Should be filed with "guilt by association," "the logical extension of forfeiture laws," and "what's our jurisdiction?"
A breaking story from the
Associated Press, which duly reported without a sense of irony, about the U.S. now using a new law to prosecute people on board alleged "drug subs." The new law?
"The Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008 was signed into law in September. The statute makes it a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison, to travel through international waters in the vessels, technically known as self-propelled semisubmersibles."
There's a little additional language, dealing with flag/nationality requirements, and prima facie showings of avoiding detection, but basically, the U.S. just banned international waters for anyone that's 1) piloting a vehicle that can submerge, and 2) isn't doing so as a member of any particular nation. We'll leave out the ridiculousness of this blatantly-unconstitutional jurisdictional problem for the time being, to directly address the AP.
"But under the new law, no physical evidence is necessary. Just being on board a drug sub is proof enough."
This is where our media is biased, but pretending to be neutral. It's not a "drug sub," it's a semi-submersible. The drugs are an allegation. The "sub" has been presumed guilty, and now, based upon that presumption, a conviction attaches to anyone who was aboard it.
Pretty good strategy, I mean, it's not like the "sub" can mount a defense. Next, we'll just have to figure out how to import this to vehicles -- "drug trucks" "drug cars" "drug motorcycles" just think of how many convictions can be had, without any need for evidence! If you thought conspiracy law freed up law enforcement from needing evidence (they just needed snitches), just think how much more free they'll be once they can automatically convict vehicles, then use that to secure a conviction against a person - no more need for snitches, just people in vehicles!
As a final note, there's a subsection to the law, 2285(f), that exempts anyone working for or at the direction of the U.S. government. I wonder why they included that clause?
Posted by Malakkar Vohryzek