not confirm this view. He did not sell thernNational Missile Defense (NMD) inifiativernto President Vladimir Putin. The followingrnday, addressing the Russian parliamentrn— the first ranking Westernrnleader to do so—he misjudged his audiencernbadlv.rnAssuming his audience’s ignorance ofrnhis own legal problems, Mr. Clinton saidrnthat “a strong state should use its strengthrnto reinforce the rule of law, protect thernpowerless against the powerful, [and] defendrndemocratic freedoms. . . . The answerrnto law without order is not orderrnwithout law.” Fie warned the Dumarnagainst amassing power “for its own sake”rnand defended America’s deeply unpopularrnplan for a missile defense shield. Hernthen proceeded to lecture Russian lawmakersrnon the initiatives they needed torntake in order to become America’s fullfledgedrnpartner, from tax reforms andrnuniform legal codes to the environment.rnHe said that Russia’s journey to full andrndemocratic membership of the globalrneconomy would be “one of the most importantrnI witness in my lifetime,” but hernmade it clear that such membership canrnhappen only on his own terms. Polihcalrncommentator Aleksandr Sadchikov notedrnthat “the standard collechon of U.S.rnideological stereotypes was trotted o u t -rnglobalization, respect for minority rights,rnjoint security, environment. The president’srnmonotonous delivery and the naturernof the translation made you feel yournwere watching an unlicensed video.”rn1 he speech was supposed to be the climaxrnof a three-day visit which had beenrnhobbled from the start by Russia’s refusalrnto defer to U.S. demands to update thernAnti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty ofrn1972 to allow for the NMD. Apparentlyrnhoping to sway the deputies where hernfailed with President Putin, Mr. Clintonrnspoke of the treaty in some detail, arguingrnthat America sought only technicalrnchanges that “people of goodwill” shouldrnbe able to accept. But he spoke as if therndeputies did not know that he had effectivelyrnrejected Mr. Putin’s compromisernsuggeshon for a joint anti-missile shield.rnIn a radio program the day before, Clintonrnhad told a caller that the Russian proposalrnfor a joint system to shoot downrn”rogue” mi.ssiles was impractical and thatrnhe would go ahead with the NMD regardlessrnof Russia’s refusal to play along.rnEven for the Duma’s most pro-Westernrnmembers, that amounted to a snub. Itrndisclosed the Clinton administration’srncurrent “negohahng strategy” on NMD:rnIt threatens to abrogate the ABM treat}’rnunless the Russians agree to amend it asrndesired by Washington. But it is naive, orrnelse deliberately provocative, to expectrnPutin to perform an act of submissionrnthat is contrary to his country’s interestsrnand that would make him look weak inrnthe early days of his presidency.rnThe worst of the speech was yet torncome, as Mr. Clinton attempted tornequate NATO’s bombing of Serbia withrnRussia’s involvement in Chechnya: “Irnknow you disagreed with what I did inrnKosovo. You know I disagreed with whatrnvou did in Chechnya.” Presenting thisrnparallel to the Duma was tantamount tornpreaching the merits of free abortion onrndemand to a Southern Baptist audience.rnEven Mr. Clinton’s most sentimentalrnflomishes, among them a supposedlyrnrousing finale about his seven visits tornRussia, had a hollow ring. “All my life Irnhave wanted the people of my cormtrvrnand the people of your country to bernfriends and allies, to lead the world awayrnfrom war towards the dreams of children,”rnhe said as he wrapped up hisrnspeech. But the deputies who botheredrnto turn up —there were manv emptyrnseats — calmly read the newspapers orrnstared at their watches.rnClinton’s visit displayed the limits ofrnsalesmanship. Back home, he may foolrnmost of the people at least some of therntime, but he cannot sell a bad productrnabroad. The Russians know that he is inrna burn.’: To get the first 100 NMD missilerninterceptors up and running in 2005 asrnplanned, construction would have torncommence in early 2001. But this cannotrnbe done unless the world’s first strategic-rnarms agreement, the ABM Treat)-, isrnamended by November of this vear.rnNMD is in clear violation of that treaty,rnand if Russia refuses to agree to thernamendment, Moscow must be notifiedrnsix months in advance that the UnitedrnStates is about to abrogate its terms. Forrnhis part, Clinton does not want to end hisrnpresidency with the “legacy” of unilaterallyrnscrapping arms-control treaties. Hernmay be the first LIS. president in a quarter-rncentury to leave office without signingrna major arms-reducfion treat)’.rnBefore Clinton’s Moscow trip, therernwas some speculation about a “grand bargain”rnin which the United States wouldrntrade off deeper cuts in nuclear arsenalsrnsought by Russia in exchange forrnMoscow’s acquiescence to NMF). Butrnthe Clinton administration has paintedrnitself into a corner, and Putin knows it.rnThe Russian president may give in evenhiallv,rnbut he will require a much juicierrnplum in return.rnThose long rows of emph’ seats in thernDuma aptly reflected the vacuity of Clinton’srnMoscow performance. But the Russianrntradition of creating mirages to concealrninconvenient reality swiftly kickedrnin. The prominent and reliable MoscowdailyrnIzvestiya noted that man)’ deputiesrnsnubbed Mr. Clinton, whereupon “internalrnaffairs ministr)’ officers and securityrnpeople filled their empty seats in thernchamber.” According to the paper, aboutrna third of those present in the Duma —rnand the most enthusiastic clappers atrnthat—were state emplovees brought fromrntheir posts at a short notice.rn— Srdja TrifkovicrnT H E SUPREME C O U R T attracts thernmost attention when it does somethingrnnew, or does something so old that itrnseems new. For example, the Court’s decisionrnlast May declaring that Congressrnhad no authorit)’ to enact the ViolencernAgainst Women Act under the guise ofrnregulating interstate commerce receivedrnplenty of media attention. And sincern1995, the Court has begun tentatively tornenforce the constitutional limitations onrnthe powers granted to Congress, somethir-rnig it had ignored since 1937.rnBut some of the Supreme Court’srnmost important work is perforn-ied whenrnit refuses to do something new, decliningrnto create an “innovative” exception tornconstitutional rights. Thus, tiie most importantrnBill of Rights decision of thern1999-2000 term came when the Courtrnrefused to invent a loophole that wouldrnhave nearly destroyed the FourthrnAmendment, which prohibits unreasonablernsearches and seizures.rnIn Florida v. J.L., an anonymous telephonerntipster had claimed that a youngrnblack male, wearing a plaid shirt andrnstar-iding at a certain bus stop, was carryingrna gun. Some police officers went tornthe bus stop and saw three young blackrnmales, one with a plaid shirt. Theyrnfrisked him and found a gun.rnUnder current Fourth Amendmentrndoctrine, the search was unconstitutional.rnThe 15-year-old had not been doingrnanything illegal or suspicions, or anythingrnwhich would make a police officerrnconcerned about public safety. The tipsterrnwas anonymous, and had offeredrnnothing beyond an accusation, so therernv-as no way to evaluate his crcdibilih- orrnAUGUST 2000/7rnrnrn