| |
Main
Date: 12 Dec 2006 17:31:25
From: Bill C
Subject: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
It's working so well here in the US.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/117095.html
Just a snippett:
Forced-entry raids breach the centuries-old idea that a man's home is
his castle, and that the government can only violate that sanctity
under the most extreme of circumstances. Yet over the last 25 years,
we've seen a staggering 1,300 percent increase in paramilitary style
forced-entry raids in the United States -- there are about 50,000 per
year now. The majority of these raids are for proactive drug policing,
such as executing search warrants.
What's more, the very nature of drug policing requires investigative
tools that frequently produce bad information. One example is the use
of informants, notoriously shady characters often involved in the drug
trade themselves. Police maintain that they rarely use a single
informant's tip as the basis for a drug raid, but dozens of botched
raids and a stack of innocent bodies over the years suggest otherwise.
Reefer Madness anyone?
Bill C
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 04:32:10
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
On Dec 14, 4:07 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > People don't give a shit. Noone even blinked when Janet Reno admitted
> > that the gas they used at Waco was banned under the Geneva Convention,
> > but its use there was legal because US citizens, in the US, aren't
> > protected by the Geneva Convention from actions by their own
> > government.So all BushCorp have to do is declare Iraq a US state and Abu Ghraib is
> forgiven.
Holy SHIT!!! Don't give 'em any ideas. I live in Massachusetts and our
asses would be gone before the ink was dry on the declaration. Probably
followed closely by NY, and the SF area. We'd all be wiped out in
minutes.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:37:19
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
> > Reagan came the closest to addressing it...
>
> Gee, I wonder which prez signed The Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984?
>
> > > http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/0936488...
> >
> > Have to check our library system for a copy, or have my daughter snag
> > it from the college system. Should be a good read for her too since
> > she's planning on law school.
>
> You can get it used at your door for <$15 from amazon. Resell it when
> you're done, if you wish. It is easy.
Good intentions, piss poor thought.
From a PBS Frontline report.
According to a report prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee, at
least 90 percent of the property that the federal government seeks to
forfeit is pursued through civil asset forfeiture. And although
forfeiture is intended as punishment for illegal activity, over 80% of
the people whose property is seized under civil law are never even
charged with a crime according to one study of over 500 federal cases
by the Pittsburgh Press. For this reason, critics say, the system can
run roughshod over the rights of innocent property owners--and fail to
distinguish them from the guilty.
This potential for abuse is compounded by the strong financial
incentive that law enforcement has to make seizures--since they benefit
directly from forfeited property. It was the passage of the
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, part of the Reagan-era ramp-up
in the war on drugs, that first made this possible. At a federal level,
the law established two new forfeiture funds: one at the U.S.
Department of Justice, which gets revenue from forfeitures done by
agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and another now run by the U.S. Treasury, which gets
revenue from agencies like Customs and the Coast Guard. These funds
could now be used for forfeiture-related expenses, payments to
informants, prison building, equipment purchase, and other general law
enforcement purposes.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 13:07:39
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> inventing a crisis situation, like the spanish inquisition, war on
> drugs, war on terror is a good way to justify extreme behaviour and get
> away with it.
Amen bro. I googled you 5 more stars.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 13:06:12
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
Bill C wrote:
> Reagan came the closest to addressing it...
Gee, I wonder which prez signed The Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984?
> > http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/0936488...
>
> Have to check our library system for a copy, or have my daughter snag
> it from the college system. Should be a good read for her too since
> she's planning on law school.
You can get it used at your door for <$15 from amazon. Resell it when
you're done, if you wish. It is easy.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:47:46
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > It's working so well here in the US.
> <byebye>
>
> Fuck dude, you act like this is "news" and somehow surprising. The
> world sleeps.
>
> The guvmint fixed itself the ability to seize the booty while
> "protecting us" from evil dope. The guvmint wants the booty. The
> incentive is there. No surprises here. Very old news.
dumbass,
inventing a crisis situation, like the spanish inquisition, war on
drugs, war on terror is a good way to justify extreme behaviour and get
away with it.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:46:38
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
On Dec 13, 3:27 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > It's working so well here in the US.<byebye>
>
> Fuck dude, you act like this is "news" and somehow surprising. The
> world sleeps.
>
No it's definitely new, or worse news. The mainstream press does a
shitty job reporting this stuff, and how common it actually is.
Americans are outraged because phone calls from the US to places like
Syria might be tapped, but don't give a shit when our government
continues to do this shit.
Reagan came the closest to addressing it and should've shut down the
DEA and neutered the Friggin Bunch of Idiots ability to launch military
assault with no warning on US citizens.
People don't give a shit. Noone even blinked when Janet Reno admitted
that the gas they used at Waco was banned under the Geneva Convention,
but its use there was legal because US citizens, in the US, aren't
protected by the Geneva Convention from actions by their own
government.
> The guvmint fixed itself the ability to seize the booty while
> "protecting us" from evil dope. The guvmint wants the booty. The
> incentive is there. No surprises here. Very old news.
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/lh715vp8856j8111/
> _Police bureaucracies, their incentives, and the war on drugs_
> Bruce L. Benson, David W. Rasmussen, and David L. Sollars
>
> Abstract After 1984 local law enforcement agences in the U.S.
> substantially increased arrests for drug offenses relative to arrests
> for property and violent crimes. This paper explores why this
> reallocation of police resources occurred, focusing on alternative
> public interest and bureaucratic self interest explanations. The
> Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984 is shown to have altered the incentives
> of police agencies by allowing them to keep the proceeds of assets
> forfeited as a result of drug enforcement activities. Empirical
> evidence is presented which shows that police agencies can increase
> their discretionary budgets through the asset forfeiture process.
>
> http://www.fff.org/freedom/1193c.asp
>
> BTW, Benson wrote a book I keep telling you to read.http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/0936488...
>
> It has an excellent history and development of "our" law -- going back
> even before the hot magma carpet, and the bibliography is a fine source
> in and of itself.
Have to check our library system for a copy, or have my daughter snag
it from the college system. Should be a good read for her too since
she's planning on law school.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:07:07
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
Bill C wrote:
> People don't give a shit. Noone even blinked when Janet Reno admitted
> that the gas they used at Waco was banned under the Geneva Convention,
> but its use there was legal because US citizens, in the US, aren't
> protected by the Geneva Convention from actions by their own
> government.
So all BushCorp have to do is declare Iraq a US state and Abu Ghraib is
forgiven.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 12:42:38
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
Donald Munro wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>> People don't give a shit. Noone even blinked when Janet Reno admitted
>> that the gas they used at Waco was banned under the Geneva Convention,
>> but its use there was legal because US citizens, in the US, aren't
>> protected by the Geneva Convention from actions by their own
>> government.
>
> So all BushCorp have to do is declare Iraq a US state and Abu Ghraib is
> forgiven.
>
That would also turn the US into a net energy exporter. No more trade
deficits!
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:46:50
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
On 13 Dec 2006 12:46:38 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 13, 3:27 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>> > It's working so well here in the US.<byebye>
>>
>> Fuck dude, you act like this is "news" and somehow surprising. The
>> world sleeps.
>>
>
>No it's definitely new, or worse news. The mainstream press does a
>shitty job reporting this stuff, and how common it actually is.
> Americans are outraged because phone calls from the US to places like
>Syria might be tapped, but don't give a shit when our government
>continues to do this shit.
But Bill, some drug dealers prey on children. Think of the children!
And some drug money funds terrorists. Are you soft on terror? Think
of the children and be hard on terrorists! Please!
PS -- I don't think Americans are outraged enough about the illegal
wiretapping -- just the media (who may or may not be digging enough --
in a general sense I think they're about appropriately agressive on
that topic).
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:34:49
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
also:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:gmvcksaHz88J:reason.com/bi/fb90.html+drug+law,+confiscation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=19
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:27:25
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
Bill C wrote:
> It's working so well here in the US.
<byebye >
Fuck dude, you act like this is "news" and somehow surprising. The
world sleeps.
The guvmint fixed itself the ability to seize the booty while
"protecting us" from evil dope. The guvmint wants the booty. The
incentive is there. No surprises here. Very old news.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/lh715vp8856j8111/
_Police bureaucracies, their incentives, and the war on drugs_
Bruce L. Benson, David W. Rasmussen, and David L. Sollars
Abstract After 1984 local law enforcement agences in the U.S.
substantially increased arrests for drug offenses relative to arrests
for property and violent crimes. This paper explores why this
reallocation of police resources occurred, focusing on alternative
public interest and bureaucratic self interest explanations. The
Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984 is shown to have altered the incentives
of police agencies by allowing them to keep the proceeds of assets
forfeited as a result of drug enforcement activities. Empirical
evidence is presented which shows that police agencies can increase
their discretionary budgets through the asset forfeiture process.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1193c.asp
BTW, Benson wrote a book I keep telling you to read.
http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/0936488301/
It has an excellent history and development of "our" law -- going back
even before the hot magma carpet, and the bibliography is a fine source
in and of itself.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:09:22
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
jean-yves herve wrote:
> In article <1165993089.981778.10700@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > to bring this back to cycling, the scandals like puerto, festina,
> > millar, ongoing cofidis affair are not doping cases, they don't involve
> > positive tests, they involve police investigations.
> >
> > why are the police involved in investigating whether there is cheating
> > within a sport? the sport has rules and it's up to the sport to enforce
> > them. there is no violent crime being committed and there is no fraud
> > or hazard to the general public.
>
> I think that initially they were involved mostly because of the traffic
> of drugs within a country and across country borders. These are illegal
> activities in most European countries.
of course it is. but it's not a violent crime, so wy is controlling
cheating in sports a police concern ?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 01:16:55
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
In article <1166029761.982400.67690@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> jean-yves herve wrote:
> > In article <1165993089.981778.10700@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> > "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > to bring this back to cycling, the scandals like puerto, festina,
> > > millar, ongoing cofidis affair are not doping cases, they don't involve
> > > positive tests, they involve police investigations.
> > >
> > > why are the police involved in investigating whether there is cheating
> > > within a sport? the sport has rules and it's up to the sport to enforce
> > > them. there is no violent crime being committed and there is no fraud
> > > or hazard to the general public.
> >
> > I think that initially they were involved mostly because of the traffic
> > of drugs within a country and across country borders. These are illegal
> > activities in most European countries.
>
> of course it is. but it's not a violent crime, so wy is controlling
> cheating in sports a police concern ?
Since when are the police only supposed to go after violent crime?
Again, initially the "cheating in sports" was not a major issue at all,
the police and instruction judges would have gone the same way after a
traffic to supply retirement houses with EPO and Viagra. Since then, of
course, they have realized that going after cycling generates a lot of
press, and nobody on the other side is hitting back because cycling is
small fries, money & power-wise.
jyh.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 03:29:36
From: Burt
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
Dumbass,
It is a fucking shame. Check out this map from CATO:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
Thanks,
Burt
Bill C wrote:
> It's working so well here in the US.
> http://www.reason.com/news/show/117095.html
> Just a snippett:
>
> Forced-entry raids breach the centuries-old idea that a man's home is
> his castle, and that the government can only violate that sanctity
> under the most extreme of circumstances. Yet over the last 25 years,
> we've seen a staggering 1,300 percent increase in paramilitary style
> forced-entry raids in the United States -- there are about 50,000 per
> year now. The majority of these raids are for proactive drug policing,
> such as executing search warrants.
>
> What's more, the very nature of drug policing requires investigative
> tools that frequently produce bad information. One example is the use
> of informants, notoriously shady characters often involved in the drug
> trade themselves. Police maintain that they rarely use a single
> informant's tip as the basis for a drug raid, but dozens of botched
> raids and a stack of innocent bodies over the years suggest otherwise.
>
> Reefer Madness anyone?
> Bill C
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:58:10
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
Bill C wrote:
> It's working so well here in the US.
> http://www.reason.com/news/show/117095.html
> Just a snippett:
>
> Forced-entry raids breach the centuries-old idea that a man's home is
> his castle, and that the government can only violate that sanctity
> under the most extreme of circumstances. Yet over the last 25 years,
> we've seen a staggering 1,300 percent increase in paramilitary style
> forced-entry raids in the United States -- there are about 50,000 per
> year now. The majority of these raids are for proactive drug policing,
> such as executing search warrants.
>
> What's more, the very nature of drug policing requires investigative
> tools that frequently produce bad information. One example is the use
> of informants, notoriously shady characters often involved in the drug
> trade themselves. Police maintain that they rarely use a single
> informant's tip as the basis for a drug raid, but dozens of botched
> raids and a stack of innocent bodies over the years suggest otherwise.
>
> Reefer Madness anyone?
dumbass,
in this case i agree. these cowboy raids are putting civil servants
(police) into risky situations more akin to military service. see:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109878667829_105287867/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
i don't believe they couldn't work out a solution other than a raid. if
a relative of mine was killed at work because the boss was reckless i
would be furious.
this is overlooking the fact this was a raid on a *ijuana* grow up,
a fairly non-toxic drug that is openly used across the country.
to bring this back to cycling, the scandals like puerto, festina,
millar, ongoing cofidis affair are not doping cases, they don't involve
positive tests, they involve police investigations.
why are the police involved in investigating whether there is cheating
within a sport? the sport has rules and it's up to the sport to enforce
them. there is no violent crime being committed and there is no fraud
or hazard to the general public.
as far as i'm concered those cases should never have happened.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 03:34:35
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
In article <1165993089.981778.10700@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> to bring this back to cycling, the scandals like puerto, festina,
> millar, ongoing cofidis affair are not doping cases, they don't involve
> positive tests, they involve police investigations.
>
> why are the police involved in investigating whether there is cheating
> within a sport? the sport has rules and it's up to the sport to enforce
> them. there is no violent crime being committed and there is no fraud
> or hazard to the general public.
I think that initially they were involved mostly because of the traffic
of drugs within a country and across country borders. These are illegal
activities in most European countries. Another reason could be the
sport gambling angle (that doping is a form of betting fraud), but that
should concern football (soccer) a lot more than cycling.
jyh.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 23:27:38
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
In article <1165993089.981778.10700@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> these cowboy raids are putting civil servants
> (police) into risky situations more akin to military service. see:
>
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109878667829_105287867/?h
> ub=CTVNewsAt11
That's pretty bad. On the other hand, look into the case of Cory Maye. When the
cops busted into his house just before midnight, he shot and killed one of them. But
he wasn't named in the search warrant, wasn't a suspect, nothing. Just a guy living
in the other half of a duplex the cops were raiding. What's bad for him was that the
cop that died was the son of the local chief of police. Maye got he death penalty.
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026002.php#026002
Maye is scheduled to have a hearing this week. Possible new trial? I hope.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 23:16:24
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <1165993089.981778.10700@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> these cowboy raids are putting civil servants
>> (police) into risky situations more akin to military service. see:
>>
>> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109878667829_105287867/?h
>> ub=CTVNewsAt11
>
> That's pretty bad. On the other hand, look into the case of Cory Maye. When the
> cops busted into his house just before midnight, he shot and killed one of them. But
> he wasn't named in the search warrant, wasn't a suspect, nothing. Just a guy living
> in the other half of a duplex the cops were raiding. What's bad for him was that the
> cop that died was the son of the local chief of police. Maye got he death penalty.
>
> http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026002.php#026002
>
> Maye is scheduled to have a hearing this week. Possible new trial? I hope.
>
What happens if you run over a cop who's riding a bike?
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:25:55
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> What happens if you run over a cop who's riding a bike?
Maybe cycling would be safer if you had a jersey with Police Cycling Club
on the back.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 10:03:04
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> What happens if you run over a cop who's riding a bike?
>
> Maybe cycling would be safer if you had a jersey with Police Cycling Club
> on the back.
>
Recent threads (as well as a local trial) have convinced me that anyone
riding a bicycle is fair game. Run them over and kill them nad you'll
get no more than a slap on the wrist. That's just the way the law is.
If we want to see those laws get changed, we need to start educating
convicted felons that bicycle riding cops can be run over and killed
with impunity. We could also educate right-to-lifers about the danger
to bicycle riding fetuses.
Your idea is a great one, however, since most drivers are blissfully
unaware of the law regardless. I'm going to look into finding/creating
a jersey with a large police badge on the back.
Thanks!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 05:58:57
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
In article <U62dnTDe0MYKCxzYnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@judgeihavetogopeepee.com > wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >> What happens if you run over a cop who's riding a bike?
> >
> > Maybe cycling would be safer if you had a jersey with Police Cycling Club
> > on the back.
> >
>
> Recent threads (as well as a local trial) have convinced me that anyone
> riding a bicycle is fair game. Run them over and kill them nad you'll
> get no more than a slap on the wrist. That's just the way the law is.
>
> If we want to see those laws get changed, we need to start educating
> convicted felons that bicycle riding cops can be run over and killed
> with impunity. We could also educate right-to-lifers about the danger
> to bicycle riding fetuses.
>
> Your idea is a great one, however, since most drivers are blissfully
> unaware of the law regardless. I'm going to look into finding/creating
> a jersey with a large police badge on the back.
>
> Thanks!
Dude, reach into the past: Chev-LA Sheriff's cycling team. Scott
Moninger used to ride for them.
Alas, I googled my butt off without finding a picture.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 22:40:44
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Maybe this tactic could satisfy the anti-drug folks
|
In article <rcousine-AB0FDF.21584814122006@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> Dude, reach into the past: Chev-LA Sheriff's cycling team. Scott
> Moninger used to ride for them.
As well as: Jeff Pierce, Trent Klasna, Bobby Julich, Steve Hegg, Kurt Stockton,
Jim Copeland, Thomas Craven, Malcolm Elliott, Andrzej Mierzejewski, Dave McCook,
Roberto Gaggioli and Peter Stubenrauch.
> Alas, I googled my butt off without finding a picture.
The Chevy logo dominated. As I recall, the L.A. Sheriff part simply was those
words below the Chevy bowtie.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
|
