cannabisnews.com: America's 2 Wars Must Be Linked 





America's 2 Wars Must Be Linked 
Posted by FoM on December 10, 2001 at 08:49:18 PT
By Robert Novak, Sun-Times Columnist 
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
America's war on terrorism ought to be linked inextricably to the war on drugs. It is not. That unfortunate failure, making it more difficult to defeat either scourge, is reflected in two anomalies.* President Bush, omnipresent and eloquent in exhorting his fellow citizens to combat terror, since Sept. 11 has mentioned narcotics hardly at all. Not once in his daily rhetoric over those three months has the president used the phrase ''narco-terrorism.''
* The Drug Enforcement Administration, widely considered to have the best U.S. intelligence operations, has no seat at the inter-agency table in fighting terrorism. It never did, and the attacks of Sept. 11 did not change anything.These facts of life are the background to last Tuesday's unprecedented narco-terrorism symposium convened by the DEA's aggressive new administrator, former Rep. Asa Hutchinson, and held at DEA headquarters in Arlington, Va. Criticism was restrained and indirect, but the consensus was clear that drug-fighting must be part of the anti-terror strategy.The DEA always has appreciated the nexus between terror and narcotics, but the State Department and the CIA have not. Accordingly, the U.S. government for years turned a blind eye to the fact that Colombia's FARC guerrillas from the start have been financed by illegal narcotics. The Taliban, which supported Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network, have been financed by the opium trade to Europe. While U.S. policymakers still talk at length about state-sponsored terrorism, support now is more likely to come from the poppy seed than from a government sanctuary.Raphael Perl, narco-terrorism expert for the Congressional Research Service, told last week's symposium that ''income from the drug trade has become increasingly important to terrorist organizations.'' He added: ''State sponsors are increasingly difficult to find. What world leader in his right mind will risk global sanctions by openly sponsoring al-Qaida or funding it?''Steven Casteel, DEA chief of intelligence, agreed: ''State-sponsored terrorism is diminishing. These organizations are looking for funding, and drugs bring one thing: quick return on their investment.''Narcotics provide more than a way to finance terrorism, in the DEA's view. Al-Qaida expands ABC--atomic, biological and chemical--to ABCD, with drugs added, according to Casteel. ''Drugs are a weapon of mass destruction that can be used against Western societies and help bring them down,'' he said.On Sept. 7, DEA agents seized 53 kilos of Afghan heroin distributed by Colombians. ''I would argue,'' said Casteel, ''that we've been under attack in this country for a long time, and it didn't start on Sept. 11.''Considering DEA's experience, it would seem natural that its representatives would immediately be put on the high command of the new war against terrorism. They were not, and still are not.Larry Johnson, a former CIA official who was a high-ranking State Department counterterrorism expert during the first Bush administration, told the symposium: ''I can say, hands down, that the best intelligence we have on the ground overseas is DEA, and yet, after all of the time that I've been involved with counterterrorism, not once have I seen a DEA body sitting at the table, at the [Counter-terrorism and Security Group] meetings which go on at the White House, where you're talking about combatting terrorism.'' Nor are they there today.No wonder the president never uses the words narco-terrorism. What is lost by this silence is the leverage of the presidential bully pulpit to fight drugs. Last week's DEA symposium was called ''Target America: Traffickers, Terrorists and Your Kids.'' The ''kids'' part was discussed by Stephen Pasierb of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. He presented polling data showing a rare conjunction between generations: a mutual inclination by parents and children to believe that illegal drugs finance terrorism.That opportunity can be exploited by the government's massive megaphone, especially the presidential bully pulpit. ''The understanding of this link [between narcotics and terrorism] is essential,'' said Pasierb, ''and that's what our leaders can do. Leadership in this nation can help our people understand.'' The wonder is that the blase attitude toward narcotics in high places that marked the Clinton administration has not totally disappeared under Bush.Newshawk: Nicholas Thimmesch IINORML Media & CommunicationsSource: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)Author: Robert Novak, Sun-Times Columnist Published: December 10, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Sun-Times Co.Contact: letters suntimes.comWebsite: http://www.suntimes.com/Related Articles:CannabisNews DEA Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/DEA.shtmlOur Friends in Afghanistan http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11375.shtmlAnti-Terrorism Efforts Mean Changes for DEAhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11302.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by FoM on December 10, 2001 at 21:00:27 PT
Our New War
If they could think this through they might learn. I believe that the mood of the country makes one drug more abused than another and because of 9-11 there might be an increase in drugs that are sedatives rather then any stimulant that would be popular in good times. If we don't get down to the bottom line where people live and understand more about how a person feels rather then what substance he is abusing the war on drugs can't change. Any person that loves or has ever loved a drug addicted person knows this is the truth. This is only my opinion and a bit of a rant.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Patrick on December 10, 2001 at 10:38:41 PT
Nothing but hot air
Robert Novak is highly opinionated but then, so am I. When he finished this article by stating, "The wonder is that the blasé attitude toward narcotics in high places that marked the Clinton administration has not totally disappeared under Bush." I could only breath a sigh of relief and say, "Thank God!"''The understanding of this link [between narcotics and terrorism] is essential,'' said Pasierb, ''and that's what our leaders can do. Leadership in this nation can help our people understand.''Understanding? Understand that CannabisNews is what this website is all about Mr. Novak! Please understand this…in the same manner that prohibition of alcohol created huge profits for organized crime in the last century, prohibition of narcotics in this and last century creates huge profits for organized drug cartels and pharmaceutical companies and quite possibly terrorists as well. You sir, spread the fear that illegal drug use is a weapon of mass destruction with your article…"Narcotics provide more than a way to finance terrorism, in the DEA's view. Al-Qaida expands ABC--atomic, biological and chemical--to ABCD, with drugs added, according to Casteel. ''Drugs are a weapon of mass destruction that can be used against Western societies and help bring them down,'' he said."The reality is that the vast majority of people in this country do not fall victim to drug abuse or addiction. The amount of people who do not understand abuse and addiction is appalling. We can treat our citizens that become addicted and we as a nation and a people have the compassion and the technology to rein this problem in under our medical systems instead of our criminal justice systems. Wake-up! Narcotics is not be the scourge that you claim it to be. The problem is the Prohibition!Damn this gets tiring sometimes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by mayan on December 10, 2001 at 10:31:56 PT
Change the Laws
People have always done drugs & people always will. We cannot change that fact. We can change the laws. It is so obvious that prohibition is the main reason we are in this mess to begin with. Take the money out of the trade if you don't want the trade to finance terrorism. 1,000 gather in Portland to hear Mike Ruppert's take on 9/11
http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2001/portland.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Robbie on December 10, 2001 at 10:30:44 PT
Letter I sent to the Chicago Sun-Times
(not the best thing I've written, but who knows)RE: Bob Novak: America's 2 Wars Must Be LinkedI could not disagree more.The entire conference that Novak spoke of, the symposium gathered on December 4th, was not a conference where people were deciding on the best approaches to curb drug use or means to cut-off terrorist organizations from the profits involved in the drug trade. They didn't discuss the proper solution because it never came up: legalization and regulation.Drug warriors and their trumpeteers never want to talk about that other approach, though it is simple, and it solves all kinds of problems, all in one fell swoop.The fact is, prohibition is its own price-support system. Cocaine is expensive, heroin is expensive....marijuana has a higher per unit price than gold! Check that if you don't believe it, it's true!These things aren't expensive when they're growing in hemp fields and poppy fields. They're expensive because the route they must take to get to the consumer who wants them is so riddled with traps, snares, dangers, and possible imprisonment.So, one might say, "I guess that means that it's working." Sorry. Nothing's working. An 1800% increase in the federal budget over thirty years has resulted in net decreases in price (for coke and heroin) and net increases in potency and availability.Now, Novak and his cohorts want to compound the problem. "Let's add more money to it, let's interlink agencies" Well, considering the DEA's record against drugs and the CIA's record against terrorism, advocating their unification is problematic at best. Who knows? Together they might add up to one organization.No one at the conference dared let slip the idea of legalization and regulation. I suppose it is the great mainstream American masses that are still convinced that legalization is a red-herring developed by "aging hippies" so they can just get their drugs. Well, you know...we've tried it the Puritannical prohibitionist way...maybe it's time that we try something else.In the end, a terrorist's golden goose is the profitability of drugs in a prohibitionist atmosphere. Take away the prohibition, and the profitability dries up. Nobody would pay the Taliban (or Northern Alliance) $10,000 for something that I could grow and sell at 1/100th the cost.Wake up, Bob. Get past the nanny Christian ethic that right-wingers employ to absurdity. You're a big economy/markets kind of guy. You know better than a lot of people how markets work, and you know that if there's a product that somebody wants, market forces will always be there to make sure that the product gets to those consumers. You're a free-market kind of guy, right Bob?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Robbie on December 10, 2001 at 09:53:41 PT
bergy, yep
And we need to call Novak out on it. Letter writing is of a need here, because without the counter-argument, the narco-terror connection will be played up for a petrified American audience ready to believe in anything they claim. It's time to truly let the public know that the only thing that funds terrorism is prohibition.
Undernews
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Morgan on December 10, 2001 at 09:49:14 PT
I hear you knockin'...
"Raphael Perl, narco-terrorism expert for the Congressional Research Service, told last week's symposium that ''income from the drug trade has become increasingly important to terrorist organizations.'' He added: ''State sponsors are increasingly difficult to find. What world leader in his right mind will risk global sanctions by openly sponsoring al-Qaida or funding it?''"How about George W. Bush?"Steven Casteel, DEA chief of intelligence, agreed: ''State-sponsored terrorism is diminishing. These organizations are looking for funding, and drugs bring one thing: quick return on their investment.''"A fact the Bush family knows only too well.As any daily reader of this page has noticed, the attempt to link the 'War on some Drugs' and the 'War on some Terrorists who aren't us' has been pushed since day one. Is anybody listening? I mean exept for the paid-off legislators and the various paid-off, busy-body, humanity-free USA groups who seem to recieve press whenever they open their mouths?Is it any wonder that Bush is loathe to bring up the 'narco' angle, as it just hits a little too close to home? And people are just a little more awake?I think the 'crazy' idea that 'legalization' could possibly solve a lot of these problems, has filtered into the culture's mindset so much, that many people are seeing every jingoistic pronouncement about 'drugs' from the DEA, FBI, CIA, KKK, etc. , with a jaundiced eye.It just ain't flyin' the way it used to. But it's the only plane they got. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by bergy on December 10, 2001 at 09:29:05 PT:
As far as Drugs funding terrorism goes............
Hey, here's an idea: if drugs were legal in this country like they should be, terrorists wouldn't be able to cash in on narcotics. You may consider it anti-American but I for one am glad to see that the government's anti-drug policies are once again blowing up in their faces.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment