On July 25, US Attorney General William Barr ordered the Federal Bureau of Prisons to update its execution protocol and schedule five executions starting this December.

Whether you support the death penalty or not — I don’t because I prefer limited government and the power to kill disarmed prisoners in cold blood and with premeditation is by definition unlimited government — it’s worthwhile to ask:  Why? More to the point, why now?

Politics, that’s why.

There’s a presidential election next year. US president Donald Trump’s re-election strategy, for lack of ability to grow his electoral “base,” is to keep that base energized and enthused so that they’ll turn out to vote instead of sitting at home catching up on re-runs of their favorite TV shows. And that base overwhelmingly supports capital punishment.

With this move Trump is quite literally throwing his supporters some red meat.

There’s nothing new about the idea. Indeed, the history of public human sacrifice for political purposes runs all the way back to ancient history in the Americas.

The last large-scale pre-Columbian example of the practice, that of the Aztecs, involved removing the beating heart of the victim atop a pyramid temple before flinging his or her corpse down the steps to the approval of a roaring crowd.

In this way, Aztec kings not only maintained support from their own populace through religious appeals, but kept smaller tribes too busy raiding each other (for sacrificial captives to be given to the Aztecs in tribute) to ally with each other against the Aztecs themselves.

If these five executions occur, they will be the first federal executions since 2003. There have only been three since 1963.

So, again, why? And why now?

Deterrence isn’t an answer that fits. Overall, violent crime (including murder) in the US has trended downward, not upward in recent decades (from 758 per 100,000 population in 1992 to 383 per 100,000 in 2017).

Neither is reducing the costs of incarceration. Of the more than 200,000 federal prisoners, only 61 are on “death row.” It’s unlikely that killing every last one of them would make a big dent in the Bureau of Prisons’ $7.3 billion annual budget.

Speaking which, if money was the problem, all five of the prisoners to be killed could as easily have been left to the justice systems of the states in which their crimes were committed and would have likely been sentenced to either death or life imprisonment without involving federal tax dollars in the first place.

The same is true regarding any moral “eye for an eye” imperative.  Handling this kind of crime, and this kind of criminal, was never supposed to be the federal government’s job.

That leaves politics. Trump is playing Montezuma in hopes of holding on to his adoring crowd.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Orange County, California Register, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, San Gabriel Valley, California Tribune, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Riverside, California Press-Enterprise, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, San Bernardino, California Sun, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Los Angeles, California Daily News, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Long Beach, California Press-Telegram, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Redondo Beach, California Daily Breeze, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Redlands, California Daily Facts, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Inland Valley, California Daily Bulletin, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pasadena, California Star-News, 07/31/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Whittier, California Daily News, 07/31/19
• “Human Sacrifice: A Grand Old American Political Tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 07/31/19
• “Human Sacrifice: A Grand Old American Political Tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader, 07/31/19
• “Human Sacrifice: A Grand Old American Political Tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Claremont, New Hampshire Eagle Times [web and print], 08/01/19
• “Human Sacrifice: A Grand Old American Political Tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 08/02/19
• “Human sacrifice: a grand old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, New Rockford, North Dakota Transcript, 08/05/19
• “Human sacrifice: A Grand Old American political tradition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Wahpeton, North Dakota Daily News[web and print], 08/06/19

On July 23, the US House of Representatives passed (the vote went 398-17, with five voting “present”) a resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.

The resolution was an outrageous condemnation of the freely chosen economic actions of millions of Americans.

Worse, that condemnation was made on the express behalf of not just a foreign government but the specific policies of one foreign political party (Israel’s Likud Party and its leader, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu). Its intended purpose is to give Likud and Netanyahu the advantage of perceived US support in Israel’s upcoming election.

Worst of all, the resolution’s proponents made — and now that it’s passed, will continue to make — extensive use of overt, undisguised race-baiting, posturing as defenders of Jews while smearing their opponents as anti-Semites.

What are the purposes of the BDS movement?

To pressure the government of Israel to meet “its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully compl[y] with the precepts of international law by: 1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”

Who supports BDS?

Yes, some BDS supporters oppose the existence of the Israeli state as such, and some of them are anti-Jewish bigots. Go figure.

Other BDS supporters are Jews, including some Israelis. Being Jewish or Israeli no more entails supporting one political party’s agenda than being American does.

BDS harnesses the consciences of individuals — individuals of all religions, nationalities, and ethnicities — to voluntary action pressuring the Israeli government to abide by the same standards of international law that the US  government routinely, and with great pomp and circumstance, imposes coercive sanctions on other governments for supposedly violating.

The anti-BDS resolution is a far more overt, and likely far more effective, instance of US government meddling in Israel’s elections than anything the Mueller Report credibly accuses the Russian state of doing vis a vis the 2016 US election.

That’s disgusting.

But not as disgusting as its supporters’ virulent resort to racial politics and their abuse of Jews as, to steal a phrase from a recent New York Times op-ed by Michelle Goldberg, “human shields” to distract our attention from what they’re actually up to.

Shame on the House.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “American Politicians Use Jews as Pawns to Excuse Their Collusion with a Foreign Political Party,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 07/26/19
• “American Politicians Use Jews as Pawns to Excuse Their Meddling in Israeli Elections,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader (Iowa), 07/26/19
• “American Politicians Use Jews as Pawns To Excuse Their Meddling in Israeli Elections,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Antiwar.com, 07/27/19
• “Jews Used As Pawns,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Dhaka, Bangladesh New Nation [web and print], 07/28/19
• “American Politicians Use Jews as Pawns to Excuse Their Meddling in Israeli Elections,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 07/30/19
• “Americans politicians use Jews as pawns to excuse their meddling in Israeli elections,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Wahpeton, North Dakota Daily News [web and print], 07/30/19

Multi-millionaire Jeffrey Epstein stands accused of sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. On July 18, US District Court judge Richard Berman denied bail,  ordering that Epstein be confined until trial.

The US Constitution’s Eighth Amendment is short and sweet: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

What would constitute “excessive” bail in Epstein’s case? Whatever it might be, no bail at all fits the definition, especially given what Epstein put on the table by way of a bail proposal.

There are two issues at stake:

In a 1951 case, Stack v. Boyle, the US Supreme Court held that “a defendant’s bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant’s presence at the trial.”

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 does provide for “preventive detention” without bail, but only if a judge “finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure … the safety of any other person and the community.”

What would assure Epstein’s appearance at court, and protect young women from further depredations of the type he’s accused of?

Epstein offered more than $100 million in cash bail. That’s a powerful incentive to appear for trial. Perhaps not enough for someone of his means. But there’s more.

Epstein also offered to submit to house arrest at his New York residence, with an electronic bracelet to track his every move, armed guards to keep him from leaving or prospective victims from entering,  prior approval by federal authorities for ANYONE to enter, and a court-appointed live-in trustee whose sole job would be to report any violations of the bail agreement to the court. All of that paid for by Epstein himself.

Furthermore, Epstein offered to de-register and ground his personal jet, and to  preemptively waive extradition from any country on Earth.

It’s difficult to imagine a bail arrangement more fully encompassing  the two legitimate objectives of bail itself.

That offer puts the lie to what Berman called “the heart of his decision” — his doubt that “any bail package could overcome dangerousness … to community.”

That leaves two plausible explanations for Berman’s decision.

One is that, like many judges, he just habitually defers to prosecutors (who in turn habitually use “no bail” requests to grandstand as “tough on crime”).

The other is that he’s already tried and convicted Epstein in his mind and sees no reason to wait for a jury to hand him the fore-ordained “guilty” verdict before Epstein’s punishment commences.

Either way, Berman should recuse himself from the case or be removed from it.

Why should any of us care about the plight of poor, poor, ultra-rich Jeffrey Epstein? Because this kind of stuff goes on every day in courts across the land, featuring poor defendants held on minor charges. We’re only HEARING about it because Epstein is rich and infamous.

If they can do it to Epstein, they can do it to you. So they shouldn’t get away with doing it to Epstein.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “No Bail is Excessive Bail, Even for Jeffrey Epstein,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader (Iowa), 07/24/19
• “No Bail is Excessive Bail, Even for Jeffrey Epstein,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 07/25/19
• “No bail is too excessive, even for Jeffrey Epstein,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Duluth, Minnesota Superior Telegram [web and print], 07/25/19
• “No bail is excessive bail, even for Jeffrey Epstein,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Montgomery, West Virginia Herald, 07/25/19
• “No Bail is Excessive Bail, Even for Jeffrey Epstein,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 07/26/19
• “No Bail is Excessive Bail, Even for Jeffrey Epstein,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 07/28/19