The Patriot Act, The Victory Act, The Despot Act
|
by Peter Guither - 26 September 2003
"The cause we have chosen is just."
With these words, John Ashcroft kicks off his tour to defend the destruction of American freedom.
|
|
Attorney General John Ashcroft is giving more than a dozen speeches around the country at taxpayer expense to promote
the Patriot Act, and a new even more dangerous bill just being introduced called the Victory Act (which practically defines
drug dealers as terrorists).
The Patriot Act has given the Justice Department broad new police powers, justified as necessary for the war on terror. The
New York Times reported Ashcroft called for a "dramatic
shift away from what he described as an old law-enforcement culture that was strapped by restrictions and limitations no longer
relevant in an age of terror." (See also: USResolve.org's [UN]Patriot Act)
It's important to also understand some background in the war on drugs. For decades, the government has used the drug war as
justification for infringing on constitutional liberties. Since drug crimes tended to not have victims, the government claimed
that extra techniques were necessary to support the "compelling government interest" in waging the drug war.
This led to no-knock searches, asset forfeiture, warrantless searches, and a variety of other infringements, which the
courts have upheld in order to support the government's "war."
Of course, many of these tactics have resulted in not only lost rights, but in some cases, lost
lives (as point out in
Drug War Victims).
Now Ashcroft is defending many of the provisions of the Patriot Act by saying that these are similar to tools law enforcement
already has for the drug war, and he just wants to use them in other areas.
At the same time, he and his silent partner Senator
Orrin Hatch are also ratcheting up the Drug War by essentially defining drug activity as
terrorism. (Washington Post Article) This is where the
new Victory Act comes in.
Senator Orrin Hatch has a bill...
"To combat narco-terrorism, to dismantle narco-terrorist criminal enterprises, to disrupt narco-terrorist financing and
money laundering schemes, to enact national drug sentencing reform, to prevent drug trafficking to children, to deter
drug-related violence, to provide law enforcement with the tools needed to win the war against narco-terrorists and major
drug traffickers, and for other purposes."
Short Title: "Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003" or the "VICTORY Act".
An advance copy of the Victory Act is available as a
pdf file. I spent a little time looking it over. Here's one thing that jumped right out:
The Act specifies, for example, "that a person who possesses, with intent to distribute, a controlled substance, knowing that
such activity, directly or indirectly, provides support to a foreign terrorist organization is subject to penalties of 20
years to life and a $4 million fine." AND... "The prosecution shall not be required to
prove that any defendant knew that an organization was designated as a 'foreign terrorist organization'."
So, you've got some Columbian pot and you picked up some extra for a friend. You probably know that indirectly, some
Columbian group is profiting from your $100 purchase. If the government has classified Columbian pot distributors as
foreign terrorist organizations, then you can be locked up for 20 years to life.
Wait until you hear prosecutors claim that, since you must have seen the government's propaganda ads that link pot to
terrorism, then you must have known that your purchase went to aid a terrorist group, thereby qualifying you for these
enhanced terrorism penalties.
The Victory Act is full of legislative language that requires a lawyer to understand (and the ability to compare
multiple bills simultaneously), so I'll leave it up to the legal folks, but when you see phrases like:
- In paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking "specified unlawful activity" and inserting "some form of unlawful activity"
It doesn't sound good. There's also the bizarre:
- "If a death sentence is imposed under this section, such sentence shall not be in addition and consecutive to the
punishment For the drug trafficking crime."
And then there's the standard Ashcroft, "ends justifies the means" perversion of the constitution and the judiciary:
- A court may not grant a motion to suppress the contents of a wire or oral communication, or evidence derived
there from, unless the court finds that the violation of this chapter involved bad faith by law enforcement.
The previous one, which basically states that it doesn't matter if the evidence was obtained illegally as long as the
officer can convince the court that, they thought they were doing it right.
ABC has some additional
analysis of the Victory Act, including the fact that it calls for broad subpoena powers without the need for a
judge's approval. American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Jameel Jaffer has said: "Absolutely nothing would
prevent the attorney general from using these subpoenas to obtain the records of people who have no connection to
terrorism, drug trafficking or crime of any sort."
The ACLU has a lot of excellent resources, including ways to get active regarding these extraordinary government powers.
Visit their Safe and Free site.
With some effort on our part, we can (AND MUST) stop these provisions. There is already a growing level of concern from all sides of
the political spectrum. Ashcroft's approach to justice violates core principles of both the Democratic and Republican parties. (Not to
mention, Constitution of the United States of America.)
Considering the ways that John Ashcroft, the Justice Department, and its Drug Enforcement Agency operate, perhaps they
should be considered a terrorist organization. More people are afraid of them than they are of terrorist organizations...
Big Brother is here, and he's trying to get legislation passed to get you adopted.
