Cannabis News DrugSense
  Drug War Could Escalate
Posted by FoM on July 18, 2001 at 21:51:37 PT
By Cynthia Bowers, CBS News Correspondent  
Source: CBS News 

justice A Congressional Democrat claims to have uncovered an effort by Republicans to change U.S. anti-drug efforts in Colombia to allow participation in combat, CBS News Correspondent Cynthia Bowers reports. When lawmakers agreed to fund last year's $1.3 billion aid package, called Plan Colombia, it was sold as an anti-drug initiative aimed at attacking cocaine trafficking at its source.

Even so, the measure paid for up to 300 private military contractors, from American companies like MPRI and Dyncorp, to help fumigate coca fields and train Colombia's military — but they were barred from engaging in battles against leftist guerrillas.

In this year's version, that could change.

Buried deep in the massive foreign aid bill are a couple of innocuous sounding sentences, that once-translated, some in Congress find shocking.

What the provisions would do is give the White House the unrestricted ability to send unlimited numbers of private military personnel, or mercenaries, into Colombia, and for the first time ever allow them to take part in the fighting.

"What it means is, 'We're getting into the war baby,'" said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., whose staff uncovered what he calls a "sneaky" attempt to escalate the war without anyone noticing.

"This whole plan was sold as a way of containing the war, but then we let in all of our friends and ex-military, they can bring in all the weapons they want," he said.

Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., added the provisions, and says it's not about military involvement.

"Nobody's talking about them being armed or being mercenaries or going out in the field," he said. "It's for their personal safety, just for carrying their own side arms basically."

Conyers points out that was always allowed. He is sponsoring an amendment to strike the new provisions.

Conyers complaint is not the first criticism of Plan Colombia. Some opposed it because of its focus on crop eradication and interdiction rather than giving more attention to promoting alternative crops.

It was supposed to combine military training and eradication efforts with efforts to push such crops. But a House committee report found that "by March 2000, not one grain of rice, nor one seed, had been delivered to communities that had agreed to voluntary eradication."

Others were worried that the United States would become involved in the 37-year-old civil war in Colombia, in which both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas are linked to the drug trade.

The bill required that Colombia, long criticized for its poor human rights record, make specific improvements before it received the money. The State Department last year found that despite a few advances, Colombia had not met the requirements. But President Clinton, citing national security reasons, waived those requirements.

The White House said it would look at the rights record again in 2001. But early this year, the outgoing Clinton administration opted not to issue a formal report on the matter.

The Plan Colombia legislation caps the number of U.S. troops to be used in Colombia at 500, but the president can waive that limitation for up to 90 days if "the Armed Forces of the United States are involved in hostilities or that imminent involvement by the Armed Forces of the United States in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances."

Even before Plan Colombia, there were U.S. troops in Colombia—and U.S. casualties. In July 1999, five U.S. soldiers died in a plane crash while conducting reconnaissance for anti-drug efforts.

According to another Colombia bill introduced in the 107th Congress by an opponent of U.S. involvement, American contractors were involved in a firefight with FARC rebels in February. Three U.S. personnel have died there since 1997 while flying planes used to spray drug crops.

Last month, Colombian investigators asked to question three American contractors who may have witnessed or participated in a 1998 massacre of 17 civilians by the Colombian military.

Analysts have expected the Bush administration to take a tougher line in Colombia. Robert Zoellick, the president's trade representative, said in a December speech that the U.S. "cannot continue to make a false distinction between counterinsurgency and counternarcotics efforts" there.

* Democrat Charges Foreign Aid Bill Would Allow Combat In Colombia
* U.S. Has Hundreds Of Contractors Helping Local Anti-Drug Efforts
* Narcotics Trade Occurs Amid Colombia's Bloody Civil War

By The Numbers

The $1.3 billion, two-year U.S. aid package adds to $330 million in previously approved assistance.

Colombian Army:

$390 million to train and equip two Colombian army battalions for anti-drug actions
$208 million for 16 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters
$60 million for 30 UH-1H Huey helicopters

Police:

$115.6 million for two Blackhawk helicopters and 12 UH-1H Hueys

Economic development:

$81 million for alternative crops

Drug interdiction:

$130 million, more than half of which goes to the U.S. Customs Service to upgrade drug-tracking planes. The package also provides assistance for refugees of Colombian civil war. - Source: Reuters

Source: CBS News
Author: Cynthia Bowers, CBS News Correspondent
Published: July 18, 2001
Copyright: MMI, CBS Worldwide Inc.
Website: http://cbsnews.com/

Related Articles & Web Site:

Colombia Drug War News
http://freedomtoexhale.com/colombia.htm

Plan Columbia Broadens
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10335.shtml

DynCorp's Drug Problem
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10211.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #19 posted by lookinside on July 19, 2001 at 19:51:14 PT:

sharks prefer...
larger chunks...don't chop em too small...

mr. hutchinson will realize soon that he has moved up the
line to the gallows(only the finest hempen rope used) by
several hundred thousand places...


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #18 posted by CongressmanSuet on July 19, 2001 at 19:30:56 PT
dddd, its like all they do...

at these hearings is kiss each others ass! And if you think all that bs about the sentencing disparitys for Crack and powder is good, think again.They dont want to make them equal, they want to escalate powder into the same classifiation as crack. WHAT HAPPENED? I thought we had a chance in 77....when did it become okay to trounce on each other?


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #17 posted by CongressmanSuet on July 19, 2001 at 19:15:15 PT
All they want is a stock tip...

and they get a dose of reality. Good work Carlos.Im sure that at least a few of those people will read your posts with interest, and some good will come of it. Now,I dont know about Bluey,but hey, you never know... I have been doing the market thing for over 10 years,and I have seen alot of divergent attitudes from the people involved,its not a bad place to start a dialogue...


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #16 posted by dddd on July 19, 2001 at 18:42:00 PT
SICKENING!!
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1312/a04.html?397

This will link you to a transcript of the hearing to confirm
Asa Hutchinson as head of the DEA,........You will gag,as
you read through the absurdly idiotic talk of these good
ol' boys,,and their exclusive club of power mongers.....
..you will retch,,as you marvel in disbelief,,that this is
what your ruling lawmakers consist of,,,,you will perhaps
want to violently take out your aggressions,when you realize
what the actual nature of your government has become,,then,
you can read part 2;

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1313/a01.html?397

If this doesnt disgust you,,then I guess that's ,,,,OK,,,in fact,,
it's probably better for your health,,if you can somehow avoid
getting upset by such things,,,just pretend everything is normal,,
and just peachy,,,,another good way to avoid getting too pissed,,
,,is if you are,like me,nearing the big Five-0,,and will soon be
wandering into the Golden Years,,,,then you can just say that
,by the time things get really f#*ked,,,you will be six feet under.
..and so will all these a$$holes who were at these "hearings"....I have
a problem with calling them "hearings",,they are more like "speeches",
and the hearings are heard only by an exclusive group of "hearees".

These "hearings",,are an excellent example of the utter fakeness of
our government.

ddddisgusted....inddeedd

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #15 posted by NC Native on July 19, 2001 at 18:06:45 PT
As a Christain..
I have no moral problem with marijuana and yes i see it as one of God's plants..its here for a reason...and im 100 percent sure its not here so people can go to jail...i myself do not smoke...i have in the past all it did was make me sleepy...i dont have the head for it i guess...but what you guys do in your home is niether mine nor the gov's business...i fear though that most Christains (or so called..if a so called christain tells you how to live...they are NOT a Christain..we only offer the source on how to live) see marijuana as the "Assassin of Youth"..great job with the site FoM i like it:)

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #14 posted by dddd on July 19, 2001 at 17:33:27 PT
Kap
...quit scarin' em away with that dam turkey knife,,
,,,we want them to see a Welcome sign,,with a bunch
of comfy chairs,,and snack trays,with refreshments,,,
,,then,,once they're inside,and made themselves comfortable,,,
,,,,,Wham,,,the door closes,,,Shushlack,,the door is bolted,,,
,,Then,,the carvin' tools come out!

.....dddd

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #13 posted by Dan Hillman on July 19, 2001 at 17:31:01 PT
Least surprising article of the month...
...is what I nominate this piece.

The war in Colombia will escalate. Americans will be in combat in no time. A huge mess will result. The US will lose. Decades of "we were really stupid" shows will be shown on PBS or equivalent.

Glad I'm past draft age!

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #12 posted by Pontifex on July 19, 2001 at 16:31:29 PT:

No offense to Christians, of course
Not all Christians are anti-marijuana -- but many
American antis are Christians of some stripe. For
example: Bush, Hutchinson, Ashcroft. They all speak
as if they're on a religious crusade.

It's too bad that a religion that teaches tolerance and
humility has been twisted into excuses for intolerance
and arrogance.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #11 posted by No Half Steppin on July 19, 2001 at 15:10:47 PT
stereotype
"Who will
be the next brave anti to venture, bible in hand and
crucifix aloft, into our den of reefer depravity??"

Not all Christians are anti-marijuana. In fact, many Christians view weed as just another one of God's plants and are sick and tired of the government's bulls**t WoD.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on July 19, 2001 at 12:59:15 PT:

Srrrrip-srrropp! Srrrrip-srrropp!
(Sound of turkey-carving knife being sharpened.)

Yes, indeed; bring on the antis. I fear my carving skills may be a tad rusty from disuse.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #9 posted by Pontifex on July 19, 2001 at 12:10:47 PT:

Lehder, thanks
It is brave of you to take the fight to other forums. If you
can bring more traffic here, so much the better. Let that
ahole try to tell us about the moral virtues of drug
testing.

My employer, a software developer, definitely does NOT
drug test. Neither does anyone else in the industry that
I'm aware of. Why? Because they'd lose 50% of their
employees -- and the more talented 50%, I might add.
We make millions of dollars a year here, yes, even in
FY 2001.

Cannabisnews needs the Franceses and Neils of the
world (well... maybe more Frances than Neil). They
keep us on our toes and our arguments fresh. Who will
be the next brave anti to venture, bible in hand and
crucifix aloft, into our den of reefer depravity??


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #8 posted by FoM on July 19, 2001 at 11:02:11 PT
Lehder
Hi Lehder,
That was very thoughtful of you and thank you for using Cannabis News articles. The more people that read and learn the sooner some sanity might return to our country. The way I perceive Cannabis News is that it is an extension of other web sites like MapInc. and Cannabis.com. That's why we call it a Web. All interwined. We are interconnected and that is what gives us the power to bring constructive change I think.
Thanks Again, FoM!


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #7 posted by Robbie on July 19, 2001 at 10:37:33 PT
Very much in keeping.

Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz... "Nobody's talking about them being armed or being mercenaries or going out in the field," he said. "It's for their personal safety, just for carrying their own side arms basically."

Is it not just Bush, but everyone in the same group capable of such incredible public speaking? Did they drink their way through that semester? It's "Bushism Revisted."

Sudaca: benefits ultimately will go to the oil companies that are greedy for that virgin soil in Colombian native lands. The whole machine revolves on that axle.

Also ->


Colombian Army:
$390 million to train and equip two Colombian army battalions for anti-drug actions
$208 million for 16 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters
...
Police:
$115.6 million for two Blackhawk helicopters and 12 UH-1H Hueys
Drug interdiction:
$130 million, more than half of which goes[to U.S. concern]
Economic development:
$81 million for alternative crops

I think US policy in this region should be obvious to even the most sheltered American. If they wanted to end the struggle, they'd give Colombian farmers, ALL of them, a good portion of money for different crops. If $81 mill is the true number for outlay to crop alternatives (a mere 6.2 percent!) then whoever created this program is obviously designing this structure with other objectives. I still think it's that Texas Tea going untapped. You know how Mr. pResident wants to drill everything.

The package also provides assistance for refugees of Colombian civil war.

Woop de doo! How much is that? A hundred thousand? "When you arrive at the bus terminal, a map to every McDonald's will be provided. Enjoy your stay in the US."

Source: CBS News

Amazing.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by Lehder on July 19, 2001 at 09:19:28 PT
taking it to the streets
I've made some posts on a street that I know and have put some links there to cnews. I hope that many more of our friends and especially our foes will come here to cnews and get educated. I know you can handle them. Here's an example of the sort of very uninformed drug-war-mania responses I get for criticizing the WO(S)D:

The isuue is which is worse? Murder and theft and abuse or taking a drug test? When one side like drug abuse gets too far ahead, actions must be taken. When drug abuse gets out of hand like it is now and yet you do not want to put them in prison, testing will occur. Rapid testing provides the ability for immediate counselling and checking for compliance. If you were an employer, would you appreciate addicts screwing up your business? The choice is obvious. But if you do not employ people and if you abuse drugs, then you resent testing. Sorry little boy, you lost your total freedom a long time ago when you failed to respect other's
rights. When you fail to control abuses, action will be taken. This is a country run by majority. You can still take your drugs and then go to jail. There they have taken fingerprints for a long time and this is the sequel {rapid drug testing for abuse}. Next is DNA fingerprinting. Go sell your BS to other abusers. You can sit around and take mind altering drugs and talk about the loss of freedom and the
good old days. The day that you lost your freedom was the day you got hooked. We don't need addicts running businesses in the name of freedom.
etc.
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7076819&tid=epto&sid=7076819&mid=2544

to which I was able to reply (not shown here), thanks to all of you, in the style of observer, sorta.

Here is an example of where I have left some links to cnews:
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7081838&tid=xon&sid=7081838&mid=22265
(sorry about the page width of these links, don't know how to adjust them)
I'll lay off, maybe, if you think you would rather not have all these links posted; but there are streets that you know too. Meanwhile,
ZAP!
'Carlos'


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by Sudaca on July 19, 2001 at 08:48:18 PT
worse
this is not even discussed in south america. Colombia is busy hosting the Copa America and all south american countries except Argentina are there. No one is looking at Uncle Sam in regards to Colombia.

Its hardly suprising that Bush's foreign policy is under scrutiny by the media; however its about politics here. it doesn't strike home.

What are the odds of the amendment to expand the mercenary war not getting in?

this is starting to look like a cyberpunk introduction; private international corporations get the green light to send "armed operatives" to "defend" themselves on a third world country. The only benefitiaries are the private corporations who will continue to get fat off the war.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by Jay on July 19, 2001 at 06:41:03 PT
How dumb can america be?
I can't believe they are stupid enough to do something like this. American politicans have lost sight of the real meaning on the war against drugs. They are willing to give the lives of one group of people, in order to save a group of people stupid enough to get addicted to these drugs.

Can't they see thisa is how vietnam started, as a war on comunism. History does repeat itself.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on July 19, 2001 at 04:04:43 PT:

Passed absurdity, approaching insanity
"Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., added the provisions, and says it's not about military involvement.
"Nobody's talking about them being armed or being mercenaries or going out in the field," he said. "It's for their personal safety, just for carrying their own side arms basically."

So, lemme see here: we won't have armed mercenaries on the ground in Colombia acting as de facto implementors of US DrugWar policy, capable with a single bullet in the wrong direction causing an international incident, we'll have, uh, er... armed mercenaries on the ground in Colombia acting as de facto implementors of US DrugWar policy, capable with a single bullet in the wrong direction causing an international incident.

Get it? Now, what's so hard to understand, hmmmm?

Alice would feel right at home in this DrugWar Looking Glass.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by dddd on July 18, 2001 at 23:59:20 PT
aint no dream
The Drug War COULD Escalate.

that's like saying George W. Bush could be a liar,,or he 'could' be sorta stupid...

..I'm afraid the Drug War WILL escalate,,just like all the other grotesque things
the shrub administration has made happen...a government for,,and by the people,,
is now out of reach,,,,,,think about it for a moment,,,this monster is too big to
change or kill,,can you imagine the federal government somehow reforming?
Can you imagine them realizing the error of their ways,and returning to a
represenative government?,,,,the whole thing has gone past the point where
it can be changed...once again,,,it aint pretty......nope,,,,aint pretty indeed....

...it wont be long till the world comes to a catastrophic abrupt halt.....Nostroddddmus

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by E. Johnson on July 18, 2001 at 23:29:57 PT
Pinch me
The major media are covering the Drug War.

Using critical thinking.

Pinch me and tell me this is not a dream.



[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on July 18, 2001 at 21:51:37