From Yahoo News.
(I wonder if gasoline qualifies under that definition of "chemical weapons." Doesn't 5 gallons have about the same energy as a stick of dynamite?)
New uses for the Patriot Act
- Thread starter Derek Zeanah
- Start date
- Status
From Yahoo News.
(I wonder if gasoline qualifies under that definition of "chemical weapons." Doesn't 5 gallons have about the same energy as a stick of dynamite?)
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Sounds like a stretch and a half to me.
El Tejon
Member
Ummm, this would be a use of a North Cackalacky statute, not a federal one.
Sir Galahad
member
I guess you've never seen tweekers, have you, Derek? Who cares?
El Tejon
Member
Sir, or smelled them! Ick, all those toxins pouring from their skin and into their jail clothes! Shudder.
Derek, any law that can be abused, will be abused. We shall see what the Cackalacky Court of Appeals say about this use, if it is new.
Derek, any law that can be abused, will be abused. We shall see what the Cackalacky Court of Appeals say about this use, if it is new.
Jim March
Member
If a bomb blows up a Catholic church, is that a weapon of mass destruction?
Sir Galahad
member
No, Jim, but it could lead to a "Host" of problems...a Host of problems...bada-bum-bump. It depends on if the bomb had birth control pills in it. Thank you! Thank you! I'm here til Friday. Try the fried fish! Please give a warm welcome now to the Bobby Vinton Experience, the first Bobby Vinton cover band, they're from Jim's home town!
Sir Galahad
member
Oops! A bomb with birth control pills in it is actually a weapon of mass seduction! 'Scuse me folks, the BVE band is up next, take 'er away! I luv ya! You're great!
OP
OP
My bad, guys. Restated the original title, but posted this part as it stood out.
We're handing a lot of new powers (infringements?) to our governments in return for the promise that they'll use them to make us "safer." Like everything else, these'll likely be used against normal folks a majority of the time. But there are still people who are cheering the process on and pushing for more of the same.
I do. RICO was enacted to give prosecutors some teeth against organized crime, but it's been used against individuals (and against law firms retained by them for defense -- hard to defend yourself or run a business with your assets frozen.) Asset forfeiture was supposed to be a tool to use against drug dealers to seize some of the proceeds of the illegal activity, wasn't it? Now it's used against all sorts of people (including those who save money under their mattress instead of using a bank -- see the archives), in many (most) cases property is seized even though no charges are ever filed. And that's not even bringing California Mansions that border federal land into the discussion.
We're handing a lot of new powers (infringements?) to our governments in return for the promise that they'll use them to make us "safer." Like everything else, these'll likely be used against normal folks a majority of the time. But there are still people who are cheering the process on and pushing for more of the same.
Sir Galahad
member
Sorry, Derek, I lived in Hollywood too long to shed tears over a tweeker. When the law starts "infringing" on non-criminals, then I'll worry. But, Derek, this is a STATE, not a federal, law. What about all those much-vaunted "states' rights" we hear so much about from the "rugged individualists"? You mean, gasp, states should not have power to govern themselves and make their own laws? Gee, so that would mean the federal government should? Or does that mean states' rights when it is convenient and supports one side of an argument and then more evidence of tyranny when it does not? It cannot be both. You either support states rights, and all the baggage that goes with them, or you don't.
QuickDraw
Member
There is absolutely nothing "normal" about meth users/cookers!
These dung heaps deserve any/everything they get.
I agree,in general,what you say about the Patriot actsI&II,
but not how its used,in particular,in this case.
Bad example.
QuickDraw
OP
OP
Re: drug use/sale. I personally believe we'd be better off if we legalized it all, but we'll set that aside. If the NC legislature wants to throw "tweekers" in jail for 20 years, then they should pass a law that says that. Hell, it'll probably help them get re-elected.
What's not OK is to abuse vague laws to get around the legislative intent of said laws. Worse, it ain't honest to say "we need this to combat the mob/drug dealers/terrorists/communists" and then turn around and use the brand new tool against normal people.
How about US citizens disappearing and being held without charges or access to an atty on vague "terrorism" grounds?
It's always OK when this stuff is being done to "them." Then once it's routine and accepted, it turns out it can be used against "us" as well.
Re drug use in particular, states and local governments can't override the feds in these matters. How many people have been arrested for growing/selling pot for medicinal purposes with the approval of the local government? I remember a case where a grower was licensed by his state to grow the stuff and still got written up on federal charges.
The issue here is abuse of a legal tool granted to the government. It doesn't matter what level of government it happens at -- it's still a very dangerous thing for our society to allow. I'll ask again: if the prosecutor's definition of WMD's is correct under state law, does gasoline qualify? Are there cases where some dude who pisses off a local politician/official could concievably be written up on charges for filling a gas can to take home for his lawn mower? What if it was a barrel of "avgas" for his weekend racing at the track?
If not, then how does that differ from the case listed here? If so, is that OK? Do you want to live in that kind of society?
To bring it closer to home, what could that do to ammunition reloaders in NC if an anti-firearm governer gets elected? Would you eat Bullseye, or is it toxic? Is it designed (or could it be used) to cause "death or serious injury"
Do you see the problem? Forget who's doing it for a second, and look at the issue itself.
What's not OK is to abuse vague laws to get around the legislative intent of said laws. Worse, it ain't honest to say "we need this to combat the mob/drug dealers/terrorists/communists" and then turn around and use the brand new tool against normal people.
So, if I dig up references and post them here you'll agree that abuses are something to worry about? Things like home owners getting killed because a bunch of cops figured they could find a dozen pot plants on the guy's land and seize his property? Or hispanics getting pulled over, having all their cash on their person taken with the excuse that it "might" be drug money, then sent on their way? How about a security guard who saved $80k over 10 years and kept it in his bedroom having it taken away by cops because, well, he couldn't prove it was legitimately earned? Any chance RICO is used against politically threatening defendents in order to limit their ability to hire council and force them to settle quickly ("you don't want your house repossessed, do you? Where would your kids live?")
How about US citizens disappearing and being held without charges or access to an atty on vague "terrorism" grounds?
It's always OK when this stuff is being done to "them." Then once it's routine and accepted, it turns out it can be used against "us" as well.
What about them?
That's a stretch, isn't it?
Re drug use in particular, states and local governments can't override the feds in these matters. How many people have been arrested for growing/selling pot for medicinal purposes with the approval of the local government? I remember a case where a grower was licensed by his state to grow the stuff and still got written up on federal charges.
The issue here is abuse of a legal tool granted to the government. It doesn't matter what level of government it happens at -- it's still a very dangerous thing for our society to allow. I'll ask again: if the prosecutor's definition of WMD's is correct under state law, does gasoline qualify? Are there cases where some dude who pisses off a local politician/official could concievably be written up on charges for filling a gas can to take home for his lawn mower? What if it was a barrel of "avgas" for his weekend racing at the track?
If not, then how does that differ from the case listed here? If so, is that OK? Do you want to live in that kind of society?
To bring it closer to home, what could that do to ammunition reloaders in NC if an anti-firearm governer gets elected? Would you eat Bullseye, or is it toxic? Is it designed (or could it be used) to cause "death or serious injury"
Do you see the problem? Forget who's doing it for a second, and look at the issue itself.
I'd suggest that those who take the "states rights" argument are trying to state:
- There are some things that our constitution prohibits our federal government from doing (namely, anything not spelled out in the document).
- Some of those things should only be handled at a local level, if at all.
- Rights reign above everything else. There are some things that simply shouldn't be pursued by government at any level. See the bill of rights, and similar wording in state constitutions.
You're don't really think you're fairly representing the other side's position, do you? I'll give you the benefit and assume you've had as many beers as I have tonight.
OP
OP
"I agree with what's being done because it's being done against those dirty rotten so-and-so's, and they deserve anything they get."
Dude, there are people who feel the same about you because you're one of those dangerous people who not only own, but actually like, firearms.
We're all "they" to someone.
Kaylee
Member
Oooh... I like that observation.
the problem with defending civil liberties is that -- at least in a courtroom -- you're almost invaribly stuck with defending the human scum that abuse those liberties. Thus we prove the validity of PATRIOT agaist meth cookers, argue over the 1A 'cause of pedophiles, and shred the 2A over wifebeaters and boozerunners.
All because it's supposedly too important not to.
t'aint many Rosa Parks... and there's prolly a backstory behind them that are.
-K
Waitone
Member
I think Derek has the proper perspective. I went "Hmmmm!" when I heard the story. So far there has been zero followup by a our media including Charlotte's pathetic attempt at a journalistic enterprise,"The Charlotte Observer."
I'll refrain from concern until I learn more of what is happening from different sources. I do so because the media does not tend to concern itself with details like facts particularly in complicated or technical stories.
I'll refrain from concern until I learn more of what is happening from different sources. I do so because the media does not tend to concern itself with details like facts particularly in complicated or technical stories.
Sir Galahad
member
Derek, I don't drink alcohol for a very important reason. So, inferring I'm drunk is a personal attack. I will not respond further to your post, Derek. You want to insinuate drunkenness, you can tak that insinuation and stick it in a very private place, sir. You want to call m ost "stupid", be my guest. coudn't care less. But this hypocritical BS of "this is the High Road!" and here you are calling me a drunk (happen to be a recovering alcoholic, thank you very much, Derek) is the glaring example of why you're full of beans. You do the same things you accuse the government of. And if you want to ban me over my remarks, be my guest. I see a lot of talk here about "things should be this way, things should be that way", but very little proof that any of you great defenders of liberty can actually shoulder the responsibility. Just talk.
The argument for states' rights is simply that there are some issues on which the states' rules trump the Feds' rules. Note that this doesn't in any way contradict the premise that there are a great many issues on which individual choice trumps both state and Federal rules.
There's some federal stuff in the article too.... (quotes)
...
The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.
Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.
...
"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
...
Stefan Cassella, deputy chief for legal policy for the Justice Department's asset forfeiture and money laundering section, said that while the Patriot Act's primary focus was on terrorism, lawmakers were aware it contained provisions that had been on prosecutors' wish lists for years and would be used in a wide variety of cases.
In one case prosecuted this year, investigators used a provision of the Patriot Act to recover $4.5 million from a group of telemarketers accused of tricking elderly U.S. citizens into thinking they had won the Canadian lottery. Prosecutors said the defendants told victims they would receive their prize as soon as they paid thousands of dollars in income tax on their winnings.
Before the anti-terrorism act, U.S. officials would have had to use international treaties and appeal for help from foreign governments to retrieve the cash, deposited in banks in Jordan and Israel. Now, they simply seized it from assets held by those banks in the United States.
...
...
The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.
Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.
...
"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
...
Stefan Cassella, deputy chief for legal policy for the Justice Department's asset forfeiture and money laundering section, said that while the Patriot Act's primary focus was on terrorism, lawmakers were aware it contained provisions that had been on prosecutors' wish lists for years and would be used in a wide variety of cases.
In one case prosecuted this year, investigators used a provision of the Patriot Act to recover $4.5 million from a group of telemarketers accused of tricking elderly U.S. citizens into thinking they had won the Canadian lottery. Prosecutors said the defendants told victims they would receive their prize as soon as they paid thousands of dollars in income tax on their winnings.
Before the anti-terrorism act, U.S. officials would have had to use international treaties and appeal for help from foreign governments to retrieve the cash, deposited in banks in Jordan and Israel. Now, they simply seized it from assets held by those banks in the United States.
...
- Status