SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (4099)12/17/2003 10:00:11 AM
From: E. T.  Respond to of 7834
 
The quagmire worsens!
By MARK STEYN
The quagmire worsens!
Well, that Vietnam-style quagmire seems to be getting worse, doesn't it?

Not content with their laughably unconvincing Bush Thanksgiving photo-op, they've now stuck Dick Cheney in a false beard and are pathetically trying to pass it off as some kind of "good" "news."

But assume, for the sake of argument, this is the real Saddam Hussein. What happens now depends on his state of mind. He may say nothing. Or it may be that, after eight months on the lam, bumping around in the back of donkey carts, sleeping in smelly hovels, short of sycophants, deprived of the company of his fellow psychopaths Uday and Qusay, his chums in Moscow and Paris refusing to accept any collect calls, pining for the metaphorical full Monica he used to get from visiting Western shills like British leftie MPs Tony Benn and George Galloway, after all that he may be grateful for a chance to yak about this and that to various A-list interrogators. He knows surely that it's his last chance to play the bigshot before trial by his former subjects, and then jail and (I hope) execution.

So he may have some interesting things to say about, for example, Con Coughlin's remarkable scoop in London's Sunday Telegraph: Coughlin has seen a memo by the then-head of Iraqi Intelligence disclosing that Mohammed Atta, the field commander on 9/11, was trained in Baghdad two months beforehand by Abu Nidal. Mr. Nidal died in a not entirely convincing "suicide" last year, which with the benefit of hindsight tends to corroborate that memo. His timely death ensured that Mr. Nidal was unavailable to auction his secrets. If Saddam is now headed to the gallows, he may feel it's time to take credit for some of the things he's been hitherto sheepish about.

And if he gets real chatty that may cause some embarrassment for M. Chirac and the Russians, too, which always adds to the gaiety of the international scene.

But, in a sense, that's all the past – just footnoting for the archives. Certain columnists, whom modesty prevents me from mentioning by name, have painted an eerily accurate picture of his living conditions these last six months. Even so, there's something almost exquisitely apt in the circumstances of his capture, pulled up out of a hole he'd dug for himself.

The Democrats, the French, the European media and the various other parties who've invested in the Bush-quagmire story have also dug a hole for themselves. Al Gore briefly emerged from his own pit of obscurity last week to denounce the Iraqi operation: "My friends," he said, "this nation has never, in two centuries and more, made a worse foreign policy mistake."

On Sunday morning, the most pitiful of the "serious" candidates, Senator John Kerry, couldn't resist digging himself in a little deeper: "This is not just about one man," he complained, urging that now would be an excellent opportunity to hand everything over to the UN, The Hague, the Arab League, the Westchester County League of Women Voters, and other respected bodies.

Kerry doesn't get it: If it had been left to Kofi Annan, the French, Germans, Russians, Canadians, Arabs and all but two of the nine Democratic presidential candidates, Saddam Hussein wouldn't be being inspected for lice by American medics, he'd still be sitting on his solid gold toilet in his palace reading about the latest massive anti-Bush demonstrations in Le Monde. The Iraqi people don't want to place their future in the hands of an "international community" that found it more convenient to allow Saddam to go on torturing them.

AS FOR this being "not just about one man," don't bet on it. In May, I was sitting in a restaurant in Ramadi just west of Baghdad, chewing the fat (very literally, alas) with various Iraqi chaps, all of a Sunni disposition. "Hey, things are gonna be great from now on, right, guys?" I said, by way of an ice breaker.

They shrugged gloomily. "Where is Saddam?" said one, pointing at the BBC News on the TV in the corner. "Where is Saddam? He has money, he has friends. He will be back." In the months since, he's been all but irrelevant to any active coordination of the so-called "resistance." But the fact that he was still on the run somewhere out there, meant that, in theory, he could be behind it, and that made it easier for the Ba'athist dead-enders and the imported terrorists to lean on communities in the Sunni Triangle for support and cover. The sight of Saddam looking like a department-store Santa who's been sleeping off a bender in a sewer for a week will deal a fatal blow to the Ba'athist thugs' ability to intimidate local populations. The insurgency will continue for a few weeks yet, but it will peter out, like the dictator, not with a bang but a whimper.

In the honor/shame culture of the Arab world, it will be much harder now to pass him off as the mighty warrior. He had a pistol, but chose not to use it on himself. The Palestinians may be jumping up and down in the street insisting he's still a great man, but in the end the sugar daddy who put up 25,000 bucks for the family of each suicide bomber had no desire to experience the glory of martyrdom himself: He's eager for you to strap your teenage daughter into the Semtex belt, but, like Osama and Yasser and the rest of the gang, he's disinclined to lead by example. For Middle East dictators who've enjoyed a wholly undeserved political stability for a quarter-century, the humiliation of Saddam Hussein is a cautionary tale.

As for the Western naysayers, let me go back to what I wrote in July, after the killing of Uday and Qusay and the Democratic Party reaction: "If they're still droning on like this on the day Rummy's passing out souvenir vials of Saddam's DNA, they'll be heading for oblivion."

Well, we're not yet at the souvenir DNA stage, but the inability of a serious political party to resist the siren songs of the Noam Chomsky/Michael Moore/Euro Left is showing signs of becoming terminal.

"What happened this week," I wrote back then, "is a foretaste of what the party can expect in the next 15 months: reality will keep intruding, and if the Dems keep moving the goalposts ever more frantically pretty soon they'll be campaigning from Planet Zongo. This week, Tom Daschle insisted that Uday and Qusay were all very well, but where was the Big Guy? Why hadn't that slacker Bush caught him yet?"
Next question, Tom?

jpost.com



To: epicure who wrote (4099)12/17/2003 10:42:40 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7834
 
Ashcroft was an idiot for pursuing medical marijuana cases. There've got to be more important justice issues, other than taking pot away from cancer patients- although for John, with his warped sense of priorities, perhaps not.

Medical Pot Users Win Key Ruling
The U.S. can't prosecute patients who use it on the advice of a physician and obtain the drug at no charge, an appeals court panel rules.




By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer

People who use marijuana for medical purposes won a victory Tuesday from a federal appeals court that ruled they cannot be prosecuted by the federal government so long as they grow their own or obtain pot from other growers without charge.

The 2-1 decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would protect many medical marijuana users from prosecution in California and six other Western states — Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — that have laws approving the use of marijuana for medical purposes.







"This is huge. This essentially makes Prop. 215 federal law in California," said Dale Gieringer, a coauthor of the proposition, which legalized medical use of marijuana in California.

The measure, approved by voters in 1996, was the nation's first such law. Despite its passage, federal officials have pursued a number of cases against medical marijuana users, growers and distributors in the state.

Justice Department officials declined to comment on Tuesday's ruling; legal experts expect them to appeal further. But the decision marks the second court defeat for the federal government this year in its running battle against the medical marijuana movement.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld a 9th Circuit ruling that said federal officials could not threaten to revoke the prescription rights of doctors who approved marijuana use for their patients.

Although statistics are unreliable on the subject, both supporters and opponents of medical marijuana agree that there are tens of thousands of such users in California.

Tuesday's ruling involved one of the most hotly debated areas of constitutional law: the power of the federal government to intervene in matters that traditionally have been handled by state and local governments. Through the 1990s, conservatives successfully argued in court for limiting federal power. But with a Republican administration in Washington, liberals are now using the same arguments in attempts to shield state laws they favor.

Under the U.S. Constitution, routine law enforcement matters are normally handled by the states; the federal government can be involved only if the alleged criminal conduct involves federal jurisdiction.

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and other federal officials, including Drug Enforcement Administration chief Asa Hutchinson, have pursued marijuana cases, saying they have jurisdiction because drugs are sold in interstate commerce.

Last year, based on that rationale, federal drug agents seized marijuana used by a number of individuals throughout California, including Diane Monson of Oroville, who smokes the drug to treat chronic, debilitating back pain.

Monson and Angel M. Raich of Oakland, who uses marijuana for a variety of serious medical problems, including an inoperable brain tumor, sued Ashcroft in federal court. They asked for a court order barring the government from confiscating their marijuana or taking any other action against them.

Both women got letters from their doctors saying marijuana helps alleviate their symptoms. That protects them against prosecution by state and local officials. But both women had a "very real fear" that their marijuana would be seized by federal agents, said Oakland attorney Robert Raich, who is married to Angel.

Monson grows her own marijuana. Raich is unable to do so, according to court papers. Two people identified only as John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2 grow it for her.

Lawyers for the two women argued that since they used the drug solely for their own medicinal purposes, and no money changed hands, their actions did not involve interstate commerce. That would mean the federal government had no power to prosecute them.

A federal district judge ruled against them in March, saying that despite "the gravity" of their need for marijuana, the Constitution did not protect them against federal prosecution. But the appeals court majority sided with the women.

"The intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician is, in fact, different from drug trafficking," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the majority. He was joined by Judge Richard A. Paez.

The federal government has the power to pass laws against trafficking in drugs, Pregerson added, but "the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and not for exchange or distribution is not properly characterized as commercial or economic activity."

The dissenting judge — C. Arlen Beam, who normally sits on the 8th Circuit in the Midwest — argued that even if the women did not pay for their marijuana, they were using a "crop which could be sold in the marketplace, and which is also being used for medicinal purposes in place of other drugs which would have to be purchased in the marketplace." For that reason, Washington can be involved, he said.

Monson was elated by the ruling. "How wonderful! That is very good news indeed," she said. She smokes about two marijuana cigarettes a day, which, in combination with yoga and other exercise, alleviates her back pain, she said.

The 9th Circuit ruling could soon be expanded. The appeals court has a case before it in which a medical marijuana buyers cooperative is seeking protection against the federal government. Lawyers for the co-op argue that because their members trade the drug among themselves, they are not involved in interstate commerce, said Gerald Uelmen, a University of Santa Clara law professor who represents the co-op.

"This decision is a complete vindication of our … argument," he said.

Pregerson and Paez, two of the 9th Circuit's more liberal judges, based their ruling on two Supreme Court decisions about the principles of federalism that are hallmarks of the court's conservative majority.

One case involved a federal law that banned guns in and around schools. The other allowed federal prosecutions of certain types of violent crimes against women. In both cases, the high court struck down the federal laws on the grounds that the statutes went beyond Washington's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Although many liberals opposed those rulings, the current decision "shows that federalism is not just for political conservatives," said Boston University law professor Randy E. Barnett, who represented Monson and Raich in the appeals court.

from the LA Times



To: epicure who wrote (4099)12/17/2003 10:53:55 AM
From: Dale Baker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7834
 
A thicket of ethical conflicts seems to be the norm in this Administration. If they scare enough people, however, they can keep diverting attention.

An old, time-tested formula.