Terrorism War Has Much in Common With War on Drugs

Terrorism War Has Much in Common With War on Drugs
Posted by FoM on November 26, 2001 at 18:33:21 PT
By Mark Souder
Source: News-Sun
There are some advantages to similarities between these two wars. Our new war on terrorism has much in common with one of our ongoing struggles: the war on drugs. Both are nontraditional wars. Both are against enemies that kill indiscriminately. Both are here, on our own soil. Indeed, so closely are they related that it is the ill-gotten profits from one set of killers that serve as a major source of funding for the other. In an odd way, however, there are advantages to the similarities between these wars. 
Some of the measures that we can take to fight one may also help us against the other. For example, in the months before the Sept. 11 attack, I began planning a series of field hearings of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, which I chair, to investigate issues along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. I convened the first of those hearings two weeks ago in Vermont and New York.Border control issues affect both our war on terrorism and our war on drugs. The enemies of our nation attacked from within. Tightening and reinforcing of borders and border procedures may prevent those who wish to do further violence from entering our country.Reinforcing our borders will also help to stem the flood of illegal narcotics that is feeding an ongoing epidemic in America. In every city, town, county and village in this country, alcohol and illegal drugs account for 70 to 85 percent of all crime, including child abuse and domestic violence. We have a huge problem in the United States. We do not just have problems with anthrax, which is scary. One of my colleagues has said it well. We are already under chemical attack. The chemicals are illegal narcotics.In the early years of the Clinton administration, be it from the reduction in interdiction or the casual treatment of drugs by our political leadership - "I did not inhale" - or, as is most likely, some combination of those and more, drug use in the United States soared to such a level that just to get back to where we were when Bill Clinton took office, we would have to have a 50 percent reduction in drug abuse.Now there are new, more dangerous drugs crossing our borders. At my hearings in New York and Vermont, we heard about Quebec Gold and BC Bud marijuana as well as Ecstasy and methamphetamines heading to New York and Boston through these border crossings. In many places, Quebec Gold and BC Bud is selling for more than cocaine. Don't be fooled by its name: it is not marijuana. It is far more potent than traditional marijuana, and is as dangerous as cocaine.The men and women guarding our borders are brave and hard working. But there are simply not enough of them, and those we have do not have the resources to stem this deadly flow. There are concrete steps we can take toward securing our borders, and thus decreasing the threat of future terrorism and slowing the flood of deadly illegal narcotics.We can work to hire more border personnel. This is not as easy as it may seem. We passed a law in 1996 directing the Attorney General to increase the number of Border Patrol agents by 5,000. We fell far short of those goals. We've passed new legislation since Sept. 11 to increase personnel on our borders, but the same structural problems that made hiring goals difficult to meet in the 1990s still exist.We can waive the overtime cap for current border personnel. Due to the very long hours they have been working, they will reach that cap soon, and if it is not waived we will be faced with the unenviable choice of asking them to work for free, or not having them work at all.We could reform the pay scales for border guards. There is a salary cap for border personnel, and it is not very high. We have to make these jobs competitive. It might also mean making it easier for border agents to earn bonuses by increasing their own skills. Language skills, for example, are vital for those who protect our borders. But the tests that border agents must currently take to earn bonuses for learning a foreign language are so difficult that we heard the story of a native French speaker who could not pass the test.Both terrorists and drugs are killing innocent Americans. We can make great strides in fighting them, and we can start by securing our own borders.Mark Souder is the Republican U.S. representative for the 4th District.Newshawk: JohnathanSource: News-Sun, The (IN)Author: Mark SouderPublished: November 25, 2001Copyright: 2001 Kendallville Publishing Co.Contact: kpc kpcnews.netWebsite: Articles:A War on Terror Meets a War on Drugs Seizures Are Up At Border Crossings
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #10 posted by Xanaralk on November 27, 2001 at 10:30:07 PT
Mark Souder the good republican ...
  Mark Souder is behind the financial aid barring law, his carrer is about tightening drug laws . I think he is also behind the death penalty for two ounces of any drugs law ... Recently he visited Amsterdam and he has been rude and arrogant and he despises them because they go less to church than in America. He goes to church and feel more christian by killing in a frenzy of moral purity than with tolerance and forgiveness. He is a moral inquisitor and one of the craziest bloodthirsty maniac i have seen yet. I am a Canadian but I ask you all Americans: Do me a favor , vote this Evil Underdog out of Office. Here is something reallly sickening from your good Mark Souder and his Republicans:source :Wakerville weekly reader,2001-04-26 19:23:05 In the wake of the shooting down of a missionary plane by Peruvian and U.S. drug enforcement teams, Republicans are complaining that not enough is being done to understand the good side of the shooting, and call for restoring the anti-drug air interdiction program.“I strongly support the Peruvians in their anti-narcotics efforts,” said Republican John Mica of Florida. “Drug couriers and drug kingpins look just like normal people. If we are to successfully fight the drug war, we must take down people that look normal. That means that there will be some innocent casualties. We must fight on; these were martyrs for the drug war, and we will create more martyrs before we win!”He added that shooting down the plane may have been a good thing for the infant who was killed. “We are never going to win this war by allowing civil rights and being nice to people. If that means missionaries and children die, that’s a small price to pay to win the drug war. It could have been a lot worse. What if those people had landed in Peru and become addicted to crack cocaine? Then where would they be? Shooting them down was a compassionate act compared to that. The Peruvian military should be commended for saving the child from a fate worse than death.”Another official said anonymously that the couple flying the plane were clearly attempting not to look like drug smugglers. “They were flying straight, level, and at a reasonably high altitude instead of staying low and skirting the border,” said a state department official. “This is classic drug smuggler behavior: they were trying not to look like a drug smuggler.”Representative Mark Souder, Republican from Indiana, agreed, and complained to State Department anti-drug official John Crow that “not enough has been done to show that this was a valid shoot-down. We’re conservative Republicans who have carried the ball here for the drug war, but you’re making it very difficult for us. Can’t you at least plant some cocaine on them afterwards to make it look like they really were drug-runners?” Crow replied that while that might be “an easy thing to do in the United States when stopping motorists or pedestrians,” it can be more difficult “when shooting planes down into the Amazon jungle. Sometimes we don’t get to the wreckage first.”You see ? These are War Criminals, Liars and killers. It is in times like this i would be comforted at being sure Hell really exist. They would shoot you in the head to avoid you being unhappy then plant drugs on you ... These ghouls are so mad i'm sick to my stomach. They find such horrors justifiable in the name of stopping something they don't even understand , and don't want to either ... Just hit with the hammer, ever stronger and feel superior ! How can These Enraged dogs be allowed to lurk the earth ? 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by freedom fighter on November 27, 2001 at 07:48:30 PT
Souder is from Ind..
not Ohio..I do hope good folks from Ind. would vote this guy out. He is a rabid dog that needs to be kick out of the office. ff
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by qqqq on November 27, 2001 at 04:36:02 PT
What a Good Guy Souder is....
"The prohbitionists prohibitionists politician.",,,,well put GCW.....Souder is another guy,who like Weiner,is probably quite bitter about not being considered for czar,(yet),,,,,,it aint gonna be easy to fill the shoes of the McCaffster.........
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on November 27, 2001 at 04:13:46 PT
Vote this guy OUT!
  Almost makes me wish I lived in Ohio just so I could vote against this flagrant idiot. If you do live in Ohio's 4th district, and feel this warrants a response, visit to email, fax, or send a letter straight to him. You'll probably recieve back an equally infuriating, if more vapid, form letter. If it's at all amusing or enlightening, please post it here...  The Taliban are against education for women. Mark Souder is against education for convicted drug offenders. American Taliban indeed.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by john wayne on November 27, 2001 at 00:14:00 PT
EJ: Clearly, Pentecostalist Asscrotch
expects to be sitting at the right hand of juh-HEEE-ziz by 2004.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on November 26, 2001 at 20:58:50 PT
And while we're at it
How does George W. know that Mullah Ashcroft doesn't have his own plans for 2004?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on November 26, 2001 at 20:57:30 PT
Through the looking glass
So the message so far from the Mullah Ashcroft administration is that anyone who kills themselves with illegal drugs is an innocent victim whose death must be avenged.But anyone who doesn't die is a guilty bastard who needs to be locked in jail and treated very harshly.And this is an administration that purports to be against assisted suicide?It seems the only thing a drug addict can do to get the protection and help of the Ashcroft administration is load up an overdose and die.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on November 26, 2001 at 20:51:10 PT
If they're innocent, why are they in prison?
Both terrorists and drugs are killing innocent Americans.The innocent victims of drugs are pretty much the same as the guilty users of drugs. The death toll from drugs mainly consists of drug users and drug dealers themselves.They're called innocent when they die, and guilty when they live.That's life under the American Taliban. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by goneposthole on November 26, 2001 at 20:44:09 PT
Both arms
are continously flailing, patting himself on the back. I would not be surprised if he ends up with both of them in casts. Good Lord, the man is insane. Gaff him.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by The GCW on November 26, 2001 at 20:00:25 PT
Mark Souder - again.
The prohbitionists prohibitionists politician.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment