The War Crimes of the Busheviks

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 13 Mar 2004 13:00:00 GMT

Russmo at Marc Brands Liberty - Marijuana is Bad - cartoon commentary on the war on some drugs. Hehe. [smith2004]

# Tim Costello and James Robison at Two Heads Productions - Things You Shouldn't Do to Baby Chickens - hilarious, sick and twisted, QuickTime video. Main page requires Flash. [smith2004]

# Rosa Prince and Gary Jones at The Mirror - My Hell in Camp X-Ray - Jamal al-Harith arrived home to England on March 9 after two years in Guantanamo Bay. He thought he was in Turkey, not Afghanistan, and was arrested as a spy. His treatment in Cuba was disgusting. I hope everyone involved, including Bush and Rumsfeld, faces war crime trials and prison. [smith2004]

# Gary Jones and Rosa Prince at The Mirror - Terror of Torture in Cuba Camp - more on the treatment of Jamal al-Harith in Guantanamo Bay.

# Sunni Maravillosa at Endervidualism - Phuck Pheminism - and I'm not a masculinist either. Well said, oh smiley one. [lrtdiscuss]

I simply don't think of myself in terms of categories like that -- and haven't for decades. When I was about 10 or 11 years old, I spent some time thinking about how I wanted to define/describe myself. I ultimately decided that the only group membership I wanted to claim was human. My sex is a predetermined (in the sense that it was fixed before I had self-awareness) aspect of my personhood; my skin color and ethnic heritage, similarly fixed: those things didn't define me. They still don't. Other things, like nationality and religion, matter even less. If I had had a label for what I determined about myself that day, I would have called myself an individualist. It remains one of the few labels I wear comfortably.

I don't consider myself a feminist -- or an individualist-feminist -- because I don't think the designations are helpful in advancing freedom. Call me a purist, but I just don't see how wrapping some ideas in a certain group's cloth -- whether it be by sex, race, culture, or religion -- convinces nonlibertarians that we are really about freedom for all.

# Carl Weiser at The Cincinnati Enquirer - Bill urges fighting drugged driving - drive erratically and be tested later with any detectable amount of any drug in your system and you're toast under Representative Rob Portman's "Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act", H.R. 3922, which "encourages" states to enact state laws following a federal model. Remember, any kind of drug testing for any purpose is a direct violation of the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination. But I doubt the courts will ever rule that way. If people drive erratically, it makes sense to me that they suffer the consequences of endangering others, but it's nobody's business why they drive erratically, be it drugs, stupidity, or sleepiness. The bill has four cosponsors, and is currently in the House Judiciary Committee. [lrtdiscuss]

The Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act would encourage states to adopt a national model law for drug-impaired driving. The level considered impaired would be any level greater than zero.

That means that anyone with a detectable level of illegal drugs would be considered impaired.

But Keith Stroup, founder of a pro-marijuana group, said the law would ensnare marijuana smokers who may not have smoked for days and aren't endangering anyone on the road.

A regular smoker, someone who may smoke every weekend, could test positive weeks later.

"There's not a scientist in the world who believes you're impaired at that point," said Stroup, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "You're not throwing out a net that's simply going to catch impaired drivers. You're going to catch all marijuana smokers."

...

While the liquor and restaurant industries fought a national 0.08 percent standard for alcohol, this bill has almost no organized opposition.

Unlike that bill, states would not be penalized for failing to adopt a zero-standard law for drugs, but would be rewarded if they do.

"This is more carrot than stick," Portman said. "This is not only bipartisan but doable."

From the text of the bill:

SEC. 5. MODEL STATUTE.

(a) In General- Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and provide to the States a model statute relating to drug impaired driving which incorporates the provisions described in this section.

(b) Mandatory Provisions- Provisions of the model statute under this section shall include, at a minimum, a provision that the crime of drug impaired driving is committed when a person operates a motor vehicle--
(1) while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance; or

(2) due to the presence of a controlled substance or a controlled substance in combination with alcohol or an inhalant, or both, in the person's body, the person's mental or physical faculties are affected to a noticeable or perceptible degree.
(c) Discretionary Provisions- Provisions of the model statute under this section may include the following:
(1) Sanctions for refusing to submit to a test for the presence of a controlled substance in a person's body which are equivalent to sanctions for a positive test result.

(2) Lawful use of any controlled substance listed in schedule II, III, IV, or V of section 112(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) that was lawfully prescribed by a physician licensed under State law is an affirmative defense to a charge of drug impaired driving; except that the affirmative defense shall not be available if it is shown that the person's mental or physical faculties were impaired by such use to a noticeable or perceptible degree.

(3) An appropriate system of evaluation, counseling, treatment (if required), and supervision for persons convicted of drug impaired driving.

(4) A graduated system of penalties for repeat offenses of drug impaired driving, including, at a minimum, that a third or subsequent offense within a 10-year period shall be a felony punishable by imprisonment for more than a year.

(5) Authorization for States to suspend or revoke the license of any driver upon receiving a record of the driver's conviction of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance.

(6) Provisions that require a sentence of imprisonment imposed for any drug impaired driving offense be served consecutively, not concurrently, from a sentence imposed for any other criminal act; except that a sentence imposed for the same act of impaired driving may be imposed concurrently if the additional conviction was based on an alternate theory of culpability for the same act.

I sent the following to John Sweeney, "my" congress critter, a pretty rabid drug warrior, but also a pretty good supporter of the second amendment:

Should H.R. 3922, the "Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act", ever get out of the Judiciary Committee and reach the house floor, and I hope it doesn't, I urge you to vote against it.

Driving unsafely for any reason is wrong and may be criminal, but it's nobody's business WHY someone drives unsafely.

The fifth amendment says, "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." State mandated drug tests, including existing breath, saliva, urine, hair, and blood tests to detect drunk driving or use of controlled substances, are an obvious violation of this. Hence, no evidence from any such test may be used in a criminal trial.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Congressional Indecency
Aussie Sword Ban
Libertarian Purity Test
No Noose is Good Noose
Ashland. Literally.
Water on Mars
WD40
My Prayer for John Ashcroft
Where's That Confounded Bridge?
The Orange Dragon Reads Don Martin

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair