The Toronto Star reports that the Canadian Government is backing off plans to decriminalize marijuana.

The decision was made just days after the U.S. threatened increased border crackdowns if the plan went into effect.

Under the new plan, possession of small amounts of pot would still be a criminal offense, but the offender would not "register a criminal record" and the penalties will be fines, not jail.

Also, under the new plans, penalties for drug trafficking will be doubled and more money will be spent at targeting traffickers.

Last week, U.S. drug czar John Walters suggested border traffic would slow to a crawl because the U.S. would increase inspections to stop smugglers from illegally shipping "poison" south.

Will Glaspy, a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency spokesman, told The Detroit News yesterday that talk of decriminalizing pot in Canada would mean "more customs, more border patrols, more DEA.

What a bully the Bush has become. He seems determined to interfere in everybody else's business. We wish someone would tell him to just butt out.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich announced yesterday he would sign a bill passed by the Illinois Legisature requiring videotaping of all interrogations and confessions conducted while the suspect is in police custody.

The Chicago Tribune praises the legislation, saying Illinois will be the first state in the nation to mandate recording of such statements in full.

Videotaping keeps cops honest. But it also protects them by heading off false claims of brutality and allegations that statements were coerced. It's all there on tape.

This is a criticial reform and one that we hope will be enacted in other states.

Update: The bill the Senate passed today is actually the same as the first section of Patriot Act II, which the Administration repeatedly has told us is a rough draft.

Section 101: Individual Terrorists as Foreign Powers. Under 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(4), the definition of "foreign power" includes groups that engage in international terrorism, but does not reach unaffiliated individuals who do so. As a result, investigations of "lone wolf" terrorists or "sleeper cells" may not be authorized under FISA. Such investigations therefore must proceed under the stricter standards and shorter time periods set forth in Title III, potentially resulting in unnecessary and dangerous delays and greater administrative burden. This provision would expand FISA's definition of "foreign power" to include all persons, regardless of whether they are affiliated with an international terrorist group, who engage in international terrorism.

Could this be the beginning of an attempt to pass the provisions of Patriot Act II piecemeal, thereby avoiding the controversial label "Patriot Act II" ? If another section of PA II gets introduced and passed this way, we foresee a monumental problem. The Schumer-Kyl bill was originally introduced on January 9, the same date on the draft of Patriot Act II. A coincidence? The Schumer-Kyl bill is S. 113.

The purpose of S. 113 is to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), title 50, United States Code, to permit surveillance of so-called `lone wolf' foreign terrorists. S. 113 would allow a FISA warrant to issue upon probable cause that a non-United States person is engaged in or preparing for international terrorism, without requiring a specific showing that the non-United States person also is affiliated with a foreign power. By eliminating the requirement of a foreign-power link for FISA warrants in such cases, S. 113 would allow U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor foreign terrorists who, though not affiliated with a group or government, pose a serious threat to the people of the United States. In light of the significant risk of devastating attacks that can be carried out by non-United States persons acting alone, individual terrorists must be monitored and stopped, regardless of whether they operate in coordination with other individuals or organizations.

Update: The New York Times reports the overwhelming support for today's bill was the result of a compromise in which Senator Hatch pulled his request to repeal the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act.

**************

"The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a bill intended to close a legal loophole that lawmakers say prevented the FBI from obtaining a crucial warrant to conduct surveillance of Zacarias Moussaoui before the Sept. 11 attacks."

"The legislation, known as the 'Moussaoui fix,' was approved 90-4. It would make it easier for the FBI to seek warrants for wiretaps and searches on non-Americans suspected of planning terrorist attacks, by eliminating a requirement to show the suspect was connected to a known terrorist group or a country that sponsors terrorism."

We don't see this as closing a loophole but as giving the Government new powers. The current law only allows secret FISA wiretaps and searches if the target is the agent of a foreign power or organization. The "fix" will allow secret FISA wiretaps and searches if the Government can't link the target to a terror organization.

The bill is also known as the "lone wolf" bill and was introduced by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John Kyl (R-AZ). It passed easily today, 94 to 6, and now goes to the House.

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont criticized the bill, saying it wouldn't make Americans any safer. An amendment sought by Senator Dianne Feinstein was rejected.

Once again we are moving in the direction of giving more power to prosecutors with less judicial oversight. FISA judges must rubber stamp secret FISA applications for eavesdropping so long as the application is filled out correctly. They don't weigh the merits of the request. There is no disclosure of whether the warrants produce useful information so Congress can make sure the power isn't being misused by the Executive Branch. All that has to be disclosed is the total number of applications made and how many were granted or refused.

For more on the issue of FISA warrants, our prior coverage is here. Chisum Lee of the Village Voice recently wrote about Schumer and his quest to pass this bill in an article called "Ashcroft's New Ally."

Celebrities and activists gathered today in New York calling for the repeal of the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws.

The speakers at the news conference and at a rally near 40th Street and Third Avenue said thousands of non-violent black and Latino New Yorkers who used drugs or were caught with a small quantity were unfairly sentenced under the 30-year-old laws. The laws, passed in 1973 and 1974 during then-Gov. Nelson Rockefeller's administration, can subject first-time offenders to 15 years to life in prison if convicted of selling as little as 2 ounces, or possessing as little as 4 ounces, of a controlled substance.

Governor Pataki promised reform of the laws during his last relection bid, when he was courting the hispanic vote. His spokesman today said repeal has been stymied by the state legislature, and that Pataki hasn't been able to get a bill past both houses. That much is true. But the reason for the stalemate is that Pataki's reforms haven't gone far enough.

About 200 people attended the rally, including hip hop mogul Russell Simmons, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins and Al Sharpton. Sharpton pointed out that redemption and rehabilitation should be granted to all, not just presidential nieces.

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee reports that to date, one state and 102 cities, towns, and counties have passed resolutions opposing the Patriot Act.

As Bush gets ready to unleash Patriot Act II on us, we encourage all of you to check in with this site and the ACLU to learn how you can mount opposition in your town.

[link via PatriotWatch].

Legislators in Alabama aren't too bright. On Tuesday, they voted against a bill legalizing sex toys. What's dumb about that? Read on.

The Alabama House voted against a bill Tuesday that would have removed a ban on sexual devices, such as vibrators, from the state's obscenity law. ....

A federal district judge in Birmingham has twice ruled that the ban is unconstitutional. The first ruling was overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the second ruling has been appealed to the appeals court.

....The sponsor of the bill, Rep. John Rogers, D-Birmingham, said because of the court ruling, the obscenity law is unenforceable as long as it contains the ban on sex toys....With little serious discussion, the House voted 37-28 to leave the sex toys ban in state law, leaving Rogers standing at the microphone shaking his head.

``What you just did is make our obscenity law illegal. You voted for obscenity,'' Rogers shouted at lawmakers.

[comments now closed]

Law Professor and blogger Jeff Cooper has these thoughts today on the Feeney Sentencing Amendment .

The notion that the Feeney Amendment represents a power grab by the Justice Department is supported not only by the substance of the amendment itself, but also by the procedure through which it was adopted. The amendment was appended to the Amber Alert Bill while that bill was in conference committee; it went through none of the ordinary process of hearings and committee deliberation. Input from judges and the members of the Sentencing Commission was not sought; Justice, on the other hand, had its fingerprints all over the proposal. Since September 11, the Justice Department has taken numerous steps to expand and consolidate its power. In the Patriot Act, in the Jose Padilla case, in numerous other instances the Department has taken steps to limit or eliminate judicial oversight of its actions. The Feeney Amendment is part and parcel of this enterprise. It's too much to hope for a presidential veto--the Amber Alert Bill is popular, and the president is unlikely to object to an amendment to that bill sought by his own Justice Department. But Congress should revisit the issue in the near future--and it should do so in a more deliberative, orderly fashion.

Would you like to know the changes the Patriot Act of 2001 made to existing law with just a glance? Check out this "redline" version--it's by the Government--through the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, titled "Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (October 2001). It redlines the entire act, not just computer provisions, for example here are the wiretap changes; here are the "sneak and peek" search additions. There's lots more.

[comments now closed]

Dumb law of the week (granted, it's only Monday): The California city of Lancaster is considering a law to banes and those on probation from one of its rough neighborhoods. A state prison is located in Lancaster, and many of those released from jail apparently want to make it home. Under the proposed Lancaster Community Appreciation Project,

...ex-convicts on or probation from the drug dealer to the writer of bad checks would be barred from visiting, renting or owning property in a 20-block area. Signs would notify them that the area is off limits. Current residents would be exempt. If successful, the project would be expanded to other neighborhoods.

Is Lancaster not in America? Haven't they heard of the First Amendment right to freedom of association?

In 1996, Cincinnati barred those convicted of drug offenses from certain ''drug exclusion zones.'' Six years later, a federal appeals court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional.

A Deputy District Attorney named David Berger designed the plan to cut down on crime. But what does this remind you of?

''The issue will be very simple: You were there (in the excluded zone), and you weren't supposed to be,'' Berger said.

Speaking of the dumb law of the week, it would be nice to have a small graphic or button to display with these posts that people could put on their blogs when referring to them and would be instantly recognizable. If any artistic folks would like to create one, we think that would be great. Put it up on your blog for now, and send us the url--maybe we can even do a contest.

President Bush today asked a congressional panel to make harming a fetus during an assault on the mother a federal crime.

The assault we see here is the one on state's rights.

Of course, this is coming about now due to the Laci Peterson murder. Scott Peterson is charged with two counts of homicide, one for his wife and one for their unborn child. The latter charge, allowable under California law, makes him eligible for the death penalty.

We should not pass legislation out of grief and passion in response to a singular event, no matter how horrific. Whichever advisor told Bush that now would be a good time to re-introduce this proposal (it was passed by the House in 2001 and died in the Senate) is a crass opportunist.

Most murders are state crimes. Let each state deal with the issue as its citizens see fit. We don't need more meddling by the federal government in our criminal laws--particularly those without an interstate connection.

Anyone but Bush in 2004.

Judges are beginning to voice their opinions on a law Congress passed earlier this month that will restrict judicial discretion in sentencing criminals. Most are decrying the move.

For our coverage on the bill, tacked on to the Amber Alert bill without congressional hearings, go here. For full coverage on the bill and what it means, go here.

29 states have fetal homicide laws, like the one Scott Peterson is charged with violating. Here's a chart of the laws, courtesy of the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

The Laci Peterson case in California has brought renewed attention to the question of the application of homicide statutes to a fetus. California penal law defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.”

In a subsequent 1994 decision in People v Davis, the California Supreme Court held that a fetus that has “progressed beyond the embryonic state of seven to eight weeks” can be considered a victim under the statute.

California is one of 29 states in which at least one section of the state’s homicide statute includes a fetus as a victim at some point in gestation.... State homicide statutes often cover several different crimes, ranging from capital murder to manslaughter to vehicular homicide. The laws often require different levels of intent for these different crimes and additionally, may have different requirements concerning knowledge of pregnancy. Within most homicide statutes, however, the point in pregnancy at which a fetus is considered a victim does not vary from one crime to another.

[link via Paper Chase]