quote: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.
quote: "Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
quote: Some of the restrictions on government surveillance that were erased by the Patriot Act had been enacted after past abuses — including efforts by the FBI to spy on civil rights leaders and anti-war demonstrators during the Cold War. Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said it isn't far fetched to believe that the government might overstep its bounds again.
Hmm. Any thoughts? I'm torn. You committ a crime, I hope you get nailed and serve as much time as possible, however, we have sentencing guidelines for a reason. Subverting laws to impose stiffer sentences is cheating. If they want to increase jail time, then they should do it. However, snaky moves likes this are. . . well, snaky.
Of course, most of my concerns have more to do with the government taking even more liberties with their "interpretation" of what they are supposed to be doing, rather than concern about actual criminals. I worry about innocent people being caught up in this mess. That's more the raving lunatic/conspiracy nut in me, but hey.
It's still troubling.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
And a highly partisanly written piece asks the question that I think a lot of fiscal conservatives aren't asking:
quote:
If our government can't be trusted to assess a fair and honest tax without being second-guessed by the rich, why should mere commoners be expected to entrust our most precious resource -- our civil liberties -- to the same government without asking hard questions?
Or making sure that there is a sunset provision for everyfrigginthing in the various versions of the Patriot Act?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They should. But we shouldn't be breaking the laws to catch them. If law enforcement officials can do whatever they like, then we have to really, really hope that they're all honest men and women of sterling integrity who would never misuse these powers for personal gain.
I don't believe that of any group (present company excepted) and so the laws need to stay.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why shouldn't we post all of Ryan's surfing info on the forum?
I really don't have anything to hide either, but that doesn't mean I want Big Brother attacking our right to privacy incrementally.
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why shouldn't a criminal be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?
The full extent of the law, in the case mentioned above, is six months in jail. By using the Patriot Act, the prosecutor could put him behind bars for 12 years.
6 months. 12 years.
Do you see the difference? See, it's thinking like that that drives me crazy. As I said, yeah, I think they should get as much time as possible. However, the Patriot Act was supposed to be for terrorists! If they want a tougher crime bill, they need to pass a tougher crime bill. Not pervert the Patriot Act so they can subvert the democratic process.
When will you notice that freedom has been eroded? When it erodes far enough to impinge on your freedom?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Storm Saxon's article might ask, "Why shouldn't a loyal citizen give his money to the government?"
Most police states eventually have crimminals running the police departments.
Worst Case Scenario:
Joe might become president. The president (not President Bush, but some President down the line, who has these wonderful laws still in effect) wants him removed. Using the powers of the Patriot Act he bugs Joe's house, car, etc. What they discover is not illegal, but may be damaging--Joe once had a mistress, Joe's wife likes to drink a bit, Joe's son is sent KkK literature on the internet by mistake. This info suddenly appears in the press, and Joe's approval rating drops.
Don't think it could happen in these United States?
This is the type of stuff that did happen in the late 50's and throughout the 60's. People like Martin Luther King, The Beatles, Elvis Presley were all probed by the FBI, illegally, and lies were spread by the FBI to the press that soil their reputations to this day.
That is why limits were put on the policing powers of our federal government.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the issue in the first excerpt is charging the wrong crime, although in that case I can't believe you should walk in 6 months. The second two excerpts just have liberal groups voicing their "concerns". In the second of the three I think their's is a monetary issue and the third is of course going to complain about anything relating to the current administration to the slightest degree.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the issue in the first excerpt is charging the wrong crime, although in that case I can't believe you should walk in 6 months.
Well, between you and Ryan tonight, we have the religious police and nfl prosecution review boards! Thank God. Actually, you know what the problem was, right? It was North Carolina. Those people don't know how to do anything. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist - so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat - so I did nothing. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew - so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me."
Martin Niemoeller, survived 7 years in Nazi concentration camps
Average smug American: "I am not a criminal, so who cares what happens to them?"
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo-in discussions like this, that poem always comes to mind, for me-thanks, I finally know who wrote it!
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that poem well and in case you haven't noticed Communists, Social Democrats, trade unionists, and Jews, were persecuted because of their religion or political beliefs unless you think its wrong that criminals are being put in jail just because they think committing a crime is justified then you're wrong.
Kayla, the point is that North Carolina charged Martin Dwayne Miller with a crime he might not have committed. If that's the case a jury will find him not guilty. At the same time I think its absurd that someone who runs a methamphetamine lab should only get 6 months. That doesn't mean I think he should have been charged that way.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not related to anything anyone wrote, but I would be really, really, really interested to see how many people just knuckle under without a trial under the threat of having their crime tied to terrorism. I am guessing plea bargaining doesn't even show up in those articles.
I know this might be exciting to certain people--wow! the bad guys going to jail in record time!--however, I worry about people getting due process. I think people should get their day in court.
Anyways. It's all conjecture. I'm sure the prosecution would never use strong-arm tactics on people to force them to plead guilty.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was ,Communists, Social Democrats, trade unionists, and Jews, all were criminalized, hauled away to camps and many were killed. By their government.
Civil rights protect the innocent as well as the guilty from their government.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I remember, the case of Miller doesn't mention that he was manufacturing crystal meth in a crowded apartment building. He wasn't just manufacturing and selling drugs, he was also working with inflammible and highly explosive materials in a very crowded apartment complex. They went after the larger penalty of the Patriot Act to further punish him for endangering so many people.
But yes, the Patriot Act does need repealing.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not related to anything anyone wrote, but I would be really, really, really interested to see how many people just knuckle under without a trial under the threat of having their crime tied to terrorism. I am guessing plea bargaining doesn't even show up in those articles.
I don't know of any statistics on plea bargaining specifically related to charges of terrorism, but do you guys have any idea on how many percent of the cases in the US that are determined by a plea bargain? 90 percent! Ninety freaking percent. There has to be something wrong with this.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know that poem well and in case you haven't noticed Communists, Social Democrats, trade unionists, and Jews, were persecuted because of their religion or political beliefs unless you think its wrong that criminals are being put in jail just because they think committing a crime is justified then you're wrong.
The end justifies the means? What a wonderful way to run a democracy.
Tell me, have you never, not once in your life, been treated unfairly by a person in authority?
Ten years ago the local sheriff where I live, Volusia County, Fl, began a drug money forfeiture program wherein suspected drug dealers were pulled over on I-95 and suspicious amounts of cash were confiscated. They seized an average of over $5,000 a day from motorists between 1989 and 1992 - over $8 million dollars total. Said money was then kept by the department to fund anti-drug campaigns. Also better cars, expensive new hats for the deputies, etc. The sheriff's office got in hot water after it was revealed that they were taking money from people with legitimate and demonstrable reasons to be carrying cash, including a college student with his tuition, a lottery winner with the receipt for his winnings, a family's life savings, etc. In three-quarters of the seizures, no criminal charges were filed. Even citizens who provided proof that their money was honestly acquired were treated like drug dealers. Volusia County officials routinely offered "settlements" to drivers whose cash they seized, offering to return a percentage of the seized cash if the drivers would sign a form promising not to sue. Not all of the wrongfully-seized money, mind you, but a percentage.
The sheriff's office literally stole money from honest citizens and got away with it for three years because it was the War Against Drugs and that made it all right. It took an out-of-town newspaper to get the story out into the public eye (the Orlando Sentinel) and they won a Pulitzer for it.
Demand of due process is not being light on criminals, no matter how you want to paint it. It's requiring that the state respect its citizens, a minimum condition for any country I would want to live in.
[ September 15, 2003, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Kayla, the point is that North Carolina charged Martin Dwayne Miller with a crime he might not have committed. If that's the case a jury will find him not guilty. At the same time I think its absurd that someone who runs a methamphetamine lab should only get 6 months."
Then what you do is, you change the sentencing guidelines for meth labs. You do NOT try to extend terrorist provisions to civilians -- particularly not when so many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act are chilling when considered as components of civilian law enforcement.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Criminal Courts are a good inidcator of what's to come. These tools are being used against criminals now, but there aren't any provisions to check the use of such tools. So, the question is, now that the government has bent the terrorism rules to fit them to suspected criminals, when are they going to start bending the definition of "suspected criminal" to fit people who they don't like?
This question is -not- far fetched, particularly given the current political climate.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The plea bargaining thing is neither a suprise nor a particulary bad thing. Plea bargaining gives criminals lesser sentences and frees up the already backed up courts. Usually only lousy cases for the prosecution even go to trial. If you still think this is bad then at least consider few of these bargains would go through if not for the encouragement of the defense attorneys.
Again I never said the Patriot Act should have been used just because the sentence would otherwise be too lenient. I just can't make myself get upset over it.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone said that you have to be a loyal republican to support the Patriot Act. What was the Senate vote for its ratification? If a corrupt person uses a good law in a bad way you should repeal the law? That's what this story says to me. HEADLINE: Prosecutors Use Law in Way For Which It Was Not Intended. Your response is to repeal the law? Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not vague, its just reinterpretable in same way that all too many laws are. I would definitely support amending it so that it couldn't be so easily reinterpreted. Despite all of this I doubt Miller will be convicted as a terrorist. At most it is being used as a ploy by the prosecution although I think that would be wrong also, I just don't think its so bad that its time to increase Canada's population by 280 million.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
