- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
It's funny how the debate about the patriot act and other controversial anti-terrorism initiatives
by Ashcroft get scrutinized yet several domestic initiatves headed by Ashcroft and the
department of justice slip under the radar screen of most Americans. I present to you several
articles dealing with several issues including medicinal marijuana, assisted suicide, and
pornography:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44398,00.html
<< WASHINGTON -- Look out, Internet sextrepreneurs: John Aschroft wants you to serve
hard time.
In explicit terms, the attorney general told Congress this week that hardcore sex sites
would no longer be selling peeks at balloon-breasted babes.
"I am concerned about obscenity and I'm concerned about obscenity as it relates to
our children," Ashcroft said in his first appearance before the House Judiciary
Committee.
He said Justice Department prosecutors would help state officials imprison sex-site
operators that feature obscene images: "We try to be especially accommodating to
local law enforcement to assist them, and I would think that would be an objective of
ours in this respect."
A number of Republicans asked Ashcroft to pledge to prosecute raunch and ribaldry,
but Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia -- who also, unbelievably, is co-chair of the
Internet Caucus -- was the most persistent.
"The failure of the (Clinton) administration to enforce those laws has led to a
proliferation of obscenity, both online and off," Goodlatte said. "And I am particularly
concerned about the safety of our children on the Internet, where they're subjected
to child pornography and solicitation in a massive way."
Asked Goodlatte: "I'd like to know to what extent the Justice Department will use its
resources to assist state and local enforcement in combating this cyberattack on our
nation's children."
Goodlatte was also a big fan of the Communications Decency Act, which the Supreme
Court tossed out in 1997 as an affront to free speech.
Obscenity, which the Supreme Court ruled is not protected by the First Amendment,
is textual or graphical material that appeals to someone's "prurient interest," runs
afoul of local community standards, and lacks any literary, artistic, political or
scientific value. >>
Had i not watched PBS's 'frontline' episode (yes i was bored) about pornography, i wouldn't even
know about this. Interestingly enough, according to frontline, the 9/11 incident put the kabosh on
his initiative temporarily but it looks like he's going to go after pornographers full force soon
enough. And according to frontline, the supreme court's meaning of 'obscenity' includes your
average vanilla stuff in the DPPH board. If that means i will no longer get my daily dose of lesbian
pr0n, i will be VERY VERY irrate at the whitehouse.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/111301/...oral_stan.shtml
<< Ashcroft's moral stand out of line
© St. Petersburg Times,
published November 13, 2001
During the confirmation hearing of Attorney General John Ashcroft,
Democratic senators wanted to know whether Ashcroft's religious and
ideological conservatism would influence federal law enforcement on
controversial social issues. At the time, Ashcroft promised to apply
the law objectively, even if it meant going against his personal
beliefs. Now senators who took him at his word must feel betrayed.
In a double-whammy, the Justice Department has announced that it
intends to use federal legal muscle to negate citizen initiatives in
California and Oregon.
In California, residents approved the use of marijuana for medicinal
purposes in 1996. Since then, seven other states have followed suit.
But last month, federal agents began a crackdown on medical
marijuana, raiding a doctor's office, destroying a marijuana growing
operation run by patients and shutting down a cannabis club in West
Hollywood that had the full backing of city officials.
In Oregon, where residents approved a physician-assisted suicide
initiative not once but twice, the Justice Department has threatened
to revoke the prescription license of doctors who participate in a
terminally ill patient's suicide. Like many Americans, we have some
reservations about physician-assisted suicide, but we believe it is a
matter for dying patients and their doctors -- not the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration.
Regardless of how one feels about the merits of marijuana as
medicine or the ethics of doctor-assisted suicide, the disturbingly
long reach of federal authority suggests that this is not impartial law
enforcement, but rather the imposition of an ideological agenda. It's
interesting how some Republicans champion "states' rights" until a
state chooses a social policy at odds with party dogma.
The department says its actions are on solid legal footing and points
to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in May that recognized the supremacy
of federal law in determining the legality of various uses for controlled
substances. However, the court never ruled that federal law was
morally superior to a compassionate social policy that allows doctors
to try and alleviate the suffering of their patients.
In both states, the issues involve Americans who are facing terrible
health problems and seeking relief. A growing body of evidence
suggests that marijuana effectively reduces nausea for cancer
patients undergoing chemotherapy and reverses the wasting
syndrome for people with AIDS.
In Oregon, only terminally ill people may take advantage of assisted
suicide. Since 1997, only about 70 people have done so, and then
only after two doctors determined they had fewer than six months to
live and were competent to make the decision. The state has now
filed suit against the Justice Department and a federal judge has
enjoined the Justice Department from interfering -- at least
temporarily.
When Janet Reno was attorney general, the department also raided
medical marijuana clubs in California, but during the last years of her
tenure she took a more hands-off approach. As to the Oregon "death
with dignity" measure, Reno made the determination that her
department would not interfere with its implementation.
At a time when the federal government should be worrying about the
threat of terrorism and public safety, Ashcroft has decided to
squander resources threatening doctors and second-guessing the
way medicine is practiced. The attorney general should resist the
urge to impose his own moral code on the suffering and dying. >>
This i heard about from 'politically incorrect'. And again, most americans probably
don't know about this either. The f**ked up thing about this is that this
happened not very long after 9/11. Priorities... where the f**k are you?
I especially like this quote from the 2nd article:
<< It's interesting how some Republicans champion "states' rights" until a
state chooses a social policy at odds with party dogma. >>
by Ashcroft get scrutinized yet several domestic initiatves headed by Ashcroft and the
department of justice slip under the radar screen of most Americans. I present to you several
articles dealing with several issues including medicinal marijuana, assisted suicide, and
pornography:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44398,00.html
<< WASHINGTON -- Look out, Internet sextrepreneurs: John Aschroft wants you to serve
hard time.
In explicit terms, the attorney general told Congress this week that hardcore sex sites
would no longer be selling peeks at balloon-breasted babes.
"I am concerned about obscenity and I'm concerned about obscenity as it relates to
our children," Ashcroft said in his first appearance before the House Judiciary
Committee.
He said Justice Department prosecutors would help state officials imprison sex-site
operators that feature obscene images: "We try to be especially accommodating to
local law enforcement to assist them, and I would think that would be an objective of
ours in this respect."
A number of Republicans asked Ashcroft to pledge to prosecute raunch and ribaldry,
but Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia -- who also, unbelievably, is co-chair of the
Internet Caucus -- was the most persistent.
"The failure of the (Clinton) administration to enforce those laws has led to a
proliferation of obscenity, both online and off," Goodlatte said. "And I am particularly
concerned about the safety of our children on the Internet, where they're subjected
to child pornography and solicitation in a massive way."
Asked Goodlatte: "I'd like to know to what extent the Justice Department will use its
resources to assist state and local enforcement in combating this cyberattack on our
nation's children."
Goodlatte was also a big fan of the Communications Decency Act, which the Supreme
Court tossed out in 1997 as an affront to free speech.
Obscenity, which the Supreme Court ruled is not protected by the First Amendment,
is textual or graphical material that appeals to someone's "prurient interest," runs
afoul of local community standards, and lacks any literary, artistic, political or
scientific value. >>
Had i not watched PBS's 'frontline' episode (yes i was bored) about pornography, i wouldn't even
know about this. Interestingly enough, according to frontline, the 9/11 incident put the kabosh on
his initiative temporarily but it looks like he's going to go after pornographers full force soon
enough. And according to frontline, the supreme court's meaning of 'obscenity' includes your
average vanilla stuff in the DPPH board. If that means i will no longer get my daily dose of lesbian
pr0n, i will be VERY VERY irrate at the whitehouse.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/111301/...oral_stan.shtml
<< Ashcroft's moral stand out of line
© St. Petersburg Times,
published November 13, 2001
During the confirmation hearing of Attorney General John Ashcroft,
Democratic senators wanted to know whether Ashcroft's religious and
ideological conservatism would influence federal law enforcement on
controversial social issues. At the time, Ashcroft promised to apply
the law objectively, even if it meant going against his personal
beliefs. Now senators who took him at his word must feel betrayed.
In a double-whammy, the Justice Department has announced that it
intends to use federal legal muscle to negate citizen initiatives in
California and Oregon.
In California, residents approved the use of marijuana for medicinal
purposes in 1996. Since then, seven other states have followed suit.
But last month, federal agents began a crackdown on medical
marijuana, raiding a doctor's office, destroying a marijuana growing
operation run by patients and shutting down a cannabis club in West
Hollywood that had the full backing of city officials.
In Oregon, where residents approved a physician-assisted suicide
initiative not once but twice, the Justice Department has threatened
to revoke the prescription license of doctors who participate in a
terminally ill patient's suicide. Like many Americans, we have some
reservations about physician-assisted suicide, but we believe it is a
matter for dying patients and their doctors -- not the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration.
Regardless of how one feels about the merits of marijuana as
medicine or the ethics of doctor-assisted suicide, the disturbingly
long reach of federal authority suggests that this is not impartial law
enforcement, but rather the imposition of an ideological agenda. It's
interesting how some Republicans champion "states' rights" until a
state chooses a social policy at odds with party dogma.
The department says its actions are on solid legal footing and points
to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in May that recognized the supremacy
of federal law in determining the legality of various uses for controlled
substances. However, the court never ruled that federal law was
morally superior to a compassionate social policy that allows doctors
to try and alleviate the suffering of their patients.
In both states, the issues involve Americans who are facing terrible
health problems and seeking relief. A growing body of evidence
suggests that marijuana effectively reduces nausea for cancer
patients undergoing chemotherapy and reverses the wasting
syndrome for people with AIDS.
In Oregon, only terminally ill people may take advantage of assisted
suicide. Since 1997, only about 70 people have done so, and then
only after two doctors determined they had fewer than six months to
live and were competent to make the decision. The state has now
filed suit against the Justice Department and a federal judge has
enjoined the Justice Department from interfering -- at least
temporarily.
When Janet Reno was attorney general, the department also raided
medical marijuana clubs in California, but during the last years of her
tenure she took a more hands-off approach. As to the Oregon "death
with dignity" measure, Reno made the determination that her
department would not interfere with its implementation.
At a time when the federal government should be worrying about the
threat of terrorism and public safety, Ashcroft has decided to
squander resources threatening doctors and second-guessing the
way medicine is practiced. The attorney general should resist the
urge to impose his own moral code on the suffering and dying. >>
This i heard about from 'politically incorrect'. And again, most americans probably
don't know about this either. The f**ked up thing about this is that this
happened not very long after 9/11. Priorities... where the f**k are you?
I especially like this quote from the 2nd article:
<< It's interesting how some Republicans champion "states' rights" until a
state chooses a social policy at odds with party dogma. >>
Facebook
Twitter