|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Friday, January 13, 2006 |
Alito, strip searching children, and understanding rights
As I've indicated before, I am strongly opposed to putting Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, primarily because of his track record for being pro-government on criminal justice issues, and deferring to the executive branch when it comes to government versus individual power/rights. We do not need another voice on the Supreme Court willing (and eager) to weaken the Bill of Rights further.
At this point, I despair of anything preventing his successful installation on the Court. The Republicans appear to be anxious to continue their approach of sacrificing principle in favor of lock-step power. And the Democrats have apparently convinced themselves that they're too weak to do anything about it.
One piece of Alito's background stirred up the blogosphere a bit today -- the situation of Alito's ruling in the appeal of drug case that involved strip searching a young girl and warrant deficiencies. As I noted earlier, the case is actually a little more nuanced and complex than most bloggers have admitted, but the discussion today went beyond Alito and into the basic concept of the reason for 4th Amendment checks on governmental power, and the false notion of "criminal rights."
The first part of this discussion came from Jonah Goldberg at National Review
I understand the need for following the procedural niceties, but as a plain moral common sense issue, if you are a drug dealer and keep drugs on the premises with your child, you get zero-point-zero sympathy from me if your kids are searched, warrant or no. It may be wrong for the cops to do it. But you are not a victim for choosing a life where you can rationally expect to expose your kids to far greater risks than a search by a polite cop. The kid's a victim -- of bad parents. [emphasis added]
Glenn Greenwald (a relative newcomer who I've really come to enjoy and admire recently) responded with venom:
If you can stomach it, let's review this, because it really illustrates what is going on in our country. Constitutional safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are nothing more than what Jonah calls "procedural niceties." While it would be nice and all if the Constitution were adhered to, "plain moral common sense" means that it's actually unnecessary, even undesirable, to be restricted by such things.
After all, we're dealing here with people whom the State says it suspects, but has not yet proven, are "drug dealers." With those people (and, of course, with "suspected terrorists"), anything goes, even before a trial and without any due process of any kind. All of this can be done strictly on the Government's say-so, even if the Constitutional "niceties" which exist to prohibit such behavior haven't been complied with. "It may be wrong," spits out Jonah, but we should do it anyway, because these people deserve it.
Atrios jumps in:
True, I suppose it's quite outrageous when drug dealers do such things. But that didn't, you know, happen in this case which is why we require warrants for such things. It's why probable cause matters. It's why Jonah needs to go back to 3rd grade civics so that he understands that we're not a country of collective guilt and the fact that some bad guy somewhere stashed drugs on his kids does not mean we should grant agents of the state the right to strip search all kids, include Jonah's own offspring, without warrants. Searching the premises, under someone's bed, is not the same as lifting up a little girl's skirt.
What country do these people want to live in? Jeebus. What the hell were we supposed tbe fighting the Cold War about again?
Jonah reponds a couple of times, including this item:
[...] And the wall between dictatorship and liberty does not stand or fall depending on whether or not drug dealers have extra legal manuevering room to hide drugs in the pants of their ten year old daughters. [emphasis added]
and here
[...] But I reject the Dershowitzian tactic of claiming that an extremist view of procedural due process and the celebration of legal technicalities -- wholly unimagined by the founders -- makes you a stronger believer in the Constitution.
Though he claims otherwise, Jonah Goldberg's statements put him in company with a disturbing group in this country that often act like the Bill of Rights was something the ACLU created in order to set criminals free. While Jonah doesn't specifically mention it, some of his phrases -- "zero sympathy," "warrant or no," "whether or not drug dealers have extra legal manuevering room," "extremist view of procedural due process" -- are in league with those who complain about people like me standing up for what they call 'criminal's rights.'
Well let me tell you -- the only 'criminal's rights' in the constitution are the 8th Amendment "guarantees" against cruel and inhuman punishment. All the rest are printed there to remind the government of the fundamental rights of people -- of citizens of the United States -- the guilty and the innocent.
People like Jonah see one scumbag get off because of "procedural due process," and think the system is broken. And yet, it is the extreme care of holding to due process that sets our system of freedom apart. It says, "Yes, the job of the police is harder, and some scumbags may get off, but that's the price of freedom -- the price of a system that says a person is innocent until proven guilty -- the price of a system that believes that an individual has the right to be secure in his or her person, house, papers, and effects.
So in effect, the extreme procedural due process, as it relates to our presumption of innocence and our freedom of self and possessions, is an essential part of that "wall between dictatorship and liberty."
4:58:13 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 12, 2006 |
Some Bad Advice for Republicans
I've never quite figured out Dick Morris. He comes off to me as a sleazy political opportunist, yet there are people in Washington who listen to him.
In his OpEd America is shifting leftward published in The Hill, he gives advice to Republicans to recapture the political momentum, including this gem:
As the victory of Evo Morales in Bolivia makes clear, cocaine is concomitant of oil in fueling terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The narcoterrorists use our dependence on black oil and white cocaine to power their anti-American work and terrorist activities. Soon their terror will spread to our shores. Already the cocaine infects our young.
Bush should urge drug testing, with parental consent, in schools in his State of the Union address and put drugs back in play as a domestic issue. Crime is down, but drug use is still a vital Republican issue. Put it back on the agenda.
What a load of disconnected crap! No facts. No attempt to actually link policy to results. All that matters is whether it can be turned into a talking point, and perhaps used to generate fear. But then, that's how Washington works.
Via California Patriot Blog, who writes:
We need to take a cue from notable Republicans like Milton Friedman, George Shultz, and Gary Johnson, and make ending the War on Drugs part of the Republican agenda. Doing so would not only be Constitutionally correct, but morally correct as well.
If the GOP goes with Dick's plan then I'm just going to give up and vote Libertarian.
9:06:45 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
NFL's Buzzkill: No Beer at Giants Stadium
Fun OpEd by NORML'S Paul Armentano in today's Washington Examiner
Following a string of violent incidents - including a pair of stabbings - between rowdy football fans during the team's previous games, Giants Stadium officials made the bold move to halt sales of the intoxicant. The rationale for the ban? Jets spokesman Ron Colangelo could not have been more blunt: "It's for the safety of our fans."
Alcohol's long-standing association with aggressive behavior, whether it's among raucous sports fans or late-night bar patrons, is well-publicized and much debated. Yet, a relevant fact that is often overlooked in this public discourse is that an alternative, almost equally consumed intoxicant, is rarely, if ever, linked with violence - - marijuana. However, unlike alcohol, marijuana is illegal and not only at Giants Stadium.
The whole thing is worth reading -- some great factual info about marijuana's lack of connection to anti-social behavior.
8:14:39 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Anthony Diotaiuto's family suing Sunrise for records
The family of Anthony Diotaiuto (see here, here, and here for background) is still looking for answers, and on Tuesday they filed a lawsuit.
The family of a 23-year-old man killed by the Sunrise Police Department's SWAT team filed a lawsuit Tuesday saying the city broke public records laws by not turning over documents related to his death. [...]
Attorney William Scherer III wrote in Tuesday's lawsuit that the city of Sunrise illegally denied parts of the family's first public records requests and ignored three subsequent requests. Attorneys for the family sought police department documents ranging from SWAT policies and training manuals to tactical notes and documents on the raid itself.[..]
There have been discrepancies in the police department's account of the incident, including whether Diotaiuto pointed a gun at the SWAT team, and the amount of marijuana found at the home. A neighbor also disputed whether SWAT members knocked before raiding the home, as police say.
8:04:14 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 |
Quote of the Day
Now, some of you all may be old enough to remember the days of Prohibition. I'm not. (Laughter.) But remember, we illegalized whisky, and guess what? People found all kinds of ways to make it, and to run it. NASCAR got started -- positive thing that came out of all that. (Laughter.)
Sigh.
Update: Great response from kaptinemo in comments:
The historically obvious irony regarding the War on (Some) Drugs implicit in his statement flies so far over his head he can't even see the contrail...
9:00:44 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
No such thing as Cruel and Unusual in the drug war
I was pessimistic, but hopeful, but it appears that the 8th Amendment is the latest one to bite the dust in the service of the drug warrior.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Link
A federal appeals court has upheld a 55-year prison term imposed on a Utah man with no criminal record who was convicted in 2003 of selling several hundred dollars worth of marijuana on three occasions.[...]
The sentence properly reflected the will of Congress, the court said, and was not cruel or unusual punishment.
Right.
Oddly, the Federal Appeals court also apparently chose to repeal the 6th Amendment.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
How did they do this? By taking the word of the prosecutor that Weldon Angelos was a "bad person" without the facts being judged by a jury.
The court also said that Mr. Angelos's lack of a criminal record appeared to be more about luck in not getting caught than any indication of innocence.
Yep, part of their decision had to do with the fact that they figured he probably did a lot more than he got caught for, so it's OK to get a long sentence. That's sort of like giving somebody a $50,000 speeding ticket and saying: "Hey, you've probably been going over the speed limit lots of times when we didn't catch you."
Hey, at least the 3rd Amendment is still intact.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
...so far.
[Thanks, Tom]
Update: Via TalkLeft, Professor Doug Berman has related concerns at Sentencing Law and Policy (check out the comments for a fairly lively debate).
Oh, if we only had some "activist judges" who would rule that the Constitution matters more than the perverted desires of the executive branch.
8:36:03 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Murkowski is at it again
Governor Murkowski can't seem to accept the Alaska State Supreme Court's ruling (possession of up to 4 ounces of marijuana in your home isn't enough of a public danger to over-ride the state constitution's privacy provision). It just burns him up to think that Alaskan citizens can sit in their homes with a small amount of marijuana and he can't throw them in jail at taxpayer expense.
Link
A bill to re-criminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana at home will pass out of the Senate Finance Committee Thursday, according to co-chair Lyda Green.
Green held an unannounced hearing on the bill today and said she would not delay the schedule to allow for testimony by scientific experts who spoke before other committees last session.
The Murkowski administration, which asked for the bill, contends that the potency of marijuana has increased so much since a key court ruling in 1975 that judges today would permit such legislation, even though it appears to violate recent rulings on the constitutional right to privacy.
Yep, wouldn't want facts, or those pesky scientific experts to mess up plans to arrest pot smokers.
Update: Edited for clarity
8:15:29 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Drug Warriors advertising drugs to children
Tobacco companies have gotten all sorts of heat for supposedly marketing their products to children, with images like.. Joe Camel. They've got nothing on the drug warriors, who continually screw up by creating anti-drug ads that become cult hits (egg and frying pan), are unintentionally hilarious (marijuana smokers support terrorists), or just plain make drugs fun!
Link
Fast forward to 2005 and the image is of small schoolboy singing a nursery rhyme.
Bah bah black sheep, have you any E? Yes sir, yes sir, first hit's free. They push it on the children, they push it every day. They push it on the little boy that lives down the way. Bah bah black sheep, have you any E? Yes sir, yes sir, first hit's free.
Very clever. One problem. This pleasant little ditty is now being sung by school children who heard it on the television, and think it's cute. Do they understand what they are saying? No. Would they be singing these words with this message without the help of this public service announcement ( PSA )? No.
Another ad brought to you by drugfree.org includes the Alphabet song:
A, B, C, D, PCP, E or X and THC, Special K and LSD, Gs and H and GHB. Now I know my drugs you see, next time won't you sing with me?
So let's see... The drug warriors make selling drugs profitable to black-market criminals to insure a guaranteed steady supply of competitively-priced (tax-free) drugs, avoid regulations that would restrict sales to children, prevent the use of harm reduction education programs, and then go out and actually market drugs to small children on television (along with reminding them about drugs at every opportunity).
Should we be apprehending the folks at drugfree.org and putting them in jail for child abuse?
12:33:32 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 |
Not Another Usual Drugged Driving Article
Surprise -- an article about drugged driving that doesn't blame marijuana or promote zero-tolerance drug testing (neither of which are the problems in real drugged driving).
Experts Concerned About `Drug Driving', by Maggie Shepard in the Albuquerque Tribune focuses on -- get this -- those who are actually impaired when they drive.
Just before Christmas, a woman who says she was taking only the prescribed dose of her pain killer and anti-anxiety medication blacked out as she was driving to the grocery store.
She lost control of her SUV and caused a crash that killed Natasha Ruth, 69, according to Rio Rancho police. [...]
New Mexico law does not differentiate between impairment from alcohol, legal narcotics or appropriately used prescription drugs.
"Impairment means impairment," said Franklin Garcia, program director for the state Traffic Safety Bureau.
Exactly. And law enforcement should deal specifically with thoe who are impaired, regardless of the means of impairment.
In the article, the Police Lieutenant (Conrad Murray) called for more training for officers to be able to deal with identifying this kind of impairment. He didn't call for more drug testing, or stricter laws based on identifying trace elements of illegal drugs in the bloodstream as we so often see.
Refreshing. Perhaps Murray really wants to make the roads safer, rather than following the Drug Czar's political motivations.
We need more of this attitude. Sure, having to actually identify impairment on the road or in the workplace, in the context of the situation, requires skill and judgement. It takes more work than a blood test, or simply demonizing marijuana users because that particular drug happens to leave evidence in the blood longer.
7:55:15 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Chronic Pain
The health section of today's New York Times has a fairly decent article (not well written, but very informative to the lay person), about the challenges of treating chronic pain these days, and isn't very nice to the DEA
Now the federal government, and especially the Drug Enforcement Administration, is working overtime to make it even harder for doctors to manage serious pain, including that of dying patients trying to exit this world gracefully.
The article even addressed the fact that most people (and even some doctors) don't understand the difference between addiction and dependency:
An addict uses a drug to get high, becomes tolerant and needs ever-increasing amounts to maintain that high. Patients taking narcotics for pain don't get high; they get relief from their pain, and when larger doses are needed, it is usually because their pain has become more intense, as often happens in patients with advanced cancer or degenerative diseases.
Always nice to see a major paper take on an issue like this.
7:51:32 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Steve Kubby
Talk about a disconnect from reality...
VANCOUVER -- The federal government argued yesterday that Steve Kubby and his family should be deported to the United States because there is no evidence he will be denied marijuana to cope with his cancer, even if he is put in jail.
Link
The judge is expected to make a decision this week.
7:31:01 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 9, 2006 |
The Drug War: a self-replicating organism nourished in the muck of corruption
From the Narco News Bulletin: Leaked Memo: Corrupt DEA Agents in Colombia Help Narcos and Paramilitaries
The drug war is supposed to follow a very clear script: According to the official screenwriters, the U.S. justice system is pitted against corrupt players in foreign countries who are trying to flood American streets with illicit drugs. The narco-traffickers, crooked cops, and thieving politicians in the drug war are always over there, in Latin America, and elsewhere, and U.S. law enforcers and government officials are always the good guys battling these forces of evil.
But what happens when evidence surfaces that turns that script on its ear? What happens if proof emerges that it is the U.S. justice system that is corrupt? A document obtained recently by Narco News [pdf] makes those questions more than hypothetical queries. In this document, Department of Justice attorney Thomas M. Kent claims that federal agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration's office in Bogotá, Colombia, are the corrupt players in the war on drugs.
Surprise, surprise.
(The author does sacrifice some clarity in that last sentence, however. It should probably read: "federal agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration's office in Bogotá, Colombia, are also corrupt players in the war on drugs" since there is certainly no shortage of corruption within the Colombian factions.)
More on DEA corruption in Colombia here.
8:34:50 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 8, 2006 |
|
|
|
The Austin Chronicle gave its Top 10 Drug War Stories of 2005 in 
