|
Post by priestling on Oct 16, 2011 0:38:51 GMT -5
@ Eric: Don't they usually only have conspiracy charges for major capital crimes though? like grand theft larceny and murder? Planning to holiday in Amsterdam and talking about how you're going to try out a joint for the first time in your life while you're there for a couple weeks just doesn't seem to be on the same level.
|
|
|
Post by mrsyoungie on Oct 16, 2011 0:43:54 GMT -5
So what about if you plan to move to Canada to get our health care? Uh oh!
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Oct 16, 2011 0:52:13 GMT -5
Because fuck other nations' sovereignty? Can they do that? I mean, is that in any way even close to legal? Well, it's nice that the bill passed the committee I guess. But it's lucky that, right now, this doesn't mean anything. Silly Rookie, every country belongs to America!
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Oct 16, 2011 1:51:05 GMT -5
I get what they were trying to prevent, drug trafficking, and why they're trying to prevent it. That being said, the bill is vague and way too broad. There has to be a better way to go about it. This. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime, and the crime would be trafficking. Agree 100% that it is too broad. Under the legal test for strict scrutiny (which would be used because this law impacts a fundamental right - free speech), a law is unconstitutional if it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. There is a compelling government interest (stopping the import of illegal drugs), but it is not narrowly tailored. The law was originally stated as smoking it there, which is not a crime. How can planning to commit a legal act (smoking in Amsterdam) possibly be construed as conspiracy to commit a crime? Saudi Arabia might as well start cracking down on all those dang women who drive cars in other countries!
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 16, 2011 4:56:19 GMT -5
Will this law be retroactive and if so, will it include anyone who has done similar crimes such as having the USA invade a country they're not at war with? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Oct 16, 2011 6:03:46 GMT -5
I can see drug trafficking being something planning out being a crime, but discussing plans to go get stoned in Amsterdam? Not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 16, 2011 6:08:09 GMT -5
Thing that strikes me, surely there has to be a standard for what's planning & what's just bullshitting. I can SAY I'm totally going to do all kinds of drugs that defy the laws of both centre county & physics tomorrow, that doesn't mean I'm actually going to do it.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 16, 2011 15:22:04 GMT -5
I can see drug trafficking being something planning out being a crime, but discussing plans to go get stoned in Amsterdam? Not so much. What I'd like to know is how do you enforce it? Seriously, how do you enforce this? People going to Amsterdam looking to get stoned are hardly the kind to let the authorities know in advance. And what if you actually do go to Amsterdam for the tulips and paintings and then think what the hell and go and get stoned? Are you still guilty then?
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Oct 16, 2011 15:32:22 GMT -5
This. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime, and the crime would be trafficking. Agree 100% that it is too broad. Under the legal test for strict scrutiny (which would be used because this law impacts a fundamental right - free speech), a law is unconstitutional if it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. There is a compelling government interest (stopping the import of illegal drugs), but it is not narrowly tailored. The law was originally stated as smoking it there, which is not a crime. How can planning to commit a legal act (smoking in Amsterdam) possibly be construed as conspiracy to commit a crime? I was specifically referring to trafficking (as can be seen in my original quote). Trafficking is what the statute is designed to stop. I also agreed it is too broad, so would be found unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 16, 2011 17:23:11 GMT -5
The law was originally stated as smoking it there, which is not a crime. How can planning to commit a legal act (smoking in Amsterdam) possibly be construed as conspiracy to commit a crime? I was specifically referring to trafficking (as can be seen in my original quote). Trafficking is what the statute is designed to stop. I also agreed it is too broad, so would be found unconstitutional. If it was actually designed simply to fight trafficking without regard for everything else the bill does, then it was piss-poor design.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 16, 2011 18:36:28 GMT -5
I was specifically referring to trafficking (as can be seen in my original quote). Trafficking is what the statute is designed to stop. I also agreed it is too broad, so would be found unconstitutional. If it was actually designed simply to fight trafficking without regard for everything else the bill does, then it was piss-poor design. I think that's the gist of what erictheblue is saying.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 16, 2011 19:16:12 GMT -5
If it was actually designed simply to fight trafficking without regard for everything else the bill does, then it was piss-poor design. I think that's the gist of what erictheblue is saying. Well, my gist is that—ignoring for now the possibility that Smith and those that support this bill are incompetent—it was likely not designed simply as an anti-trafficking bill. Instead, it is meant to be overly broad to create room for, as the title implies, thought police. Of course, maybe it does still show some incompetence in terms of achieving even this aim. As others have said, something this broad is not likely to survive challenge intact. Then again, if Smith is confident that some of the key measures will make it through the courts, it could be he hopes it will leave a few nickle-sized cuts in the form of precedent that will help usher in similar, harsher measures at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 16, 2011 20:16:47 GMT -5
Will this law be retroactive and if so, will it include anyone who has done similar crimes such as having the USA invade a country they're not at war with? ;D I'd say that it wouldn't be retroactive because that's illegal, but if this goes through, then who cares about the Constitution anymore?
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Oct 16, 2011 20:36:35 GMT -5
Will this law be retroactive and if so, will it include anyone who has done similar crimes such as having the USA invade a country they're not at war with? ;D I'd say that it wouldn't be retroactive because that's illegal, but if this goes through, then who cares about the Constitution anymore? Certainly no one who works at Capitol Hill and/or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Oct 17, 2011 0:45:17 GMT -5
I think that's the gist of what erictheblue is saying. Well, my gist is that—ignoring for now the possibility that Smith and those that support this bill are incompetent—it was likely not designed simply as an anti-trafficking bill. Instead, it is meant to be overly broad to create room for, as the title implies, thought police. Of course, maybe it does still show some incompetence in terms of achieving even this aim. As others have said, something this broad is not likely to survive challenge intact. Then again, if Smith is confident that some of the key measures will make it through the courts, it could be he hopes it will leave a few nickle-sized cuts in the form of precedent that will help usher in similar, harsher measures at a later date. I think the same thing, also because arranging a trip across the Atlantic would be a horribly inefficient way to transport drugs. The only reasonable explanation why this bill would get off the ground is anti-drug zealots believing that thought police are totally worth it if it prevents people from getting high. Or, heaven forbid, conspiring to do so!
|
|