A Conspiracy of Font: Behold a Pale Horse...pp. 156-159

We have finally returned to Cooper's own writing...allegedly. My suspicion that Dr. Pabst was really Cooper cannot be confirmed, but let's give Cooper the benefit of the doubt and welcome him back for chapter 7: Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 H.R. 5210 P.L. 100-690 Preparation for the Police State An Analysis.

Right off the bat, we should know that we are in for a treat. Cooper, has already tried to read laws and executive orders and failed to understand them. I suspect that this will continue here, but we might be in for a surprise. While Cooper wrote this book in the early 90s the majority of legal regulations that he's been referring to have been from the Nixon administration. My assumption here is that he had this stuff lying around for use when he was a big name in the UFOlogy circuit. He would have needed "evidence" of the FEMA camps for the eventual UFO takeover so he just had it lying around. When the UFO conspiracy ebbed away he switched it over to this New World Order conspiracy theory and made the appropriate adjustments. He's still got UFOs in his theory it's just that they take a back seat to this stuff. He could have learned in the intervening years how to read a legal document. This is certainly possible though I would not bet on it. 

The bill itself weighs in at 365 pages and Cooper is going to give us an analysis in 7 pages. Remember I said it was possible that he got better, I did not say he did get better. 

He opens with a strange accusation: that the bill's font is very small, "The act is some 366 pages of fine (very fine) print on very small pages. It is tedious reading, as is all legislation. In fact, it was impossible to read until Nancy Batchelder, a volunteer on my research staff, enlarged each page on a copy machine. Could it be that the Congress does not want the citizens to read the contents of their legislation? I believe that is exactly the case."  

This is very stupid. I usually hesitate to accuse conspiracy theorists of being stupid because it's not conducive to conversation and debate, but here he's being stupid. Cooper, buddy, you just need a new set of glasses. Congress prints the bills that way to save money, the font is as small as it can be because paper costs money, but ink costs more. At least 538 (House and Senate) copies of this bill needed to be made. If they didn't want people to read the bill, they would not have printed it. 

Cooper starts his analysis by discussing a feature of the bill that allows warrantless searches. He refers us to section 9005 which allows for "court decisions on some mass searches/drug tests, such as school lockers, requirement for certain jobs, and an experimental program for those getting their first driver's license."

The first thing that should catch your eye is that Cooper has pulled a bait and switch here. He gets us riled up about warrantless searches, but then he slips in drug tests with a "/." In his analysis then, the bill allows mass searches or drug tests. Mass searches can be Constitutional violations which are illegal, but drug tests are not especially in the context that Cooper just provided. Are we supposed to be outraged that certain jobs may require drug testing? That depends: Do you want a federal air traffic controller to be high on the devil's cabbage when he guides your plan into LAX? A drug test is a reasonable requirement for jobs that require reflexes, judgment, and nerves. Cooper wants us to be mad but not realize the details of the bill itself. Let's check the section that he's discussing: 9005. 9005, only concerns a pilot program for drug testing in order to receive a driver's license. Cooper has this mostly correct, but he leaves out that it's a test program in three states (one of them in the North East, another in the South, and the third is obviously  California though the bill doesn't name it) with a requirement that after 30 days a report is filed on its results. 

Cooper asks if such mass arrests could be every person in Chicago or New York City. He has not offered any evidence that the bill would allow that. The only thing he can say is that someone in New York City applying to a driver's license might have to urinate in a cup first. 

He moves on to a different section 6480 which he claims requires you to request a hearing because your right to trial is not automatic. 6480 also, according to him, is the maximum fine for possession of any amount of a drug of any kind (even the kind that an enemy might plant in your car or home). 6480 though does nothing of the kind. It amends the penalties in 21 USC 844 by removing the phrase "but not more than" from three different amounts. I'm not in favor of 6480 because we know that it led to the removal of maximum fines and further punished people for drug possession. However, Cooper doesn't seem to understand what this section does: it removes the maximum limit. He's upset but for the wrong reason. He should be upset because the possession penalty could be much more than 10k. 

Section 2071, "Congress has asked for a study on the relationship between mental illness and substance abuse. 

This is Cooper's real problem. Conspiracy theorists either don't understand what mental health is or they are afraid of the issue in total. Any kind of medication that affects the mind is one that they automatically believe is Huxley's Soma. Section 2071 wants to find out if there is a connection between addiction and mental health; if there was one--we would want to treat drug addiction and abuse as a mental health issue and not a criminal one. I'm not a neuro-biologist but this seems like a good idea because treating heroin addicts like criminals has not worked for society. We saw this attitude in Gary Allen's book and in the modern conservative party: any attempt to address mental health issues is treated as wasteful or a plot--except with the lip service they pay to them when there is a mass shooting. 

We will close this week on Cooper's alarm concerning the writ of Habeus Corpus. This is located in section 7323. Cooper has barely understood any part of this bill so far and the parts that he has missed have been pretty straightforward. 7323 does not concern removing the writ of habeas corpus. This writ is one that prevents the government from holding you in prison without justification. In our contemporary time, this has largely been stripped by the current Supreme Court, but in 1988 this was not the case. The bill merely recommends that a report concerning the Federal Habeus Corpus procedure be commissioned. That report is to be considered by a special group chaired by Justice Lewis Powell, and then turned over to Congress. Once the report has been considered, faithfully, a motion to vote on the changes will be offered.

This motion, Cooper thinks, is automatically passed by roll call vote. However, it is not. Because it is a rule change and not a change in legislation the usual yay or nay vote does not apply. However, it cannot pass if the roll call vote does not occur. This is one of these technical rules of the legislature, like the kind that gives us the fillibuster; but the important aspect to understand is that a) the rule does not remove habeas corpus and b) is not the future of tyranny and evidence of treason. 

Habeas corpus was one of those rules that needed expansion not contraction, certainly, the Drug Bill of 1988 did not help the matter. Cooper is right to sound the alarm, but because his motive and understanding of the bill is so flawed it is difficult to agree with him. Time and time again Cooper presents this problem: ultimately his goal of more transparency and less government power is something that I would agree with; but he gets there by panic mongering about stuff that doesn't seem bad compared to his presentation of it. 

Next week, we will wrap up Cooper's analysis of the drug bill.