wow...

well done Mr Nalle

yes folks..i said it

your humble Narrator heartily endorses this Article and earnestly pleads for all to listen up and mail your elected representatives..

hell...call them at home...stand on their porches and blare Jimi Hendrix tunes

anything within the realms of legality to get their attention and tel them that this is fascist bullshit and you won't take it

take a look at the statistics of how much we currently pay from our takes for prisons and the legal system, as well as police enforcement on this "drugwar"...at least 2 out of 3 people in proison right now are non-violent offenders nailed for possesion..

now..i personally hate chemical shit..coke, crank, smack, anything developed i na lab or processed..i think it's evil...

but scope out how many of these folks are nailed and doing time on our dime for weed or mushrooms

couldn't we find a better way to spend these billions of dollars?

i dunno..like setting the funding for Medicare/Medicaid up to where it was before this budgets cuts?
maybe to secure our southern border
or even to secure our seaports better

speak up or sit down

we are talking about EVERYONE's Rights here...

and i kinda like the 4th Amendment

Excelsior!

Hey Dave, Do you have a link to something resembling an overview of this bill? I opened the link provided and if there's a coherent description of this bill there, I couldn't find it.

Lots of corrections to what may have been original wording, but nothing (that I found) that laid out what this bill is about. It is obvious that you're correct in being against this bill, I just want to read something resembling a finished bill.

Thanks!

Bennet

Thanks for the info, I hadn't heard anything about this bill.

As for an overview of the bill - here is the DEA Chief of Staff's overview/argument for it.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct041205.html

Dave, thanks for bringing this incrediblity to our attention. Man, who are our representatives representing?

If Dave's representation of this bill is correct (and since it's coming from Dave, I believe it is), we ALL need to act against it.

This is one issue on which the Left AND the Right can agree upon, I think.

I would NEVER "sell-out" a friend, or for that matter, even an enemy, to federal law enforcement simply because they might be sparking up a joint.

If that makes me a "criminal" then so be it.

I'll be in jail with the rest of America that still is decent and supports freedom and liberty...

Well written / presented argument, Dave. If this bill is as you state, it will indeed bring a dangerous new era to bear.

I've witnessed strangers in public on the streets of New York and San Francisco smoking joints on many occasions. Will that make me a criminal?

Is this another plank in the neo-con agenda: hawkish foreign policy and nation-building overseas, Big Government on domestic issues, pro-Religious Right, pro-Big Business, anti-privacy rights, and pro-Uber Drug War?

Because that sounds pretty close to what we're seeing these days.

Thanks, Dave. I knew nothing about this absurd bill.

Mark

This bill is probably actually worse than my initial description. I've been reading up on it more, and there's just nothing to like about it.

Here's the detaied summary that was asked for. It's off of a goofy radio talk show site, but it summarizes the bill rather well - http://www.rense.com/general64/fdei.htm

Judges are also very strongly against the bill. Check out this site: http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2005/04/the_judges_spea.html

But let me stress this - If you write in a letter I strongly advise you NOT to stress the mandatory sentencing issue. While that's a legitimate concern, the attitude is so negative against the judiciary now that Republican Representatives, in particular, will not respond well to that angle of attack. Focus on the police state, orwellian and quasi stalinist aspects of the bill and you'll get a better response.

Great job Dave. Where did you hear of this one?

I'm sending off emails as we speak.

Bennett

Word of this bill got circulated on the Republican Liberty Caucus mailing list earlier today, so I went and looked up more info on it. I'm surprised it hasn't been more widely publicized. There ought to at least be SOME news coverage of this bill, but none so far.

Dave

Bad photo. Bad law. Coincidence? Almost certainly!

Thanks for bringing this bill to more people's notice, Dave. If we lived in a sane and sober polity, things like this might get more daily news coverage than Michael Jackson's trial.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

That's a fucking scary bill. What kind of sick mind thinks of ways to create criminals and coerced informants of everyday citizens?

I propose a bill that says any member of Congress who witnesses another member of Congress cheating on his/her spouse has to report what s/he witnessed to the police, the spouse, and the media within 24 hours or face a 2-year minimum sentence.

Fucking fascist dickwads.

I have a small update on the bill. Apparently Sensenbrenner and others have introduced a similar bill for the last 3 years and no version has passed into law as yet. But the thing with this sort of bill is that they'll keep trying until they manage to sneak it through somehow.

Dave

Once it's part of the Save Kittens From Gators Act, or some other such thing, nobody will be able to vote against it without ending their political career.

Even the police would hate this law. They don't want to be bothered with fabricated crimes like these -- in most cases, they're overextended dealing with real crimes.

And since when is it illegal to talk about drug use? Now it would be a crime to witness or overhear someone doing something that iteself is not a crime? WTF?

The only theoretical advantage to this law is that police could put all kinds of insane pressure on witnesses to spill info.

Once it's part of the Save Kittens From Gators Act, or some other such thing, nobody will be able to vote against it without ending their political career

Good point. It will probably slide through if it's hidden in another bill.

I wish we could put a stop to that crap, but it will never end.

I hope the current administration and majority party in Congress will be taken to task at the polls at some point.

But that's just me.

Don't know what you're all carping about - you especially, Dave: this is a fine Neocon Republican bill sponsored by a perennially fine Republican, and reflects true fine Neocon Republican values, legal tactics, and disregard for personal liberties. I'm surprised Bush hasn't endorsed it already; it's right up his alley.

...from the same people who brought you "Get Big Government Out of Our Lives!"

Irony is dead, folks.

PS: Thanks Davey, big xxoo from yer nemesis!

PPS: Someone should look into whether Sensenbrenner has financial ties to the Prison Industry. If so, the dude is in for a windfall!

Oh, and did I mention that right at THIS VERY MOMENT, I'm lighting a joint using a burning American flag?


And if this were law, you'd all be criminals. ~ahahahahahahaha!


(God Bless America!)

Good points, Shark. I think we're in for another Big to go with Big Oil, Big Insurance, etc....

Big Prisons...

Isn't it fun to live in the era of Big Prisons?

Nancy: "Don't know what you're all carping about - you especially, Dave: this is a fine Neocon Republican bill sponsored by a perennially fine Republican, and reflects true fine Neocon Republican values, legal tactics, and disregard for personal liberties. I'm surprised Bush hasn't endorsed it already; it's right up his alley."

If I were a Neocon Republican I guess I'd be dancing for joy, but since I'm not of their ilk, I find it most troubling. I expect this kind of rights-trampling insanity from the Democrats, but seeing nominal Republicans promulgating this garbage makes me somewhat ill.

Dave

>>PPS: Someone should look into whether Sensenbrenner has financial ties to the Prison Industry. If so, the dude is in for a windfall!<<

This is actually a very good question. One of our local politicians here in Austin who's a big law and order democrat is totally in the pocket of the prison industry, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing on the national level.

I find the whole idea that there should be a prison industry objectionable.

Dave

Oh.

Shit.

We shoulda known this was coming; it was all foreshadowed in Jesus' words:

Matthew 10:34-35

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household."

Every time I look at this article the picture of Sensenbrenner creeps me out. I may have to replace it to keep my sanity.

Does this asspilot really have a book, Shark?

Dave

Dave, I know yer notorious for either:

a) lacking a sense of humor
-or-
b) thinking I'm not funny

...but the "book" referenced was the...oh, nevermind.

Bonus points for any motard who gets the reference!

re: the photo

I dunno; the guy looks like Hermann Goering's love child...

I find the whole idea that there should be a prison industry objectionable.

Hey, I thought you were in favor of business....

;-)

I got it, Shark. Just a bit slow from lack of sleep.

BHW, I'm all for business. Hell, privatize the prisons. But the idea that it's a big-I 'Industry' is depressing, especially as it needn't be that way if we stopped locking up harmless druggies on draconian minimum sentences.

Dave

I'll be writing my representatives about this one. Thanks for pointing it out.

I was just teasing, Dave. I agree with you about the drug laws.

...Maybe it's the baleful basilisk stare over the bared teeth, like he's anticipating taking a big bite and hopes it's gonna hurt ... sorry, Dave, not you - I was ruminating on the photo of Sensenbrenner, lol.

Don't worry, photos of me can be even more scary.

Dave

He does look kind of crazed ... maybe he's been smoking something? Hey - maybe I'd better report him?!

Thanks for the heads-up, Dave! For anyone here short of words, the following is what I wrote to my own Congress-critter:

Please do everything you can to stop H.R. 1528, Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005. H.R. 1528 criminalizes activities that are not crimes, such as suspecting someone of selling drugs, or distributing sterile syringes to reduce the spread of AIDS and hepatitis. In addition, its expansion of what is considered a "drug-free" zone will ensure that urban drug users get harsh mandatory minimum sentences while those who commit the same offenses in rural and suburban areas get far less time.

I am especially troubled by two aspects of H.R. 1528. The first is the requirement to divulge suspicions of drug use to the police within 24 hours or risk a 2-year mandatory sentence. The second is that private citizens who do reveal their suspicions can then be required to cooperate in every way with the resulting investigation -- including wearing a wire and going undercover if needed. That would put many Americans into dangerous situations by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against dangerous criminals, simply because they overheard a suspicious remark.

Suspicion is a shaky plank with which to prop up the War on Drugs. Would you rather have the parents turn their son in to the police when he is discovered with a joint, or teach him not to use drugs? What about the girl who listens to a school-mate bragging about using drugs? This law would make that child a criminal for not reporting the conversation to police, and her parents criminals for not reporting their daughter's failure to report. This does nothing to provide safe access to drug treatment, and is totally contrary to protecting children.

H.R. 1528 is so bad that it cannot be fixed. I urge you to oppose it in its entirety.

Good point subtly including the somewhat racist aspect of expanding the 'drug free' zones, DrPat. Not a bad aspect of this monstrosity to draw attention to.

Dave

Sure seams like a funny way to stop prison overcrowding!

Seriously, if this bill passes, I might have to become that which a hate the most: Someone who calls our current leaders a pack of out-of-control fascists...

I have to say, RJ, that this bill does not seem to be all that widely supported. It may be significant that Sensenbrenner has no co-sponsors on the bill. It's surprising that it made it out of committee, but that doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere on the floor of the House. What we really need to look out for is the basic elements of the bill resurfacing as an amendment to some more innocuous legislation and getting snuck into law that way.

Dave

and that what Mr Nalle is speaking of is even a remote possibility should scare the hell out of any decent folks with more active cells in their skulls than a cup of yogurt

nice to see folks like Mr Nalle and RJ speaking out against the kinds of swine that could possibly believe this Bill is a good idea...

there may be Hope yet..

Excelsior!

One has to wonder what kind of cheese high the people of Wisconsin are on to keep electing Sensenbrenner. He's in his 14th term in the House too.

Dave

a walking, talking advertisement for term limits...eh?

whatever happened to that Idea?

/sigh

Excelsior!

The core groups which were pushing for term limits came to the realization that they were probably unconstitutional and the issue sort of faded away.

Dave

can't see how they could be deemed "unconstitutional" when the original Intent was for a "citizen government" as is clearly indicated by the Founders own writings as well as the structure they set up...

too bad, really..to me, many of the things that are wrong with our Federal Government stem from the "professional" political class and the constant addictive need for more and more money to get re-elected

but then again , to me..money is NOT speech..sez so right here on the back "legal tender for all debts, public or private"...not to mention the one about only the Federal Government can print money...would that not imply that only the Fed can make speech?

or how about that kooky 1890's Supreme Court Decision that "corporations" were "people"....that one is such a hoot..do you really need lil ole me to point out just how much evil has arisen from that boondoggle?

but i digress...

Excelsior!

>>can't see how they could be deemed "unconstitutional" when the original Intent was for a "citizen government" as is clearly indicated by the Founders own writings as well as the structure they set up...<<

The kinds of people who wanted term limits were also generally strict constitutionalists, and subscribed to the belief that if it's not in the constitution then it shouldn't be done. The Constitution says nothing about limits, therefore the only way to have them would be either a constitutional amendment or to have each individual state enact them. And I believe a few states did pass term limits and some or all of them later repealed them.

>>or how about that kooky 1890's Supreme Court Decision that "corporations" were "people"....that one is such a hoot..do you really need lil ole me to point out just how much evil has arisen from that boondoggle?<<

Actually, it's an absolutely brilliant interpretation of a basic principle of republican government. A corporation, which represents the collective interests of a group of citizens MUST by its very nature be treated as a sovereign individual with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. This is the only justification for taxing corporations under our current tax structure, and the only way that they can function effectively in society. It's on the basis of this presumption of corporate identity that corporations can be sued, own property and engage in trade. It's also enormously important in protecting corporations from exploitation by the state.

Dave

anybody but me see the hysterical Humor in this one..

on the one hand Mr Nalle speak of strict contructionalism.."subscribed to the belief that if it's not in the constitution then it shouldn't be done"

and in the next breath he talks about corporations" being "people" and having "Rights"..

can anyone point to me in the Constitution where this "brilliant" idea says anything about Corporations...or the Rights they have ...

any Amendments?

convenient to say you have to work on a strict and Literal sense when it works out for you, but then turn around and call something completely made up and call that "brilliant"

the Persecution Rests...

Excelsior!

Actually, this idea predates the Constitution, and while it isn't in there - there's virtually no business law in the Constitution - it's a well established principle of law. And contrary to what you may think, a great deal of our every day law that doesn't really have much to do with the larger principles of law in the Constitution, draws on things like English Common Law and other parts of the legal tradition.

Dave

I am well Aware that our Constitution was Influenced and Informed by such documents as the Magna Carta and other principles

i just think that when you say something like
*subscribed to the belief that if it's not in the constitution then it shouldn't be done*

it disQualifies you from ever being able to state anything about "strict Constutionists" without being a philosophical Hypocrite...

no matter what informed or came before it, our Constitution is the Social Contract upon which our Society is based...it has provisions for Amendment to add what we, as a Society agree on...hell, it even gives us the Rules to do so in clear and easy to follow Instructions...if you look closely i'll bet you can find why the Government is allowed to tax anything they want to, without the need to create some new legal fiction that defines a corporation as a "person"

utilizing the "Logic" you are putting forward...the concept of "collective" rights outside of the Nation as a whole, then a Union has the EXACT same Rights as a Corporation as a Citizen as a Baseball team as a Street Gang

since ALL of them would have these so called "collective" Rights...sounds like communism to me

no thanks

only living, breathing, Human Beings as Individuals have those ...as far as my understanding of the Constitution goes..

please point out where this whole "collective" thing comes in, and how it helps the Citizenry as a Whole, rather than being a nice thing for the Robber Barons...

i guess i just fall into the hermetic,gnostic, esoteric Tradition of Thought...you know..like those kooky Freemasons...you remember, most know them as the Continental Congress?

or even, every President we have had

check that pyramid on the back of your dollars..or even better...an aerial view of Washington DC...

but i digress...

Excelsior!

>>no matter what informed or came before it, our Constitution is the Social Contract upon which our Society is based...<<

Actually, it's not. The Constitution is the document which lays out the structure of our government. Our society is based on an unwritten social contract which goes back much farther than the Constitution and is much more universal. The Declaration of Independence is closer to being an expression of that social contract than the Constitution is.

>>it has provisions for Amendment to add what we, as a Society agree on...hell, it even gives us the Rules to do so in clear and easy to follow Instructions...if you look closely i'll bet you can find why the Government is allowed to tax anything they want to, without the need to create some new legal fiction that defines a corporation as a "person"<<

Actually, no. The Constitution specifically prohibits taxation by the Federal Government, and the 16th amendment only authorizes taxation of individual income.

What I'm saying is that there's a tradition of common law which exists separate from the Constitution and governs issues which the Constitution was never intended to address.

The whole idea of a corporation is that it will be an entity which functions like a person and represents the interests of multiple participants. As such it gains some of the rights of the people the corporation represents. In a lot of ways a corporation is like a government by contract. The earliest forms of government in America were basically corporations.

This idea that corporations are basically like people is essentially a legal construct which makes them eaiser to deal with within the already existing general structure of the law, and it's very useful.

Dave

Mr Nalle sez..
*The whole idea of a corporation is that it will be an entity which functions like a person and represents the interests of multiple participants*

yep..like i said..communist

heh

Excelsior!

Well, I'm willing to accept that it has some resemblance to collectivism. But I've never said I was opposed to collectives or co-ops. It's the one thing the Wobblies actually support that's not a bad idea.

Living out here in farm country I understand how important Co-ops were in their day, and the basic model has validity in any capitalist economy. Hell, look at Nokia - it's run by a collective.

But the difference between a corporation and a collective is that the participation of the stockholders of a corporation is separate from the participation of the workers employed by the corporation. The concepts are similar, but the allocation of work and resources is different. But both should be treated in a way similar to individuals for legal purposes.

Dave

I'd love to ararnge a mass hot-tips phone in on teh day the bill took affect.

Overwelm the the police with tips;

"the kids that have a locker next to me were talkin about being stoned at Jared Roy's party this weekend. Can I hang up now?"

"tommy, this guy from school, says he likes weed. I think he somkes it for real"

What the fuck are people Sensennbrenner doing in office? IS this guy out of his fuckin mind? This is a fucked up country ... I got to say. Makes me want to toss the whole bunch of elitest rich, old-boys out of office. Totally wack country we live in.

I think Sensenbrenner's long stay in office is a sign that all the cheese they eat in Wisconsin destroys their minds.

Dave

Dave, you and I have had minor tussles in the past, but man -- kudos to you on this one. I wrote it up over at dailyKos with some examples from my life/experience:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/21/185758/590

...because is just ridiculous. Good on you for pointing it out.

Thanks Shannon, never expected to see my words on DailyKos.

You know, I posted the article to FreeRepublic as well as here, and the responses there, the responses here and the responses to your piece on DailyKos are very similar.

What does it say that this bill can spark outrage on FreeRepublic AND DailyKos?

Dave

Mr Nalle sez..
*What does it say that this bill can spark outrage on FreeRepublic AND DailyKos?*

ummm..another Sign of the Apocalypse?

or...
"where am i going in this handbasket and why do i have a snowball?"

this has been brought to you as a public service announcement from our sponsor..

Excelsior!

"the cheese they eat in Wisconsin destroys their minds."

True. It's what happened to Senator Proxmire.

RJ: "Seriously, if this bill passes, I might have to become that which a hate the most: Someone who calls our current leaders a pack of out-of-control fascists..."

Dude, what took ya so long!?

Anyway, come on over; we have much better *"meetings" (think The Battle of Algiers meets Woodstock -- and better yet, NO DRESS CODE!)




*group gay sex is optional, but we will force you to inhale