New terror laws used vs. common criminals

[Taft]

Full story here. (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/09/14/patriot/index.html)

BTW, this is an AP story. Just because its on Salon doesn't make it left wing propaganda. :D

From the article:
A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.

Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

Taft

[Taft]

To me, this story seems like a forgone conclusion. I've been expecting this story since the Patriot Act was passed.

How can you possibly say that a crystal meth maker is a freakin' terrorist? This is a travesty of justice. And the fact this has happened to many people and that the Justice Department is training prosecutors to use (or misuse) the law is very scary.

Better be good, for goodness sake! You might just end up doing life for making homemade fireworks for the 4th.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

Taft

[Taft]

Doh', sorry for the triple post.

Just wanted to remind everyone that congress voted 357-66 and the senate voted 98-1 to pass the Patriot Act. That means at least 69% of Democratic congressmen and 96% of Democratic senators voted for the Patriot Act.

Bush, Ashcroft and the others may be the ones pushing this horrible legislation along, but our Democrat "friends" in congress seem all to happy to go along with the crowd and discard our civil liberties in the name of security.

Remember this when heading to the voting booth next time. Try voting with candidates with principles instead of along party lines.

Taft

[Sayhey]

So what happens to all of these convictions when the courts either rule that the prosecutors are using the Patriot Act in areas it does not apply or parts of the act itself are unconstitutional? Seems to me like we are going to have court cases on the validity of this law for an awfully long time.

[Desertrat]

"...when the courts...rule that the prosecutors are using the Patriot Act in areas it does not apply..."

Ha! And, Ho!

I just really doubt the courts will so rule. They haven't ruled that way in RICO act cases of similar misapplication.

I predicted this sort of evil when the Patriot Act first exited the Cloaca of Congress. I'm just surprised it took this long...

'Rat

[Taft]

Originally posted by Desertrat
"...when the courts...rule that the prosecutors are using the Patriot Act in areas it does not apply..."

Ha! And, Ho!

I just really doubt the courts will so rule. They haven't ruled that way in RICO act cases of similar misapplication.

I predicted this sort of evil when the Patriot Act first exited the Cloaca of Congress. I'm just surprised it took this long...

'Rat

Agreed. This act can't be fought on the basis of its applications. The only way I see it being effectively fought is through accusations of unconstitutionality or some sane legislators who are willing to work against it by rewriting/striking the law.

I think the Patriot Acts big weaknesses probably lie in the extension of law enforcement's powers to collect info/spy on US citizens and the eradication of due process in certain circumstances. These two areas of the act spit in the face of years judicial rulings and normal protections offered by the constitution.

Taft

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
"...when the courts...rule that the prosecutors are using the Patriot Act in areas it does not apply..."

Ha! And, Ho!

I just really doubt the courts will so rule. They haven't ruled that way in RICO act cases of similar misapplication.

I predicted this sort of evil when the Patriot Act first exited the Cloaca of Congress. I'm just surprised it took this long...

'Rat

'Rat, show me a court that will likely uphold the Act and all its applications and I'll show you a court who will likely overturn it. The Court that counts, I've long ago stopped predicting what way they will decide on anything but the clearest of cases. As to the evil of the Patriot Act (or maybe you mean the way some prosecutors use it), I'm glad to count you among the many who thought so. One thing is clear, this will be a major issue in the 2004 election. If folks want this Act overturned they had better pay attention to whom they vote for to hold office in Congress and the White House.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Sayhey
'Rat, show me a court that will likely uphold the Act and all its applications and I'll show you a court who will likely overturn it. The Court that counts, I've long ago stopped predicting what way they will decide on anything but the clearest of cases. As to the evil of the Patriot Act (or maybe you mean the way some prosecutors use it), I'm glad to count you among the many who thought so. One thing is clear, this will be a major issue in the 2004 election. If folks want this Act overturned they had better pay attention to whom they vote for to hold office in Congress and the White House.

The thing about fighting "its applications" is that there isn't anything wrong with what the Justice Department is doing. Technically.

As the article states,
chemical weapons of mass destruction [are defined] as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

Under the Patriot Act there is nothing wrong with the Justice Department prosecuting common criminals as terrorists using these types of provisions. You will never be able to stop the law by going after "mis-applications" because such a thing doesn't exist. They are working within the confines of the law, its just that the law really sucks.

For instance, lets say there was a law that was passed that said you can prosecute anyone with an object capable of hurting a person with attempted murder. It would be an insane law and completely unconstitutional. But congress COULD pass a law like that. Now, no matter what the intent of the law, ANYONE could be prosecuted for it. Your holding a pencil? That could be used to hurt me. You could be charged.

The intent of a law has very little to do with how that law is used. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, etc. will use the wording of the law any way they can. And often times, DAs and prosecutors will work with law enforcement so that law enforcement can bust old-style criminals under the new-style laws.

As 'Rat points out, this has been going on for a long time, and the RICO act is a perfect example. Never trust the intent of a law. Its meaningless. The wording is very important.

Taft

[Desertrat]

Police power is police power is police power. Doesn't matter if it's FBI, BATFE, OSHA, HUD, EPA, NPS, USF&WS or the Anti-Terror Cops from Keystone. Whatever happens to you if you get "crosswise" with any of them is a function of how THEY interpret the laws they enforce. How you interpret anything will come out later, in court, after a certain amount of hassle and expense.

Any expansion of the police powers of the State is detrimental to the health of your billfold and to your peace of mind--and your liberty.

When you hear "We need a program to..." or "There oughta be a law against...", you can rest assured that some level of government is getting ready to use its powers--including violent force if it's deemed necessary--to take more money out of your pocket to enforce said Good Thing and to further restrict your liberty.

Governments do not exist for the benefit of the governed.

'Rat

[rainman::|:|]

everyone go look at my post in the other thread on this. it's quite long and rambly so i won't duplicate it :)

pnw

[mactastic]

Yeah it's weird having 2 threads on this topic.