Who didn't see this coming...

[Andonyx]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20030914/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/anti_terror_laws_2


PHILADELPHIA - In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.

The Justice Department (news - web sites) said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.

Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.

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

[Kodiak]

You've gotta love the slippery slope of increased Federalism...

[juninho]

Originally posted by Kodiak
You've gotta love the slippery slope of increased Federalism...

We've just had a few cases in the UK where several demonstrators were charged under our terrorism act (2000) for ... wait for it.. protesting outside an arms trade fair. Oh, the irony.

There is going to be an inquiry as to why the police charged them under this act when clearly public order legislation would have done the trick.

[Tony]

Thank you leftists.

[juninho]

Originally posted by Tony
Thank you leftists.

I'd check out your own sig before making comments like that :D

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
Thank you leftists.

Tony can not take
Responsibility for
What his own bunch did!

[nightwind]

Obviously the government would like a webcam in every room of your house if they could get away with it.

While certainly I understand some increased security and laws perhaps relating to punishing terrorist.

However, the Patriot Act, has empowered the government to be too intrusive, and idiotic misuse of the act will result.

Every American needs to be aware that this administration is not one that is pro-pricacy, and that John Ashcroft would probably love to be hiding in your closet.

I too am quite concerned that while this act may lead to some apprehension of crooks, it may also very well result in the violation of the privacy of honest hard working citizens.

[Andonyx]

It's more than that, on a purely political level this is a circuitous route to bypassing the separation of powers. The legislative branch makes the laws....period.

A judge can determine exactly how those laws should be applied to within a resonable extent, but this is beyond the pale.

Essentially whereas congress had decided long ago where the maximum and minimum penalties for types of crimes should be, these law enforcement agencies are doing an end-run around congressional authority, and due process, and putting people away for far longer than they would be under congressional prescribed sentencing guidelines.

This is an absolute afront to the judicial and legislative systems.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Tony can not take
Responsibility for
What his own bunch did!


:roll: :roll:

My own bunch??

You dont know what the hell you are talking about.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Andonyx
It's more than that, on a purely political level this is a circuitous route to bypassing the separation of powers. The legislative branch makes the laws....period.

A judge can determine exactly how those laws should be applied to within a resonable extent, but this is beyond the pale.

Essentially whereas congress had decided long ago where the maximum and minimum penalties for types of crimes should be, these law enforcement agencies are doing an end-run around congressional authority, and due process, and putting people away for far longer than they would be under congressional prescribed sentencing guidelines.

This is an absolute afront to the judicial and legislative systems.

The problem here is that the legislative branch was woefully imprecise in drafting the laws. They passed laws intended (purportedly, anyway) to be used in terrorist situations. However, these laws contained language that when plainly construed, allow for other applications.

When these kinds of vague laws are passed, objections that these laws can be used for other than intended purposes is usually met with an assertion that the prosecutors will surely use their discretion and not use these laws for unintended purposes. This ignores the fact that many prosecutors consider it their duty to be aggressive.

Clearly, in normal everyday language, meth is not a chemical weapon. However, if the statute in question defines Chemical weapon as a "dangerous chemical that can cause death or injury," we can see that there is an argument that meth (or crack, or even moonshine) can be a "deadly weapon" as defined by statute.

So, if we have an aggressive prosecutor and a textualist judge, illegally distilling your own hooch can possibly lead to a conviction for manufacture of a chemical weapon. All this because legislators wanted to pass laws "to deal with terrorism" without taking the time to consider unintended consequences.

[jj]

Originally posted by Andonyx
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20030914/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/anti_terror_laws_2


Threat was obvious
Right wing silent, knew the truth
When they made the law!

Right wing wanted law
So they could misuse later
Now they use, truth known.

[Andonyx]

Okay so suddenly, you're saying the laws are overbroad?

Then if the language is ambiguous in such a way as to make the law borad enough to apply to situations outside the scope of original drafting, doesn't that make the law....oh....I don't know....unconstitutional?!?!?!

I assumed laws that were overbroad or unenforceable were by definition unconstitutional.

And will someone explain the proliferation of haikus aorund here?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Andonyx
And will someone explain the proliferation of haikus aorund here?

I don't know. Could it be one of those stupid "internet mob" things where everyone is supposed to spontaneously do something or other at some predetermined time and place?

It's already hard enough communicating effectively without adding some inane phraseology.

I guess posting in Shakespearian Sonnet will be next... :rolleyes: :(

[Agammamon]

Chemical weapon as a "dangerous chemical that can cause death or injury

Using this definition, where do you stop? Bleach is a deadly chemical, so is making bleach a terrorist act?

[jj]

Originally posted by Andonyx
And will someone explain the proliferation of haikus aorund here?


Why, certainly. I've just decided (as it appears have some others) that some individuals deserve haiku responses.

They are short, expressive, and they seem to convey the entire thought in a few words.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



:roll: :roll:

My own bunch??

You dont know what the hell you are talking about.

Administration
Gets your support, thus your bunch.
You made the problem!

[Kodiak]

Can my sister be arrested for "transporting a chemical or biological agent" if she has a bottle of antibiotics in her purse?

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I guess posting in Shakespearian Sonnet will be next... :rolleyes: :(

The sonnet? Not that.
Haiku more elegant, short.
Contrived, the Sonnet.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Administration
Gets your support, thus your bunch.
You made the problem!


Not my absolute support.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



Not my absolute support.

That, then, is good, yes.
Perhaps this overbroad law
Might need some fixing?

Not Patriot 2,
Back, perhaps, we then return
Make it, then, point five?

[ithinksoiam]

Water is a chemical agent which if imbibed in excess can kill you. Stop drinking water immediately or risk being imprisoned for the next zillion years!!

Sincerely,
AssCroft

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Okay so suddenly, you're saying the laws are overbroad?

Then if the language is ambiguous in such a way as to make the law borad enough to apply to situations outside the scope of original drafting, doesn't that make the law....oh....I don't know....unconstitutional?!?!?!

Not as such. It's just bad drafting. A legislature speaks through it's acts. If a legislature "intends" to do something, and the plain text of the statute as passed does not reflect that intention, the text of the statute controls. The only time intent comes into play is when the "plain text" is ambiguous. Being overbroad isn't being ambiguous, but a statute that is too vague (like one that says "all bad things are illegal") can be considered unconstitutional.

I assumed laws that were overbroad or unenforceable were by definition unconstitutional.

Only when the the law is overbroad to a certain degree. There are a lot of doctrines at play here, so to avoid a 80 page post I'll be rather general. Courts speak of laws being overbroad mostly only in respect to basic rights. The idea being that the legislature can pass laws regulating, for example, free speech, if there is a compelling state interest. Any laws passed in that regard must be "narrowly tailored" to cover that state interest with little or no impact on the right, otherwise they are unconstitutionaly overbroad. For example, a law making it illegal to talk at night would be overbroad to protect the state interest in preventing disturbance of the peace.

As far as "unenforceable" laws go, there are several due process doctrines that exclude vague laws.

And will someone explain the proliferation of haikus aorund here?

I can. I started responding to NTW via haiku. When I responded to him in plain english he responded with insults, so I tried haiku. Oddly enough he then actually responded somewhat to the merits of my post. He has been quite nasty lately and the whole thing was sort of an anti-troll campaign.

It is spreading, however.

[EvilBiker]

I'll just fiddle while Rome burns...

I'm seeing similarities here with South Africa during the apartheid struggle. Draconian laws are being passed which affect Joe Soap in ways he would never imagine.

The bottom line is, no matter who you support, be it right or left, Republican or Democrat, those laws are in place and will be implemented to the detriment of a lot of normal folk.

For example, I got busted for wearing a T-shirt which was sort of condescending to our police force. No problem, you think, charge the guy with a misdemeanour and send him on his merry way. Nope. They had the power to hold me indefinitely without access to a anybody, let alone a lawyer. All thanks to some anti-terrorism law purposefully vaguely put to cover all sorts of circumstances.

Right now I'm glad I'm not living in the States. I also hope that reason prevails. Happily you lot have a relatively see-saw political climate, so there is a possibility for change in the future.

Hang in there.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Andonyx
And will someone explain the proliferation of haikus aorund here?
Oh, about a year ago I put a thread in banter about haikus.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by ithinksoiam
Water is a chemical agent which if imbibed in excess can kill you. Stop drinking water immediately or risk being imprisoned for the next zillion years!!

Sincerely,
AssCroft


Now the lefties are stealing my ideas !

Dont Drink Water.

[jj]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I can. I started responding to NTW via haiku. When I responded to him in plain english he responded with insults, so I tried haiku. Oddly enough he then actually responded somewhat to the merits of my post. He has been quite nasty lately and the whole thing was sort of an anti-troll campaign.

It is spreading, however.

Haiku writing fun!
Short, pithy, right to the point!
Elegance itself!

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Suddenly

I can. I started responding to NTW via haiku. When I responded to him in plain english he responded with insults, so I tried haiku. Oddly enough he then actually responded somewhat to the merits of my post. He has been quite nasty lately and the whole thing was sort of an anti-troll campaign.

It is spreading, however. [/B]


oh I see. That's what you call it.
funny how the story changes around so drastically. The haikus, for me, are a great demonstration on how to be a cooler dork on the internet. Bad comedy to cover up communication handicaps.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

oh I see. That's what you call it.
funny how the story changes around so drastically. The haikus, for me, are a great demonstration on how to be a cooler dork on the internet. Bad comedy to cover up communication handicaps.

Your handicap here?
Contribute not, you shout instead,
Use others's words, you do.