Xref: utzoo comp.society.futures:2331 alt.drugs:9316
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!hsdndev!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Congressional nasties...
Message-ID: <62555@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 6 Feb 91 12:45:15 GMT
References: <5RDuw1w163w@zitt>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Followup-To: comp.society.futures
Distribution: alt.drugs, comp.society.futures
Lines: 137

cb@zitt (Cyberspace Buddha) writes:

}congressional bill would suspend constitution, declare martial law

}(from mondo 2000, winter 1991)

Well, Let me mention that using "mondo 2000" as your source of
information about legal matters is fairly bogus from the start.
Second, if you know even a little bit about how our government works,
you'll realize that this information HAS to be bogus: all of the
_bills_ die when the Congressional session ends... so either this is a
non-issue or it is a law [and the answer is....  it is a non-issue].

In fact, of all of the stuff about HR4079 that has appeared over the
last year, this is one of the most illinformed, inflamatory, and
generally bogus reports I've ever seen.

}      A new bill, HR 4079, ...

"new"?  The bill was introducet on 22 Feb 1990.

}] ... would open the way for American concentration camps to be buil
}t, and thereafter permit the state to round up _suspected_ drug users and force them
} to work without compensation for the state. 

Huh?  The bill proposes no such thing.  What hogwash.  Prisoners have
always been compelled to work, the matter of the 'standards' to which
prisons can be built are a matter of federal regulation, and there is
no hint of anything to do with "suspected".  Yes, HR4079 was an
offensive bit of stuff [and I'm real happy that it died in committee],
but this kind of ill-informed ranting is surely counterproductive ---
how can we possibly try to influence our legislators in any sort of
effective way if we are so woefully ill-informed.  It'll just reinforce
the impression that they already undoubtedly have that we 'rabble' are
just a bunch of know-nothing bozos, and that drugs have burned away
what little brains we may have started with.

}      The bill proposes suspending the Constitution for five years so that millions 
}of illegal drug users could be held by the state in concentration camps. All interne
}es would be forced to work and if anyone is caught with drugs in the camps, they wou
}ld have one year added to their sentence each time -- with no right to appeal.

This must be what it is like reading 'news' in the Weekly World News or
some such.  "proposes suspending the Constitution"???  I'll be happy to
forward you (or anyone who wants one) a copy of the bill and I'd be
delighted to see where you think it says any such thing.


}      HR 4079 calls for declaration of a five-year national state of emergency -- in
} essence martial law.

This is unbelievable --- if I tried to actually correct all of the
misstatements, exaggerations and such in this 'news article', this posting
would be about five times as long as the original --- I don't think I've ever
seen so many bogosities per sentence before.   For example, the preamble to
the bill includes some hyperbolic rhetoric about a "National Drug and Crime
Emergency", but that "emergency" carries no legal weight... it is just
rhetoric.  And it is certainly not "martial law" --- what a joke even to
suggest that.  The fact is that this is just another bill: no suspending of
the Constitution, no "martial law".  YES: in the bill the feds "turn the
screws" [e.g., by eliminating early-release of persons convicted of drug
offenses], but it is hardly the prelude to armageddon...

}.. To aid in accomplishing this, the 4th Amendmen
}t, the 8th Amendment, and habeas corpus are to be either superseded, redefined, or d
}isallowed.

More of the kind of massive misinformation that is,apparently, intended
to inflame, rather than inform.  As for the 4th, the bill does very
little more than codify the *already*existing* standards for 'good
faith' exceptions to the exclusionary rule.  Note I say
*already*existing*: even though this bill has died, the SC has
*already* made this bit of offensiveness the law of the land, and so
the badness is *still*with*us*, HR4079 or no HR4079.

As for the 8th.. again: no big 'assault' on the constitution, but more
a matter of (obnoxiously) turning the screws.  Now:  this bill proposes
making jail sentences a LOT longer, and mostly tries to ensure that
everyone convicted will serve their *whole* sentence --- no early
release.  This means, of course, that there will be LOTS more people in
prison, and so the question comes up as to where the prison space will
come from.  Well, the bill includes a bunch of obnoxious modifications
as to prison-standards.  Note that the construction standards of
prisons are *already* a matter of simple federal regulation, subject
**ONLY** to eighth-amendment review by the SC, and so a set of new
standards is hardly an earthshattering constitutional assault.  Yes,
they propose all sorts of unpleasant "temporary" facilities and such,
but they don't need any 'emergency' or anything else to do that --- in
fact, I suspect they don't even need a formal law to do so: I bet that
that is all within the prerogatives of the existing regulations
empowering the prision system, although I ahven't checked the CFR to
verify that.

But how does this related to the eighth?  Well, the current Supreme
Court has already shown an inclination to *not* entertain "class
action" civil rights suits.  This is a bit sad, but, again, it is
*fact*.  What HR4079 simply "directs" the lower courts [as if it had
the power to do so: again,you must realize that this is all
content-free rhetoric in the bill...] to take a similar course of
action in lower-court reviews of claims of cruel and unusual
punishment.

The actual wording is:
              "(a)(1) During the period of the National Drug and
              Crime Emergency, a Federal court shall not hold
              prison or jail crowding unconstitutional under the
              eighth amendment except to the extent that an
              individual plaintiff proves that the crowding
              causes the infliction of cruel and unusual
              punishment of that inmate.
As I say, this _type_ of approach to individual rights violations is in
consonance with the current Supreme court, and I suspect that the various
lower courts [who are free to do as they please, ANYWAY, of course] would be
more influenced by the signals from the SC than from any random bill that
purports to tell them how to do their job...

I've got to stop... take my word for it that the REST of the 'report'
on HR4079 is as filled with half-truths, innuendo, intentionally
inflammatory ranting, and such as the first part was.  There's hardly a
SINGLE statement about HR4079 that is close-enough to reality to be
worth commenting on (and certainly not _acting_ on!)... if you want to
be any sort of player in the legislative cycle [e.g., even to the
extent of just writing letters to your Representative and the like],
you have to be a LOT better informed than this article leaves you.

}[Mondo 2000's] Editor's note: The number of the bill, once again, is HR 4079 and thi
}s report is NOT exaggerating. Look it up.

This it absolutely outrageous --- sort of the coup de grace.  They say
"...  and this report is NOT exaggerating. Look it up."  Simply put:
the report is *overwhelmingly* exaggerating, and it is patently obvious
that *THEY* didn't look it up.

I recommend you forget about "mondo 2000" and find some other source for
information about the law...

  /Bernie\