George Bush responded to the terrorist attacks in Riyadh with the following quote: What exactly does this mean? I have always believed justice in America was realized through rights of due process, trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and an independent judiciary. I'm certain that President Bush did not have this in mind in the above quote. I'm not advocating that terrorism not be met with force. What I'm raising for discussion is this particular choice of words. As Karl Keller is fond of pointing out, how you choose to express an idea matters. Is it a problem to call our response "American justice?" What is the meaning of American justice?
Actually, I'd think the more bloodthirsty americans would have a real appreciation for Saudi "justice" - y'know, beheading, behanding, etc. Even I have to admit it has more flair and style than lethal injection. Unfortunately, from past experience, the Saudis are pretty lousy at finding the perps, and unreliable at finding the real perps and not some setup guys. But whoever the Saudis catch and pin it on sure won't be making the trip to Cuba or the US.
Maybe the terrorists can sue the US and the US companies who do business in Saudi Arabia for creating an target that was too irresistable not to bomb. Kind of like the guy who sued McDonalds for serving food that made him fat. That lawsuit going on now with the families of dead illegal aliens suing the US for not providing water in the desert is a good precedent. The terrorists could sue the victims for not living in bomb-proof buildings, thus causing the terrorists emotional distress when they died.
Oh, yeah; and if any terrorists are caught and jailed; they will be released after a couple of years so that people who get caught smoking dope can do 20 years.
I heard a similar phrase yesterday from Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, in speaking about the attacks. She said that in order to win the war on terrorism, we need to "root out the terrorists". My response was the same as yours: what does this mean? The answer is just that - it means nothing. "Bringing terrorists to justice" and "rooting out the terrorists" are phrases that represent nothing but a pretext for a perpetual war because they are vague notions to begin with. The Iraq war had a simple premise - when Saddam no longer controls Iraq, we win. The "war on terrorism", has no such vision, no such concrete objective, and truth be told, cannot ever have one. Terrorism by its very nature involves the absence of any structural constraints, such as those of nation-states and other legal organizations, that limit their sovereignty. It is akin to fighting crime...it can be reduced and discouraged, but it cannot be eliminated. So why do Bush and his cohorts use such ambiguous terms? Well, the past couple of years have shown that the "war on terrorism" has been useful politically, however successful it may have been. It has garnered Bush a climate of unquestioning patriotism and has helped increase the powers of the executive branch to levels unknown in U.S. history. So as long as the "war on terrorism" can be used successfully to generate political mileage, we can expect to hear more and more about "bringing terrorists to justice", "rooting out the terrorists", and other vague, comforting notions.
Who has served 20 years for smoking weed (that didn't have 500 pounds or 100 plants next to him)? Possession of a joint is a misdemeanor in every state except Arizona....
Unfortunately New York state is looking to change the harsh Rockefeller Laws - well, maybe not so good news for potheads; Under current law, the possession of small quantities of marijuana is a misdemeanor. The FDLRA, however, would turn the fourth possession misdemeanor in a five year period into a Class E felony with the possibility of a three and one-half year prison sentence. And a "big dealer" would be anyone with a pound or two.
Aren't there federal mandatory minimums for pot? But there are no federal mandatory minimums for terrorism, so far as I know. Here's $20, a bus ticket and new suit, Mr Mousaoui. We need your cell for someone with terminal cancer we caught with a couple of stems of Maui Wowie.
What type of moron gets busted 4 times with weed? I've never been busted once. Granted, it doesn't make the laws less dumb, but man, after the second or so bust I'd probably learn discretion.... Depends what state you are in. In Nebraska a pound is still a misdemeanor. In Maine, any amount for sale is a misdemeanor, although at about 50 or so pounds the Feds step in. Some states treat 100 pounds the same as 2. Heck, some states treat an couple ounces and a 100 pounds as the same things.
Either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the mood of the district attorney (in Arizona, getting busted with a joint or 2 pounds falls under the same category). In practice, however, nobody caught with a small amount is prosecuted for a felony in Arizona. The idea that a DA could prosecute someone for a felony for a small amount of weed is distrubing though.
Yeah, if you get busted with a ton of it. To get the lightest sentence, 5 years, you have to be busted with 100 kilos (about 220 pounds) or 100 plants (a fairly sizable growing operation that would yield 12 or so pounds, assuming each plant yields an ounce and half the plants are males to be weeded out). Not exactly a guy puffing on a joint here. Mandatory minimum laws are dumb. There is no need for them for terrorists. The judges are happy to sentence them to prison or death. Now see, I'm all for pot legalization and am against the drug war, but this is hyperbole of the highest (no pun intended) order. Nobody is getting thrown in jail for a stem.
"American justice" means we invade and occupy Iran, because they were the ones that set off the bombs in Riyadh. Oops, I'm getting ahead of the game here. This is what "American justice" will mean in six months.