BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Prosecuting American War Crimes

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

Did Americans commit war crimes by torturing detainees at Guantanamo Bay or at secret prisons scattered around Europe? Barack Obama doesn’t want to know. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was one of many who felt confident he would never face prosecution for his role in constructing legal rationales for waterboarding and other forms of torture.
Unfortunately for Gonzales, Spain intends to go where Obama won’t. Judge Baltasar Garzon, famous chiefly for prosecuting former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet, seems inclined to allow Spanish state prosecutors to go after Gonzales, Douglas Feith, John Yoo, William Hayes II, Jay Bybee, and David Addington. Why these guys and not, say, former Vice President Dick Cheney? Apparently, testimony elicited from Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, last summer before Congress indicated that those six officials were responsible for giving legal justifications for torture. Spanish court documents say of them:

“[W]ithout their legal advice in a series of internal administration memos, “it would have been impossible to structure a legal framework that supported what happened [in Guantanamo]…”
If Obama’s Justice Department began investigating these men, Spanish prosecutors would have to back off, but so far it doesn’t look like that will happen. Spain’s actions will likely strain relations with Washington, which will certainly deny extradition requests. Will these men ever be able to leave America again? Do they deserve this prosecution in Spain, or should it be America’s exclusive preserve to determine whether what they did was criminal or not?

Have Your Say: Prosecuting American War Crimes
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Why Legalizing Cannabis Makes Sense

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

By Joe Klein |

For the past several years, I’ve been harboring a fantasy, a last political crusade for the baby-boom generation. We, who started on the path of righteousness, marching for civil rights and against the war in Vietnam, need to find an appropriately high-minded approach to life’s exit ramp. In this case, I mean the high-minded part literally. And so, a deal: give us drugs, after a certain age — say, 80 — all drugs, any drugs we want. In return, we will give you our driver’s licenses. (I mean, can you imagine how terrifying a nation of decrepit, solipsistic 90-year-old boomers behind the wheel would be?) We’ll let you proceed with your lives — much of which will be spent paying for our retirement, in any case — without having to hear us complain about our every ache and reflux. We’ll be too busy exploring altered states of consciousness. I even have a slogan for the campaign: “Tune in, turn on, drop dead.”

A fantasy, I suppose. But, beneath the furious roil of the economic crisis, a national conversation has quietly begun about the irrationality of our drug laws. It is going on in state legislatures, like New York’s, where the draconian Rockefeller drug laws are up for review; in other states, from California to Massachusetts, various forms of marijuana decriminalization are being enacted. And it has reached the floor of Congress, where Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter have proposed a major prison-reform package, which would directly address drug-sentencing policy.

There are also more puckish signs of a zeitgeist shift. A few weeks ago, the White House decided to stage a forum in which the President would answer questions submitted by the public; 92,000 people responded — and most of them seemed obsessed with the legalization of marijuana. The two most popular questions about “green jobs and energy,” for example, were about pot. The President dismissed the outpouring — appropriately, I guess — as online ballot-stuffing and dismissed the legalization question with a simple: “No.”

This was a rare instance of Barack Obama reacting reflexively, without attempting to think creatively, about a serious policy question. He was, in fact, taking the traditional path of least resistance: an unexpected answer on marijuana would have launched a tabloid firestorm, diverting attention from the budget fight and all those bailouts. In fact, the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio. The hypocrisy inherent in the American conversation about stimulants is staggering.

But there are big issues here, issues of economy and simple justice, especially on the sentencing side. As Webb pointed out in a cover story in Parade magazine, the U.S. is, by far, the most “criminal” country in the world, with 5% of the world’s population and 25% of its prisoners. We spend $68 billion per year on corrections, and one-third of those being corrected are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes. We spend about $150 billion on policing and courts, and 47.5% of all arrests are marijuana-related. That is an awful lot of money, most of it nonfederal, that could be spent on better schools or infrastructure — or simply returned to the public.

At the same time, there is an enormous potential windfall in the taxation of marijuana. It is estimated that pot is the largest cash crop in California, with annual revenues approaching $14 billion. A 10% pot tax would yield $1.4 billion in California alone. And that’s probably a fraction of the revenues that would be available — and of the economic impact, with thousands of new jobs in agriculture, packaging, marketing and advertising. A veritable marijuana economic-stimulus package!

So why not do it? There are serious moral arguments, both secular and religious. There are those who believe — with some good reason — that the accretion of legalized vices is debilitating, that we are a less virtuous society since gambling spilled out from Las Vegas to “riverboats” and state lotteries across the country. There is a medical argument, though not a very convincing one: alcohol is more dangerous in a variety of ways, including the tendency of some drunks to get violent. One could argue that the abuse of McDonald’s has a greater potential health-care cost than the abuse of marijuana. (Although it’s true that with legalization, those two might not be unrelated.) Obviously, marijuana can be abused. But the costs of criminalization have proved to be enormous, perhaps unsustainable. Would legalization be any worse?

In any case, the drug-reform discussion comes just at the right moment. We boomers are getting older every day. You’re not going to want us on the highways. Make us your best offer.

Have Your Say: Why Legalizing Cannabis Makes Sense
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Council uses anti-terror powers to spy on residents

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

By Thais Portilho-Shrimpton |

Anti-terror powers are being invoked by Epsom council to spy on its residents over minor breaches of the law, it has emerged.

Epsom and Ewell Council has ordered surveillance designed to thwart terrorist bombings to catch unlicensed taxis, benefit fraudsters, alcohol licensees and noisy neighbours.

A Freedom of Information Act request by the Liberal Democrats revealed the council had utilised the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) 36 times in the last five years.

Despite the large number of cases investigated only three led to prosecutuions.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling, MP for Epsom and Ewell, said: “I think it’s absolutely wrong these powers have been used by local authorities when they were originally designed for anti-terrorism policing.

“It’s not just a waste of money, it’s an inappropriate invasion of privacy.

“It’s using powers that are designed to fight terrorism for local purposes. That’s just wrong.

“I don’t think local authorities should be able to use them at all.”

Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrat councillor Jonathan Lees said: “Nationally it is appalling these laws have been used so many times.

“Epsom and Ewell Council has used these 36 times, 29 of which have been authorised by management and only seven by senior management.

“I am very concerned these powers, which have the potential to infringe onto our civil liberties if used, are only used in extreme cases by the senior management of the council under tight guidance and control.

“They should be constantly monitored for misuse and if used, it should be documented why with a clear explanation.”

The council’s chief executive, two directors, four heads of service, one manager and three team leaders have the power to authorise the use of the anti-terror laws on council investigations.

A spokeswoman for the council admitted the use of new legislation “allows civil liberties to be breached in a legal manner”.

She said: “The council carries out investigations using powers under the Ripa in relation to benefit fraud, licensing and environmental health investigations.

“It does not do this on a routine basis, but only uses the powers where it feels they are appropriate.

“Local authorities have the power to regulate certain areas to ensure the safety and quality of life for our residents.

“Where offences are prosecutable surveillance in some cases is required to prove the offences.

“A local authority has to balance the rights of an individual against the rights and needs of the public as a whole when it carries out all of its functions.

“The staff who regularly authorise surveillance have been trained in the use of the proper powers and a refresher course led by external trainers was held last month.”

Have Your Say: Council uses anti-terror powers to spy on residents
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Government denies that British live in “a surveillance society”.

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

Justice Minister Lord Bach insisted the Government took its obligations under data protection and human rights legislation “very seriously”.

He told a Lords debate on personal data retention: “The use of personal data is essential for the delivery of efficient, effective and joined-up public services - to tackle crime, protect the public and help people get access to the benefits they are entitled to, to new opportunities in their lives, to developments and support.

“We want to create services that improve people’s lives and are simple and easy for them to use. The huge advance in technology makes that possible. The essential thing is to balance the provision of better services with the proper respect for an individual’s privacy in a free society.

“That balance is maintained by a strong legislative framework already in place - the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

“I don’t believe, for one moment, that we live in a surveillance society. We take our obligations under these Acts very seriously.”

Lord Bach said there had been “widespread misrepresentation” of the Government’s plans for a future national communications data base. He added: “We will set out our future plans on this, in a consultation document to be published shortly. they have not yet been finalised.”

He said reports were incorrect that British citizens travelling abroad would have to apply for permission to travel abroad or submit an itinerary in advance.

“If they had to do that, it would be a very serious restriction on their freedom. That’s not what they will have to do, although the newspapers say they will.”

Have Your Say: Government denies that British live in “a surveillance society”.
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 at 6:52 pm and is filed under War & Terrorism News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: