-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
The Big Lie
- Thread starter vta
- Start date
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Author: Justin Scheck
POLICE SCANDALS HOBBLE PROSECUTORS
Hundreds Of Criminal Cases Dismissed In San Francisco Bay Area As Allegations Of Law-Enforcement Corruption Persist
SAN FRANCISCO-Bay Area prosecutors have been forced to dismiss more than 800 criminal cases in the past year because of allegations of police corruption that include selling drug evidence, conducting unlawful searches and conspiring to get men drunk and then arrest them on drunk-driving charges.
The series of police scandals has taxed the budgets of the district-attorney and public-defender offices, and prompted two federal investigations.
In some cases, defense lawyers found that security-camera videos in residential hotels-showing police making drug arrests-apparently contradicted the officers' sworn statements.
In one case, a suspect was seen in a video of his arrest wearing a different jacket from the one the officers entered into evidence.
Last year, the San Francisco district attorney dismissed about 700 criminal cases after a drug crime-lab worker was accused of stealing evidence. This year, since March, the district attorney has dismissed about 125 cases, mainly felony drug prosecutions.
East of San Francisco in Contra Costa County, the state-run County Narcotics Enforcement Team, or CNET, has been caught up in a widening scandal resulting in the dismissal of 15 cases, according to the county district attorney. The district attorney said earlier this month he was turning the investigation of the cases over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The CNET chief, two police officers and a private investigator are charged with a range of gun, drug and other crimes, including selling methamphetamine, steroids and marijuana stolen from evidence lockers.
The four also are charged with masterminding a plot to get men drunk and then arrest them for driving while intoxicated.
In November of last year, prosecutors charge, the private investigator "arranged to have a female decoy" invite men to a bar. The men were going through divorce proceedings in which he represented their wives.
After the man and the decoy drank for a while, one of the police officers would call another and ask him to stop the man's car on suspicion of drunk driving, the indictment says.
Lawyers for the CNET chief and the investigator say their clients admit some wrongdoing and are cooperating with investigators.
Peter Keane, a professor at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco and a former defense lawyer, said the scandals raise questions about whether there is a "systemic problem" in the oversight of state and local narcotics investigators in California. Mr. Keane blames the problem partly on the intrusive nature of drug investigations.
"So much of making drug arrests involves going into somebody's house," he said.
Lt. Troy Dangerfield, a spokesman for the San Francisco Police Department, said no officers have been charged with misconduct, though the investigation is ongoing. He said several officers have been reassigned from undercover duty, and that some dismissed cases could be refiled if officers were cleared of wrongdoing.
George Gascon, appointed district attorney in San Francisco this year after serving as San Francisco police chief since 2009, said the scandals have resulted in his office "having to spend a lot of resources to make decisions on mistakes and bad practices in the past."
Defense lawyers have credited Mr. Gascon with trying to investigate, rather than conceal, the problems. At his request, the FBI is examining arrests made at low-income hotels. The investigation is looking into "allegations that SFPD officers were conducting unauthorized searches," an FBI spokeswoman said.
San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi has held news conferences to show videos that raise questions about police searches. Mr. Adachi said his office is reviewing about 7,000 cases for possible police wrongdoing.
Jesus Reyes, 65 years old, a resident of the Julian House hotel in San Francisco, was arrested Feb. 25 on drug charges. ,In an interview and in court filings Mr. Reyes said that police searched him and a van he was in without his consent.
They took his keys, entered his apartment and searched it, he said.
"I asked them if they had a search warrant, and they just ignored me," Mr. Reyes said.
During the apartment search, police confiscated a laptop computer and camera, and found a small amount of methamphetamine. They arrested Mr. Reyes and jailed him for three days, Mr. Reyes said.
The laptop and camera weren't recorded in the police report as confiscated evidence.
In May, a judge dismissed the case after Mr. Reyes's lawyer obtained a video showing officers entering the room and leaving with bags apparently containing the belongings that were later not booked as evidence.
The police declined to comment on the case.
Author: Justin Scheck
POLICE SCANDALS HOBBLE PROSECUTORS
Hundreds Of Criminal Cases Dismissed In San Francisco Bay Area As Allegations Of Law-Enforcement Corruption Persist
SAN FRANCISCO-Bay Area prosecutors have been forced to dismiss more than 800 criminal cases in the past year because of allegations of police corruption that include selling drug evidence, conducting unlawful searches and conspiring to get men drunk and then arrest them on drunk-driving charges.
The series of police scandals has taxed the budgets of the district-attorney and public-defender offices, and prompted two federal investigations.
In some cases, defense lawyers found that security-camera videos in residential hotels-showing police making drug arrests-apparently contradicted the officers' sworn statements.
In one case, a suspect was seen in a video of his arrest wearing a different jacket from the one the officers entered into evidence.
Last year, the San Francisco district attorney dismissed about 700 criminal cases after a drug crime-lab worker was accused of stealing evidence. This year, since March, the district attorney has dismissed about 125 cases, mainly felony drug prosecutions.
East of San Francisco in Contra Costa County, the state-run County Narcotics Enforcement Team, or CNET, has been caught up in a widening scandal resulting in the dismissal of 15 cases, according to the county district attorney. The district attorney said earlier this month he was turning the investigation of the cases over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The CNET chief, two police officers and a private investigator are charged with a range of gun, drug and other crimes, including selling methamphetamine, steroids and marijuana stolen from evidence lockers.
The four also are charged with masterminding a plot to get men drunk and then arrest them for driving while intoxicated.
In November of last year, prosecutors charge, the private investigator "arranged to have a female decoy" invite men to a bar. The men were going through divorce proceedings in which he represented their wives.
After the man and the decoy drank for a while, one of the police officers would call another and ask him to stop the man's car on suspicion of drunk driving, the indictment says.
Lawyers for the CNET chief and the investigator say their clients admit some wrongdoing and are cooperating with investigators.
Peter Keane, a professor at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco and a former defense lawyer, said the scandals raise questions about whether there is a "systemic problem" in the oversight of state and local narcotics investigators in California. Mr. Keane blames the problem partly on the intrusive nature of drug investigations.
"So much of making drug arrests involves going into somebody's house," he said.
Lt. Troy Dangerfield, a spokesman for the San Francisco Police Department, said no officers have been charged with misconduct, though the investigation is ongoing. He said several officers have been reassigned from undercover duty, and that some dismissed cases could be refiled if officers were cleared of wrongdoing.
George Gascon, appointed district attorney in San Francisco this year after serving as San Francisco police chief since 2009, said the scandals have resulted in his office "having to spend a lot of resources to make decisions on mistakes and bad practices in the past."
Defense lawyers have credited Mr. Gascon with trying to investigate, rather than conceal, the problems. At his request, the FBI is examining arrests made at low-income hotels. The investigation is looking into "allegations that SFPD officers were conducting unauthorized searches," an FBI spokeswoman said.
San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi has held news conferences to show videos that raise questions about police searches. Mr. Adachi said his office is reviewing about 7,000 cases for possible police wrongdoing.
Jesus Reyes, 65 years old, a resident of the Julian House hotel in San Francisco, was arrested Feb. 25 on drug charges. ,In an interview and in court filings Mr. Reyes said that police searched him and a van he was in without his consent.
They took his keys, entered his apartment and searched it, he said.
"I asked them if they had a search warrant, and they just ignored me," Mr. Reyes said.
During the apartment search, police confiscated a laptop computer and camera, and found a small amount of methamphetamine. They arrested Mr. Reyes and jailed him for three days, Mr. Reyes said.
The laptop and camera weren't recorded in the police report as confiscated evidence.
In May, a judge dismissed the case after Mr. Reyes's lawyer obtained a video showing officers entering the room and leaving with bags apparently containing the belongings that were later not booked as evidence.
The police declined to comment on the case.
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Author: Zack Kaldveer, Communications Director of the Consumer
Federation of California, a non-profit advocacy organization. CFC
campaigns for state and federal laws that place consumer protection
ahead of corporate profit. Zack also authors the blog Privacy Revolt.
HOW THE PATRIOT ACT IS BEING USED TO FIGHT THE DRUG WAR AND EAVESDROP ON JOURNALISTS
The Constitutional "Precedent" Set by the Patriot Act Appears to Be Serving to Accelerate the Rapid Disintegration of Civil Liberties in This Country
With the stroke of an autopen, the once articulate critic of the Patriot Act signed a four year extension of the most dangerous assault on American civil liberties in US history without a single additional privacy protection.
One would think that this reauthorization would have incited vigorous debate in the halls of Congress and at least a fraction of the breathless 24/7 media coverage allotted the Anthony Weiner "sexting" scandal. Instead, three weeks ago the House ( 250 to 153 ) and Senate ( 72 to 23 ) approved, and the President signed, an extension of this landmark attack on the Bill of Rights with little notice and even less debate.
Most disturbing was the extension - without modification - of the Act's three most controversial provisions:
allows broad warrants to be issued by a secretive court for any type of record, from financial to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation;
allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from the secret court ( i.e. "roving wiretaps", ) known as the FISA court, without identifying the target or what method of communication is to be tapped;
allows the FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person ( "lone wolf" measure ) for whatever reason -- even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist.
Also in need of reform, are what's called National Security Letters ( NSLs ) - which allow the FBI, without a court order, to obtain telecommunication, financial and credit records deemed "relevant" to a government investigation. The FBI issues about 50,000 a year and an internal watchdog has repeatedly found the flagrant misuse of this power.
The Long Record of Patriot Act Abuses
Any meaningful debate over whether to reauthorize any and all of these provisions without significant additional privacy protections should include a few key questions. One, have these provisions made us significantly safer ( i.e. are there documented incidences they have led to capturing terrorists plotting against us? )? Two, is there any evidence that they have been abused? Three, is their claimed usefulness somehow jeopardized by the kinds of modest reforms privacy rights groups ( and others ) advocate? And finally, have we created a dangerous constitutional precedent?
Thanks to the relentless work by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) - and information uncovered by the Freedom of Information Act - there is little to no evidence that these provisions, as written, have made us any safer. Yet there's a long list of incidences of unadulterated government abuse and malpractice for a host of purposes other than fighting terrorism. In other words, the threat this Act, and these particular provisions pose to the basic Constitutional rights of American citizens is not hypothetical, but documented fact.
Consider what we know:
The FBI admitted in a recent report to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board that it violated the law at least 800 times on national security letters, going well beyond even the loose safeguards in the original provision. According to the report the FBI "may have violated the law or government policy as many as 3,000 times" between 2003 and 2007, according to the Justice Department Inspector General, while collecting bank, phone and credit card records using NSLs.
As Adam Sewer of the American Prospect notes: "It's no secret that the FBI's use of NSLs - a surveillance tool that allows the FBI to gather reams of information on Americans from third-party entities ( like your bank ) without a warrant or without suspecting you of a crime - have resulted in widespread abuses. All that the FBI needs to demand your private information from a third-party entity is an assertion that such information is "relevant" to a national security investigation -- and the NSLs come with an accompanying gag order that's almost impossible to challenge in court."
NSLs were used by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to demand that libraries turn over the names of books that people had checked out. In fact, there were at least 545 libraries that received such demands in the year following passage of the Patriot Act alone.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) uncovered "indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11." It said it could find no records of whether anyone was disciplined for the infractions.
Under the Bush Administration, the FBI used the Patriot Act to target liberal groups, particularly anti-war, environment, and anti-globalization, during the years between 2001 and 2006 in particular.
According to a recent report by the ACLU, there have been 111 incidents of illegal domestic political surveillance since 9/11 in 33 states and the District of Columbia. The report shows that law enforcement and federal officials work closely to monitor the political activity of individuals deemed suspicious, an activity common during the Cold War - including protests, religious activities and other rights protected by the first amendment. The report also noted how the FBI monitors peaceful protest groups and in some cases attempted to prevent protest activities.
According to a July 2009 report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, only three of the 763 "sneak-and-peek" requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases. Sixty-five percent were drug related.
John Whitehead, author of "Renewing the Patriot Act While America Sleeps", described our post Patriot Act reality in appropriately stark terms, writing, ""Suddenly, for the first time in American history, federal agents and police officers were authorized to conduct black bag "sneak-and-peak" searches of homes and offices and confiscate your personal property without first notifying you of their intent or their presence. The law also granted the FBI the right to come to your place of employment, demand your personal records and question your supervisors and fellow employees, all without notifying you; allowed the government access to your medical records, school records and practically every personal record about you; and allowed the government to secretly demand to see records of books or magazines you've checked out in any public library and Internet sites you've visited."
And now - according to the New York Times - new guidelines from the Justice Department will allow FBI agents to investigate people and organizations "proactively" without firm evidence for suspecting criminal activity. The new rules will free up agents to infiltrate organizations, search household trash, use surveillance teams, search databases, and conduct lie detector tests, even without suspicion of any wrongdoing.
In other words, the Constitutional "precedent" set by the Patriot Act appears to be serving to accelerate the rapid disintegration of civil liberties in this country.
Of equal concern is what we still don't know about how the government might be using the Act, highlighted by recent statements made by US Senators regarding what they termed "secret Patriot Act provisions". Senator Ron Wyden ( D-OR ), an outspoken critic of the recent reauthorization, stated, "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act they will be stunned and they will be angry." As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Wyden is in a position to know, as he receives classified briefings from the executive branch.
In recent years, three other current and former members of the US Senate - Mark Udall ( D-CO ), Dick Durbin ( D-IL ), and Russ Feingold ( D-WI ) - have provided similar warnings. We can't be sure what these senators are referring to, but the evidence suggests, and some assert, that the current administration is using Section 215 of the Patriot Act - a provision that gives the government access to "business records" - as the legal basis for the large-scale collection of cell phone location records.
The fact that in 2009 Sprint disclosed that law enforcement made 8 million requests in 2008 alone for its customer's cell phone GPS data for purposes of locational tracking should only add to these legitimate privacy concerns.
Security Versus Privacy: A False Dichotomy
The Patriot Act was sold as an indispensable weapon in the government's arsenal to fight and "win" the "War on Terror". We were assured that the sole purpose of these unprecedented powers granted government were to locate and catch terrorists - not raid the homes of pot dealers and wiretap peace activists. Monitoring political groups and activities deemed "threatening" ( i.e. environmentalists, peace activists ), expanding the already disastrous and wasteful war on drugs, and eavesdropping on journalists isn't about fighting terrorism, it's about stifling dissent and consolidating power - at the expense of civil liberties.
How ironic that the very "tool" hailed as our nation's protector has instead been used to violate the very Constitutional protections we are allegedly defending from "attack" by outside threats. What was promised as a "temporary", targeted law to keep us safe from terror has morphed into a rewriting of the Bill of Rights.
John Whitehead explains: "The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments-the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments-and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience were considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state."
It's almost as if Benjamin Franklin had the Patriot Act in mind when he famously stated, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Noted privacy and security expert Bruce Schneier expanded on this false dichotomy, writing, "...those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither," concluding "If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy."
The fact that the odds of EVER being killed or maimed in a terrorist attack are a fraction of that posed by being hit by lightning, we should always approach government demands for increasingly intrusive and ripe for abuse authority with a healthy dose of skepticism and a large grain of salt.
The long, documented record of government overreach and abuse since 9/11 begs a larger question, "Can we truly defeat "the terrorists" by succumbing to fear and embracing a less free and more authoritarian society ( which are ostensibly primary goals of terrorists )?"
Constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald further illuminates this false "security versus privacy" dichotomy promulgated by those with inherent conflicts of interest, writing:
"The problem is never that the U.S. Government lacks sufficient power to engage in surveillance, interceptions, intelligence-gathering and the like. Long before 9/11 -- from the Cold War -- we have vested extraordinarily broad surveillance powers in the U.S. Government to the point that we have turned ourselves into a National Security andSurveillance State. Terrorist attacks do not happen because there are too many restrictions on the government's ability to eavesdrop and intercept communications, or because there are too many safeguards and checks. If anything, the opposite is true: the excesses of the Surveillance State -- and the steady abolition of oversights and limits -- have made detection of plots far less likely. Despite that, we have an insatiable appetite -- especially when we're frightened anew -- to vest more and more unrestricted spying and other powers in our Government, which -- like all governments -- is more than happy to accept it."
Candidate Obama Versus President Obama
President Obama's now ardent embrace of the same provisions he so eloquently criticized as a candidate - while aggressively opposing any of the reforms he once advocated on behalf of - has come to epitomize a disturbing shift in this country since 9/11.
The eloquent, pro-civil liberties "candidate Obama" branded the Patriot Act "shoddy and dangerous" and pledged to end it in 2003. In 2005, he pledged to filibuster a Bush-sponsored bill that included several of the recently extended provisions, calling them "just plain wrong".
In perhaps his most forceful critique, he stated, "Government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document -- through library books they've read and phone calls they've made...We don't have to settle for a Patriot Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety -- we can have one that secures both."
Now, channeling none other than George W. Bush himself, President Obama warns that any delay of the complete and absolute renewal of the Act - or even the addition of a single privacy protection - would endanger American lives.
Thus, what was once viewed as the signature of Bush/Cheney radicalism is now official, bipartisan Washington consensus - serving to codify our country's continued departure from its commitment to the basic tenets articulated in the Bill of Rights.
Attempted Reforms Ignored, Rejected
Efforts to address the most dangerous and far reaching components of the Patriot Act have been repeatedly offered by Senators and House members alike - to no avail. The reforms sought have been modest in nature, targeted in scope, and critical to reining in government abuse - - without weakening national security.
For example, this year, Senator Bernie Sanders offered an amendment - supported by the American Library Association, the ACLU and the National Association of Booksellers - which would have prevented the government from gaining access to Americans' reading records in libraries and bookstores without a traditional search warrant.
Similarly, former Senator Russ Feingold, during a previous Patriot Act extension fight, sought to require the government to specify more clearly the targets of their investigations and their connections to terrorism, keep the FBI from using its authority to engage in broad-based data-mining of Americans' phone, library and business records, more effective checks on government searches of Americans' personal records, reform the FISA Amendments Act by repealing the retroactive immunity provision for the same telecom companies that continue to make billions off overcharging the very customers they betrayed, and prevent "bulk collection" of the contents of Americans' international communications.
Not only have such attempts been rejected year after year, many aren't even granted a Congressional hearing or vote. Just as disturbing is the failure of the mainstream media to dedicate any significant time and attention to an issue that so clearly warrants a vigorous national debate - such as how to strike the proper balance between civil liberties and national security.
The Bill of Rights Under Siege
Some important questions demand answers: Does increasingly intrusive and even unconstitutional anti-terrorism measures actually make us any safer ( or less so )? If so, what is the price we are willing to pay for that additionally security?
Since 9/11 an undeniable pattern has emerged, from illegal search and seizures to warrantless wiretapping to the GPS tracking of cell phones to airport body scanners to the redefinition of Habeas Corpus to the increasing use of rendition for the purposes of torturing prisoners yet to be charged with a crime to military tribunals replacing courts of law, among many others.
What were once considered unassailable civil liberties granted to ALL citizens are under siege. The consequences of such a loss would be profound. Without the fundamental reform of the Patriot Act I fear this loss will be a permanent, and the American experiment will forever be altered.
Moving Forward: Building a Left/Right Coalition
So what to do? From a purely ideological perspective, the potential exists for growing a left/right coalition around a mutual commitment to the Bill of Rights. Already, more than 400 local, county and state resolutions have been passed in opposition to the Patriot Act. But, interest and opposition energy has largely waned over time. This must change.
On the left, while there still remains significant opposition ( as evidenced by the recent votes in the House and Senate ), a much larger and vocal effort existed when President Bush was abusing the same powers that exist now - no doubt in part due to sharing party affiliation with the new President. We must make the case to these voters that regardless of who sits in the White House, these are powers that NO branch of government, or intelligence agency, deserves.
On the right, it is common place to vocally declare allegiance to the Constitution and the principles of freedom and liberty. Yet, the Patriot Act - which desecrates those very principles - is close to a non-issue, with more focus on the alleged grave threat posed by expanding health care. This group's inherent distrust of President Obama - warranted or not - may serve to enhance the likelihood of convincing these voters that the Patriot Act represents a clear and present danger to everything they espouse.
Also working in our favor is the broad based, ideologically diverse "Patriot Act Reform" coalition that already exists, including the ACLU ( an excellent source of Patriot Act related information ), the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the CATO Institute, the Liberty Coalition, the American Library Association, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While impressive, this coalition must be vastly expanded.
Irrational fears of terrorism, hyped by political, military and corporate interests, are at the root of our nation's current "civil liberties" crisis. We must counter this growing "fear industrial complex" with a "people's majority" dedicated to preserving the Bill of Rights and protecting the privacy of American citizens. This challenge - and responsibility - should begin in earnest today.
Author: Zack Kaldveer, Communications Director of the Consumer
Federation of California, a non-profit advocacy organization. CFC
campaigns for state and federal laws that place consumer protection
ahead of corporate profit. Zack also authors the blog Privacy Revolt.
HOW THE PATRIOT ACT IS BEING USED TO FIGHT THE DRUG WAR AND EAVESDROP ON JOURNALISTS
The Constitutional "Precedent" Set by the Patriot Act Appears to Be Serving to Accelerate the Rapid Disintegration of Civil Liberties in This Country
With the stroke of an autopen, the once articulate critic of the Patriot Act signed a four year extension of the most dangerous assault on American civil liberties in US history without a single additional privacy protection.
One would think that this reauthorization would have incited vigorous debate in the halls of Congress and at least a fraction of the breathless 24/7 media coverage allotted the Anthony Weiner "sexting" scandal. Instead, three weeks ago the House ( 250 to 153 ) and Senate ( 72 to 23 ) approved, and the President signed, an extension of this landmark attack on the Bill of Rights with little notice and even less debate.
Most disturbing was the extension - without modification - of the Act's three most controversial provisions:
allows broad warrants to be issued by a secretive court for any type of record, from financial to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation;
allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from the secret court ( i.e. "roving wiretaps", ) known as the FISA court, without identifying the target or what method of communication is to be tapped;
allows the FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person ( "lone wolf" measure ) for whatever reason -- even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist.
Also in need of reform, are what's called National Security Letters ( NSLs ) - which allow the FBI, without a court order, to obtain telecommunication, financial and credit records deemed "relevant" to a government investigation. The FBI issues about 50,000 a year and an internal watchdog has repeatedly found the flagrant misuse of this power.
The Long Record of Patriot Act Abuses
Any meaningful debate over whether to reauthorize any and all of these provisions without significant additional privacy protections should include a few key questions. One, have these provisions made us significantly safer ( i.e. are there documented incidences they have led to capturing terrorists plotting against us? )? Two, is there any evidence that they have been abused? Three, is their claimed usefulness somehow jeopardized by the kinds of modest reforms privacy rights groups ( and others ) advocate? And finally, have we created a dangerous constitutional precedent?
Thanks to the relentless work by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) - and information uncovered by the Freedom of Information Act - there is little to no evidence that these provisions, as written, have made us any safer. Yet there's a long list of incidences of unadulterated government abuse and malpractice for a host of purposes other than fighting terrorism. In other words, the threat this Act, and these particular provisions pose to the basic Constitutional rights of American citizens is not hypothetical, but documented fact.
Consider what we know:
The FBI admitted in a recent report to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board that it violated the law at least 800 times on national security letters, going well beyond even the loose safeguards in the original provision. According to the report the FBI "may have violated the law or government policy as many as 3,000 times" between 2003 and 2007, according to the Justice Department Inspector General, while collecting bank, phone and credit card records using NSLs.
As Adam Sewer of the American Prospect notes: "It's no secret that the FBI's use of NSLs - a surveillance tool that allows the FBI to gather reams of information on Americans from third-party entities ( like your bank ) without a warrant or without suspecting you of a crime - have resulted in widespread abuses. All that the FBI needs to demand your private information from a third-party entity is an assertion that such information is "relevant" to a national security investigation -- and the NSLs come with an accompanying gag order that's almost impossible to challenge in court."
NSLs were used by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to demand that libraries turn over the names of books that people had checked out. In fact, there were at least 545 libraries that received such demands in the year following passage of the Patriot Act alone.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) uncovered "indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11." It said it could find no records of whether anyone was disciplined for the infractions.
Under the Bush Administration, the FBI used the Patriot Act to target liberal groups, particularly anti-war, environment, and anti-globalization, during the years between 2001 and 2006 in particular.
According to a recent report by the ACLU, there have been 111 incidents of illegal domestic political surveillance since 9/11 in 33 states and the District of Columbia. The report shows that law enforcement and federal officials work closely to monitor the political activity of individuals deemed suspicious, an activity common during the Cold War - including protests, religious activities and other rights protected by the first amendment. The report also noted how the FBI monitors peaceful protest groups and in some cases attempted to prevent protest activities.
According to a July 2009 report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, only three of the 763 "sneak-and-peek" requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases. Sixty-five percent were drug related.
John Whitehead, author of "Renewing the Patriot Act While America Sleeps", described our post Patriot Act reality in appropriately stark terms, writing, ""Suddenly, for the first time in American history, federal agents and police officers were authorized to conduct black bag "sneak-and-peak" searches of homes and offices and confiscate your personal property without first notifying you of their intent or their presence. The law also granted the FBI the right to come to your place of employment, demand your personal records and question your supervisors and fellow employees, all without notifying you; allowed the government access to your medical records, school records and practically every personal record about you; and allowed the government to secretly demand to see records of books or magazines you've checked out in any public library and Internet sites you've visited."
And now - according to the New York Times - new guidelines from the Justice Department will allow FBI agents to investigate people and organizations "proactively" without firm evidence for suspecting criminal activity. The new rules will free up agents to infiltrate organizations, search household trash, use surveillance teams, search databases, and conduct lie detector tests, even without suspicion of any wrongdoing.
In other words, the Constitutional "precedent" set by the Patriot Act appears to be serving to accelerate the rapid disintegration of civil liberties in this country.
Of equal concern is what we still don't know about how the government might be using the Act, highlighted by recent statements made by US Senators regarding what they termed "secret Patriot Act provisions". Senator Ron Wyden ( D-OR ), an outspoken critic of the recent reauthorization, stated, "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act they will be stunned and they will be angry." As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Wyden is in a position to know, as he receives classified briefings from the executive branch.
In recent years, three other current and former members of the US Senate - Mark Udall ( D-CO ), Dick Durbin ( D-IL ), and Russ Feingold ( D-WI ) - have provided similar warnings. We can't be sure what these senators are referring to, but the evidence suggests, and some assert, that the current administration is using Section 215 of the Patriot Act - a provision that gives the government access to "business records" - as the legal basis for the large-scale collection of cell phone location records.
The fact that in 2009 Sprint disclosed that law enforcement made 8 million requests in 2008 alone for its customer's cell phone GPS data for purposes of locational tracking should only add to these legitimate privacy concerns.
Security Versus Privacy: A False Dichotomy
The Patriot Act was sold as an indispensable weapon in the government's arsenal to fight and "win" the "War on Terror". We were assured that the sole purpose of these unprecedented powers granted government were to locate and catch terrorists - not raid the homes of pot dealers and wiretap peace activists. Monitoring political groups and activities deemed "threatening" ( i.e. environmentalists, peace activists ), expanding the already disastrous and wasteful war on drugs, and eavesdropping on journalists isn't about fighting terrorism, it's about stifling dissent and consolidating power - at the expense of civil liberties.
How ironic that the very "tool" hailed as our nation's protector has instead been used to violate the very Constitutional protections we are allegedly defending from "attack" by outside threats. What was promised as a "temporary", targeted law to keep us safe from terror has morphed into a rewriting of the Bill of Rights.
John Whitehead explains: "The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments-the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments-and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience were considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state."
It's almost as if Benjamin Franklin had the Patriot Act in mind when he famously stated, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Noted privacy and security expert Bruce Schneier expanded on this false dichotomy, writing, "...those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither," concluding "If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy."
The fact that the odds of EVER being killed or maimed in a terrorist attack are a fraction of that posed by being hit by lightning, we should always approach government demands for increasingly intrusive and ripe for abuse authority with a healthy dose of skepticism and a large grain of salt.
The long, documented record of government overreach and abuse since 9/11 begs a larger question, "Can we truly defeat "the terrorists" by succumbing to fear and embracing a less free and more authoritarian society ( which are ostensibly primary goals of terrorists )?"
Constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald further illuminates this false "security versus privacy" dichotomy promulgated by those with inherent conflicts of interest, writing:
"The problem is never that the U.S. Government lacks sufficient power to engage in surveillance, interceptions, intelligence-gathering and the like. Long before 9/11 -- from the Cold War -- we have vested extraordinarily broad surveillance powers in the U.S. Government to the point that we have turned ourselves into a National Security andSurveillance State. Terrorist attacks do not happen because there are too many restrictions on the government's ability to eavesdrop and intercept communications, or because there are too many safeguards and checks. If anything, the opposite is true: the excesses of the Surveillance State -- and the steady abolition of oversights and limits -- have made detection of plots far less likely. Despite that, we have an insatiable appetite -- especially when we're frightened anew -- to vest more and more unrestricted spying and other powers in our Government, which -- like all governments -- is more than happy to accept it."
Candidate Obama Versus President Obama
President Obama's now ardent embrace of the same provisions he so eloquently criticized as a candidate - while aggressively opposing any of the reforms he once advocated on behalf of - has come to epitomize a disturbing shift in this country since 9/11.
The eloquent, pro-civil liberties "candidate Obama" branded the Patriot Act "shoddy and dangerous" and pledged to end it in 2003. In 2005, he pledged to filibuster a Bush-sponsored bill that included several of the recently extended provisions, calling them "just plain wrong".
In perhaps his most forceful critique, he stated, "Government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document -- through library books they've read and phone calls they've made...We don't have to settle for a Patriot Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety -- we can have one that secures both."
Now, channeling none other than George W. Bush himself, President Obama warns that any delay of the complete and absolute renewal of the Act - or even the addition of a single privacy protection - would endanger American lives.
Thus, what was once viewed as the signature of Bush/Cheney radicalism is now official, bipartisan Washington consensus - serving to codify our country's continued departure from its commitment to the basic tenets articulated in the Bill of Rights.
Attempted Reforms Ignored, Rejected
Efforts to address the most dangerous and far reaching components of the Patriot Act have been repeatedly offered by Senators and House members alike - to no avail. The reforms sought have been modest in nature, targeted in scope, and critical to reining in government abuse - - without weakening national security.
For example, this year, Senator Bernie Sanders offered an amendment - supported by the American Library Association, the ACLU and the National Association of Booksellers - which would have prevented the government from gaining access to Americans' reading records in libraries and bookstores without a traditional search warrant.
Similarly, former Senator Russ Feingold, during a previous Patriot Act extension fight, sought to require the government to specify more clearly the targets of their investigations and their connections to terrorism, keep the FBI from using its authority to engage in broad-based data-mining of Americans' phone, library and business records, more effective checks on government searches of Americans' personal records, reform the FISA Amendments Act by repealing the retroactive immunity provision for the same telecom companies that continue to make billions off overcharging the very customers they betrayed, and prevent "bulk collection" of the contents of Americans' international communications.
Not only have such attempts been rejected year after year, many aren't even granted a Congressional hearing or vote. Just as disturbing is the failure of the mainstream media to dedicate any significant time and attention to an issue that so clearly warrants a vigorous national debate - such as how to strike the proper balance between civil liberties and national security.
The Bill of Rights Under Siege
Some important questions demand answers: Does increasingly intrusive and even unconstitutional anti-terrorism measures actually make us any safer ( or less so )? If so, what is the price we are willing to pay for that additionally security?
Since 9/11 an undeniable pattern has emerged, from illegal search and seizures to warrantless wiretapping to the GPS tracking of cell phones to airport body scanners to the redefinition of Habeas Corpus to the increasing use of rendition for the purposes of torturing prisoners yet to be charged with a crime to military tribunals replacing courts of law, among many others.
What were once considered unassailable civil liberties granted to ALL citizens are under siege. The consequences of such a loss would be profound. Without the fundamental reform of the Patriot Act I fear this loss will be a permanent, and the American experiment will forever be altered.
Moving Forward: Building a Left/Right Coalition
So what to do? From a purely ideological perspective, the potential exists for growing a left/right coalition around a mutual commitment to the Bill of Rights. Already, more than 400 local, county and state resolutions have been passed in opposition to the Patriot Act. But, interest and opposition energy has largely waned over time. This must change.
On the left, while there still remains significant opposition ( as evidenced by the recent votes in the House and Senate ), a much larger and vocal effort existed when President Bush was abusing the same powers that exist now - no doubt in part due to sharing party affiliation with the new President. We must make the case to these voters that regardless of who sits in the White House, these are powers that NO branch of government, or intelligence agency, deserves.
On the right, it is common place to vocally declare allegiance to the Constitution and the principles of freedom and liberty. Yet, the Patriot Act - which desecrates those very principles - is close to a non-issue, with more focus on the alleged grave threat posed by expanding health care. This group's inherent distrust of President Obama - warranted or not - may serve to enhance the likelihood of convincing these voters that the Patriot Act represents a clear and present danger to everything they espouse.
Also working in our favor is the broad based, ideologically diverse "Patriot Act Reform" coalition that already exists, including the ACLU ( an excellent source of Patriot Act related information ), the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the CATO Institute, the Liberty Coalition, the American Library Association, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While impressive, this coalition must be vastly expanded.
Irrational fears of terrorism, hyped by political, military and corporate interests, are at the root of our nation's current "civil liberties" crisis. We must counter this growing "fear industrial complex" with a "people's majority" dedicated to preserving the Bill of Rights and protecting the privacy of American citizens. This challenge - and responsibility - should begin in earnest today.
Surrender Nothing
Posted by Mickey Martin
Never forget that we are right and they are absolutely wrong. Never give an inch to the bastards who want to lie and tell the world cannabis is a dangerous substance that needs to be locked away and never used. Never concede to any of the bullshit cannabis paranoia and outright bullshit that the drug warriors will throw out there. Our position is strong and we are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the world. All too often I run upon an activist or group of activists that choose to give in to the assholes and agree with some of the absurdities they put forth in an effort to gain some false sense of security. Knock it off. You have nothing to gain by giving into these pukes. They will continue to demand that we give more and in all honesty, there is just no substance to the argument against cannabis.
Cannabis is not dangerous. It is not toxic. It does not harm kids. Driving accidents do not increase with cannabis use increasing. It should not be locked away and regulated only as a medicine. It does not corrupt our society. It does not make good people into bad people. It does not inhibit a person’s ability to live a productive life. It does not make you sterile (ask my kids). It does not make people do crazy things or lower their inhibitions. It is not a gateway to other drugs. We are not criminals.
All of these points and more are simple hyperbolic bullshit and we should NEVER SURRENDER and inch to any of these crazy notions or ideas. It is simply contrived bullshit stemming from decades of intolerance and we must not feed the beast. We must stand firm and continue to fight for COMPLETE FREEDOM. Surrender nothing to anyone ever in the name of compromise or in an effort to create mutual understanding. It is a farce. Remain diligent in your effort to free the cannabis plant from the clutches of tyranny. Never forget that we are 100% right and that those who oppose cannabis are evil bastards who lack understanding and are enemies of freedom and justice. We are winning and they are losing. That is obvious, so never ever let them think otherwise. We are better than that.
Posted by Mickey Martin
Never forget that we are right and they are absolutely wrong. Never give an inch to the bastards who want to lie and tell the world cannabis is a dangerous substance that needs to be locked away and never used. Never concede to any of the bullshit cannabis paranoia and outright bullshit that the drug warriors will throw out there. Our position is strong and we are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the world. All too often I run upon an activist or group of activists that choose to give in to the assholes and agree with some of the absurdities they put forth in an effort to gain some false sense of security. Knock it off. You have nothing to gain by giving into these pukes. They will continue to demand that we give more and in all honesty, there is just no substance to the argument against cannabis.
Cannabis is not dangerous. It is not toxic. It does not harm kids. Driving accidents do not increase with cannabis use increasing. It should not be locked away and regulated only as a medicine. It does not corrupt our society. It does not make good people into bad people. It does not inhibit a person’s ability to live a productive life. It does not make you sterile (ask my kids). It does not make people do crazy things or lower their inhibitions. It is not a gateway to other drugs. We are not criminals.
All of these points and more are simple hyperbolic bullshit and we should NEVER SURRENDER and inch to any of these crazy notions or ideas. It is simply contrived bullshit stemming from decades of intolerance and we must not feed the beast. We must stand firm and continue to fight for COMPLETE FREEDOM. Surrender nothing to anyone ever in the name of compromise or in an effort to create mutual understanding. It is a farce. Remain diligent in your effort to free the cannabis plant from the clutches of tyranny. Never forget that we are 100% right and that those who oppose cannabis are evil bastards who lack understanding and are enemies of freedom and justice. We are winning and they are losing. That is obvious, so never ever let them think otherwise. We are better than that.
Author: Anthony Peyton Porter
TANKS FOR OUR SAFETY
Just What We Need
If you've been losing sleep because of the scarcity of tanks in Butte County, you're in luck. According to a recent article in the Oroville Mercury-Register, the Butte County Sheriff's Office and the Chico Police Department plan to use a pending Homeland Security grant to buy an armored vehicle.
What a good idea. The courageous defenders of freedom who ordered raids on all those people last year over lawful medical cannabis just because they could get away with it want a fucking tank. A year after that travesty of justice and good sense a handful of arrests have been made, sometimes for something the goons found rifling through the victims' possessions, including their hard drives. We allow so many laws to exist that few people could stand the scrutiny we currently let governments impose on us, and I'm guessing such people are insufferably dull.
Technically, our brave peace officers don't plan to buy a tank. They plan to buy a tactical armored vehicle, probably with a turret gun port on top, running boards, a battering ram, and tires that work even if they're flat, but I bet when they come for you the lack of tank tracks won't matter.
The Butte County tank is expected to hold three or four people and cost $230,000, depending on options. Although clearly a toy, it's a necessity now because this one time cops used a dump truck from the city to get close to a suspect in Butte Creek Canyon who had them pinned down by gunfire. It seems like creative use of a dump truck to me and frugal to boot, but for cops it means now they need a tank.
Chico Police Sgt. Rob Merrifield allegedly said, "The vehicle will probably be deployed to every incident in the county where there is a potential for an armed standoff or where police officers face extreme hazards." Since the potential for an armed standoff exists anywhere there are cops, the Butte County tank is likely to be busy. I wonder what kind of gas mileage it gets.
On the other hand, the article in question was written by the same reporter who did such a sloppy job on the story about Gregory Wright's latest catastrophe. Maybe he got it wrong again and our local heroes actually want to put that money into compensation and services for the people locked up in Butte County for victimless crimes, where the only one with a beef is the arresting officer. Maybe they plan to use the money for meditation and mindfulness training for themselves and their underlings.
Or maybe they're gonna buy a tank.
TANKS FOR OUR SAFETY
Just What We Need
If you've been losing sleep because of the scarcity of tanks in Butte County, you're in luck. According to a recent article in the Oroville Mercury-Register, the Butte County Sheriff's Office and the Chico Police Department plan to use a pending Homeland Security grant to buy an armored vehicle.
What a good idea. The courageous defenders of freedom who ordered raids on all those people last year over lawful medical cannabis just because they could get away with it want a fucking tank. A year after that travesty of justice and good sense a handful of arrests have been made, sometimes for something the goons found rifling through the victims' possessions, including their hard drives. We allow so many laws to exist that few people could stand the scrutiny we currently let governments impose on us, and I'm guessing such people are insufferably dull.
Technically, our brave peace officers don't plan to buy a tank. They plan to buy a tactical armored vehicle, probably with a turret gun port on top, running boards, a battering ram, and tires that work even if they're flat, but I bet when they come for you the lack of tank tracks won't matter.
The Butte County tank is expected to hold three or four people and cost $230,000, depending on options. Although clearly a toy, it's a necessity now because this one time cops used a dump truck from the city to get close to a suspect in Butte Creek Canyon who had them pinned down by gunfire. It seems like creative use of a dump truck to me and frugal to boot, but for cops it means now they need a tank.
Chico Police Sgt. Rob Merrifield allegedly said, "The vehicle will probably be deployed to every incident in the county where there is a potential for an armed standoff or where police officers face extreme hazards." Since the potential for an armed standoff exists anywhere there are cops, the Butte County tank is likely to be busy. I wonder what kind of gas mileage it gets.
On the other hand, the article in question was written by the same reporter who did such a sloppy job on the story about Gregory Wright's latest catastrophe. Maybe he got it wrong again and our local heroes actually want to put that money into compensation and services for the people locked up in Butte County for victimless crimes, where the only one with a beef is the arresting officer. Maybe they plan to use the money for meditation and mindfulness training for themselves and their underlings.
Or maybe they're gonna buy a tank.
Author: Clarence Page
DUMP THE 'DRUG WAR'
When David Simon, creator of HBO's late dramatic crime series "The Wire," heard through news media that Atty. Gen. Eric Holder wanted to see the series return for a sixth season, he offered the nation's top prosecutor a deal.
He'll start working on a sequel season, Simon responded in an email to the Times of London, "if the Department of Justice is equally ready to reconsider and address its continuing prosecution of our misguided, destructive and dehumanizing drug prohibition."
Holder was not available for comment, but it's a safe bet that Simon's deal asks too much of the Obama administration.
Despite their declarations to the contrary, Team Obama appears to be stuck in the same old 40-year-old rut better known as the "war on drugs."
That's how long it has been since President Richard M. Nixon on June 17, 1971, announced $155 million in new anti-drug funding that he would later call "the war on drugs."
A third of the funds would go after drug traffickers and two-thirds of it would be aimed at treatment and rehabilitation.
That's called a balanced approach, but it didn't last long.
The lock-'em-up side surged with the new mandatory-minimum sentencing under Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, largely in reaction to the rise of a crack cocaine epidemic and related street violence.
Among the results, a 100-to-one sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses that boosted incarceration rates, particularly of African Americans -- producing statistics that Michelle Alexander, an Ohio State University legal scholar, calls "The New Jim Crow" in her well-researched book with that title.
I come not to praise drug use. I condemn it. But some drug fights work better than others do.
A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes former U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan, President Ronald Reagan's secretary of state George Shultz, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, calls the global war on drugs a costly failure "with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world."
They urged the Obama administration and other governments to try new ways of legalizing and regulating drugs, especially marijuana, to deny profits to drug cartels and focus law enforcement on violent offenders.
The White House immediately responded: No way.
So did the government of Mexico, which is allied with the U.S. in a war against drug cartels that have killed more than 38,000 people in Mexico in the past five years.
Obama's drug office fired back with statistics that claimed huge declines in drug use since the peak of the late 1970s.
But correlations between those declines and the drug war are highly disputed.
What's indisputable is the increased incarceration of millions of Americans, many for simple possession.
To his credit, Holder has called for the U.S. Sentencing Commission to release some of the 12,000 federal prisoners who were sentenced or arrested for crack cocaine before Congress changed the sentencing law last year to reduce the crack-powder disparity.
Holder recommended early release for 5,500 prisoners whose crimes did not involve the use of weapons and who did not have long criminal histories.
The releases, which could begin later this year, would be a good start.
But why, we may reasonably ask, should people be subject to prison terms at all if their only offense is the use of illegal substances?
"Drug addiction should be handled as a health issue," says Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
The organization released a report Tuesday that finds the Obama administration carrying on the drug war as usual.
That includes Drug Enforcement Administration raids of legal medical marijuana clinics at a higher rate than the George W. Bush administration did, despite pronouncements that states would be allowed to govern themselves on that issue.
LEAP favors drug legalization and strict regulation. That means, arrest the sellers and send users to treatment.
"It's easier to beat a drug addiction," Franklin observed, "than to beat the devastating impact of a prison sentence."
Franklin is a former narcotics officer with the Maryland and Baltimore police departments.
He finds it tragic that Obama, the first president to be elected after revealing youthful drug indiscretions, has not done more to help today's nonviolent offenders get a second chance.
So do I
DUMP THE 'DRUG WAR'
When David Simon, creator of HBO's late dramatic crime series "The Wire," heard through news media that Atty. Gen. Eric Holder wanted to see the series return for a sixth season, he offered the nation's top prosecutor a deal.
He'll start working on a sequel season, Simon responded in an email to the Times of London, "if the Department of Justice is equally ready to reconsider and address its continuing prosecution of our misguided, destructive and dehumanizing drug prohibition."
Holder was not available for comment, but it's a safe bet that Simon's deal asks too much of the Obama administration.
Despite their declarations to the contrary, Team Obama appears to be stuck in the same old 40-year-old rut better known as the "war on drugs."
That's how long it has been since President Richard M. Nixon on June 17, 1971, announced $155 million in new anti-drug funding that he would later call "the war on drugs."
A third of the funds would go after drug traffickers and two-thirds of it would be aimed at treatment and rehabilitation.
That's called a balanced approach, but it didn't last long.
The lock-'em-up side surged with the new mandatory-minimum sentencing under Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, largely in reaction to the rise of a crack cocaine epidemic and related street violence.
Among the results, a 100-to-one sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses that boosted incarceration rates, particularly of African Americans -- producing statistics that Michelle Alexander, an Ohio State University legal scholar, calls "The New Jim Crow" in her well-researched book with that title.
I come not to praise drug use. I condemn it. But some drug fights work better than others do.
A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes former U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan, President Ronald Reagan's secretary of state George Shultz, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, calls the global war on drugs a costly failure "with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world."
They urged the Obama administration and other governments to try new ways of legalizing and regulating drugs, especially marijuana, to deny profits to drug cartels and focus law enforcement on violent offenders.
The White House immediately responded: No way.
So did the government of Mexico, which is allied with the U.S. in a war against drug cartels that have killed more than 38,000 people in Mexico in the past five years.
Obama's drug office fired back with statistics that claimed huge declines in drug use since the peak of the late 1970s.
But correlations between those declines and the drug war are highly disputed.
What's indisputable is the increased incarceration of millions of Americans, many for simple possession.
To his credit, Holder has called for the U.S. Sentencing Commission to release some of the 12,000 federal prisoners who were sentenced or arrested for crack cocaine before Congress changed the sentencing law last year to reduce the crack-powder disparity.
Holder recommended early release for 5,500 prisoners whose crimes did not involve the use of weapons and who did not have long criminal histories.
The releases, which could begin later this year, would be a good start.
But why, we may reasonably ask, should people be subject to prison terms at all if their only offense is the use of illegal substances?
"Drug addiction should be handled as a health issue," says Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
The organization released a report Tuesday that finds the Obama administration carrying on the drug war as usual.
That includes Drug Enforcement Administration raids of legal medical marijuana clinics at a higher rate than the George W. Bush administration did, despite pronouncements that states would be allowed to govern themselves on that issue.
LEAP favors drug legalization and strict regulation. That means, arrest the sellers and send users to treatment.
"It's easier to beat a drug addiction," Franklin observed, "than to beat the devastating impact of a prison sentence."
Franklin is a former narcotics officer with the Maryland and Baltimore police departments.
He finds it tragic that Obama, the first president to be elected after revealing youthful drug indiscretions, has not done more to help today's nonviolent offenders get a second chance.
So do I
Author: Travis Kelly
THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA: ENDLESS WAR
In the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge famously said, "The business of America is business."
Current trends forecaster Gerald Celente offers a new twist to fit the times: "The business of America is war... The forty-year War on Drugs; The ten-year War on Terror; the Afghan War ( longest in American history ); the eight-years-and-no-end-in-sight Iraq War; the covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen; and most recently, the 'time-limited, scope-limited kinetic military action' in Libya."
Whether they are paying off or not in terms of national security or the domestic good, certain vested interests work to prolong these wars. When California failed to pass Proposition 19 in the last election ( full legalization of marijuana ), two platoons of lobbyists were mobilized to defeat the issue: the liquor lobby and the prison employees' unions.
A third interest group was the army of prosecutors and defense attorneys who process this flood of humanity through the largest prison system in the world. With 5% of global population, the U.S. houses 25% of the world's prisoners -- 2.3 million. Drug offenders compose about half of this total. At an annual average cost of $22,000 per prisoner, many states near bankruptcy are now wholesale paroling some of the most violent and dangerous prisoners. Scaling back the war on drugs, or at least decriminalization of marijuana, would be a far better solution.
But the War on Drugs is peanuts compared to the foreign wars and entanglements we're mired in: the Iraq and Afghan wars now cost $12 billion per month, compounding the $1.2 trillion total so far. Rather than reversing George Bush's "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy as promised, Obama has expanded the war into Libya, Yemen and maybe Pakistan eventually.
The 60-day grace period for executive military action without congressional consultation granted by the War Powers Act has ended. Obama's claim that we're not really engaged in "hostilities" there, despite spending $10 million per day, is another egregious instance of the Orwellian Newspeak started by George Bush to evade legal restrictions ( "enemy combatant," "unitary executive," "enhanced interrogation" ).
Republicans who mostly goose-stepped behind Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq are now up in arms against Obama's illegal adventure, while Democrats who opposed Bush's muscular foreign policy are now mostly in lockstep behind their man -- a pathetically political Jekyll-and-Hyde dance.
There are, however, a few pols with principles beyond knee-jerk party loyalty: Reps. Dennis Kucinich ( D-OH ) and Walter Jones ( R-NC, who opposed Bush's foreign policy ) have filed a joint complaint in the U.S. District Court of Columbia challenging the legality of Obama's Libyan intervention.
Their stance is buttressed by many "paleo-conservatives" -- Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell -- who lament the hijacking of traditional GOP non-interventionism by the gung-ho Neo-con chickenhawks. Their disastrous influence in both parties is thankfully waning now along with the realization that we can no longer afford the extravagance of a vast military empire ( 700 bases strung across the globe ). We account for nearly one-half of total global military spending, and a whopping lot of it is riddled with contractor fraud, obsolete, or completely useless. For instance, as Pat Buchanan asks: Why are we still funding expensive bases in Germany, Japan and Korea over 50 years after those wars ended? It's absurd: Time for them to pay for their own defense.
Of course, the Pentagon never wants to give up a base -- the more the better, in strictly military terms. But at some point there has to be a serious cost-benefit analysis, which the Pentagon abhors, having never passed an audit and under Donald Rumsfeld's tenure simply "lost" an astounding $3 trillion.
This kind of fiscal hemorrhaging, and the erosion of Constitutional prerogatives in matters of war, is what Eisenhower warned about. Republicans like to cite Reagan as the greatest GOP president of modern times, but I'll take Ike, who guided the victory in World War II, presided over the greatest era of peace and prosperity in our history ( he didn't let the Korean war drag on interminably, and made corporate taxes fund 25% of the federal budget ), and had the courage and wisdom to criticize the military culture that nurtured his career. I'll close with a few of his warnings and observations that we would do well to heed now:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence... by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you're trying to defend from without."
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA: ENDLESS WAR
In the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge famously said, "The business of America is business."
Current trends forecaster Gerald Celente offers a new twist to fit the times: "The business of America is war... The forty-year War on Drugs; The ten-year War on Terror; the Afghan War ( longest in American history ); the eight-years-and-no-end-in-sight Iraq War; the covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen; and most recently, the 'time-limited, scope-limited kinetic military action' in Libya."
Whether they are paying off or not in terms of national security or the domestic good, certain vested interests work to prolong these wars. When California failed to pass Proposition 19 in the last election ( full legalization of marijuana ), two platoons of lobbyists were mobilized to defeat the issue: the liquor lobby and the prison employees' unions.
A third interest group was the army of prosecutors and defense attorneys who process this flood of humanity through the largest prison system in the world. With 5% of global population, the U.S. houses 25% of the world's prisoners -- 2.3 million. Drug offenders compose about half of this total. At an annual average cost of $22,000 per prisoner, many states near bankruptcy are now wholesale paroling some of the most violent and dangerous prisoners. Scaling back the war on drugs, or at least decriminalization of marijuana, would be a far better solution.
But the War on Drugs is peanuts compared to the foreign wars and entanglements we're mired in: the Iraq and Afghan wars now cost $12 billion per month, compounding the $1.2 trillion total so far. Rather than reversing George Bush's "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy as promised, Obama has expanded the war into Libya, Yemen and maybe Pakistan eventually.
The 60-day grace period for executive military action without congressional consultation granted by the War Powers Act has ended. Obama's claim that we're not really engaged in "hostilities" there, despite spending $10 million per day, is another egregious instance of the Orwellian Newspeak started by George Bush to evade legal restrictions ( "enemy combatant," "unitary executive," "enhanced interrogation" ).
Republicans who mostly goose-stepped behind Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq are now up in arms against Obama's illegal adventure, while Democrats who opposed Bush's muscular foreign policy are now mostly in lockstep behind their man -- a pathetically political Jekyll-and-Hyde dance.
There are, however, a few pols with principles beyond knee-jerk party loyalty: Reps. Dennis Kucinich ( D-OH ) and Walter Jones ( R-NC, who opposed Bush's foreign policy ) have filed a joint complaint in the U.S. District Court of Columbia challenging the legality of Obama's Libyan intervention.
Their stance is buttressed by many "paleo-conservatives" -- Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell -- who lament the hijacking of traditional GOP non-interventionism by the gung-ho Neo-con chickenhawks. Their disastrous influence in both parties is thankfully waning now along with the realization that we can no longer afford the extravagance of a vast military empire ( 700 bases strung across the globe ). We account for nearly one-half of total global military spending, and a whopping lot of it is riddled with contractor fraud, obsolete, or completely useless. For instance, as Pat Buchanan asks: Why are we still funding expensive bases in Germany, Japan and Korea over 50 years after those wars ended? It's absurd: Time for them to pay for their own defense.
Of course, the Pentagon never wants to give up a base -- the more the better, in strictly military terms. But at some point there has to be a serious cost-benefit analysis, which the Pentagon abhors, having never passed an audit and under Donald Rumsfeld's tenure simply "lost" an astounding $3 trillion.
This kind of fiscal hemorrhaging, and the erosion of Constitutional prerogatives in matters of war, is what Eisenhower warned about. Republicans like to cite Reagan as the greatest GOP president of modern times, but I'll take Ike, who guided the victory in World War II, presided over the greatest era of peace and prosperity in our history ( he didn't let the Korean war drag on interminably, and made corporate taxes fund 25% of the federal budget ), and had the courage and wisdom to criticize the military culture that nurtured his career. I'll close with a few of his warnings and observations that we would do well to heed now:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence... by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you're trying to defend from without."
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
Medical Marijuana Laws Do Not Affect Teen Use
by Morgan Fox MPP
June 30, 2011
Today, the Marijuana Policy Project released an updated version of the Teen Use Report, which analyzes all available data from medical marijuana states both before and after passing their medical marijuana laws. The purpose behind this was to find out if permitting patients to use their medicine “sends the wrong message” to teens, as prohibitionists are so quick to claim.
Well, it turns out that it doesn’t. In fact, of the 13 states with available data, teen use rates have stayed the same or decreased since enacting medical marijuana laws. In some cases, these drops in teen use are pretty significant. This is not meant to imply that there is a causal relationship between medical marijuana and a drop in teen use. What the report does show, however, is that there is definitely no causal relationship between medical marijuana and an increase in teen marijuana use.
Not surprisingly, we’ve seen that arresting anyone for marijuana, even teenagers, does nothing to curb adolescent marijuana use. Some parents may be asking right about now, “how do I prevent my teenager from using marijuana?”
According to a study released this week by the University of Washington, the answer is … talk to them!
by Morgan Fox MPP
June 30, 2011
Today, the Marijuana Policy Project released an updated version of the Teen Use Report, which analyzes all available data from medical marijuana states both before and after passing their medical marijuana laws. The purpose behind this was to find out if permitting patients to use their medicine “sends the wrong message” to teens, as prohibitionists are so quick to claim.
Well, it turns out that it doesn’t. In fact, of the 13 states with available data, teen use rates have stayed the same or decreased since enacting medical marijuana laws. In some cases, these drops in teen use are pretty significant. This is not meant to imply that there is a causal relationship between medical marijuana and a drop in teen use. What the report does show, however, is that there is definitely no causal relationship between medical marijuana and an increase in teen marijuana use.
Not surprisingly, we’ve seen that arresting anyone for marijuana, even teenagers, does nothing to curb adolescent marijuana use. Some parents may be asking right about now, “how do I prevent my teenager from using marijuana?”
According to a study released this week by the University of Washington, the answer is … talk to them!
Author: Tony Newman, Communications Director, Drug Policy Alliance.
PORTUGAL CELEBRATES 10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF DECRIMINALIZING DRUGS
Our 40 year war on drugs is proof of failure. Portugal is an example of an alternative. It is time for an exit strategy from our longest, costliest war!
Everyone knows that the war on drugs is a failure. Despite more than $40 billion spent every year on the U.S. drug war and 500,000 people behind bars on drug related offenses, drugs are as available as ever. But what is the alternative? What would happen if a society decided to treat drug use as a health issue instead of a criminal justice issue? What if we stopped the futile effort of using force to decrease drug consumption? What if we decriminalized drugs, not just marijuana, but all drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth?
We've heard the horror scenarios that opponents of drug policy reform recite: more addiction, more broken families and a crazy escalation of crime and violence.
On the other side, advocates for decriminalization or legal regulation say that we would be better off not criminalizing what's a health issue. They advocate for education, prevention and treatment instead of jail for drug abuse and leaving in peace those whose drug use does not cause harm to others.
So who's right? You might be surprised to hear that this isn't just about hypotheticals anymore. Portugal decriminalized all drugs 10 years ago and the results are in: decreased youth drug use, falling overdose and HIV/AIDS rates, less crime, reduced criminal justice expenditures, greater access to drug treatment, and safer and healthier communities.
July 1st was the 10th anniversary of Portugal decriminalizing drug use. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession of small amounts of all illicit substances. Having small amounts of drugs is no longer a criminal offence. It's still against the rules; it just won't get you thrown in jail or prison. It's a civil offense - like a ticket. Portugal continues to punish sales and trafficking of illicit substances.
In Portugal's thoroughly re-envisioned drug policy, police officers now issue citations - but do not arrest - persons found in possession of small amounts of illicit substances. People who receive these citations are ordered to appear at a "dissuasion commission," an administrative panel that operates outside of the criminal justice system. The panel, with two health practitioners and one legal practitioner, examines the individual's circumstances and determines whether to make treatment referrals, issue fines or impose other non-criminal penalties.
Decriminalization in Portugal actually helped reduce the stigma around drug use ( without increasing it ) and made drug use less politically difficult to talk about. It encouraged better collaboration between law enforcement and service providers, and allowed law enforcement to focus on large-scale traffickers, resulting in increased seizures of commercial quantities of illicit drugs.
The U.S. Drug Czar knows about Portugal's policy, but don't expect him to acknowledge their success. Instead we continue to wage our unwinnable war. June 17th marked the 40-year anniversary of the U.S. war on drugs, a punitive criminal justice approach to drugs that has cost taxpayers more than a trillion dollars, transformed the U.S. into the largest incarcerator in the world, failed to significantly reduce drug use, led to hundreds of thousands of overdose fatalities and HIV/AIDS transmissions, and created shocking racial disparities that exceed those of South Africa at the height of Apartheid.
Our 40 year war on drugs is proof of failure. Portugal is an example of an alternative. It is time for an exit strategy from our longest, costliest war!
PORTUGAL CELEBRATES 10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF DECRIMINALIZING DRUGS
Our 40 year war on drugs is proof of failure. Portugal is an example of an alternative. It is time for an exit strategy from our longest, costliest war!
Everyone knows that the war on drugs is a failure. Despite more than $40 billion spent every year on the U.S. drug war and 500,000 people behind bars on drug related offenses, drugs are as available as ever. But what is the alternative? What would happen if a society decided to treat drug use as a health issue instead of a criminal justice issue? What if we stopped the futile effort of using force to decrease drug consumption? What if we decriminalized drugs, not just marijuana, but all drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth?
We've heard the horror scenarios that opponents of drug policy reform recite: more addiction, more broken families and a crazy escalation of crime and violence.
On the other side, advocates for decriminalization or legal regulation say that we would be better off not criminalizing what's a health issue. They advocate for education, prevention and treatment instead of jail for drug abuse and leaving in peace those whose drug use does not cause harm to others.
So who's right? You might be surprised to hear that this isn't just about hypotheticals anymore. Portugal decriminalized all drugs 10 years ago and the results are in: decreased youth drug use, falling overdose and HIV/AIDS rates, less crime, reduced criminal justice expenditures, greater access to drug treatment, and safer and healthier communities.
July 1st was the 10th anniversary of Portugal decriminalizing drug use. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession of small amounts of all illicit substances. Having small amounts of drugs is no longer a criminal offence. It's still against the rules; it just won't get you thrown in jail or prison. It's a civil offense - like a ticket. Portugal continues to punish sales and trafficking of illicit substances.
In Portugal's thoroughly re-envisioned drug policy, police officers now issue citations - but do not arrest - persons found in possession of small amounts of illicit substances. People who receive these citations are ordered to appear at a "dissuasion commission," an administrative panel that operates outside of the criminal justice system. The panel, with two health practitioners and one legal practitioner, examines the individual's circumstances and determines whether to make treatment referrals, issue fines or impose other non-criminal penalties.
Decriminalization in Portugal actually helped reduce the stigma around drug use ( without increasing it ) and made drug use less politically difficult to talk about. It encouraged better collaboration between law enforcement and service providers, and allowed law enforcement to focus on large-scale traffickers, resulting in increased seizures of commercial quantities of illicit drugs.
The U.S. Drug Czar knows about Portugal's policy, but don't expect him to acknowledge their success. Instead we continue to wage our unwinnable war. June 17th marked the 40-year anniversary of the U.S. war on drugs, a punitive criminal justice approach to drugs that has cost taxpayers more than a trillion dollars, transformed the U.S. into the largest incarcerator in the world, failed to significantly reduce drug use, led to hundreds of thousands of overdose fatalities and HIV/AIDS transmissions, and created shocking racial disparities that exceed those of South Africa at the height of Apartheid.
Our 40 year war on drugs is proof of failure. Portugal is an example of an alternative. It is time for an exit strategy from our longest, costliest war!
Crackdown on Medical Marijuana Ahead?
By Justin Elliot
Source: Salon
medical USA -- Drug-policy reformers are worried about a new Obama administration memo instructing federal prosecutors on how to deal with the growing number of medical marijuana dispensaries.
The Justice Department memo, sent to U.S. attorneys around the nation, addresses a central problem with the growing number of states that have legalized medical marijuana: The drug remains illegal under federal law, whether used for medical purposes or not. The new guidance memo reiterates the illegality of medical marijuana and appears to encourage prosecutors to go after some marijuana dispensaries, particularly the large operations.
President Obama suggested during the campaign in 2007-08 that his Justice Department would not prioritize going after medical marijuana. To find out more about the new medical marijuana memo, and for an update on the broader drug war, I spoke to Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which lobbies for alternatives to the drug war.
Can you give an overview of the legal status of medical marijuana around the country?
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana either through the ballot initiative process or a state legislative process. The federal law remains that it is all illegal. Strictly speaking, marijuana remains a Schedule 1 substance. The DEA just issued an announcement Friday confirming that it still regards marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance with no legitimate medical uses and no margin of safety in its use -- which is sort of an absurdity on its face. Marijuana remains entirely illegal under federal law.
And "Schedule 1" means what?
Well, back in 1970, when Congress unified all the drug laws in the Controlled Substances Act, they divided drugs into a variety of schedules. Schedule 1 refers to drugs that supposedly have no legitimate medical use and have no margin of safety in their use. So heroin, LSD, and marijuana are in that category. Schedule 2 are drugs that have some substantial risk but also have some legitimate medical uses. So for example cocaine, opiates and stimulant drugs are in that category.
So medical marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the federal government. But what has the actual enforcement policy of the Obama administration been up till this week?
During the presidential campaign in 2008, Obama made a number of commitments, one of which was that federal law enforcement would not prioritize prosecution of medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law. Then in summer 2009, the Justice Department issued a memo called the Ogden memo, which basically affirmed much of Obama's promise. It affirmed the idea that marijuana is illegal under federal law, but then said that federal prosecutors should not prioritize the prosecution of medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law. Drug policy reform advovates felt quite optimistic about that 2009 memo, even though it was a qualified statement. What followed was a proliferation of dispensaries in places like Colorado, and California, and Montana. There were growing concerns that this was going too far. I think the Justice Department was hearing from local federal prosecutors and others who did not like these developments.
So what does the new memo sent out to U.S. attorneys say?
It's called the Cole memo. It reiterates that all marijuana is illegal under federal law. They say that clearly federal resources should not be used to go after patients and their caregivers. They also say that any very large-scale operations -- multimillion-dollar operations -- will be prosecuted even if they are operating legally under state law. So that represents a modest change in policy. What they are not clear on is what will happen with the midlevel dispensaries. They're not multimillion-dollar operations, they're operating legally under state law, and they seem to be serving a population that has medical marijuana recommendations from their physicians. With those operations we're in a kind of wait-and-see mode as to what prosecutors will do state by state.
The language of the Cole memo is quite aggressive in saying to everybody, "You better watch out, because any one of you could be prosecuted." On the other hand there are some other messages being sent saying, "Watch what we do, not what we say." So the real test cases will be whether or not the feds decide to go after medical marijuana dispensaries that are operating legally under state law and are being responsibly regulated by state authorities. If they do that, then we'll know they really seriously backtracked on the president's commitment.
So from the beginning of the administration to the present, have they actually gone after dispensaries?
There was a proliferation of dispensaries in states like Colorado and California. So there have in fact been more raids under the Obama administration than there were under the Bush administration. It's hard to say whether that's a reflection of the proliferation of dispensaries or whether that's a real change in policy. What's also not clear is whether the feds are only targeting those facilities that are not clearly operating legally under state law. So the feds have really created a growing sense of confusion in the medical marijuana community about where the line is between what will be permitted and what won't.
Stepping back from medical marijuana, has there been much of a shift from the Bush to Obama administrations with "drug war" policy more broadly?
I was pleasantly surprised by the first 18 months of the administration. Obama made three explicit promises during the campaign. He said the feds would not go after medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law, and he appeared to make good on that. He said the crack-powder laws needed to be rolled back, and they got a major reform of that law last year. Third, he said he would support federal funding for needle exchange, and they did support the efforts in Congress on that. Since that time, it looks more and more like the drug czar's office has been captured by the drug warriors and the anti-drug fanatics who dominated policy-making in the Clinton and Bush administrations. The rhetoric coming out of the drug czar's office is almost indistinguishable from the rhetoric of past administrations. The personnel they've been hiring, and the people they talk to, are overwhelmingly those who have been associated with the failed drug war policies of the past. And meanwhile the Justice Department seems to be getting more and more engaged in enforcement of marijuana laws in ways that really make no sense as a matter of [the] responsible [use] of resources.
By Justin Elliot
Source: Salon
medical USA -- Drug-policy reformers are worried about a new Obama administration memo instructing federal prosecutors on how to deal with the growing number of medical marijuana dispensaries.
The Justice Department memo, sent to U.S. attorneys around the nation, addresses a central problem with the growing number of states that have legalized medical marijuana: The drug remains illegal under federal law, whether used for medical purposes or not. The new guidance memo reiterates the illegality of medical marijuana and appears to encourage prosecutors to go after some marijuana dispensaries, particularly the large operations.
President Obama suggested during the campaign in 2007-08 that his Justice Department would not prioritize going after medical marijuana. To find out more about the new medical marijuana memo, and for an update on the broader drug war, I spoke to Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which lobbies for alternatives to the drug war.
Can you give an overview of the legal status of medical marijuana around the country?
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana either through the ballot initiative process or a state legislative process. The federal law remains that it is all illegal. Strictly speaking, marijuana remains a Schedule 1 substance. The DEA just issued an announcement Friday confirming that it still regards marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance with no legitimate medical uses and no margin of safety in its use -- which is sort of an absurdity on its face. Marijuana remains entirely illegal under federal law.
And "Schedule 1" means what?
Well, back in 1970, when Congress unified all the drug laws in the Controlled Substances Act, they divided drugs into a variety of schedules. Schedule 1 refers to drugs that supposedly have no legitimate medical use and have no margin of safety in their use. So heroin, LSD, and marijuana are in that category. Schedule 2 are drugs that have some substantial risk but also have some legitimate medical uses. So for example cocaine, opiates and stimulant drugs are in that category.
So medical marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the federal government. But what has the actual enforcement policy of the Obama administration been up till this week?
During the presidential campaign in 2008, Obama made a number of commitments, one of which was that federal law enforcement would not prioritize prosecution of medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law. Then in summer 2009, the Justice Department issued a memo called the Ogden memo, which basically affirmed much of Obama's promise. It affirmed the idea that marijuana is illegal under federal law, but then said that federal prosecutors should not prioritize the prosecution of medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law. Drug policy reform advovates felt quite optimistic about that 2009 memo, even though it was a qualified statement. What followed was a proliferation of dispensaries in places like Colorado, and California, and Montana. There were growing concerns that this was going too far. I think the Justice Department was hearing from local federal prosecutors and others who did not like these developments.
So what does the new memo sent out to U.S. attorneys say?
It's called the Cole memo. It reiterates that all marijuana is illegal under federal law. They say that clearly federal resources should not be used to go after patients and their caregivers. They also say that any very large-scale operations -- multimillion-dollar operations -- will be prosecuted even if they are operating legally under state law. So that represents a modest change in policy. What they are not clear on is what will happen with the midlevel dispensaries. They're not multimillion-dollar operations, they're operating legally under state law, and they seem to be serving a population that has medical marijuana recommendations from their physicians. With those operations we're in a kind of wait-and-see mode as to what prosecutors will do state by state.
The language of the Cole memo is quite aggressive in saying to everybody, "You better watch out, because any one of you could be prosecuted." On the other hand there are some other messages being sent saying, "Watch what we do, not what we say." So the real test cases will be whether or not the feds decide to go after medical marijuana dispensaries that are operating legally under state law and are being responsibly regulated by state authorities. If they do that, then we'll know they really seriously backtracked on the president's commitment.
So from the beginning of the administration to the present, have they actually gone after dispensaries?
There was a proliferation of dispensaries in states like Colorado and California. So there have in fact been more raids under the Obama administration than there were under the Bush administration. It's hard to say whether that's a reflection of the proliferation of dispensaries or whether that's a real change in policy. What's also not clear is whether the feds are only targeting those facilities that are not clearly operating legally under state law. So the feds have really created a growing sense of confusion in the medical marijuana community about where the line is between what will be permitted and what won't.
Stepping back from medical marijuana, has there been much of a shift from the Bush to Obama administrations with "drug war" policy more broadly?
I was pleasantly surprised by the first 18 months of the administration. Obama made three explicit promises during the campaign. He said the feds would not go after medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law, and he appeared to make good on that. He said the crack-powder laws needed to be rolled back, and they got a major reform of that law last year. Third, he said he would support federal funding for needle exchange, and they did support the efforts in Congress on that. Since that time, it looks more and more like the drug czar's office has been captured by the drug warriors and the anti-drug fanatics who dominated policy-making in the Clinton and Bush administrations. The rhetoric coming out of the drug czar's office is almost indistinguishable from the rhetoric of past administrations. The personnel they've been hiring, and the people they talk to, are overwhelmingly those who have been associated with the failed drug war policies of the past. And meanwhile the Justice Department seems to be getting more and more engaged in enforcement of marijuana laws in ways that really make no sense as a matter of [the] responsible [use] of resources.
Author: Wayne Laugesen, For the editorial board
GOVERNMENT TELLS A BIG FAT LIE
NO, MARIJUANA IS NOT JUST LIKE HEROIN
Once again, government servants have told Americans that marijuana ranks right up there with heroin. The Drug Enforcement Agency ruled last Friday that marijuana has "no accepted medical use" and will continue as a schedule 1 drug - the most forbidden category.
The DEA is a law enforcement bureaucracy. The medical opinions of law enforcement bureaucrats should be of little interest. We do not ask cops to make laws; we pay cops to enforce the laws established by constitutions or enacted by the people or the decisions of their representatives.
Furthermore, what drug a person takes for an illness should be between that person and his or her physician. Drug laws - like laws that regulate rape, murder, arson, property crimes and almost all criminal matters - should be the purview of states. That's a right wing, conservative Republican view of the world that is shared by the left-leaning Obama administration regarding the regulation of medical marijuana. Nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government, let alone a lone bureaucracy such as the DEA, to regulate drugs. Efforts by the federal government to regulate alcohol failed miserably, just as the efforts to regulate drugs have empowered black-market criminals. The war on drugs is a deadly and expensive political indulgence of the past that our country can no longer afford.
The agency's statement came in response to a 2002 petition by supporters of medical marijuana who want the drug reclassified. The ruling means, in the view of the federal bureaucrats, that even a terminal cancer patient cannot use marijuana to control severe pain even if it is the best course of treatment as recommended by the patient's physician. The DEA would prefer the patient go on other drugs - something created and sold by pharmaceuticals. Most prescription-strength pain relievers, unlike marijuana, are liver toxins that have the ability to kill upon overdose. Most, unlike marijuana, are so physically addictive that withdrawal can be deadly. Over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, such as aspirin, kill more than 7,000 Americans each year who either overdose intentionally or by accident. Tobacco has killed an average of 430,700 Americans each year, based on research from the Centers for Disease Control. Alcohol has killed more than 110,000 Americans each! year. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs have killed more than 32,000 Americans each year.
Marijuana, a drug that should not be used for recreation, has been the direct cause of this many deaths each year: Zero. We are able to buy aspirin - a pharmaceutical that can kill. But the government says no to marijuana - a drug that quite likely has the safest track record of any drug in history - even if a physician says it is what we need. This is the type of insanity that led President Ronald Reagan to say: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
The Gazette is against bad things. We oppose recreational use of marijuana, unless legalized in our state. We oppose rape, murder, violent crimes and crimes motivated by hate.
Though we oppose forest fires, we stand behind Sheriff Terry Maketa and other law enforcement officials who take great care in issuing burn bans. As Maketa explained this year, it is important to never warn against extreme fire danger when there is not genuine danger. That's because people will condition themselves to discard fire warnings if they appear exaggerated by authorities.
The ongoing schedule 1 classification of marijuana - as a drug akin to heroin - is an obvious indulgence of bureaucratic exaggeration. It seems clear that DEA officials want to demonize marijuana because it guarantees the DEA's ongoing funding and growth. This ruling does nothing to harm the reputation of medical marijuana, and everything to diminish the reputation of the DEA. We must demand that government employees stop lying to the Americans they are paid to serve with integrity and truth.
GOVERNMENT TELLS A BIG FAT LIE
NO, MARIJUANA IS NOT JUST LIKE HEROIN
Once again, government servants have told Americans that marijuana ranks right up there with heroin. The Drug Enforcement Agency ruled last Friday that marijuana has "no accepted medical use" and will continue as a schedule 1 drug - the most forbidden category.
The DEA is a law enforcement bureaucracy. The medical opinions of law enforcement bureaucrats should be of little interest. We do not ask cops to make laws; we pay cops to enforce the laws established by constitutions or enacted by the people or the decisions of their representatives.
Furthermore, what drug a person takes for an illness should be between that person and his or her physician. Drug laws - like laws that regulate rape, murder, arson, property crimes and almost all criminal matters - should be the purview of states. That's a right wing, conservative Republican view of the world that is shared by the left-leaning Obama administration regarding the regulation of medical marijuana. Nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government, let alone a lone bureaucracy such as the DEA, to regulate drugs. Efforts by the federal government to regulate alcohol failed miserably, just as the efforts to regulate drugs have empowered black-market criminals. The war on drugs is a deadly and expensive political indulgence of the past that our country can no longer afford.
The agency's statement came in response to a 2002 petition by supporters of medical marijuana who want the drug reclassified. The ruling means, in the view of the federal bureaucrats, that even a terminal cancer patient cannot use marijuana to control severe pain even if it is the best course of treatment as recommended by the patient's physician. The DEA would prefer the patient go on other drugs - something created and sold by pharmaceuticals. Most prescription-strength pain relievers, unlike marijuana, are liver toxins that have the ability to kill upon overdose. Most, unlike marijuana, are so physically addictive that withdrawal can be deadly. Over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, such as aspirin, kill more than 7,000 Americans each year who either overdose intentionally or by accident. Tobacco has killed an average of 430,700 Americans each year, based on research from the Centers for Disease Control. Alcohol has killed more than 110,000 Americans each! year. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs have killed more than 32,000 Americans each year.
Marijuana, a drug that should not be used for recreation, has been the direct cause of this many deaths each year: Zero. We are able to buy aspirin - a pharmaceutical that can kill. But the government says no to marijuana - a drug that quite likely has the safest track record of any drug in history - even if a physician says it is what we need. This is the type of insanity that led President Ronald Reagan to say: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
The Gazette is against bad things. We oppose recreational use of marijuana, unless legalized in our state. We oppose rape, murder, violent crimes and crimes motivated by hate.
Though we oppose forest fires, we stand behind Sheriff Terry Maketa and other law enforcement officials who take great care in issuing burn bans. As Maketa explained this year, it is important to never warn against extreme fire danger when there is not genuine danger. That's because people will condition themselves to discard fire warnings if they appear exaggerated by authorities.
The ongoing schedule 1 classification of marijuana - as a drug akin to heroin - is an obvious indulgence of bureaucratic exaggeration. It seems clear that DEA officials want to demonize marijuana because it guarantees the DEA's ongoing funding and growth. This ruling does nothing to harm the reputation of medical marijuana, and everything to diminish the reputation of the DEA. We must demand that government employees stop lying to the Americans they are paid to serve with integrity and truth.
Author: John Sinclair
HIGHER GROUND: POT'S NEW COLD WAR
Obama Administration Heightens Tensions Over Medical Marijuana
It was great to see my dear comrade Ed Rosenthal with Larry Gabriel in last week's Higher Ground. One of the greatest developments in American jurisprudence, in my experience, was when the San Francisco jury that was instructed to convict Ed for growing marijuana found out after the trial had ended that he had been cultivating the weed under contract to the city of Oakland.
I happened to be in San Francisco for the Rosenthal verdict, and was truly amazed the next day when the jury held a press conference to denounce the judge and prosecutor. Had they known the facts, seven members of the jury told the media, they would never have convicted the defendant. We need to hear this more often!
This week's column examines some other bizarre twists and turns in the battle against the War on Drugs. First, my readers will be happy to hear that opposition to the Dutch government's plans to bar "drug tourists" from the nation's 750 coffeeshops is starting to grow. DutchNews.nl reports that the city council of Tilberg has instructed the mayor "not to accept the system unless the government makes it compulsory."
This pleasant little university town, best known for its imaginative music festivals, has now joined Breda, Den Bosch and Eindhoven in opposing the legislation, along with the city councils of the Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Utrecht and Maastrich - a good sign that the present system will prevail.
The report concludes that "Tilburg, like the other cities, is worried that turning coffeeshops into closed clubs will lead to an increase in street dealing." Duh!
Closer to home, the rabid new "tough nerd" government of Michigan and its crusading General of Attorneys William Schuette - leader of the unsuccessful opposition to the medical marijuana law - is using his post to undermine the law any way he can and is currently attempting to get it overturned in court, claiming the state law is pre-empted by federal law.
Rather than simply accepting the will of 63 percent of the voting public, Schuette keeps picking away at what he sees as weaknesses in the statute and is now teamed up with equally hostile legislators to force through measures to compromise patients' privacy, severely restrict when and where patients may cultivate, and take away the legal rights of patients to challenge overly restrictive ordinances.
The Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved Senate Bill 377, which would require medical marijuana patients' names and addresses to be sent to a database accessible by the Department of State Police with or without a warrant. This bill treats patients like criminal suspects and allows police agencies to go fishing for suspects without probable cause.
A second measure, SB418, is designed to prevent individuals from suing to overturn municipal ordinances that violate state law, like the local ordinances passed by several Michigan cities that prohibit "any activity that violates federal law."
Menwhile, Eartha Jane Melzer reports in The Michigan Messenger that the Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases in which people have been charged with crimes for their medicinal use of marijuana.
In the first case, from Shiawassee County, a registered medical marijuana patient was charged with drug crimes when police found pot growing outside his home in a dog kennel.
The second, from Oakland County, centers on the question of whether someone registered as a marijuana patient must have consulted a doctor after the law was passed and not before. In both cases, drug charges were dismissed by trial judges but restored by the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, several municipalities have passed ordinances to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries and conditions of personal use. Some maintain that the state law should address the means by which marijuana may be made available to patients, while members of the criminal law section of the State Bar of Michigan have gone an extra step forward in recommending that Michigan allow commercial grow operations and regulate the industry.
Now, back to General Schuette and his contention that Michigan's state marijuana law is pre-empted by the federal narcotics laws. In the latest ugly twist from our nation's capital, and in a political environment where Democrats and Republicans have found little common ground, Attorney General Eric Holder has abruptly reversed the Obama administration's hands-off stance toward states with medical marijuana laws.
"The medical marijuana movement is reeling," Phillip Smith reports in the Drug War Chronicle, "after the Obama Justice Department released a memo declaring that it might prosecute large-scale medical marijuana cultivation operations and dispensaries even in states where they are operating in compliance with state laws."
The memo, written by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, is a masterpiece of sophistry worthy of Harry Anslinger, the godfather of the War on Drugs, noting that "Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels."
The Justice Department's commitment to this twisted concept has been evident in the increased federal marijuana raids - purported to be at twice the rate of the Bush administration - and a recent round of what Smith calls "threatening letters from local U.S. Attorneys to governors and legislators in states considering or implementing medical marijuana distribution programs."
Cole's memo takes pains to point out that there has "been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants."
Cole's memo stresses that the Justice Department "never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law."
"Relations between the medical marijuana movement and the Obama administration are starting to feel like the Cold War," Smith writes, going on to quote Dale Gieringer of California NORML on the current state of the conflict:
"They want to put a stop to any large-scale distribution of medical marijuana, but all they're doing is prolonging the conflict between federal law and reality. We have to put pressure on Obama," Gieringer insists. "He owes us an explanation of his waffling on this issue, and certainly his failure to address rescheduling.
Why indeed? Legalize marijuana and all this horseshit goes away and our pitiful economy gets a huge boost from a thriving cannabis industry.
- -Amsterdam
HIGHER GROUND: POT'S NEW COLD WAR
Obama Administration Heightens Tensions Over Medical Marijuana
It was great to see my dear comrade Ed Rosenthal with Larry Gabriel in last week's Higher Ground. One of the greatest developments in American jurisprudence, in my experience, was when the San Francisco jury that was instructed to convict Ed for growing marijuana found out after the trial had ended that he had been cultivating the weed under contract to the city of Oakland.
I happened to be in San Francisco for the Rosenthal verdict, and was truly amazed the next day when the jury held a press conference to denounce the judge and prosecutor. Had they known the facts, seven members of the jury told the media, they would never have convicted the defendant. We need to hear this more often!
This week's column examines some other bizarre twists and turns in the battle against the War on Drugs. First, my readers will be happy to hear that opposition to the Dutch government's plans to bar "drug tourists" from the nation's 750 coffeeshops is starting to grow. DutchNews.nl reports that the city council of Tilberg has instructed the mayor "not to accept the system unless the government makes it compulsory."
This pleasant little university town, best known for its imaginative music festivals, has now joined Breda, Den Bosch and Eindhoven in opposing the legislation, along with the city councils of the Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Utrecht and Maastrich - a good sign that the present system will prevail.
The report concludes that "Tilburg, like the other cities, is worried that turning coffeeshops into closed clubs will lead to an increase in street dealing." Duh!
Closer to home, the rabid new "tough nerd" government of Michigan and its crusading General of Attorneys William Schuette - leader of the unsuccessful opposition to the medical marijuana law - is using his post to undermine the law any way he can and is currently attempting to get it overturned in court, claiming the state law is pre-empted by federal law.
Rather than simply accepting the will of 63 percent of the voting public, Schuette keeps picking away at what he sees as weaknesses in the statute and is now teamed up with equally hostile legislators to force through measures to compromise patients' privacy, severely restrict when and where patients may cultivate, and take away the legal rights of patients to challenge overly restrictive ordinances.
The Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved Senate Bill 377, which would require medical marijuana patients' names and addresses to be sent to a database accessible by the Department of State Police with or without a warrant. This bill treats patients like criminal suspects and allows police agencies to go fishing for suspects without probable cause.
A second measure, SB418, is designed to prevent individuals from suing to overturn municipal ordinances that violate state law, like the local ordinances passed by several Michigan cities that prohibit "any activity that violates federal law."
Menwhile, Eartha Jane Melzer reports in The Michigan Messenger that the Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases in which people have been charged with crimes for their medicinal use of marijuana.
In the first case, from Shiawassee County, a registered medical marijuana patient was charged with drug crimes when police found pot growing outside his home in a dog kennel.
The second, from Oakland County, centers on the question of whether someone registered as a marijuana patient must have consulted a doctor after the law was passed and not before. In both cases, drug charges were dismissed by trial judges but restored by the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, several municipalities have passed ordinances to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries and conditions of personal use. Some maintain that the state law should address the means by which marijuana may be made available to patients, while members of the criminal law section of the State Bar of Michigan have gone an extra step forward in recommending that Michigan allow commercial grow operations and regulate the industry.
Now, back to General Schuette and his contention that Michigan's state marijuana law is pre-empted by the federal narcotics laws. In the latest ugly twist from our nation's capital, and in a political environment where Democrats and Republicans have found little common ground, Attorney General Eric Holder has abruptly reversed the Obama administration's hands-off stance toward states with medical marijuana laws.
"The medical marijuana movement is reeling," Phillip Smith reports in the Drug War Chronicle, "after the Obama Justice Department released a memo declaring that it might prosecute large-scale medical marijuana cultivation operations and dispensaries even in states where they are operating in compliance with state laws."
The memo, written by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, is a masterpiece of sophistry worthy of Harry Anslinger, the godfather of the War on Drugs, noting that "Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels."
The Justice Department's commitment to this twisted concept has been evident in the increased federal marijuana raids - purported to be at twice the rate of the Bush administration - and a recent round of what Smith calls "threatening letters from local U.S. Attorneys to governors and legislators in states considering or implementing medical marijuana distribution programs."
Cole's memo takes pains to point out that there has "been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants."
Cole's memo stresses that the Justice Department "never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law."
"Relations between the medical marijuana movement and the Obama administration are starting to feel like the Cold War," Smith writes, going on to quote Dale Gieringer of California NORML on the current state of the conflict:
"They want to put a stop to any large-scale distribution of medical marijuana, but all they're doing is prolonging the conflict between federal law and reality. We have to put pressure on Obama," Gieringer insists. "He owes us an explanation of his waffling on this issue, and certainly his failure to address rescheduling.
Why indeed? Legalize marijuana and all this horseshit goes away and our pitiful economy gets a huge boost from a thriving cannabis industry.
- -Amsterdam
G
guest59452
you ever think about going back to kindergarten?
Therapist*
Therapist*
