Indefinite detention for possession of photos ok’d by Supreme Court. But violent Robbers must be freed after their term is over. Strange justice.
People who watch tasteless photos (youth erotica, or real child porn) in the privacy of their own home, first spend years in jail, then can be held indefinitely, the US Supreme Court confirmed. People who rob, threaten, pick fights, bully, hurt children while driving drunk, these offenders are set free after their prison term is over.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.[…]
“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37192279
So far, so good. I wonder, though, why don’t you add dangerous violent people, who habitually commit violent robberies, habitually drive drunk and get involved in accidents, gang banger bullies who will return terrorizing others on the street. The idea is good, just why exactly worried about sex offenders only?
The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said
there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.
Here is the serious problem: People who possessed computer files, a set of 0’s and 1’s that decode into the depiction of some nude teenagers, can be detained indefinitely? Even if it were the rare and unusual case that they possessed real violent rape photos of 5 year olds, what danger do these people pose to you, me, or our kids? Did they abuse? No! did they even take the photos? No! So why all the fuzz?
So the Supreme Court legalizes locking up, indefinitely, people who in the privacy of their home look at pictures? To protect whom? I worry about being run over by a habitual drunk driver, my kids being beaten up by a gang bully or robbed by a violent drug addict in urgent need to rob 5 times a day to support his drug addiction. But why should I care about a guy who stares at child porn in the privacy of his home? No matter how gross the pictures might be! And one can go to jail for nude photos of 17 year olds.
Now some guys were convicted for sexual abuse of a minor. As this blog has pointed out, 17 year olds get convicted of this crime for having oral sex with 15 year olds. Or 22 year olds for consensual sex with 17 year olds. And we don’t worry about violent people who kill, mutilate? Or habitual prison rapists?
The guys “only” got 3-8 years. You can get such a jail term for possessing a few photos of nude 15 year-olds. Because the terms are relatively low, certainly these people did not habitually snatch 5 year olds to violently penetrate them. In such a case the law would make sense. But even then, why not hold indefinitely people who habitually bully, rob, assault, beat and knife children, adolescents, or adults?
Additional Comments
Was the Supreme Court’s real issue not federal vs state power? Yes, but …
Yes, the Supreme Court should not really take full blame for this distortion. They just upheld unjust laws passed by lawmakers. But the law they upheld was about singling out non-violent “offenders” for possesion of photos.
Is this really about indefinite detention for watching photos? Yes!
I could not believe this either. The judges talk about protecting society from violent predators. But as this blog shows language distortion in the service of the Child Porn Witch Hunt and Teenage Sexuality, it is quite possible that they think watching nude adolescent photos or innocent 16 year old sex acts is violent.
The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/17/national/main6491848.shtml
See, another top news source confirms that some were there only for possession of photos and Videos.The NY Post is more specific about one case below:
At arguments in January, Solicitor General Elena Kagan–now nominated to serve on the Court–told the court that federal prison officials found about 15,000 inmates with histories of sexual violence or child molestation, but only 105 who were determined to have a mental illness making it “reasonably likely” they would commit such offenses in the future.
One of those prisoners was Graydon Comstock, who in November 2006, six days before completing a 37-month federal sentence for possession of child pornography, was certified as sexually dangerous and denied release.
This guy watched photos and videos on his computer. As shown on this blog (Child Porn Witch Hunt) people get prosecuted for just having a single photo in some browser cache, by accident, or buying an innocent bootleg DVD at a swap meet. But let us suppose he had really vicious photos. What damage does he do to you, to me, or to our kids? NONE!
But the violent street robber and mentally deranged arsonists, that get set free after their terms, they worry me. Or the gang members who went to prison school with their fellow gang bangers and come out worse then before. They worry me, and our kids.
He and several other such prisoners sued, claiming that Congress assumed powers only states can exercise.
At the arguments in January, Kagan said the power to confine such prisoners was implicit in the government’s duty “to run a responsible criminal justice system.” The law aims “to make sure that sexually dangerous, mentally ill people don’t fall through the cracks between federal custody and the re-establishment of state control,” she said.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p[…]
Aren’t there similar Human-Stupidities, unjust witch hunts? Yes!
Yes, there are other injustices, persecution of victimless crimes, stupid needless restrictions of human freedom to pursue their life and happiness. But none as vicious as the Child Porn Witch Hunt and Teenage Sexuality persecutions.
The US Supreme Court voted six-three that medical use of marijuana was illegal in a vote last week, despite laws in 11 states that permit its use. The court ruling puts the federal government at odds with many in the scientific establishment and with public opinion.
The federal US Drug Enforcement Administration raided Ms Monson’s home and confiscated marijuana plants that she had grown for her own use. Ms Raich received marijuana free from a friend. Both are reported to have followed their doctors’ advice to use marijuana and said that they would continue to use their home grown drug. Californians voted to legalise marijuana for medical use in 1996. Perhaps 100 000 of the state’s 35 million residents are thought to use the drug legally.
Here, after decades, public opinion is turning
US newspapers including the New York Times , the Washington Post , Newsday , the Chicago Tribune , the Dallas Morning News , and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer criticised the court’s decision that medical use of marijuana should be illegal. The Washington Post said, “The government’s crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional” (7 Jun 2004, p A20).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558405/
Next Stop Hell for Americans’ Civil Liberties?
Americans deemed by President Obama as Belligerent are vulnerable to Arrest and Indefinite Detention under the passed NDAA, National Authorization Defense Act.
Recently the Obama Administration asked a NYC Federal judge to (stay) suspend a ruling by a U.S. District Judge (Katherine Forrest) that blocked vague provisions of NDAA that give the President authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely:
According to the Obama Administration—they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Obama may use the NDAA provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge (Katherine Forrest) to round up without evidence millions of Americans alleging they are belligerents or threat to National Security. Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Immediately after German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens without probable cause or evidence; delegated power to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Then Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament insuring his laws could not be rescinded.
During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Federal Government—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under NDAA, the U.S. Government or President could claim anyone was (directly aligned with militants) e.g. any political or other association; charge any activity, statement, writing or communication was (directly aligned) with an individual or group the government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.
The 2012 / 2013 NDAA like Hitler’s 1933 Decrees are similar—both laws allow forced government censorship; warrant-less searches of private property and property forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in 2013 NDAA keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.
You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. Under the Patriot Act, lending itself to Government / police corruption, the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC is may use a preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.
Sections of 2013 NDAA are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.
Under NDAA It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.
Truer words were never spoken! Insanity seems to be the rule these days.
There is no witch hunt that comes even close to that being driven by the child abuse industry. Feminists and governments are working hand in hand to :
1/ criminilize virtually the entire male population.
2/ allow the state to remove any male from society at any time – indefinately.
3/ make it almost suicidal for any man to speak out against these laws.
Middle-aged feminists are happy because pretty soon even admitting to a preference for 19 year old girls could lead to your home being raided, a thumbnail of a young looking 19 year old found on your harddrive (from random amateur porn galleries), and you consequently being locked away indefinately as a paedophile.
Governments are happy because any undesirable member of society can be taken out under these laws (ex : the British police have tried charging ‘suspected terrorists’ with child porn offences when they haven’t had enough evidence to charge the suspects for terrorism).