NEWS: Proposed Legislation Will Force Americans to Spy on Family Members

Originally posted by Simulacra
Under this legislation, Americans will have twenty-four hours to report in drug use within their neighbourhood or family. Failing to due so will result in a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence.

As others have observed, the legislation is full of holes - BUT - it will allow authorities to pick and choose victims to charge, imprison and neutralize. They can just ignore your average apolitical or conservative American, and focus on the real "troublemakers." ...Probably better than the traditional plane crashes. I'm thinking Wellstone, microbiologists, etc. More civilized, IMO, if a tad reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

ChemicalLaser

it's amazing how you could put such a large bill into such a small quote box!!

I read SOME of the actually bill, but not alll of it, but from what I read, well, it sounds like if someone posesses a controlled substance, or the ingredients needed to make a controlled substance (with intention to make said drug) and there are kids around, well, if you know about this, gee....have a fun time in prison!!!

the actual law on Thomas:

thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.1528:




[edit on 22-5-2005 by dawnstar]

1. This is already a law, if yoiu are found to be using around children, it is child abuse or wrecxkless endangerment of a child.

2. If you allow your child to use drugs, you can be charged with the same if you do nothing about it.

3. If you sell within 500 feet of a school, you are arrested, minimum of a year I beleive. (this is Florida)

This has NOTHING to do with the Patirot Act, and in my opinion is more "Reefer Madness".

The day politicians and cops grow some balls and attack the coc aine, herion and crack sales and distribution in this country I will vote for stronger sentences. This sounds like nothing more than bull# to attempt to keep marijuana from becoming legal.



[edit on 22-5-2005 by esdad71]

Agreed, exposing children to drugs is despicable. But what worries me is the precedent such a law would set; even if, as pointed out previously, penalties for such drug-related offenses already exist, I fear we would be dangerously increasing the angle to a very slippery slope with this piece of legislation.

If passed, this bill would reinforce the Government's claim that the average citizen can be held crimminally culpable for acts the Government deems "illegal" based solely on the Government's assertion that the citizen had /or should have had (as a result of proximity and/or familiarity) knowledge that a crime was being commited and failed to report said crime.

It is presumed guilt by association; the burden of proof being placed, contrary to the accepted precepts of crimminal law, on the accused, rather than the accuser. More to the point, it assumes that the intent of the supposed witness was to abet the crime by failing to report the crime within an arbitrary period of time regardless of possible mitigating circumstances.

The Law was meant to address the participants in a crimminal activity, not crimminalize those who may, by mere coincidence, have been witnesses to the activity.

Perhaps I am being paranoid (what better place that an ATS board for that!) but I fear that there may be an ulterior motive behind this bill.

Consider: Regardles of the esteemable working title this bill carries (we're all for the safety of children....right?) the legislation, once passed would serve as a single, citeable precedent establishing the authority of the Federal (?) Government to prosecute those it deems "uncooperative" witnesses to drug-related crimes.

There is nothing to prevent the future amendment of this law to include other types of "crime", such as "terrorism". And by "terrorism, I mean any activity the Government considers "terrifying" with respect to its absolute control.

Where will it end? The guy down the street buys a Prius hybrid, his neighbors go to jail for two years: Failure to report an obvious Eco-Terrorist!

Originally posted by Matyas
Beg pardon? You may be technically correct, but isn't law based upon interpretation of said documents, and is not this (according to my understanding) known as the colour of the law? Just because we want to interpret it a different way does not in any fashion guarantee that the courts will not interpret it a different way.

Yeah, see, that's why defendents have lawyers too. That's how the system works. Or don't you believe in the System?

Originally posted by dawnstar
it's amazing how you could put such a large bill into such a small quote box!!

I was attempting to quote the relevant portion of the bill because I didn't think that the original article fairly represented what the bill actually said. For those who wanted to read the whole thing, I provided a link to a .pdf version of it. k?

I read SOME of the actually bill, but not alll of it, but from what I read, well, it sounds like if someone posesses a controlled substance, or the ingredients needed to make a controlled substance (with intention to make said drug) and there are kids around, well, if you know about this, gee....have a fun time in prison!!!

I read MOST of the actual bill. From what I read, among other things, if you live in a house where people sell drugs or make them, there are kids around, and you do nothing about it then you COULD go to jail or get a fine. In other words, the bill is trying to make adults responsible for their actions and inactions. What a concept.

BTW, this is a bill - not a law. A lot of work remains to be done before it could become a law.

Responsible for their inactions?

So why the big hooha about the Minutemen? Wouldnt, by the same logic, they be obliged to take the law into their own hands and enforce the law on their border?

It is the responsibility of the police to find and arrest criminals, not the civilians. If they want to report a crime it is their choice, not a legal obligation. This law will change that and it is exactly the scenario mentioned in the title. You will be forced to spy on your family members, or face 2 years in prison.

Whats next? Denunciation? I thought that this kind of activity was the exclusive realm of communist countries.

This reminds me of the 18th amendment, no way that it will work, at least not to it's intended purpose. It will cause some more serious thought on drugs but will not reveal many hidden drug addicts.

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
Yeah, see, that's why defendents have lawyers too. That's how the system works. Or don't you believe in the System?

My point precisely. What is written and what comes out can be completely different.

Personally I don't believe in the System, but until something better comes along we are stuck w/it. As they say, "when in Rome do as Romans do"!

Communist countriess form comittees for a different purpose. So you can turn in your mother if she utters anything anti-communist! Yep- We're getting there...little by little. Drugs, huh? I could have a long list of people in my hometown, but they need not fear. I wont be participating in this latest attempt to screw your neighbor. Not me.

matyas
When in Rome, consult a calendar. If the fall is imminent, move to Malta.

This is disturbing, but not without previously existing precedent. Kids turn their parents in all the time in this country, mostly for drug offenses, but also for spousal abuse. Schools teach students all about their rights in this regard.

I don't think this is anything groundbreaking, and like most of the recent laws, its efficacy and unconstitutionality are inherent only in the implimentation. If the prosecutors act responsibly, this law will be 'responsible.'

I worry for this country, but I also have some faith in the character of individuals.

Time will tell I suppose.

hahaha, you KNOW the dude who wrote that bill, was messed up while writing it. If he was actually serious, he must have never visited this little state where I come from called Oregon, Just try coming over here to tell us to call the police on family members for smokin some pot! Maybe if your little brother snagged your stash, you might be inclined to call the cops on him to get your stuff back!

Originally posted by subz
It is the responsibility of the police to find and arrest criminals, not the civilians. If they want to report a crime it is their choice, not a legal obligation. This law will change that and it is exactly the scenario mentioned in the title. You will be forced to spy on your family members, or face 2 years in prison.

If you witness a crime, and don't say anything, you become an accomplice. Usually, if you know that your brother is underage drinking or your aunt is smoking pot, not much will be done to you (if anything). Passing a law for two years required if you don't report it is stupid, if only because, as I stated, it's impossible to enforce this sort of thing.

It is still not your legal obligation to report the crime. If you are interviewed about it and you withold evidence that is later proven that you were a part of then you can be charged. You arent legally bound to report anything though and its up to the state to prove you know more than you say. Finding criminals, this is for the police force.

Its one step before vigilantism.

There new plan strikes me silly... as they continue to make them self out to be the worst hypocrites when the"CIA" sells more drugs then any one. Not to mention using drugs in WWII to pay for yet another catastrophe.
They better aim them satellites at them self eh.

what a joke!

This legislation is ridiculus and wont pass(hopefully) or unless they tack it on to something else. well, the best we can hope for is the utter collapse of the US gov. efforts to stop drugs and then maybe they will stop and think. I hate what this country is turning into. I dont know who elects these people to congress but the congressmen need to be thrown out on their butts. This is only an effort to round up poor and probably minority families and put them all in jail. CAUTION: This is very reminescent of nazi germany.

`SEC. 425. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who witnesses or learns of a violation of sections 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, or 426 to fail to report the offense to law enforcement officials within 24 hours of witnessing or learning of the violation and thereafter provide full assistance in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the person violating paragraph (a).

`(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to not less than two years or more than 10 years. If the person who witnesses or learns of the violation is the parent or guardian, or otherwise responsible for the care or supervision of the person under the age of 18 or the incompetent person, such person shall be sentenced to not less than three years or more than 20 years.'.


sounds to me like the sentence would be more than a fine??? more like 3-20 years, but not less than 3...

and well, the "and learns of" bit is kind of odd, since well, I can see where the "and learned of" could concievably be in the form of "well, I heard so and so say..." and well, don't think that at the moment that this would be acceptable in a court. I mean, unless you witness something yourself, how can your really know that it happened, unless you're relying on a second hand sources....

and, well, this isn't the way the laws are written now. At the moment, Social Service could find out you're using drugs in your home, and well, they are under no obligation to inform the police, although it is grounds to remove the children from the home if it's in their view.
but, they are under no legal obligation to report drug activity to the police....at least not in my state.

on the other hand, if you witness child abuse, you are legally required to report that.


[edit on 22-5-2005 by dawnstar]

[edit on 22-5-2005 by dawnstar]

Yeah, before that "learns of" part jumped out at me too. I learned about President Bush's coc aine usage wayyyy more than 24 hours ago, man, I guess I'll see you guys in a couple years...

Oh yeah, and I passed some crackheads on the street earlier, too... Well, at least, they looked like crackheads. Bush and the crackheads are technically my neighbours, I guess, right? Oh God, I'm so screwed, man, I'm going to the big house!

Zip

After reading most of the bill it appears that this is geared towards drug traffickers over the age of 21 selling dope to kids and or selling dope within 500 feet of were kids generally are such as schools etc... The proposed law also covers parents selling or manufacturing dope in the house that they live with thier kids.

The proposed law does not talk about having to turn in your neighbor because you see your neighbor smoking a joint on his back deck.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
After reading most of the bill it appears that this is geared towards drug traffickers over the age of 21 selling dope to kids and or selling dope within 500 feet of were kids generally are such as schools etc... The proposed law also covers parents selling or manufacturing dope in the house that they live with thier kids.

Existent laws already deal adequately with these situations.



The proposed law does not talk about having to turn in your neighbor because you see your neighbor smoking a joint on his back deck.

True, not explicitly - but you need to look at the language of the law and forget the sales pitch. What counts is what's written, and how it's written.

It has nothing to do with the war on drugs my friends. Our prison system is already stretched too thin to keep jailing every drug user, much less those who don't report them. It's about the precedent. That's what the lawmakers are after. They are grossly expanding the guilt by association concept.

Down the road, if your second cousin who you haven't seen since last year's family reunion commits a crime they'll use the precedent set by jailing people for the unproveable under this law to jail you just for knowing somebody who committed a crime.

When somebody upsets a totalitarian government, they don't pay alone- their family and friends go down with them. This is an attempt to open up that same option to our nation, where you can't just do it until you've passed a weak law to "justify" it.