, each and every one, the guilty and the innocent, to their terrorist and non-terrorist lairs, in this new medium as well: 

The Justice Department is asking Internet companies to keep records on the Web-surfing activities of their customers to aid law enforcement, and may propose legislation to force them to do so.

The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales held a meeting in Washington last Friday where they offered a general proposal on record-keeping to a group of senior executives from Internet companies, said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the department. The meeting included representatives from America Online, Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast.  (NYT 6/2/06)

A DOJ spokesperson says that "[t]he Justice Department is not asking the Internet companies to give it data about users, but rather to retain information that could be subpoenaed through existing laws and procedures."  Somehow, given the Administration's recent record and stated position regarding its obligation to follow "existing laws and procedures" when it comes to invading Americans' right to privacy --  e.g., its claim to a constitutional right to conduct facially illegal wiretapping by the NSA -- I'm less than reassured.  Once these databanks are compiled, is there any doubt that the government (if not the DOJ then the NSA) will immediately begin to make use of them?