Be a snitch or serve time.


PDA






Warren
May 19, 2005, 01:23 AM
Is the water getting warmer or should we be happy that at least we are freer than those other suckers.

This probably won't pass but it is an indication of the twisted, evil though process of this one congressman and probably others.

And you can be sure that if this passes and is upheld it WILL be applied to other things--including guns. Most certainly guns.

The whole of the bill is disgusting but the bolded bits are the worst.

link to blog (http://november.org/blog/) This will probably fall off their front page so I'll post the whole piece.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 17, 2005, The Drug Policy Alliance
CONTACT: Tony Newman (212) 613-8026; Elizabeth Méndez Berry (212) 513-8036
Senior Republican Proposes "Draft" for the War on Drugs
New Bill Would Require All Americans to Spy on Their Neighbors - Including Going Undercover and Wearing a Wire - or Face Jail Time

Instead of Dismantling Draconian, Unpopular Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Legislation Would Also Establish "Mandatory Minimums" for Every Federal Crime

A Senior Republican in Congress has proposed what would essentially be a draft for the War on Drugs.

The legislation would require all Americans who witness or learn about certain drug offenses to report them to the police within 24 hours and go undercover and wear a wire to catch the offenders if ordered to do so - even if the offender is their son or daughter. Introduced by Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the "Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act" (HR 1528), would also overturn a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision by making all federal sentencing guidelines essentially mandatory and enacting new draconian penalties for a variety of non-violent drug offenses.

"It’s frightening that a senior member of Congress wants to draft every American into the War on Drugs and make them agents of the state," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "This totalitarian legislation forces citizens to spy on each other and pits family member against family member."

Under the legislation, any American who witnesses or learns of certain drug offenses taking place would have to report the offenses to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence and a maximum of ten years.

An example of an offense that would have to be reported to the police within 24 hours is finding out that one’s brother, who has children, bought a bag of marijuana to share with his wife. Another example is finding out that one’s son gave his college roommate a marijuana joint.

In each of these cases one is forced to report the relative to the police within 24 hours. One would also have to assist the government in every way, including wearing a wire if needed. Taking 48 hours to think about it could land one in jail. In addition to turning family member against family member, the legislation could also put many ordinary Americans into dangerous situations by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against strangers.

Despite growing opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, the bill also eliminates federal judges’ ability to give sentences below the minimum sentence recommended by federal sentencing guidelines - essentially creating a mandatory minimum sentence for every federal offense (including both drug and non-drug offenses). It also mandates a 10-year minimum sentence for anyone 21 or older who gives marijuana or others drugs to someone under 18 (i.e. a 21-year-old college students shares a joint to his 17-year old brother). A second offense would carry a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Anyone at a party who passes a marijuana joint at a party to someone who has at some point in their life been in drug treatment would face a mandatory 5-year minimum prison sentence.

"Our country’s prisons are already overcrowded with people serving massive sentences for non-violent drug offenses," said Bill Piper. "The recent Supreme Court decision provided a perfect opportunity for legislators to do the right thing and untie judges’ hands. Instead, they’re trying to handcuff the judges completely."

The bill has been put on the same legislative fast-track as a recent controversial anti-gang bill that the U.S. House of Representatives passed in less than two month’s time.


link to whole bill (http://www.november.org/parole/Proposals/05HR-1528.html)

`SEC. 425. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who witnesses or learns of a violation of sections 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, or 426 to fail to report the offense to law enforcement officials within 24 hours of witnessing or learning of the violation and thereafter provide full assistance in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the person violating paragraph (a).


`(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to not less than two years or more than 10 years. If the person who witnesses or learns of the violation is the parent or guardian, or otherwise responsible for the care or supervision of the person under the age of 18 or the incompetent person, such person shall be sentenced to not less than three years or more than 20 years.'.

If you enjoyed reading about "Be a snitch or serve time." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dasmi
May 19, 2005, 01:28 AM
I will not. Congress can bite me. It's time to remind these jokers exactly who pays their salary.

jefnvk
May 19, 2005, 01:46 AM
Usually one of the few defenders (or at least, one of the 'there has gotta be more to the story') of the gov't, even I say this is out of line.

You know what I say? Lets make all drugs legal for two years. I bet at the end of the two years, crime drops a lot. If so, then drug laws stay kaput. If crime goes up, we can go back to whatever we do now.

whm1974
May 19, 2005, 01:54 AM
Just how would they be able to enforce this?

-Bill

tyme
May 19, 2005, 02:15 AM
Easily. Here's how it works. Joe Thug gets caught with 5 kilos of heroin. Joe doesn't want to do a lot of time, so he says, "Look, over there, John and James knew about this and they didn't report me." Joe gets his deal and John and James have to pay $$$ fighting Joe's testimony in court. They might even end up in jail.

The system of trading testimony for deals breeds injustice. No hard physical evdience that you're not making up the story and getting innocent people in trouble? No deal.

rick_reno
May 19, 2005, 02:32 AM
It's time to remind these jokers exactly who pays their salary.

I hate to inform you - but it ain't US (the taxpayers). Sure, we pay them - but that's their pocket change. Their salaries are paid by lobbists, big corporations and others capable of lining their pockets with enough money to get their attention.

RevDisk
May 19, 2005, 02:52 AM
"Officer, I swore I saw Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) with some powder around his nose. I don't KNOW if it's cocaine or he just had a powdered donut for lunch, but I didn't want to get in trouble so I'm being safe rather than sorry."

DMF
May 19, 2005, 03:44 AM
Before we declare the sky is falling, maybe everyone should look up to see if it's true. ;)

One Congressman drafted a proposed bill. If you think this guy could even come close to getting it out of committee, and passed by the House AND the Senate, I suggest you start writing letters to your Reps and Senators.

However, if I were a betting man I'd say this is just a bunch of chest thumping that won't go anywhere.

RevDisk
May 19, 2005, 03:56 AM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1528:

Not sure if the above link will work. If not, visit http://www.loc.gov , click on "Thomas" in upper right hand corner, type " HR 1528 " into search box.

Description :

H.R.1528

Title: To amend the Controlled Substances Act to protect vulnerable persons from drug trafficking, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] (introduced 4/6/2005) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 4/22/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.



CRS SUMMARY AS OF:
4/6/2005--Introduced.

Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to expand penalties for distributing drugs to persons under age 21 and to cover attempting or conspiring to do so, without regard to the type of controlled substance and schedule. Requires or increases minimum mandatory sentences.

Modifies provisions regarding distributing or manufacturing drugs in or near schools to delete the "100 feet" limitation, include public libraries and daycare facilities, and increase minimum imprisonment terms. Increases or expands the scope of penalties regarding: (1) employing children to distribute drugs near schools and playgrounds; (2) employing persons under age 18 in drug distribution; (3) distributing drugs to underage persons; (4) maintaining drug-involved premises affecting children; and (5) drug trafficking in the presence of children. Prohibits: (1) providing, or facilitating the sale of, drug paraphernalia; or (2) failing to protect children from drug trafficking activities.

Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines to: (1) increase base offense levels for drug-related offenses involving minors and incompetent persons; and (2) provide sentencing enhancements for possessing or brandishing a firearm.

Prohibits and requires a minimum mandatory sentence for distributing or manufacturing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a drug treatment facility.

Amends CSA to: (1) increase penalties for, and expand provisions regarding, endangering human life while illegally manufacturing a controlled substance; and (2) provide for life imprisonment without release for drug felons and violent criminals convicted a third time.

Prohibits a court, in imposing sentence, from considering a defendant's race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, or socioeconomic status and sets forth factors a court may consider only with respect to calculating the sentencing range and imposing a sentence within that range.

mrhuckins
May 19, 2005, 04:00 AM
Well, it is frightening to think that someone would even draft a proposal for something like this.

LadySmith
May 19, 2005, 04:17 AM
I will not. Congress can bite me.
I second that emotion.

thorn726
May 19, 2005, 06:49 AM
that is AMAzingly HEAVY!!!

2 YEARS???????????????????????????????????????

that is like a third or fourth SALES offense punishment.

crack dealers do less time now that someone who failed to snitch would?

maybe someone really wants more easy rape targets in prison??

Beren
May 19, 2005, 08:06 AM
This bill is legit, folks, and currently in Committee.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 19, 2005, 08:58 AM
I'd also add that Sensenbrenner is Chairman of the House Judiciary committee and has all the leverage he needs to get this out of committee if he wants it out. This is one you might want to contact your Reps and Senators over if you do not want it to happen.

TallPine
May 19, 2005, 09:43 AM
The system of trading testimony for deals breeds injustice.
Yeah, in the old days that was called a "witch hunt"

Arrested "witches" were tortured until they revealed the names of several other "witches" ... who were in turn tortured until they named more "witches" ... etc

But hey! Who really cares? Computer memory is cheaper than it's ever been before. Stop complaining. Smile, be happy ..... :rolleyes:

yorec
May 19, 2005, 10:14 AM
Seems like the first constitutional challenger a law like this would face would be to the fifth ammendment...

If I can see it, why can't these morons in our govt? :uhoh:

Sindawe
May 19, 2005, 10:16 AM
I second that emotion. Same here.

"Patriot" Act, McCain-Finegold, "Real I.D.", now THIS load of dren. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

geekWithA.45
May 19, 2005, 10:55 AM
It seems he needs to be de-elected at the first opportunity.

Personally, I think proposing these sort of thing qualifies him for a recall initiative, which is consistent with my point 2 of my 3 point plan:


1) Electoral evisceration of the Democrats, with an eye towards their eventual return as a recognizably American political force

2) Reformation of the GOP: winnow the ranks of the creepy, dark authoritarians

3) Salvage rational and functional members of the Libertarian party, so they can be put to good use, rather than spin their wheels.

R.H. Lee
May 19, 2005, 11:24 AM
Yeah. Come git some. It's time to outsource congress. We can get Pakistanis for around $12k/yr each. They'll be available 24/7 and do whatever we ask. :p

dasmi
May 19, 2005, 11:39 AM
Yeah. Come git some. It's time to outsource congress. We can get Pakistanis for around $12k/yr each. They'll be available 24/7 and do whatever we ask.

Someone is a Savage nation listener. :D

The Freeholder
May 19, 2005, 12:49 PM
Hm-m-m. From the father of Real ID we get this trash. Makes you proud to be an American who doesn't live in a Police State, right?

moa
May 19, 2005, 01:02 PM
This sounds familiar of the old Soviet Union and similar regimes, where an attempt was made by the authorities to enlist everyone as an informant. This included methods of entrapment to leveage citizens to become informants. There is no end to this authoritarian "snitch" mentality.

I understand this Congressman Sensenbrenner is independently weathy, and in the past seemed like a principaled and conservative politician.

dasmi
May 19, 2005, 01:06 PM
I understand this Congressman Sensenbrenner is independently weathy, and in the past seemed like a principaled and conservative politician.
Lately things are not what they seem. Everyone, listen. Quit voting for the lesser of two evils. In the end, you get the same thing, or worse.

nero45acp
May 19, 2005, 01:12 PM
Land of the free, home of the brave... :uhoh:

Igloodude
May 19, 2005, 02:10 PM
It seems he needs to be de-elected at the first opportunity.

Personally, I think proposing these sort of thing qualifies him for a recall initiative, which is consistent with my point 2 of my 3 point plan:


1) Electoral evisceration of the Democrats, with an eye towards their eventual return as a recognizably American political force

2) Reformation of the GOP: winnow the ranks of the creepy, dark authoritarians

3) Salvage rational and functional members of the Libertarian party, so they can be put to good use, rather than spin their wheels.

Except that 2) seems to be reforming the small-government libertarians out of the GOP instead of the creepy dark authoritarians.

mercedesrules
May 19, 2005, 03:29 PM
*waits for drug-warrior members to jump in to defend this outrage.*

dasmi
May 19, 2005, 03:30 PM
Think of all the college kids who will become criminals because they know people who use drugs. For that matter, think of all the college professors who will become criminals.

Warren
May 19, 2005, 03:46 PM
Finally America will become the nation of snitches, rats and informants that the founders envisioned.

God bless America, land of the mostly freer then those other guys but maybe not for long.

If this passes is there anything about Bush that you know of that would keep him from signing this?

Is there anyhting that you know about congress that would keep them from trying this on all other sorts of issues?

Maybe homeschooling will be made illegal and if you don't report a HSr within 24 hours you go to jail!

Or vitamins and other supplements.

Or guns.

Or violations of Mcain-Feingold

Or tax evasion

Or just use your imagination.

Also if this passes you can be sure that it will hit state legislatures as well.

R.H. Lee
May 19, 2005, 03:53 PM
I coulda voted Libertarian :banghead:
not that it would have made any difference but at least I would have a clear conscience and not feel like a complete sucker.

dasmi
May 19, 2005, 03:54 PM
not that it would have made any difference but at least I would have a clear conscience and not feel like a complete sucker.
Don't make the same mistake again. I know I won't.

fjolnirsson
May 19, 2005, 03:56 PM
It's ok, Riley. We all make mistake. Just don't do it again, huh? :D
Heretolearn, check your PM in about 2 minutes.

Old Dog
May 19, 2005, 04:07 PM
*waits for drug-warrior members to jump in to defend this outrage.*
Here's a newsflash for you: most members of the law enforcement community would not welcome a law such as this, although perhaps not for all the same reasons as you would oppose the law (it would surely have the unintended consequence of making everyone's job much more difficult).

I suspect even many of the most unenlighted member of the LE community would not be happy about this law.

This proposed law is an outrage. It's wrong, it's scary and so truly disappointing that it could even be considered.

Arc-Lite
May 19, 2005, 04:13 PM
even if this should go threw, and I do not think it will.... the first time they attempt to go to court...it will become a joke...just think of the uphill climb, to prove, what someone knows, knew, or what they did not...as Guido says..."I don't know nothin" ...of all people the congressman should know, how often the 5th is used.

mercedesrules
May 19, 2005, 04:29 PM
I coulda voted Libertarian
not that it would have made any difference but at least I would have a clear conscience and not feel like a complete sucker.


You're almost there. Next time just stay home and see how clear your conscience will be. :)

I'll send you a sticker that says, "Don't blame me; I didn't vote!"

runswithscissors
May 19, 2005, 05:07 PM
Well, this law won't pass. But just for fun, I would demand a squad car, armored vehicle, arsenal of automatic weapons, pay along with benefits, as well as a nifty outfit along with a badge and body armor. I would then stake out every member of congress and senate suspected of drug use :)

RevDisk
May 19, 2005, 05:20 PM
I coulda voted Libertarian
not that it would have made any difference but at least I would have a clear conscience and not feel like a complete sucker.

I wish there was a manditory option on the ballot that was required to be reported on the news. " **** both of ya! " Betcha it'd get more votes than either candidate.


Just curious, but what happened to the right to remain silent? Assuming for a second that this passes (and with a one party govt, it likely will)... Don't I have the right to remain silent after those 24 hrs? Otherwise it's self-incrimination. Whoops, I forgot, Constitution doesn't exist anymore.

Warren
May 19, 2005, 08:14 PM
I've told the local leftist nexus about this bill, hopefully they will break out their umbrage and get active with their usual energy.

I'm going to see if there are any Libertarians left in town and also will call Rep. Herger's (R) people tommorow and see if I can find out where he stands on the issue.

I don't know if I should bother with the rank and file Repugs, it is easy to imagine that they would be all for it.


Making kids safe by destroying their families. *** is this guy thinking?

Making sure everyone is afraid of everyone else. *** is this guy thinking?

Making it even easier for authorities to jack up innocent people. *** is this guy thinking?

Standing Wolf
May 19, 2005, 09:13 PM
Didn't we win the famous war on drugs? Weren't there victory parades? Speeches? All that kind of thing?

I could have sworn we won.

Denko
May 20, 2005, 12:09 AM
Wouldn't this make you a VIGALANTE , like those guys watching the border??

dasmi
May 20, 2005, 12:20 AM
Wouldn't this make you a VIGALANTE , like those guys watching the border??
Of course not. This wouldn't make the Administration look treasonous like the Minute Men do

dustind
May 20, 2005, 12:33 AM
I doubt they could pass this bill. No one would accept it. It would be like making some law that allows them to steal your property if they "suspected" it was used in a crime.

Ok seriously, I have been meaning to post a thread about people's rights when it comes to investigations like this(when you are just a bystander). I guess I better make that thread soon.

cracked butt
May 21, 2005, 12:54 AM
It seems he needs to be de-elected at the first opportunity.

Personally, I think proposing these sort of thing qualifies him for a recall initiative, which is consistent with my point 2 of my 3 point plan:


Bwahahaha!
Sensenbrenner is a very conservative politician from the most conservative district in my state. He'll retire long before he is voted out. The only way he could fall is if he did something incredibly stupid like sponsor a gun ban, call for a raise in minimum wages, or sponsor a bill to allow gay marriage, then anotehr candidate could possibly beat him by running to the right of him. :evil:

The voters in my district, including me, will keep electing him to counteract all of the liberal loons elected by other parts of my state.

cracked butt
May 21, 2005, 01:02 AM
As far as turning in drug dealers- someone over the age of 21 selling to someone under than age of 18- If I witnessed it, I would report it. Whether you like it or not, its a crime being committed. There are few people I despise more than adults who sell illegal drugs to kids.

If you are in favor of adults selling drugs to kids, you could simply play "hear no evil, see no evil" and go about your life, it would be pretty hard for anyone to prove that you saw something.

Crosshair
May 21, 2005, 01:49 AM
Crap like this would happen less if we had more congress members that didn't drool on themselves. :banghead: Make them actualy READ what they are passing. Bills will get simplified really quick if that was requiered.

Mr. X
May 21, 2005, 02:22 PM
Sensenbrenner is a very conservative politician from the most conservative district in my state.

How conservative (true to original constitutional priciples laid down by the founding fathers) is forcing persons to become snitches? I think you're confusing "fascist" with "conservative," rather like how democrats and other "progressives" confuse the term "liberal" with "communist" when describing their leftist authoritarian friends.

Sindawe
May 21, 2005, 02:37 PM
The voters in my district,including me, will keep electing him to counteract all of the liberal loons elected by other parts of my state. May your chains rest lightly apon you cracked butt. :banghead:

mussi
May 21, 2005, 02:59 PM
Is it possible that Singapore has less restrictive drug laws if this gets passed? The law reminds me dangerously of some German institutions like the Stasi or the Gestapo.

Basically, this turns everybody into a "Blockwart", or "inoffizieller Mitarbeiter".

sm
May 21, 2005, 03:28 PM
What guns?
I don't know anyone that has guns?

Drugs? I thought we won that war??.

Send Lawyers , guns and money - toss in a carton of smokes if you come visit...inside the Carton advise when Phil Carson and company are coming to "visit" me ;)

RevDisk
May 22, 2005, 12:06 AM
The voters in my district, including me, will keep electing him to counteract all of the liberal loons elected by other parts of my state.

Hrm. Then I wish his fascism could only hurt his district, not the entire country.

Notice a trend with this guy?

- Shelving the "The Fairness in Firearm Testing Act," (H.R. 1603), a bill that would mandate honesty in BATFE testing instead of closed doors 'testing'

- Sticking the Real ID Act onto a bill supposedly giving funds to the Army for Iraq. (I love the irony. Supposedly giving freedom to citizens of a foreign country while simulatinously removing it from Americans.)

- H.R. 1528, "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005.", aka "Manditory Snitching Act"

Also, check out "SEC. 8. ASSURING PROGRESSIVE ENHANCEMENTS FOR PERSONS POSSESSING OR USING FIREARMS."


He is not a conservative. He is a fascist. Mr. Sensenbrenner likely will not rest until we have bar codes tattoo'd onto the back of our neck.

Telperion
May 22, 2005, 12:34 AM
RevDisk, cracked butt:

Don't forget how Sensenbrenner single-handedly rammed (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=48434) a bill through the House to ban "undetectable" firearms. Granted, the law is a no-op. The manner is which he managed to get it passed, without a word of discussion or a single recorded vote, I think speaks volumes about Sensenbrenner.

Warren
May 22, 2005, 02:33 AM
My anti-HR 1528 blog is here. (http://stophr1528.blogspot.com/)

publius
June 2, 2005, 09:31 PM
Hmmm... testing which ties are stronger, those between families and friends, or those between the citizens and the state.

Free states will lose quickly, if they ever try. Police states will lose more slowly, using fear to influence the choice until that is no longer possible.

Any state which tries this kind of scheme is doomed, some more quickly than others. Destruction of the state is hardly conservative.

veloce851
June 10, 2005, 12:56 PM
I really don't care that HR 1528 "has no chance of passing"
The sheer fact that we have legislators thinking this way is sickening.
And it did pass the judicial commitee.
Another problem is that people read things like this and say.. "well I'm not a drug user and I don't know anyone that is.. so no biggie"

It doesn't matter what your views on drug use are. Laws like this are what will truly bring this nation to an end.

The sign of the times I suppose.

The Grand Inquisitor
June 10, 2005, 01:04 PM
KEEP VOTING REPUBLICAN GUYS!!!!!!!

Make sure evil, Draconian legislation passes...VOTE REPUBLICAN!

dasmi
June 10, 2005, 01:07 PM
Can't vote Republican, can't vote Democrat. Time to go third party.

aquapong
June 10, 2005, 04:55 PM
*** is up with Sensenbrenner lately? He's been writing a lot of JBT type bills. He was very supportive about ditching the AWB.

Glock Glockler
June 10, 2005, 05:51 PM
I would like this bill to pass and any other nonsense these guys can come up with, if we're lucky we'll have a military coup.

Pray for a coup.

publius
June 10, 2005, 09:44 PM
I don't hope for a military coup. How could that improve things?

Art Eatman
June 11, 2005, 12:35 PM
publius, the history of military coups is rather grim.

An ethical military group may indeed create a coup against a corrupt government. They may have the best intentions in the world. The problem is that nothing in the background of most military high commands prepares them--as a group--to be the leaders of a free country.

Eisenhower had to articulate his views and those of his party in order to sell them to the voters. He also knew of the constraints upon the presidency, the limits to the powers.

A military junta generally falls apart in any effort to govern, creating general public dissension. Or, a strong-man dictator emerges with all the problems entailed by such a type of rule. Ethics may hold for a while, but eventually Lord Acton's Rule takes over.

Art

captain obvious
June 11, 2005, 03:55 PM
There's always secession :D

But seriously, how do we turn this kind of nonsense around? I'm fast nearing to the point where I have no faith that we can head back to the path of the .gov minding its own business through the electoral process.

publius
June 11, 2005, 05:35 PM
But seriously, how do we turn this kind of nonsense around?

Tell 'em that snitching is not interstate commerce. That oughta do it! ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Be a snitch or serve time." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!