Hit & Run

J.D. Tuccille Talks Terrorist Databases and Open Societies on RT

2013-05-18T10:45:00-04:00

We know the feds are perfectly capable of losing track of terrorism suspects. With competence an open question, how legit are their other terrorism busts, such as that of a Russian-speaking truck driver in Idaho? And, while the feds are eager to gather up plenty of data for the national security state, what in hell can they do with all of that information once their hard drives are stuffed fuller than President Obama's box o' woes?

Discussion of that last point made it through the editing process and into video posted online. Check me out at about the 2:45 mark as I suggest that massive databases are more trouble than they're worth, and that maintaining an open society requires that we take a few risks.

Eminent Domain for No One's Gain: New London Groundbreaking Ceremony Postponed

2013-05-18T09:00:00-04:00

In case you were wondering what’s happening in New London, Connecticut, proud home to the nation's most famous dump, the answer is still a whole lot of nothing. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed New London officials to seize an entire neighborhood via eminent domain on the basis that the city had a "carefully considered" plan to boost economic development.

After the initial plan—a corporate campus with hotels, condos, and office space—fell apart, officials selected a new developer to build an apartment complex on a portion of the razed neighborhood, Fort Trumbull, in 2010. Yesterday, the developer missed a second deadline to show they had secured financing.

David Collins at The Day has details on the deal:

On deck to take the land for free, and then not pay taxes on it, is a father-and-son development team from Fairfield County and New York City, Irwin and Robert Stillman.

In return for the free land, the Stillmans, according to the development agreement they signed 2½ years ago, are supposed to prove they are going to build a big apartment complex and have the financing to finish it.

That proof was lacking, so officials axed Monday's planned groundbreaking.

Baylen Linnekin on the Uncertain Future of Awful "Ag Gag" Laws

2013-05-18T08:00:00-04:00

Laws meant to crack down on farm whistleblowers, commonly referred to as “ag gag” laws, have been drawing fire around the country from various quarters—from animal rights activists to free speech advocates. Detractors often refer to “ag gag” laws as such because these laws serve to gag or stifle the speech of persons who cry foul over some facets of animal agriculture. While momentum appeared to favor ag gag laws this past autumn, writes Baylen Linnekin, two recent decisions have dealt a serious blow to that support.

View this article.

Cincinnati IRS Workers: Following Orders or Freelancing?

2013-05-18T07:43:00-04:00

The IRS scandal around targeting tax-status applications for Tea Party groups is centered around the actions of the Cincinnati branch office. So what's local news saying? Here's a report from the local Fox 19 station.

What about those local employees? Remember, [outgoing acting IRS director] Steven Miller claims that the targeting of conservative groups happened at the hands of low level Cincinnati employees who had gone "rogue" and were "off the reservation" and have already been "disciplined."

Have any of these four IRS agents, Mitchell Steele, Carly Young, Joseph Herr or Stephen Seok been disciplined? We don't know. But each one of these IRS employees could possibly face federal charges according to Speaker of the House John Boehner.

Boehner spoke to reporters Thursday stating that federal law on this issue is clear.

"Section 7214 of the title 26 of the U.S. code states very clearly, 'any officer or employee of the united states acting in connection with any revenue law of the united states who is guilty of extortion or willful oppression under the color of law shall be dismissed from office and if convicted be fined up to 10,000 dollars and spend five years in jail'. said Speaker Boehner.

A source tells Fox 19 that these agents say they were only doing what they were told. If they face 5 years in prison, how long might it be before they say who was reportedly giving them orders?

More, including video, here.

As it turns out, a fifth employee has been added to the list and all will be interviewed in a closed-door meeting of the Oversight Committee in D.C.

Note that the word coming out of Cincinnati is directly at odds with what came out of yesterday's IRS hearings, where the Washington players continued to blame locals. From Politico:

The hearing put a harsh spotlight on a plot twist that was already uncovered in the inspector general report: The Cincinnati crew had to be told to change their screening terms not once, but twice.

In January 2012, the report found, the Cincinnati employees changed their search terms again — without telling management — after Lerner reined them in. This time, the search terms weren’t as specific as “tea party” and “9/12,” but they still focused on political positions like “limiting/expanding government” and “social economic reform/movement.”

Once again, top IRS officials had to step in and broaden the screening terms — and this time, the employees got a memo saying any other changes had better be approved by IRS management.

[Republican Michigan Rep. Sander] Levin used much of his questioning time to emphasize that lower level IRS employees actually went out of their way to continue targeting conservative groups — even after their superiors told them their searches were unacceptable.

“[Lerner] ordered they be changed, is that correct?” Levin asked Miller, noting that the inspector general report says the head director of exempt organizations told them to scratch the words like “tea party” and “Patriot” from their searches as soon as she learned they were being used in July 2011.

Miller responded yes.

“This change was again made without executive approval. Is that correct?” Levin continued. Miller again answered yes.

The inspector general report says the specialists reinstated, and even expanded, the politically sensitive criteria to target conservative groups in January 2012 without approval from their bosses because “they believed the July 2011 criteria were too broad.”

More here.

With the threat of jail time hanging over their heads, it's likely the Cinncinnati people will either cough up names or be forced to admit that they were indeed freelancing. Neither outcome changes the fact that the IRS was abusing its power, though if it was a local operation, that obviously limits the political damage for the Obama administration.

Reason coverage of the IRS scandal.

Watch Future of Spaceflight: XCOR's Doug Jones Talks with Brian Doherty

2013-05-18T06:51:00-04:00

If you've ever dreamed of flying in space - and have about $95,000 in mad money stashed away - you've got a ticket to ride.

On May 16, Reason's Brian Doherty talked with XCOR co-founder Doug Jones about the future of spaceflight in the latest Reason webcast streamed live from our Los Angeles studios.

Click above to watch now or click below to go to the full article page, featuring links, downloadable versions of videos, and a full playlist of past Reason TV webcasts featuring the likes of former MTV VJ Kennedy, underground artist Chris Cooper (Art of COOP), Reason Foundation's Adrian Moore, Lisa Snell, and Carl DeMaio, and more.

Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel and get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

View this article.

Who Is Trying to Legalize College Contract Cronyism in California?

2013-05-17T18:52:00-04:00

Katy Grimes of Cal Watchdog uncovered some potentially dangerous weirdness in a California Assembly bill. Potentially dangerous weirdness is an unfortunately common component of Golden State legislation and is often not an obstacle to passage. This one has all the hallmarks of the way union workers got themselves exempted from harassment laws while engaging in picketing. Grimes reports:

Public contracts should always be subjected to stiff scrutiny. Without public scrutiny and oversight, spending other people’s money is too easy.

But a new Assembly bill would not only increase the amount of money California’s public universities and colleges could spend without adhering to the competitive bid process, but would also exempt state employees from felony charges of corruption.

What AB 173 would do is allow colleges to award contracts for goods or services to small businesses or “disabled veteran” businesses for up to $250,000 without having to turn to a bidding process. After the bill made it through a committee, sponsor Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) then amended the bill to exempt University of California employees from the state’s corruption laws in connection with these contract agreements, including the part of the California code that states, “Any officer or employee of the University of California who corruptly performs any official act under this chapter to the injury of the university is guilty of a felony.”

Grimes reported she was unable to get an explanation from Weber’s office for this change. On Wednesday, the bill went before the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

Fortunately this time, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, asked Weber about the amendment, and why it was made. Before Harkey could even complete her question, Weber interjected that she was removing the amendment. “We were asked to include it, as a request,” Weber told the Committee. “It is going to be eliminated.”

But Weber did not say who asked her to put the amendment in AB 173 which would have exempted state college and university employees from corruption prosecution under the California Public Contracts Code.

And as far as Grimes can tell (and I have to agree), the exemption is still in the legislation. It’s even noted in italics in the legislative counsel’s digest.

Illinois on Verge of Allowing Medical Marijuana

2013-05-17T18:00:00-04:00

The House in the State of Illinois approved a four-year pilot program to allow medical marijuana in April. Today it passed the state’s Senate. Now it goes to Gov. Pat Quinn, who has not yet said whether he’ll sign it or veto it or what. The Associated Press reports:

The proposal has been touted as the strictest in the nation among states that have legalized medical marijuana. It authorizes physicians to prescribe marijuana to patients with whom they have an existing relationship and who has at least one of more than 30 medical conditions listed on the measure.

Lawmakers voted 35-21 to send the measure to the Democratic governor. Quinn has declined to say whether he will support the bill, saying he's "open-minded" on the issue. Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, a former prosecutor, said she is in favor after meeting with patients, including veterans.

Quinn truly is one exasperating governor, isn’t he? Does he need to start another web site to get people to tell him what to do?

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

All Police Shootings of Dogs Have Been Justified, Says Houston Police Depart

2013-05-17T17:26:00-04:00

Most news stories of police shootings of dogs tend to be reported in a vacuum. Even when reporters interview outraged witnesses and discover that the offending pooches — almost invariably described as "pit bulls" — seem to attack officers lightning-fast, under improbably circumstances, after years of restrained behavior, the shootings are usually treated as isolated incidents. ButScott Noll of KHOU did something a bit different by asking the Houston Police Department how often its officers felt compelled to shoot dogs, and what the outcome was in those cases. The answer? Well, Houston cops shoot a lot of dogs, and they never make mistakes.

From KHOU:

In fact, the department said it has ruled all 187 officer-involved shootings of dogs since January 1, 2010 as justified.

According to departmental records, 121 of those dogs died.

HPD declined to talk about the cases on camera, citing a pending lawsuit arising from one of the shootings.

However, a police spokesman said departmental policy authorizes officers to use any force necessary to protect someone in imminent danger of an attack.

But the 11 News I-Team found a trail of heartbroken dog-owners that stretches beyond city limits.

A review of cases from across the Houston-area revealed at least 228 dogs shot by police and deputies since 2010.

Out of that number, 142 dogs died.

All of the cases were justified? KHOU quotes Sgt. Joseph Guerra of the Precinct 6 Constable’s Department expressing a little skepticism of the clean bill of health the department and its neighbors give themselves. “We need to get those officers involved in some mandated training in how to defend before going to deadly force,” says Guerra, who demonstrates non-lethal techniques for distracting dogs.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is officially very down on police justifications for what has been a wave of shootings of dogs in recent years:

Policies that require only that an officer “feel” threatened set a very low threshold for justifying the killing of dogs. In virtually all cases we have examined, internal reviews of dog shootings have ruled them to be justifiable under existing policies, even though several cases have resulted in substantial civil judgments against police departments for wrongful destruction. Such incidents not only jeopardize the lives of companion animals, but also undermine the reputation of law enforcement agencies in the community.

Police rarely receive any training that would allow them to rapidly and realistically assess the degree of danger posed by a dog; nor are they routinely informed about or trained to use any of the wide variety of non-lethal tools and techniques available to them as alternatives to shooting.

And yes, police shootings of dogs have been a sufficient trend to elicit a formal report from the U.S. Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services last summer. The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters pointed out that "A recent poll revealed that approximately 53.5 percent of owners consider their dogs family members, another 45.1 percent view them as companions or pets, and less than 1.5 percent consider them mere property" on the way to emphasizing that Americans like their dogs and so killing them as a matter of casusl policy upsets people. The report also emphasized that serious dog bites are rare, and no particular breed is especially dangerous, so police have little reason to feel fear out of hand when encountering your average canine. The report even offers some examples for interpreting doggy body language. It ultimately concludes that, dogs being an important part of American life, police might consider taking the time to learn how to deal with them.

Shooting a dog should always be the option of last resort. The safety of fellow officers and bystanders is put at risk in such situations, and when a law enforcement officer shoots a dog that does not constitute a serious threat, community trust is eroded and the department is opened to potential lawsuits and other legal action.

Somebody send a copy of that report to the Houston Police Department.

CDC Finds Poop in Pools, Gay Marriage Legislation Ruled Constitutional in France, LulzSec Hackers Get Prison Sentences: P.M. Links

2013-05-17T16:30:00-04:00

Readers who are looking forward to taking a dip in their local public pool this summer may want to reconsider given that the CDC found traces of feces 58 percent of the public pools they tested.

France’s constitutional high court has upheld legislation passed by both the Senate and the National Assembly that allows gay couples to marry and adopt children.

Four members of the LulzSec hacking group have been sentenced to between two and two-and-a-half years in prison in England.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the enforcement of a new law in Arkansas that bans abortions after 12 weeks of a pregnancy.

The Air Force chief of staff has recommended removing the authority to prosecute military personnel accused of sexual misconduct from the chain of command.

Former presidential candidate John Edwards has reactivated his license to practice law. The first step of a potential comeback perhaps.

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7 content widgets for your websites.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!

Don't Blame Citizens United for the IRS Scandal

2013-05-17T16:03:00-04:00

David Freddoso makes some sharp points about the unfolding IRS scandal:

Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee focused like a laser on the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision as the true culprit for this targeting. But there are a few problems with this explanation.

First of all, this excuse blames the victims and turns the perpetrator--the IRS--into some kind of victim of their constitutional rights. It's one thing if Democrats don't like what the law or the Constitution or the Supreme Court has to say about free speech--they are welcome to attempt to change it. But that doesn't justify the singling out of conservative groups, who were not given any special status above and beyond their liberal peers. At best, it's a separate issue.

Second, the data show that there was no surge in 501c(4) applications by Spring 2010, around which time the IRS decided to target conservative applicants--in fact, the number of applications declined sharply between fiscal 2009 and 2010. So the idea that a sudden surge of Citizens United-inspired non-profit applications created the need for this extra scrutiny is a completely false one....

Third, the groups that were targeted mostly do not even remotely fit the profile [of] huge "dark money" actors that Democrats associate with Citizens United. The Associated Press studied tax returns for 93 of them only to find that they had little money and were genuinely grassroots groups--their median income (mostly from fundraising) was $16,700 per year, and their median expenses were just $12,770--not even enough for a typical campaign ad buy.

Only a very small number of big players have used 501c(4) money for mass-scale electioneering, and none of them seem to have been targeted.

Read the rest here.

Nancy Pelosi Says Republicans Harping on Scandals Because Obama is a Great President

2013-05-17T15:00:00-04:00

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has a unified theory for all the White House scandals that has to do with just how awesome President Obama is.

From CNS News:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Republicans are using scandals coming out of the White House to undermine President Barack Obama out of "fear," because he is “such a great president.”

“They make so much of these issues, because this president is such a great president,” Pelosi said during a press conference on Capitol Hill, ending a week filled with new revelations about scandals involving the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeting conservative groups, and the Justice Department seizing phone records of reporters at the Associated Press.

“He’s a visionary—you’ve heard me say this so many times,” Pelosi said of Obama.

In other words, she can’t hear you.

Follow all the scandals and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

Man May Be Jailed For Remaining Silent Before a Grand Jury

2013-05-17T14:46:00-04:00

Courtesy of the National Police Misconduct Reporting Project comes word of Jerry Koch, a New York anarchist who may be jailed for doing what most people assume you have a right to do: remaining silent in court. Federal prosecutors want him to testify in the matter of a midnight bombing of a military recruitment center in Manhattan in which nobody was injured. Koch is not a target, but the feds still want to hear from him.

From the New York Times:

A 24-year-old self-described Brooklyn anarchist may be headed to jail after refusing on Thursday for the second time to testify before a grand jury believed to be examining the explosion of a homemade bomb that damaged an armed-forces recruitment center in Times Square in 2008.

A lawyer for the man, Gerald Koch, said she believed that prosecutors would ask a Federal District Court judge in Manhattan to cite him for contempt during an appearance scheduled for next week, an action that could result in Mr. Koch’s being jailed.

“I anticipate that the government will seek an order from the court holding Jerry in civil contempt,” said the lawyer, Susan V. Tipograph, adding that her client had refused to testify as “a matter of principle” and because “he has no knowledge whatsoever” about the bombing or who caused it.

Ms. Tipograph said Mr. Koch was not a target of the investigation and had been granted immunity.

That grant of immunity is likely the key to the inquisition, since it can be interpreted to make the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination moot. But Koch objects that he's already made it clear in the years since the bombing that he knows nothing, and he believes the feds want to put him on the stand to extract information that's irrelevant to the case, but that piques their interest.

From Jerry Resists:

Given that I publically made clear that I had no knowledge of this alleged event in 2009, the fact that I am being subpoenaed once again suggests that the FBI does not actually believe that I possess any information about the 2008 bombing, but rather that they are engaged in a ‘fishing expedition’ to gain information concerning my personal beliefs and political associations.

Rather than answer questions when last called to court, Koch confirmed his name, age and address. On his Website, he says he thinks prosecutors really want to use the grand jury "to gain information about my friends, loved ones, and activists for whom I have done legal support."

Originally intended to prevent prosecutors — government employees — from wielding their powers arbitrarily, grand juries have instead turned into powerful tools of the state. New York Judge Sol Wachtler famously quipped that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In 2003, W. Thomas Dillard, Stephen R. Johnson, and Timothy Lynch wrote a cautionary paper (PDF) about grand juries, which were then being further empowered as part of the "war on terror," for the Cato Institute:

While most people are generally familiar with the function of the police officer, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer, the judge, and the trialjury, few have any idea about what the grand jury is supposed to do and its day-to-day operation. That ignorance largely explains how some overreaching prosecutors have been able to pervert the grand jury, whose original purpose was to check prosecutorial power, into an inquisitorial bulldozer that enhances the power of government and now runs roughshod over the constitutional rights of citizens.

Koch is next scheduled to appear at the federal court house at 500 Pearl Street, in New York City, on May 21. He's inviting supporters to pack the venue to witness what will likely be a grand jury doing whatever it's told to do.

Al Qaeda in Iraq Are Getting More Involved in the Syrian Civil War

2013-05-17T14:32:00-04:00

One of the main reasons that an intervention in Syria has not begun is that politicians, diplomats, and intelligence officials are rightly concerned about the influence of jihadist fighters within Assad’s opposition. One group in particular, Jabhat Al Nusra, has received quite a bit of attention not only because of the jihadist beliefs that motivate its members but also because it has been playing a significant role in the conflict. Jabhat Al Nusra was labeled as a terrorist organization by the American government six months ago.

As worrying as Jabhat Al Nusra is it has recently been reported that Al Qaeda in Iraq is becoming increasingly involved in the Syrian civil war, and is beginning to overshadowing Jabhat Al Nusra.

It might initially seem that another jihadist group getting more involved in the fight against Assad does not change much. However, it appears that Al Qaeda in Iraq have goals that would have a significant impact on the region if the rebels succeed in overthrowing Assad.

From Reuters:

Al Qaeda's Iraq-based wing, which nurtured Nusra in the early stages of the rebellion against Assad, has moved in and sidelined the organization, Nusra sources and other rebels say.

Al Qaeda in Iraq includes thousands of foreign fighters whose ultimate goal is not toppling Assad but the anti-Western jihad of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri - a shift which could extend Syria's conflict well beyond any political accord between Assad and his foes. The fighting has already cost 90,000 lives.

With Assad gone it will be easier for Al Qaeda in Iraq to use Syria and the surrounding region as a base for future operations, which will not only be of concern to Syria’s neighbors (perhaps most notably Israel), but also Europe and the U.S.

The rebels are not the only belligerents in the conflict that have terrorists within their ranks. Hezbollah, which enjoys support from Iran, has been fighting on the side of Assad's regime.

Unfortunately for those that favor humanitarian intervention the conflict in Syria includes unpleasant elements on both sides.

What may happen is that the dilemmas involved in arming the Syrian rebels and the urge to intervene will prompt countries like the U.S., France, and the U.K. to intervene more directly. While the deployment of western troops on the ground in Syria remains unlikely it should not be surprising if some countries decide to execute an operation similar to what was seen in Libya, where a no-fly zone was put in place and NATO members carried out airstrikes.

New York Times Self-Parody Alert

2013-05-17T14:29:00-04:00

Earlier this week I noted how The New York Times' version of La-La-La-I-Can’t-Hear-You Journalism had somehow cast the unfolding IRS-Tea Party scandal as a story about Republicans, who by the way are factually unhinged. Well, take a look at today's front page:

G.O.P., Energized, Weighs How Far to Take Inquiries

WASHINGTON — The investigations ensnaring the White House have unified the Republican Party, energized a political base shattered by election losses and given common purpose to lawmakers divided over a legislative agenda.

The most pressing question for Congressional Republicans is no longer how to finesse changes to immigration law or gun control, but how far they can push their cases against President Obama without inciting a backlash of the sort that has left them staggering in the past.

White House mired in scandal! Republicans hardest hit!

In case you didn't get the message, check out the NYT's lead editorial:

Scandal Machine

When politicians want to turn scandals into metaphors, actual details of wrongdoing or incompetence no longer matter. In fact, the details of the troubles swirling around the White House this week are bluntly contradicting Republicans who want to combine them into a seamless narrative of tyrannical government on the rampage.

Exactly who is demonstrating that "actual details of wrongdoing or incompetence no longer matter," again?

A pro-tip for those people who share the NYT worldview: When government screws up and/or abuses power, the most important thing is not the hyperbolic rhetoric of partisans from the opposition party. Particularly if your goal is journalism, or embracing a watchdog role on power, or simply exhibiting a little of the ol' civic duty. Or to put it in language even a media Boomer might understand, just because some Nixon-haters sympathized with the Weather Underground, doesn't mean Richard Milhous didn't grossly abuse power.

Ronald Bailey Asks If Hispanics Are Too Stupid to Become Americans

2013-05-17T13:30:00-04:00

Last week, the conservative Heritage Foundation issued a new study purporting to show that letting illegal immigrants from south of the border become citizens would cost more than $6 trillion dollars in social benefits by 2050. Researchers from all segments of the political spectrum contested that finding. In the midst of the controversy, it turned out that one of the study’s authors, Jason Richwine, had argued in his 2009 Harvard dissertation that immigration policy should focus on selecting and admitting individuals with higher IQs. He also suggested that Hispanic immigrants on average might not measure up. Naturally, all hell broke loose, and the brave leadership at Heritage tossed the hapless Richwine overboard by the end of the week. Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey looks into just what Richwine’s dissertation did say.

View this article.

Obama: Already a Multiple Lawbreaker

2013-05-17T12:51:00-04:00

Conor Friedersdorf continues his (alas, probably pretty futile) attempt to get fans of President Obama to wake the hell up! at The Atlantic:

Yes, President Obama has broken the law on multiple occasions. Despite clearly stating, in a 2008 questionnaire, that the commander-in-chief is not lawfully empowered to ignore treaties duly ratified by the Senate, Obama has willfully failed to enforce the torture treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan and duly ratified by the Senate, that compels him to investigate and prosecute torture....

Obama also violated the War Powers Resolution, a law he has specifically proclaimed to be Constitutionally valid, when committing U.S. troops to Libya without Congressional approval....

Has he ordered the assassination of any American citizens in secret without due process? Did he kill any of their teenage kids without ever explaining how or why that happened?

Has he refused to reveal even the legal reasoning he used to conclude his targeted killing program is lawful?

Has he waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers?

Has he spied on millions of innocent Americans without a warrant or probable cause?

Does he automatically count dead military-aged males killed by U.S. drones as "militants"?

Did he "sign a bill that enshrines in law the previously merely alleged executive power of indefinite detention without trial of terror suspects"?....

Yes. He. Has.

Friedersdorf on why Obama fans should have considered Gary Johnson in 2012.

Jimmy Carter Comes Out Against Marijuana Legalization

2013-05-17T12:46:00-04:00

President Jimmy Carter has come out against marijuana legalization, according to Project SAM, the anti-marijuana group started earlier this year by former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Kevin Sabet, a former advisor in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Here's Project SAM's press release, via the blog of Project SAM board member David Frum:

President Jimmy Carter, at a meeting that included state legislators and regulators from Colorado and Washington, as well as most of the states targeted for legalization in 2016, and attended by the nation's premier public health scientists like former White House Deputy Drug Czar Thomas McLellan, announced that despite mischaracterizations, he "opposed the legalization of marijuana" and predicted the experiments in Washington and Colorado would go badly. He also said that he didn't believe in imprisoning users of marijuana, but favored SAM's approach of arrests with treatment referral and health assessments.

President Carter has been falsely characterized as supporting legalization by pro-marijuana lobbyists nationwide. Today, he set the record straight:

"I do not favor legalization. We must do everything we can to discourage marijuana use, as we do now with tobacco and excessive drinking," President Carter told the crowd. "We have to prevent making marijuana smoking from becoming attractive to young people, which is, I'm sure, what the producers of marijuana....are going to try and do."

The President also said "I hope that Colorado and Washington, as you authorize the use of marijuana, will set up very strict experiments to ascertain how we can avoid the use of marijuana... There should be no advertising for marijuana in any circumstances and no driving under the influence. We need to avoid the use of marijuana, particularly among young people." President Carter endorsed the strict list of 12 regulations created by National Families in Action's "But What About The Children?" campaign.

"I'm very proud of Patrick Kennedy and his Project SAM, Smart Approaches to Marijuana," the President said. "I wish him and Kevin Sabet every success in your independent project to make sure marijuana is handled responsibly."

When asked about decriminalization from a Washington state legislator, President Carter remarked that he believes arrests for marijuana should be in place and result in a warning hearing, treatment, and screening. He opposed permanent records for people with marijuana use.

"I said this 35 years ago....that I didn't want to make it so that a person could possess...or smoke marijuana with impunity but that they could be chastised, offered treatment, etc."

Does this mean Carter thinks Willie Nelson should be arrested, chastised, and offered treatment?

Charges Dropped Against Kiera Wilmot

2013-05-17T12:28:00-04:00

Good news in the case of Kiera Wilmot, the Florida teen who was expelled and charged with two felonies after conducting an unauthorized but harmless science experiment on the grounds of her school: The authorities have dropped the charges against her. Meanwhile, Boing Boing reports that

Homer Hickam -- the writer and former NASA engineer whose memoir is the basis of the movie October Sky -- started a Crowdtilt campaign to send Wilmot and her twin sister Kayla to the Advanced Space Academy program at the U.S. Space Camp in Huntsville, Ala. The cost of space camp can run upwards of $1200. Hickam paid for Kiera Wilmot to go and the Crowdtilt campaign raised the other $1200 for her sister, plus extra money for their travel expenses. The campaign hit its $2500 goal in just two days and is now up to $2920. Hickam says the extra money is going to the girls' mother.

The school that expelled Wilmot has not yet said whether it will let her back, and a second Crowdtilt campaign, which raised $8,000 for a defense fund, is going to apply the remaining money to Wilmot's education. The case reportedly drained the family's finances, so the Internet's assistance is especially welcome.

A Bad Week for Obama, a Worse Week for Statism

2013-05-17T12:21:00-04:00

Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller is testifying before the House as part of an investigation into the IRS targeting Tea Party groups. If you're not watching C-SPAN right now, you're missing a savage flogging. Here's a sample statement, from Rep. Roskam (R-Ill.) to Miller: "I find it ironic that you're arguing today, 'The IRS is not corrupt, we're just incompetent'."

As with Benghazi and the DOJ's seizure of the AP's phone records, the right's response to the IRS scandal has been to call for resignations, firings, and--at least a few times--impeachment. Where does that get you? Miller is resigning at the behest of Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and the IRS is implementing the recommendations of the Treasury Inspector General. After all that--which is pretty much all House Republicans are asking for--the IRS will still be an insanely powerful government agency and in the business of policing speech.

Writing at Real Clear Politics, Ben Domenech argues that Republicans who think about these events through a partisan lens, rather than an ideological one, and who attribute these "scandals" to individuals, rather than to bureaucracy, are missing an opportunity to challenge statism:

Marco Rubio’s remarks the other day illustrate the right and the wrong way to talk about these scandals. Decrying Chicago politics and a fractured Washington, the failure of hope and change, is fine and good. But there’s a limit to it, and if done poorly, the attacks imply that the problem here isn’t the statism, it’s the guy at the head of it. In other words, that if Obama was really the ethically clean reform-minded progressive technocrat he styled himself as when running for office, things would be just fine. In effect, this partisan morality play approach allows the Democratic Party an escape route which they shouldn’t have: just firing a bunch of lower level people.

Here’s the hard thing Republicans have to do if they don’t want this crisis to go to waste: they have to ignore their id, the temptation of the sugar high of partisan point-scoring. They must willfully set aside Obama’s presence in the fray, leaving the short term personalized attacks on the table, and go after the much bigger prize. Obama isn’t running for office again. Liberalism is. Making this about him is a short term boost to the pleasure center of the conservative brain. Making this about the inherent falsehood of the progressive project will help conservatism win.

The progressive answer to this is more rules and regulators, more agencies and safeguards and accountability projects. Republicans should recognize this intervention for the ridiculousness it is – creating more federal entities to watch over federal entities – and focus their arguments instead on the only solution which will actually work: removing power from the federal government and returning it to the states or the people. The only way to ensure that government doesn’t abuse a power is to make sure it doesn’t have this power in the first place.

Or as Steven Greenhut writes in today's column, "Any sane person would conclude that all administrations and bureaucracies essentially are corrupt given that they thrive on the exertion of power of other people."

From Reason.tv: West Wing Weak: Your Guide to Obama's Scandal-Filled Week

Steven Greenhut: Obama’s Scandals Reveal the True Face of Government

2013-05-17T12:00:00-04:00

The Obama administration has gotten itself into a fix between its contradictory stories about the Benghazi incident, reports of the IRS targeting conservative groups, and the Justice Department’s grabbing of phone records from AP reporters. As Steven Greenhut observes, there are few things more fun to watch than arrogant political leaders—folks who spend their lives bossing everyone around—getting a comeuppance.

View this article.

In the Annals of Chutzpah Big Sugar Takes the Cake

2013-05-17T11:15:00-04:00

The Urban Dictionary defines chutzpah as "unmitigated effrontery or impudence; gall." An advertisement that ran earlier this month in the Washington Post in support of maintaining sugar import quotas by the American Sugar Alliance fits that definition to a "T." See below:

Never mind that lifting the import quotas would benefit candy companies, it would also benefit consumers to the tune of nearly $3 billion per year. Congress has been propping up Big Sugar for decades. This needs to stop! Greed indeed.

Italy Supports Hollande's Call for Joint European Economic Government

2013-05-17T11:10:00-04:00

The socialist French President Francois Hollande recently called for a joint European economic government which would include a president, budget, and tax system for the countries in the eurozone. Today, it was reported that the Italians are warming up to the idea, with Italy’s foreign minister saying that the proposal is worth consideration and that, “We take note with satisfaction the French position." While the French and Italians might like the idea it is hard to see why Germany, which already has a strained relationship with France, would get on board with the idea.

From Reuters:

May 17 (Reuters) - Italy said French President Francois Hollande's call for a joint European economic government should be considered, Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said on Friday.

"We take note with satisfaction the French position," Bonino told a news conference. She added Hollande's proposal "must be taken into consideration and must be explored".

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Majority of Americans Would Ban 3D-Printing Guns at Home (Fat Chance!)

2013-05-17T11:01:00-04:00

In results that may signal some discomfort with the enormous DIY promise of 3D printing and similar home-manufacturing technologies, a new Reason-Rupe poll finds that an otherwise gun control-weary American public thinks owners of 3D printers ought not be allowed to make their own guns or gun parts. Of course, implementing such a restrictive policy might be tad more difficult than measuring popular preferences.

First of all, Americans widely believe that ownership of 3D printers themselves should be unrestricted. The national Reason-Rupe telephone poll of 1,003 Americans asked:

Some Americans own 3-D printers, which can make a variety of plastic objects. Do you think Americans should or should not be allowed to use this technology in their own homes?

Should 62%
Should not 29%
Don’t Know/Refused (Vol.) 9%
Total 100%

But, specific controversial uses are another matter. Just those who agree that Americans should be allowed to own 3D printers were then asked:

3-D printers can be used to make guns or gun parts. Do you think Americans should or should not be allowed to print their own guns or gun parts in their own homes?

Should 44%
Should not 53%
Don’t Know/Refused (Vol.) 4%
Total 100%

So, even among people who think 3D printers should be allowed for personal use, just 44 percent say printing 3D guns or gun parts should be allowed.

However, there's little evidence that this 3D printed gun leeriness is part of a larger trend supporting restrictive firearms legislation. In fact, poll respondents seem sick of the issue in general, and ready for politicians to move on to something else. Reason-Rupe asked:

As you may know, the U.S. Senate recently voted down gun control legislation. Do you think the Senate should debate and vote on gun control legislation again or should the Senate move on to other issues?

Vote on gun control legislation again 33%
Move on to other issues 62%
Both (Vol.) 1%
Neither (Vol.) <1%
Don’t Know/Refused (Vol.) 3%
Total 100%

While it's discouraging to both techno-enthusiasts and supporters of the right to self-defense that a majority of Americans favor restricting a specific use of 3D printers, there's no obvious path for implementing such a policy. While 62 percent support for permitting private ownership of 3D printers strikes me as surprisingly low (what would the results be for a similar question regarding photocopiers or drill presses?), that may well represent an element of discomfort with new technology that colors the overall results — and it's still overwhelming support for private ownership of 3D printers. And there's no practical way of limiting the use of the technology one it's in private hands.

Supporters of restrictions, such as Slate's Farhad Manjoo, have pointed to the technology that limits DVD players to DVDs from a specified region, or the technology that's supposed to prevent photocopiers, printers and graphics software from replicating U.S. currency, as examples to follow for 3D printers. But those controls are easier to implement — DVD players look for specific region markers, and currency comes with easily recognizable, two-dimensional images and tiny markers — and are still widely bypassed with ease. They're so easily bypassed, that 60 percent of counterfeit U.S. currency recovered in recent years was produced on ink-jet printers.

Now, how well would comparable software work to prevent the production of firearm designs that have yet to be created for 3D printers? How would such software reliably distinguish between guns and hose nozzles or mechanical replacement parts? And what if the designers were clever enough to break the file into two parts that together produced the components for a finished gun?

The fact of the matter is, no effective way exists of restricting the use of 3D printers. For those of us who believe that the home printing of firearms is only one aspect of the liberating power of decentralized manufacturing, it's very reassuring to know that the public will have long opportunity to get over its technophobia, and become accustomed to the idea that friends and neighbors might occasionally make a pistol at home with more ease than in the past, along with all of the other cool, prosperity-enhancing things they'll create with this new technology.

In the unlikely case that opinion further sours ... Well, the RepRap project is developing 3D printers that can make more 3D printers that can make anything you want. It would be nice if the public were better attuned to the future. But the future is already here to stay.

IRS Official Who Ran the Office that Targeted Conservatives Now Runs the Obamacare Office

2013-05-17T10:38:00-04:00

The same official who oversaw the IRS tax-exempt office now under fire for targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny recently took charge of the revenue agency’s Obamacare division, according to ABC News.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.

At this point, we still don’t know what direct involvement, if any, Ingram had regarding the targeting that took place. She isn’t named in the Inspector General’s report at all.

But that report also concludes that the targeting was a result of significant administrative and organizational incompetence. If the IG report is correct, then this was a failure of management. And while that failure was underway, Ingram was at the top.

More on the connections between the IRS and Obamacare here.

Discuss Libertarian Perspectives on Abortion: Tuesday, May 21, 2pm-3pm ET

2013-05-17T10:34:00-04:00

As a political philosophy, libertarianism stresses concepts such as self-ownership, voluntary consent, and non-agression. In many areas of human activity, the application of such ideas seems relatively straightforward. In others, reaching clarity is far more difficult.

On Tuesday, May 21, from 2pm to 3pm in Washington, D.C., Reason will host a discussion tackling one of the most controversial and debated issues of the day: abortion. Among self-identified libertarians, there's a wide variety of positions, ranging from support for all forms of abortions to the prohibition of the same.

"Libertarian Perspectives on Abortion" will be moderated by Reason.com's Nick Gillespie and will feature

Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason magazine's managing editor
Mollie Hemingway, editor of Ricochet and a contributor to Christianity Today
Ronald Bailey, Reason's science correspondent

The topics discussed will include

When does human life - and when do rights - begin?
What's the role of science - and religion - in setting abortion policy?
Is there a role for the state in prohibiting, regulating, and providing abortion?

A fast-paced 30-minute discussion will be followed by audience Q&A.

Attendance is free but due to limited seating, an RSVP is required.

This event will also be livestreamed online by Reason TV.

Details:

What: Libertarian Perspectives on Abortion: A Reason discussion.

When: Tuesday, May, 21, 2pm to 3pm.

Where: Reason's DC HQ, 1747 Connecticut Avenue NW (near S Street, Dupont Circle stop on Red Line Metro)

RSVP: events@reason.com

From Waiting for the Investigation on Benghazi to Finish to Planning on Capturing or Killing Someone for It, Officials Not Interested in Asking How We Got There

2013-05-17T10:18:00-04:00

Yesterday, President Obama began his press conference with Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan with a comment about the 9/11 attack on Benghazi, framing the issue as one of funding and extra security to “prevent another tragedy like this from happening.” But officials from his own administration have acknowledged funding was not an issue with security in Benghazi.

Meanwhile, while testifying on the attack earlier this year, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton said it was more important to bring the perpetrators to justice then to focus on the competing narratives in the immediate aftermath (“ maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime”).

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler noted earlier this week that the claim that the president called the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack (as opposed to a generic “act of terror”) is not true, pointing to the president’s comments that referred to the ongoing investigation that would reveal what exactly happened.

An end to that investigation has not been announced, yet pressure over Benghazi has apparently led the military to update its plans on capturing or killing somebody over the Benghazi attack. These plans have been developing since the immediate aftermath of Benghazi, with CNN reporting that the military “has a list of several targets” including “specific individuals named who are believed associated with the Benghazi attack as well other militants the United States wants to get.” It’s a far cry from the investigation the Obama Administration told the country to wait for before jumping to conclusions.

The transition from “wait for the investigation to finish” to “the military will mete out retribution” skips any step involving any kind of introspection or reflection about the role of U.S. foreign policy in getting to a situation like Benghazi. As I wrote back in November:

[T]he investigation has stalled, and Libyan officials are worried about what the eventual American response might be. “They had surveillance drones monitoring that night. They will have identified some people and traced where they are now,” [the Daily Beast’s Jamie] Dettmer quotes an advisor to Libya’s Congress. “They worry,” Dettmer reports, “about a drone strike on targets in eastern Libya—that would be a gift to jihadists, they say.”

… the response to the murder of an American ambassador and three others may well be the sort of action that will “be a gift to jihadists.” What won’t be questioned is the sort of intervention—unilaterally decided by the president and then passively accepted by a pliant Congress—that dropped American diplomats into an unstable situation that no one had a handle on.

Finding out whether (or when) Obama and his spokespeople started dissembling about the Benghazi attack is important, but it’s ultimately less important than confronting the mind-set that will lead to more half-baked interventions that then lead to more death and destruction of American lives.

Instead, Obama and Democrats would like to talk about the non-issue of security funding while some Republicans would like to imagine there was a military resolution to the Benghazi assault that the Obama Administration failed to pursue. As for the role of interventionism, both sides would prefer to talk about how interventionism might work in Syria, as opposed to what it might have wrought upon the U.S. in Libya.

Only Six Percent of Americans Think Marijuana Possession Should Be Punished With Jail Time

2013-05-17T10:01:00-04:00

Only six percent of Americans think minor marijuana possession should be punishable by jail time, according to a new Reason-Rupe poll. The poll also found that a strong plurality of Americans think the use or possession of small amounts of marijuana should not be punishable at all.

When asked, "Which approach do you think government and law enforcement should take toward someone found smoking marijuana or in possession of a small amount of marijuana?", six percent of respondents said possession should be punishable with jail, 20 percent said it should result in mandatory substance abuse counseling, 32 percent said users should incur a fine, and 35 percent of respondents said people caught with small amounts of marijuana should not be punished at all.

The Reason-Rupe poll is one of the few instances--possibly the first--in which the usual polling dichotomies of incarceration v. treatment and criminal penalty v. civil penalty have been expanded to include no penalty whatsoever. The results suggest that Americans are comfortable with the idea of decriminalization--which reduces the penalty for minor marijuana possession to a civil fine--and more sympathetic than ever to the idea of fully legalizing possession.

In addition, the Reason-Rupe nationwide telephone poll of 1,003 people found that a majority of Americans say they would support legislation from Congress that would "prevent the federal government from prosecuting people who grow, possess, or sell marijuana in the states that have legalized it." Fifty-two percent of poll respondents said they would support such protections for both medical and recreational marijuana regimes even though the drug remains illegal under federal law, while 42 percent said they would oppose legislating such protections.

Incidentally, just such a piece of legislation--the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act--was introduced in April by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.).

Justin Amash, Jared Polis Introduce Bill Requiring a Court Order for Telephone Records

2013-05-17T09:54:00-04:00

While the White House very lamely attempted to do damage control on the Department of Justice's grotesque Associated Press surveillance dragnet by unconvincingly re-animating a push for a federal shield law exempting the professional press from most non-national-security-related federal fishing expeditions, some actual civil libertarians in Washington have introduced a bill that would increase protections for all Americans against unchecked federal snooping.

Via InstaPundit, here's your press release:

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), joined by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), today introduced legislation to prevent federal agencies from seizing Americans' telephone records without a court order.

H.R. 2014, the Telephone Records Protection Act, requires court approval when the government demands telephone records from service providers. Current law allows the government to subpoena such records unilaterally, without any judicial review. The Department of Justice likely used its administrative subpoena authority to seize the Associated Press's telephone records in its recent investigation of a CIA leak.

"The Justice Department's seizure of the AP's phone records—likely without the sign-off of a single judge—raises serious First and Fourth Amendment concerns. Regardless of whether DOJ violates the legitimate privacy expectations of reporters or ordinary Americans, we deserve to know that the federal government can't seize our records without judicial review," said Amash.

West Wing Weak: Reason TV's 90-Second Guide to Obama's Worst Seven Days

2013-05-17T09:05:00-04:00

Obama battles AP, Benghazi, IRS scandals and...killer robots? Reason TV's guide to the president's toughest seven days yet!

"West Wing Weak" (based on an actual White House video series) is the latest video from Reason TV.

Watch by clicking above or click below to read the full story with links, downloadable versions, and other resources.

View this article.

A.M. Links: Former IRS Chief to Testify at House Hearing, Federal Oversight of LAPD Ends, Venezuela Needs TP

2013-05-17T09:00:00-04:00

Former IRS chief Steve Miller, whose resignation was planned before the agency’s political targeting practices came to light but announced afterward as a sign the administration took the scandal seriously, will testify before the House Ways & Means Committee later today.
Democratic strategists have descended on the White House to help the Democratic strategists in the White House deal with the snowballing scandals they’re facing. Spoiler alert: they’ll probably blame Republicans.
More than a decade of federal oversight of the LAPD ended this week by a decree from a judge and not because the federal monitors concluded the department no longer needed it.
President Obama pledged to end the “scourge” of sexual assault in the military while acknowledging there was no “silver bullet.”
The U.S. military may put boots on the ground in Libya while trying to capture or kill the alleged Benghazi attackers.
CIA director John Brennan made an unannounced trip to Israel, meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials to talk about the situation in Syria.
Venezuela is facing a toilet paper shortage. The government blames the opposition. Sound familiar?

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7 content widgets for your websites.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!