Narcoterrorism: Future Crime Defined

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by nycflasher, May 18, 2004.

  1. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    NARCOTERRORISM: FUTURE CRIME DEFINED
    Does packing a bowl make you a terrorist? If Bush gets his way, drug users will find themselves targets in the War on Terror.

    Story by Ashley Kennedy


    George W. Bush wants the power to slap a "narcoterrorist" label on approximately 90 million American citizens, strip them of their citizenship and then deport them to parts unknown. He hasn’t admitted this in any press releases, but actions speak louder than words. Since 9/11, Bush has pushed for a variety of anti-terror measures, which, if passed and used in tandem, could give the executive branch the authority to do exactly that. Bit by bit, the hammer’s already coming down.

    The Beltway was peppered with suspicion-filled twitters of discontented alarm last summer when a pair of legislative drafts dubbed "Patriot II" and "The Victory Act" were leaked to reporters. Patriot II was designed to expand the unprecedented surveillance powers temporarily given to government on the heels of 9/11 under the original Patriot Act. In addition to trashing the Fourth Amendment further, it sought to give Attorney General John Ashcroft the ability to strip Americans of their citizenship if they provide material support to terrorists. The desire for this can almost be justified when one focuses on images of airplanes crashing into buildings full of innocent people. Any American who would finance something like that doesn’t want or deserve his citizenship anyway, right? But what happens when the definition of terrorism changes? Who gets deported then?

    The Victory Act may hold some clues. It sought to make a federal offense out of something the Merriam-Webster dictionary has yet to define—"narcoterrorism." If someone deals or possesses drugs that somehow profit a terrorist organization, they could be sentenced to 20 years to life under the Victory Act’s verbiage. Furthermore, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that the defendant knew the dope came from terrorists, which is unsettling because most people don’t know exactly where their stash originated. Word to the wise: Finish off that Afghan hash soon.

    "I think that the Victory Act was a trial balloon [i.e., a way to test congressional and public sentiment]," explains Tracy Schmaler, press spokeswoman for Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). "It was sort of an interesting example to watch. A lot of the provisions in the Victory Act ended up in other bills." With the ACLU ready to scream bloody murder if either bill moved toward law, Victory and Patriot II had become too controversial. So controversial, in fact, that Victory’s author, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), doesn’t really want to admit that he wrote it.

    "We’ve not introduced legislation on narcoterrorism," Hatch’s spokeswoman, Margarita Tapia, snapped when questioned about the Victory Act. "We’re interested in limiting financial options for terrorists, and we’ve examined some legislative options in that regard, but I’m not going to comment on some draft that may or may not be out there." Who knows? Perhaps a tweaked-out 14-year-old legislative-policy wonk from Podunk, Oklahoma, actually sat around writing the thing in the wee hours of some cold, insipid night just to watch liberals scream and gnash their teeth. Maybe it was an evil plot hatched to make Hatch look as if he were plotting evil. But probably not. It’s pretty clear that the Victory Act toed the party line.
    source-High fucking Times
     
  2. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    [FLAME BAIT]Not gonna quote the article, save the whales and my scroll button. Personally I am all for legalizing drugs. So even though I didn't read the whole article (by a third of the way the strident anti-establishment tone killed any semblence of reporting) I have to support it. Anything that perpetuates the "drug war" needs to be stopped. [/FLAME BAIT]

    btw i DONT support using crack. I just believe that if you are stupid enough to do it, you should have the right to kill yourself as long as we subsidize tobacco and alcohol.
     
  3. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    It would be mighty difficult to legally pin the label of 'terrorist supporter' on someone smoking weed grown in a house in British Columbia, let alone someone smoking weed grown in a field in Kentucky.
     
  4. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,589
    Thanks Received:
    7,921
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,210
    I don't smoke weed now, but in the past, I've smoked a large field or two of it.

    I see no real harm in legalizing grass. Other than the fact that the government can't find a real good way to get their fat greedy fingers in on it, seeing how you can grow your own.

    If they want to criminalize something, make liquor illegal. Drunks are good for fucking nothing.
     

Share This Page