The government wants you to inform on your friends and relatives or go to jail. Act now!
Thanks to Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) we're closer than ever to realizing George Orwell's vision of 1984. He's introduced a new bill which Congress is debating right now which takes the War on Drugs to unprecedented Orwellian levels of intrusion into personal privacy and could literally turn almost anyone into a criminal. The bill is H.R 1528 the "Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act", which will make it illegal not to report drug use or drug related activity to the police and provide mandatory sentences of at least 2 years for those who don't turn in relativees, friends, neighbors or people they observe doing such dangerous things as smoking a joint or if you just hear them talking about using drugs. It also makes it illegal to refuse to cooperate with a drug investigation, including making it a criminal offense not to wear a wire and go undercover if asked by law enforcement.…
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
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
27 - Shark
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.
28 - Shark
Bonus points for any motard who gets the reference!
29 - Shark
re: the photo
I dunno; the guy looks like Hermann Goering's love child...
30 - bhw
I find the whole idea that there should be a prison industry objectionable.
Hey, I thought you were in favor of business....
;-)
31 - Dave Nalle
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
32 - Taloran
I'll be writing my representatives about this one. Thanks for pointing it out.
33 - bhw
I was just teasing, Dave. I agree with you about the drug laws.
34 - Nancy
...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.
35 - Dave Nalle
Don't worry, photos of me can be even more scary.
Dave
36 - Nancy
He does look kind of crazed ... maybe he's been smoking something? Hey - maybe I'd better report him?!
37 - DrPat
Thanks for the heads-up, Dave! For anyone here short of words, the following is what I wrote to my own Congress-critter:
38 - Dave Nalle
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
39 - Traci
Sure seams like a funny way to stop prison overcrowding!
40 - 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...
41 - Dave Nalle
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
42 - gonzo marx
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!
43 - Dave Nalle
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
44 - gonzo marx
a walking, talking advertisement for term limits...eh?
whatever happened to that Idea?
/sigh
Excelsior!
45 - Dave Nalle
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
46 - gonzo marx
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!
47 - Dave Nalle
>>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
48 - gonzo marx
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!
49 - Dave Nalle
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
50 - gonzo marx
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!
51 - Dave Nalle
>>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
52 - gonzo marx
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!
53 - Dave Nalle
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
54 - sydney
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.
55 - Dave Nalle
I think Sensenbrenner's long stay in office is a sign that all the cheese they eat in Wisconsin destroys their minds.
Dave
56 - Shannon
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.
57 - Dave Nalle
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
58 - gonzo marx
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!
59 - Bennett
"the cheese they eat in Wisconsin destroys their minds."
True. It's what happened to Senator Proxmire.
60 - Shark
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