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:
(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