home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 10:39:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm in court today, so here's an open thread for you.

< Truth Serum: Fact or Fiction? | Tom Noe Sentenced to 18 Years >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    A letter to Joe Biden (none / 0) (#1)
    by aahpat on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    I just wanted to share this letter I've written to Joe Biden as the incoming chair of the Senate Foreigh Relations Committee. Its posted on my blog, LeftIndependent.

    "Our drug policy grants huge subsidies to our enemies"

    "The international drug control regime, which criminalizes narcotics, does not reduce drug use, but it does produce huge profits for criminals and the armed groups and corrupt officials who protect them. Our drug policy grants huge subsidies to our enemies." New York University Professor Barnett Rubin to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sept. 2006.

    Dr. Rubin concluded: "If it were not illegal, it would be worth hardly anything. It's only its illegality that makes it so valuable."
    I salute you.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    sir for writing what needs to be said.

    But Biden has been bought like the rest...don't hold your breath waiting for him to address it.

    Parent

    IIRC (none / 0) (#5)
    by aw on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:48:07 PM EST
    Wasn't Biden the father of the Rave Act?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by aahpat on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    Biden is a career Jim Crow drug warrior.

    Parent
    Thanks...And I won't (none / 0) (#15)
    by aahpat on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    hold my breath. In fact I expect that Biden's office won't even read it. They will do the congressional curtesy of passing the letter to my senators,(ugh!) Specter and Santorum. But the issues need to be raised so I raise them.

    Parent
    ATF, Gun Rights Restoration, and the new Congress (none / 0) (#3)
    by CynicPerry on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    I'm curious if now that the Democrats have taken over congress, we will see even more horrible decisions like the one made in 1992 to start restricting funding for the ATF's office that restores felons firearms rights...

    Whatever could be wrong with denying... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    ...funding to restore GUN ownership rights to convicted felons?

    There are many very valid reasons to deny guns to felons, especially those who were convicted of violent crimes and crimes of moral turpitude that have a high rate of recidivism, i.e., giving weapons to bank robbers, violent gang members, members of drug cartels, sex offenders, etc.

    There is already too much suffering in America from crimes involving firearms and I would sincerely hope that the dems WILL pass legislation to prevent violent felons from ever again obtaining a firearm legally AND draconian penalties for such people that obtain their firearms by illegal means.

    Parent

    *will* pass? (none / 0) (#8)
    by CynicPerry on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:10:57 PM EST
    Will pass?  they already did last time - no violent federal felon can currently possess a gun - for that matter, no federal felon at all can possess a gun.  While state felons have many avenues to regain their gun rights (as well as other rights), federal felons are presented with only two - a presidential pardon, and the ATF.  With funding for the ATF's program denied, that leaves only presidential pardon - which, needless to say, is very difficult to get.

    While I somewhat agree with you on the violent felon issue, I have a different take on it - if they are dangerous enough to not trust with a gun, then they are dangerous enough to not trust with even being out of jail.

    Once someone has served their time, let them get on with their life, don't treat them like a second class citizen.

    As for sex offenders, I do assume you mean violent sex offenders, since their are many, many, many non-violent people out their convicted of sex crimes - "statutory" rape, flashing, prostitution, etc.

    Also, I am curious...  since Self-Defense is an accepted natural right, as well as one given in the constitution, do you beleive that a criminal's life is worth less then a non-criminal's?  Because by denying them the right to a firearm, you are denying them one of the most effective means of self defense.

    Parent

    Actually (3.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:25:28 PM EST
     Persons convicted of state felonies are also effectively barred from the legal right to possess weapons by the refusal to appropriate money for ATF background checks.

      The federal law bars ALL convicted felons from possesing firearms unless the right is restored and that can't be done without an ATF check and so long as ATF cannot conduct them no felon may possess a firearm without running afould of federal law.

      On the list of priorities for funding, money to help felons legally possess guns would seem pretty low.

    Parent

    um, no (none / 0) (#12)
    by CynicPerry on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:57:52 PM EST
    Totally incorrect - while federal law does "bars ALL convicted felons from possesing firearms unless the right is restored", if the felony is a state level offense, not federal level, then the state has the ability to restore all civil rights.  There are many  states that do this.  Once the state has restored the civil rights, then the federal laws recognize the state restoration, and the person is allowed to own a firearm again, under both federal and state laws.

    Parent
    It is certainly possible that I have... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    ...this issue confused with the refusal of the rethug congress to renew the provisions against assault weapons, as if you need a 50 calibre assault rifle firing a half inch thick, thumb-sized slug to knock down a deer.

    Real hunters know that more deer have been taken with a Model 94 Winchester than any other gun in history.

    But, again, I think I have unwittingly confused the two issues. I am sorry if that is the case and once again I have proven I am far from perfect.

    Parent

    .50's (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:04:59 PM EST
    IIRC, there were no production .50's included in the assault weapon "ban".  If you modified a banned rifle to fire .50 cartridges, it would still be banned, but the .50's arms manufacturers make don't meet the definition of "assault weapon".  

    There's plenty of debate on whether they should be banned, but it's a separate legislative issue.

    They aren't for deer, anyway, they're for extremely long range target shooting.  Or taking out APCs.  Depends on who you ask.

    Parent

    George? George who? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    Iran and Syria to seek Iraq role
    Iran's president has invited his Iraqi counterpart to a three-way summit with the Syrian leader to discuss ways of ending the raging violence in Iraq.

    Sources close to Jalal Talabani say he has accepted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call but that a date has not been set.

    Other Iraqi officials have indicated the leaders will meet on Saturday.



    As you have sagely noted in previous... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    ...posts, Edger, it does appear that bush's recklessness with America's foreign policy has greatly enhanced Iran's influence in the M.E., and that fool bush won't even TALK to them or anyone else he doesn't like.

    Whatever happened to "keep your friends close, keep your enemies even closer"? I guess commonsense doesn't matter to bullies that actively seek violence instead of dialogue to influence governments.

    I have often wondered how different things might be if, for example, bush just called up Kim Jong Il and said, "Lookee here now, I know you want to insure the safety of your country, so I am sending both a non-aggression treaty AND a guarantee of our help if you are attacked. I am also sending teams of experts in power generation, farming, and social engineering, along with massive amounts of foodstuffs and grains to help feed your people.  When the dust from this settles, I would like to discuss buying your nukular weapons from you at what, $10-100-billion  apiece, because NOTHING would be more expensive than a war between us and possible nukular conflagration. So let me get those treaties in the mail and those experts headed your way and we'll talk again about buyin' those nukes real soon."

    Why does violence have to be the only means of dispute resolution?

    'Mornin, Edger and aw.

    Parent

    Maybe the obvious is too simple? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    Security guarantees seem to be a pretty simple concept. If they're over Bush's head then trying to talk to him is going to be pretty frustrating. No?

    Like talking to his surrogates here? ;-)

    Parent

    LOL! Too, too true. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:16:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Hastings vs. Harman (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:55:25 PM EST
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGZjNDljZDkwNjEwNjNhYWNkMWViOWVkNDJiZDQ0ZGI=

    So where is TL on this one?  After Murtha went down is Pelosi going to strike back to show she's in charge?

    That Hasinting is only one of 10 judges ever to be impeached seems an odd choice to head the House Intelligence comittee doesn't it?  I mean he actively took bribes to influence cases and now he's going to be the top dog on intelligence.   Is this because a crook knows how best to work with other spooks?

    This would be poor choice #2 by Pelosi in her term that is supposed to change the culture of congress.

    Look at.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    the pool of applicants...they are members of congress.  Good luck finding clean hands in that group.  Like our whole political ball of wax...it's finding the hands least dirty.

    That's one campaign promise it will be impossible for Pelosi to keep...I mean we are talking about congress here.

    I'll settle for a min wage hike and a repeal of the internet gambling prohibition act.

    The big stuff...Iraq, health care, drug war, govt spending, ethics and integrity....thats way over all their heads, d and r alike.

    Parent

    Monday Open Thread | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment