6. Biden's WarAs Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden was responsible for the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines passed in 1986. “The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 had forced judges to harshly sentence within a narrow range,” Zeese recounts. “So Biden knew in '86 that mandatory sentences were not needed... But he pushed for and passed mandatory sentencing anyway, because that’s what the narcs and prosecutors wanted. He held hearings at which they got opportunity to testify while opponents of mandatory minimums were kept out.”
Biden also pushed for much harsher penalties for possession, use, or sale of crack (prevalent in the ghettos) than for powder cocaine (favored by white folks). Zeese notes: "In the past year Biden has said that was a mistake based on lack of information. He said the same thing about the Iraq war approval. In that case, as in many others, he helped ITAL cause END ITSthe lack of information. As Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee he put on phony hearings where only pro-war viewpoints were heard. He would not allow testimony from weapons inspectors, former military officers opposed to the war, or foreign policy academics opposed to the war. He used the hearing to mislead his colleagues and the public."
Biden was also instrumental in creating the Office of National Office of Drug Control Policy and takes credit for coining the phrase "Drug Czar" to describe its director. He introduced the “Reducing Americans Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act of 2002,” which, Zeese called “an election-year bill, sloppily written and overbroad, based on exaggerated fears.” Zeese says, "Biden also beat the drug-war drum for escalating penalties for methamphetamine. He never sees drug absuse as a medical problem, only a law enforcement problem. His heart is always with the cops and prosecutors.”
Zeese is dismayed by the prospect of Biden "taking the law enforcement line in an Obama White House, warning the young president, 'Be careful, remember, you smoked pot and used cocaine, you have to be tough on drugs.'
Zeese also sees Biden pressuring Obama on behalf of his longtime corporate sponsors. “It’s fitting that the Senator from Delaware, the foundation of corporate government, was the biggest cheerleader for a bankruptcy bill that protects the credit-card issuers instead of consumers. He was always a spokesman for MBNA [Maryland Bank North America] in the Senate and now his son is a lobbyist for them... He wants to give the internet over to the telecom industry --the same industry he protected with immunity for illegal wiretapping of Americans. This is consistent with his views on civil liberties. He has voted for every version of the Patriot Act.”
What does Zeese make of Biden calling for an end to the cocaine rock/powder sentencing disparity? “Election-year recognition of the importance of African Americans in the Democratic Party primary... Moving away from his sponsorship of this horrendously racially unfair law was essential to a presidential campaign, so he signed onto a bill that went nowhere.”
And look where it got him —-the Democratic vice-presidential nomination.
Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? Thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act.
Most people know that the "drug czar" -- the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) -- is an advocate for the government position regarding the drug war. But not everyone knows that he and his office are mandated to tell lies as part of their Congressional authorization.
According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998: H11225:
Responsibilities. --The Director-- [...](12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--
- is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
- has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;
Now, let's take as a simple example, the issue of medical marijuana. If the government finds that marijuana Has "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" or "accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision," then by law, marijuana cannot remain in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.
But by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form).
Therefore, despite the fact that there is extensive evidence of medical marijuana's safety and effectiveness (including the fact that even the federal government supplies it to patients), and clearly the drug czar would know about all this information, he is required by law to lie about it.
The job description also means that since he must oppose any attempt to legalize, he has no choice but declare that the drug war is working, that legalization would fail, etc., regardless of any... facts.
On April 2, 2003, Congressman Ron Paul wrote a letter to the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) asking for an investigation into ONDCP lobbying activities and their dissemination of "misleading information" (a polite euphemism for "lying")
The GAO responded (pdf):
Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director's letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana. [...]ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for "taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use" of certain controlled substances such as marijuana --- a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director's statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director's individual statements in detail.
Translation: Since lying is in the job description of the ONDCP, there's no point in bothering to see whether they're telling the truth.
Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1986)
he Anti-Drug Abuse Act strengthened federal efforts against drugs in many ways. One provision allows the president to increase tariffs (taxes on imports) on products from countries that do not cooperate with the U.S. efforts to stop drug imports into the United States. Another provision makes seizure of drug offenders' assets (houses, boats, cars, and money) easier.The act also created the first laws against money laundering, or moving illegally obtained money (such as drug sale proceeds) into or out of bank accounts. In 1995 a congressional study estimated that $40 billion to $80 billion in drug profits are generated annually in the United States. Placing that money in the banking system exposes drug sellers to criminal sentences as well as forfeiture.
The part of the act with the most far-reaching impact, however, reinstated mandatory prison sentences for drug possession. Until 1986 the federal government had virtually no mandatory minimum sentences for drugs. The first federal mandatory drug sentences were passed in 1951 and imposed a two-year minimum sentence for first-time possession and a five-year sentence for trafficking. But those mandatory minimums were largely repealed in the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
In the 1986 act, Congress reinstated mandatory prison terms by defining the amounts of various drugs that it believed would be in the hands of drug "kingpins," or high-level dealers. Those amounts include 1,000 grams of heroin or 5,000 grams of powder cocaine. Offenders possessing, with intent to distribute, these "kingpin" amounts face a minimum ten-year prison sentence. Offenders possessing smaller amounts that would generally be possessed by "mid-level dealers"—such as 100 grams of heroin or 500 grams of powder cocaine—face a minimum five-year sentence.
Distinctions in Minimum Sentencing
More significantly, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act created distinctions in minimum sentencing between offenders who possess powder cocaine and those who possess crack cocaine. For crack cocaine, Congress departed from its "kingpin" and "mid-level dealer" categories and simply divided the amounts necessary for powder-cocaine sentences by 100. Thus 50 grams of crack, instead of 5,000 grams of powder cocaine, merit a ten-year minimum sentence, and 5 grams of crack, rather than 500 grams of powder, trigger a five-year sentence. Trafficking in 50 grams of powder cocaine carries no mandatory sentence.
Congress justified this 100-to-1 sentencing disparity by stressing the serious social harms with which crack use was associated. Although crack and powder cocaine are the same chemical substance, crack sells more cheaply on the street and can be smoked, which induces a briefer, more intense intoxicating effect. It came into widespread use only in the mid-1980s and was associated with violent street crime. In the summer and fall of 1986, press reports sparked growing popular and congressional concern about a crack "epidemic."
In an effort to respond to this concern before the November congressional elections, legislators introduced a number of bills to toughen penalties for crack dealing. Less than two months before the election, President Ronald Reagan introduced a proposal with a 20-to-1 powder/crack ratio. House Democrats then proposed a 50-to-1 ratio, and Senate Democrats followed with a proposal that prevailed, a 100-to-1 ratio between the amounts of powder and crack cocaine required for mandatory minimum sentences.
Racial Issues
The sentencing distinction between crack and powder cocaine has been controversial because of its disparate racial impact. Most offenders sentenced under the crack cocaine provisions are African-American, whereas white offenders make up a much higher portion of those convicted for powder cocaine offenses. Courts have rejected arguments that the different penalties are unconstitutional because minorities typically receive harsher sentences under the statute. Congress has rejected a recommendation by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to reduce the disparity between powder and crack cocaine sentences.
Although many media reports and images at the time of the act emphasized the spread of crack cocaine among inner-city minority communities, it is not clear that Congress foresaw the disparate racial impact these sentencing changes would have. Fully half of the African-American representatives in Congress voted for the act, many of them emphasizing the harm that crack use was causing to black communities. Regardless of Congress's original intent, years of evidence showing that minorities receive much harsher sentences than whites for cocaine offenses because of the powder/crack distinction has led to no serious effort to change the law. Mandatory minimum sentences appear to be a fixture of American drug policy for the foreseeable future.
The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act marked a profound shift not only in America's drug-control policy but also in the workings of the criminal justice system. It established the bulk of drug-related mandatory minimums, including the five- and 10-year mandatory minimums for drug distribution or importation, tied to the quantity of any "mixture or substance" containing a "detectable amount" of the prohibited drugs most frequently used today. More importantly, these mandatory sentences completed the transfer of sentencing power from federal judges to prosecutors.
Although the U.S. Sentencing Commission was busy working on federal sentencing guidelines for all crimes, there was not a word of discussion in either the House or the Senate of any potential inconsistency or overlap between the new drug-related mandatory laws and the guideline system that Congress had set in motion just two years earlier.
Crack cocaine and Len Bias
Instead, unprecedented media attention on drugs, bad timing, and tragedy appeared to be driving the drug bill. University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias, 22, had just been drafted by the Boston Celtics and was a local hero. On June 17, 1986, Bias attended a ceremony in Boston to sign a contract with the Celtics. Two days later he died of heart failure, allegedly caused by an accidental cocaine overdose.
Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (D-Mass.) returned to Boston for the Fourth of July congressional recess and everyone seemed to be talking about the death of the Celtics' first-round draft pick. As fears of crack cocaine swept the nation, O'Neill drove Congress into action. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act debate was likened to a poker game, with members of Congress upping the ante (and the sentences) for drug offenses. Thoughts of sentencing uniformity and the integrity of the guideline system were quickly eclipsed by the day's headlines. Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.) explained, "I think it comes down to one young man not dying in vain."14
As President and Mrs. Reagan were calling for tough new drug-control laws, Congress rushed to provide them - within a month, the legislation was drafted. Only 16 Congressmen voted against the bill, which passed the Senate by a voice vote. President Reagan signed the final version of the bill on October 27, 1986, just a week before Election Day. By 1987, the U.S. Sentencing Commission had completed its work on the federal sentencing guidelines. Because of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the mandatory minimums became "anchors" to set the drug sentencing ranges - but Congress created more mandatory minimums. The Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 targeted different drug offenses. At one end of the drug distribution chain, Congress created a mandatory minimum of five years for simple possession of more than five grams of "crack" cocaine. Simple possession of any amount of other drugs - including powder cocaine and heroin, or 4.9 grams of crack - remained a misdemeanor with a mandatory 15-day sentence required only for a second offense. At the other end, Congress doubled the existing 10-year mandatory minimum for anyone who engages in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), requiring a minimum 20-year sentence in such cases.
The most significant provision of the 1988 Act, however, was a change in the drug conspiracy penalties. This change increased the potential that the applicable penalties could apply equally to the major dealer and the mid-or low-level participant. Therefore, if a woman tells an undercover federal agent where to buy some LSD, and the agent buys some LSD from a person who possessed five grams of LSD, the woman, as a "conspirator," faces the same mandatory minimum as the person who actually possesses the LSD.
If federal prosecutors had any questions about their role in the war on drugs, the infamous "Thornburgh memorandum" answered them in 1989. Written by the U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, the memo required them to charge to the fullest extent of the law "the most serious readily provable offense or offenses consistent with the defendant's conduct." This greatly exacerbated the effects of mandatory sentences by insuring federal prisons would be packed with drug offenders.
From SourceWatch
The VICTORY Act ("Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003") was introduced in the 108th Congress, 1st Session, by Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Jon Kyl (R-Arizona). DRAFT June 27, 2003/DRAFT July 30, 2003/[1].
The act "creates the new category of crime called narco-terrorism": [2]
- The purpose of the bill is "To combat narco-terrorism, to dismantle narco-terrorist criminal enterprises, to disrupt narco-terrorist financing and money laundering schemes, to enact national drug sentencing reform, to prevent drug trafficking to children, to deter drug-related violence, to provide law enforcement with the tools needed to win the war against narco-terrorists and major drug traffickers, and for other purposes." [3]
he bill was sponsored by Senator Joseph Biden, along with cosponsors Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Joseph Lieberman, Strom Thurmond, Patrick Leahy and Richard Durbin.[1] The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on June 18, 2002. June 27, 2002 it was reported out of the committee without written comment or amendment and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. On October 10, 2002, Senator Biden provided introductory remarks on the bill before the Senate.
This bill was introduced to the Senate again on January 7, 2003 by Senator Thomas Daschle[SD] with co-sponsors; Senator Joseph Biden Jr. [D-DE], Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton [D-NY,] Senator Jon Corzine [D-NJ], Senator Mark Dayton [D-MN] Senator Richard Durbin [D-IL], Senator Edward Kennedy [D-MA], Senator Patrick Leahy [D-VT], Senator Patty Murray [D-WA], Senator Jack Reed [D-RI], Senator Charles Schumer [D-NY]. This bill also failed to pass. [1]
On Thursday (April 10, 2003) the Senate and House passed [2] the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (formerly known as the RAVE Act) as an attachment to the child abduction-related Amber Alert Bill. The language of the original act was changed slightly before the bill was passed without public hearing, debate or a vote.
The stated purpose of the Act was: "A bill to prohibit an individual from knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, and for other purpose."[2]
The Act would have modified section 416(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (codified at United States Code, to expand the section regarding "Establishment of manufacturing operations", which previously outlawed maintaining, managing or owning any place used to manufacture, distribute or use drugs to include temporary or permanent uses of the premises.[2]
The Act also would have created a civil penalty of $250,000 or "2 times the gross receipts, either known or estimated, that were derived from each violation that is attributable to the person.", whichever was greater.[2] Additionally, the Act recommended that the United States Sentencing Commission reconsider the then-current Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to offenses involving Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, commonly known as the date rape drug.[2]
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.
Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.
Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.
The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.
China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison. (That number excludes hundreds of thousands of people held in administrative detention, most of them in China's extrajudicial system of re-education through labor, which often singles out political activists who have not committed crimes.)
The raw material of the prison-industrial complex is its inmates: the poor, the homeless, and the mentally ill; drug dealers, drug addicts, alcoholics, and a wide assortment of violent sociopaths. About 70 percent of the prison inmates in the United States are illiterate. Perhaps 200,000 of the country's inmates suffer from a serious mental illness. A generation ago such people were handled primarily by the mental-health, not the criminal-justice, system. Sixty to 80 percent of the American inmate population has a history of substance abuse. Meanwhile, the number of drug-treatment slots in American prisons has declined by more than half since 1993. Drug treatment is now available to just one in ten of the inmates who need it. Among those arrested for violent crimes, the proportion who are African-American men has changed little over the past twenty years. Among those arrested for drug crimes, the proportion who are African-American men has tripled. Although the prevalence of illegal drug use among white men is approximately the same as that among black men, black men are five times as likely to be arrested for a drug offense. As a result, about half the inmates in the United States are African-American. One out of every fourteen black men is now in prison or jail. One out of every four black men is likely to be imprisoned at some point during his lifetime. The number of women sentenced to a year or more of prison has grown twelvefold since 1970. Of the 80,000 women now imprisoned, about 70 percent are nonviolent offenders. About 75 percent have children.
The prison-industrial complex is not only a set of interest groups and institutions. It is also a state of mind. The lure of big money is corrupting the nation's criminal-justice system, replacing notions of public service with a drive for higher profits. The eagerness of elected officials to pass "tough-on-crime" legislation—combined with their unwillingness to disclose the true costs of these laws—has encouraged all sorts of financial improprieties. The inner workings of the prison-industrial complex can be observed in the state of New York, where the prison boom started, transforming the economy of an entire region; in Texas and Tennessee, where private prison companies have thrived; and in California, where the correctional trends of the past two decades have converged and reached extremes. In the realm of psychology a complex is an overreaction to some perceived threat. Eisenhower no doubt had that meaning in mind when, during his farewell address, he urged the nation to resist "a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment