"I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America." - Bush, March 23, 2005
Bush was referring to the Minuteman Project when he made this statement, while in the presence on Mexican president Fox and Canadian PM Martin. At the time , I thought it was a bit ironic since the Minutemen's main complaint was with Bush's border policy (or lack thereof). Regardless on what your stance is on what the Minutemen are doing, it is quite clear from that quote that Bush is "against vigilantes", whatever form they may take. This week, the irony hit me all over again. Before I elaborate, however, I think it's important that we are on the same page when it comes to what it means to be a vigilante. From the Wiki dictionary:
Noun
vigilante (plural vigilantes)
1. One who takes the law into one's own hands
That seems pretty simple. With the
recent news this week, you might see where I'm going with this. When you add to the equation the recent SCOTUS
ruling on Hamdan, the
signing statements, or any other page out of the 350+ pages of
this document , you begin to see a pattern of behavior befitting the aforementioned definition. So why is it that this noun and his name are so rarely used in the same sentence? Why am I compelled to create a blog entry pointing out the irony?
My initial answer to the question would be: The label is too positive. Vigilantism is actually quite popular in American pop culture. Popular heroes ranging from Superman to Dirty Harry were technically vigilantes, after all. It would be prime Rovian fodder. (Scary, images of wartime propaganda posters depicting Bush with sleeves rolled up and a bold slogan reading "Bush: Doing 'Whatever it Takes' to Win the War on Terror" just popped into my head.) Perhaps its better not to go too far on the whole vigilante angle when referring to Bush. Maybe I should be secretly hoping Rove isn't reading this, actually.
Then reality sinks in. We aren't talking about some small town cop who is harassing some slippery drug dealer. This is the most powerful vigilante in the world. A guy who has the world's deadliest military at his disposal. The world isn't a movie; Bush and Cheney are not Connor and Murphy MacManus. These guys are in a position to create one hell of a scary situation, and something should really be done about it. Even if Bush is using his ever expanding powers in good faith, we cannot afford the precedent it sets (to name just one reason). In this light, maybe we should be using the term early and often.
The pundits and politicians on the right have and will continue to paint this week's court decision as a victory for al Qaeda. I think it's the opposite. It sends a message to Osama (and the world) that acts of terrorism can knock down buildings, kill thousands of people, and force immediate retaliation, but it can't touch our Constitution. A lot of damage has been done already, as we've continued to tolerate a vigilante president under the perception of heightened security and fighting a winnable war. Unfortunately, the way I see it, we can only win the 'war on terror' by not losing. We lose when we succumb to fear, and change what it means to be an American by ignoring the rule of law. There will always be a threat of terror.
(from the blog)