Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Debating the War on Drugs in Mexico

Yesterday I was invited to Pajamas TV to discuss the increasingly violent situation in Mexico, where the drug-related death toll continues to skyrocket. The other guest was journalist Matt Sanchez.

The discussion rapidly turned into a debate with Sanchez on the merits of drug legalization as an alternative to the current mayhem. If you’re interested in the topic, the video is available here, and the audio here.

Supreme Court Will Not Hear al-Marri Appeal

The Supreme Court previously granted certiorari to the appeal of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, the only enemy combatant taken into custody domestically and detained in a military brig. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that he could continue to be detained as an alleged al Qaeda operative without trial. The Supreme Court reversed its decision to hear the case today.

The Obama administration moved him back into the civilian criminal justice system, and denied that it was doing so to keep the lower domestic detainee precedent intact. It argued that denying review while vacating the Fourth Circuit’s decision would serve the ends of justice. Apparently, the Court agreed.

As I have said before, domestic counterterrorism is a law enforcement task, not a military one. The Washington Post and New York Times both wanted the Supreme Court to hear the case and rule that domestic detention is unconstitutional.

Obama’s actions seem to indicate either a lack of interest or a disagreement with the sweeping power claimed by President Bush, that presidents can simply whisk off any person in the U.S. — including citizens — to a military prison without a trial. But now that the Supreme Court has declined to rule on the executive’s claims in this case, we will not have the benefit of a Supreme Court precedent repudiating the executive’s overreach. Whether or not Obama tries to repeat what Bush did, another president will likely try to do it again. Not good.

John Walters on Drugs?

John Walters, former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, turns in a rambling and at times incoherent defense of the current war on drugs in today’s WSJ. There are many points worth picking apart, but this line of reasoning, loosely speaking, was my favorite:

What is the alternative to the progress we are making? We have made the kind of compromises with alcohol that some suggest making with illegal drugs…

Today there is terrible violence in Mexico…  The drug trade is a tool, not the cause of these violent criminal groups. Making it easier to produce and traffic drugs will strengthen, not weaken, these terrorists.

Right. Because we have all of these beer distributors and liquor-store owners running around the country kidnapping folks, killing judges, prosecutors, and journalist and generally terrorizing the populace.

I shudder to imagine the damage to our society were the illicit drug trade conducted in a strict regulatory framework reflective of our alcohol and medical supply distribution systems.

Good Coverage of AG Holder’s War on Guns

As I said earlier this week, Eric Holder’s push for an “assault weapons” ban is a misguided policy that will not have any serious impact on Mexican drug cartels.  It really ought to be called a “ban on semi-automatic firearms with politically incorrect cosmetic features,” but that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.  I am pleased to see that CNN is providing coverage of this that notes (1) the difference between semi-automatic sporting arms and machine guns and (2) that Mexican authorities are not releasing the serial numbers of firearms seized from the gangsters.  This is probably because many of these guns are coming from the Mexican government, not American gun stores.  The drug cartels are putting up billboards to recruit soldiers and policemen as hired muscle.  Don’t be surprised when they walk off the job with the guns you issued them, and don’t shift the blame to the Second Amendment.

The Continuing Puzzle: What is the Iranian Government Doing?

The Iranian government has detained another American journalist, Roxana Saberi of NPR.  I was waiting to post on this in the event that a concerted effort to free her got spun up, but I’m not seeing anything as yet, so I thought I’d just relate the news.

I met Ms. Saberi once.  We were both panelists at a discussion of Iran policy about two years ago, in front of a group of several hundred high school students who were on some sort of DC visit.  I found her to be reserved in manner, judicious in thought, and entirely unthreatening.  It is unfortunate that the Iranian government does not acknowledge this.

In any case, she should be freed immediately.  The Iranian government gets nothing from this sort of thing other than bad press, as it surely recognized when it pointlessly detained and ultimately released Haleh Esfandiari less than two years ago.  The Iranians may be using Saberi to wind up (or vent) nationalism in the advent of the June elections, but overall you’d think the Iranian government had more important matters to attend to.

Let her go.

UPDATE: I’m reminded that it isn’t just Saberi that the Iranians have detained. Two Iranian doctors working to prevent HIV have apparently been sent to prison on the grounds that they were “involved in provoking street demonstrations and ethnic unrest in different parts of the country.”You’d think if the Iranians were really concerned about ethnic unrest in different parts of their country, they’d refrain from doing things like having state-run newspapers publish cartoons representing Azeris as cockroaches.

Grand Juror Got Too Uppity

Peter Atherton was thrown off a grand jury for asking too many questions of the prosecutors.  Here’s an excerpt from Legal Times:

Back in 2001, fellow grand jurors quickly became irritated with Atherton, saying he was disruptive and was holding up the process with all of his questions about probable cause and burden of proof, according to court records.

It was Atherton’s first time on a grand jury when he showed up for service that April. He says he became concerned the jury was rushing through cases, indicting individuals without having a full understanding of the crimes.

Filing an indictment against someone is serious stuff.  The process should be slow and deliberative.  Alas, the old saw is that prosecutors can get grand juries to indict anything–even a ham sandwich.  Atherton’s experience lends support to that–skeptics who question authority apparently can’t be tolerated.   For a related case, go here.  For my primer about the grand jury process, go here.