Marijuana.com

xxdr_zombiexx

Blinded by drugs
The Ottawa Citizen | April 24, 2004

Last week, the U.S. commission examining the Sept. 11 attacks issued a statement of facts that helps explain why the Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to stop the al-Qaeda plot. Counter-terrorism just wasn't a priority for the FBI, the commission said. Instead, the bureau was too busy fighting the never-ending war on drugs.


"As the terrorism danger grew, (FBI) Director (Louis) Freeh faced the choice of whether to lower the priority the FBI attached to work on general crime, including the war on drugs, and allocate those resources to terrorism," the commission noted. Formally, the FBI did make terrorism the priority, but "it did not shift its human resources accordingly." In 2000, "there were twice as many agents devoted to drug-enforcement matters as to counter-terrorism" and even agents who were assigned to counter-terrorism were often moved temporarily to drugs and crime.

The 9/11 commission also noted that on May 9, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft testified at a hearing that the Justice Department had no higher priority than preventing terrorism. But a day later, "the department issues guidance for developing the fiscal year 2003 budget that made reducing the incidence of gun violence and reducing the trafficking of illegal drugs priority objectives." The directive didn't even mention counter-terrorism. The FBI's misallocation was confirmed immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks when more than 400 agents were shifted to counter-terrorism -- almost all coming from drug investigations.

What the commission has confirmed is something this newspaper has argued for many years. One of the terrible costs of the war on drugs is the good that could be done if the money and manpower lavished on this futile fight were instead devoted to other priorities. Every officer doing buy-and-busts is an officer not going after thieves, rapists and murderers. Every investigator tracing cocaine profits is an investigator not looking for terrorists.

Certainly Canadian governments haven't figured this out, as demonstrated by the recent massive bust of a marijuana and ecstasy ring headquartered here in Ottawa. The police crowed even though the bust will have no substantial effect on the supply of drugs (they never do). The American government hasn't learned its lesson, either. Not long after the Sept. 11 attacks, the DEA and FBI spent millions of dollars busting medical marijuana growers in California. And in 2003, federal officers conducted a nation-wide sweep of businesses selling "drug paraphernalia" -- bongs and pipes -- that netted 65-year-old Tommy Chong, of Cheech and Chong fame.

In 1996, Arnold Trebach, a legendary opponent of drug prohibition, gave a speech noting that "all of us would be infinitely safer if the courageous efforts of anti-drug agents in the U.S. ... and other countries were focused on terrorists aimed at blowing up airliners and skyscrapers (rather than) drug traffickers seeking to sell the passengers and office dwellers cocaine and marijuana."

We will never know what would have happened had the FBI taken Mr. Trebach's advice. But we do know what happened when the FBI continued to fight the futile war on drugs.

The Ottawa Citizen

__________________
Alien Space Signal

There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

Fear became the ultimate tool of this government - V.

 

bonghitter420

That was really interesting article, and it just proves once again that the war on drugs is a lost cause and that we really need to take a hard look at the current policies and re prioritize this. Becuase that is jsut unacceptable, i mean I would much prefer a safer country against terrorism then some no name dealer getting busted for basically nothing. I think it is just a joke and something needs to be done.

xxdr_zombiexx

[zombienote: Spying on our typing whenever they want is NO DIFFERENT than random drug testing.

Both are violations of reasonably expected privacies, protected explicitly by the 4th Amendment.

And they explicitly send the message "Everybody is potentially guilty", which is simply Un-American.

But utter "drugs" or "terror" and all those nuisances of the Constitution are brushed aside and Law Enforcement can go do as it wishes.

As we have seen with the TSA no fly lists, as well as the FBI's documented history of spying on the anti-war movement and Dr. Martin Luther King, or helping the DEA chase pot smokers, all this is about spying on and gathering data on Americans, not "protecting us" form some real or fabricated threats.

So they STILL aren't focused properly.

Terrorism is first and foremost A CRIME. I suppose this is why the FBI even has a "Counter-Terrorism" department.

Hijacking planes is a crime. Kidnapping is a crime. Using a plane to ram a building is certain to be a saladbar of criminal charges. Destroying said building is a crime.

It should be treated as a crime. Ol' Osama is just a massive criminal - he is not a holy man or 'great warrior". He is more like a real "James Bond-style supervillan". HE is an insult to Islam. He should be arrested and tried... the information to be gleaned from him would be interesting to say the least.

Escalating "terror" to "war status" is purely propaganda used to further the fascist desires of the current administration, fascism being defined as the union of political and corporate power - there is not a better description of what is happening to this country than that it is being taken over by corporations. It is a textbook exploitation of fear and dread to achive undesirable political ends.

They aren't making us any safer, and they have no intention of trying.

Free Tommy Chong. Go arrest real criminals.]

FBI wants to watch you type
ZD Net | April 19, 2004, 4:55 AM PT

By Declan McCullagh
Special to ZDNet

COMMENTARY--The FBI is trying to convince the government to mandate that providers of broadband, Internet telephony, and instant-messaging services build in backdoors for easy wiretapping.

That would constitute a sweeping expansion of police surveillance powers. Instead of asking Congress to approve the request, the FBI (along with the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration) are pressing the Federal Communications Commission to move forward with minimal public input.

The three agencies argue that the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) permits the FCC to rewire the Internet to suit the eavesdropping establishment. "The importance and the urgency of this task cannot be overstated," their proposal says. "The ability of federal, state and local law enforcement to carry out critical electronic surveillance is being compromised today."

Unfortunately for the three agencies, CALEA, as it's written, would not grant the request.

When Congress was debating CALEA, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh reassured nervous senators that the law would be limited to telephone calls. (CALEA was intended to let police wiretap conversations flowing through then-novel services like cellular phones and three-way calling.)

"So what we are looking for is strictly telephone--what is said over a telephone?" Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., asked.

Freeh replied: "That is the way I understand it. Yes, sir."

A House of Representatives commitee report prepared in October 1994 is emphatic, saying CALEA's requirements "do not apply to information services such as electronic-mail services; or online services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online or Mead Data (Central); or to Internet service providers."

Freeh, who has a sincere appreciation for wiretaps, had included Internet services in an earlier version of CALEA--but Congress didn't buy it. "Unlike the bills previously proposed by the FBI, this bill is limited to local and long-distance telephone companies, cellular and PCS providers, and other common carriers," Jerry Berman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Congress during a September 1994 hearing.

But now that more conversations are taking place through audio-based instant-messaging and voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, the FBI and its allies are hoping that official Washington won't remember inconvenient details. "These (wiretapping) problems are real, not hypothetical, and their impact on the ability of federal, state and local law enforcement to protect the public is growing with each passing day," the police agencies say in their proposal to the FCC.

It's true that the FBI has a difficult job to do, especially after Sept. 11, 2001, but is this proposal necessary, let alone wise?

Police have long been able to intercept Internet traffic. In 1996, then-Attorney General Janet Reno announced that investigators were successfully tapping the Internet without any problems. Even earlier, the Secret Service's "datataps" of Masters of Deception members helped bust that hacking group in 1992. Efficient Internet wiretapping is exactly what the FBI's Carnivore system, also called DCS1000, is designed to accomplish.

Then why is the FBI so emphatic? The bureau's not talking, but it seems to be all about ease of eavesdropping. Sorting through an intercepted stream of data is difficult and means that Carnivore must be updated to unpack the Session Initiation Protocol used to set up VoIP and instant-messaging conversations. Ordering those companies to include a backdoor for police is a lot easier.

It's worth noting that the FBI is hardly alone. The National Sheriffs' Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Illinois State Police and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation have petitioned the FCC to grant the FBI's request.

They're even sharing talking points: Each of the groups included an identical paragraph in its letter to the FCC. "State and local law enforcement do not have the financial or personnel resources to develop costly ad hoc surveillance solutions for each new communications service," their letters said.

Maybe they're right. New technologies do present police with new headaches, and perhaps that justifies additional wiretapping powers. But the question will be: Who gets to make that call--elected representatives in Congress or well-meaning but unelected bureaucrats at the FCC?

biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.

JOHN SMITH

If government is suppose to "protect us" then why is it perpetuating a policy that causes more harm than good? Has any one looked at suing governments that create more harm to it's population by the policys, and laws THEY defend. Is there anyone in the "legal industry" that can tell me please, why we cannot go after these defenders of failed, harmfull laws. I am no ienstein, but c'mon! Are WE really suppose to believe that they are concerned for our well being? Am I the only one that can see through the lies,and denial?
In the last few months, up here in Toronto Canada there has been a rash of shootings that no doubt, are in some way shape or form linked to the organized, crimminal drug monopoly? Oh yea, and we just had a division of the Metro police "services" disband a department for protecting mobsters in Toronto. SOME, NOT ALL of the police were providing protection for these thugs. Two of the police officers implicated were the sons of the previous chief of police!? "ALLEGED", PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND!
These counter productive laws regarding drugs, are KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. And please, do not tell me it is because of illegal guns on the street. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. We are seeing the fruits of failed fire arm policy, we are seeing the failed drug laws, and the fruits of that law. I really am begining to see the truth, ARE YOU!

Holla_2008

I don't think the USA should be worrying about the use of drugs.. I mean if people wanna use them let them it's their chose if they wanna kill themselfs let them. I mean drugs are not a big deal. I know somebody who uses them and I still LOVE him to death and I'll be their for them. But thats all I gotta reply on....

 

xxdr_zombiexx

[zombienote: Nothing in this article about "druuuugs", but the focus is on the propaganda of fear, and that is a large part of Reefer Madness, as well as wasting law enforcement resources to do it.

It was fear that was supposed to be the point of Anslinger and Hearst marijuana scare stories. And it is fear than John walters wants to spread among the still-hypnotized and ignorant with his mad ramblings about BC Bud and the "crack of marijuana (what I now call his "crack-pot" line).

The muddying of public debate, the repeititon of lies - specifically-refuted information -and sheer fearmongering : "what about the children?!"

This all relates to wasting law enforcements time on useless goose chases and letting them focus on crime, not the political activities of Americans or chasing potheads.

I know a lot of law enforcement remains pro-bush and pro-marijuana prohibition, but law enforcement is being used and lied to just as much as any other American. Wake up and smell the stench.]

A Scared Electorate
Terrorist Threats and Political Gain
By BRUCE SCHNEIER | April 27, 2004 | COUNTERPUNCH


Posturing, pontifications, and partisan politics aside, the one clear generalization that emerges from the 9/11 hearings is that information--timely, accurate, and free-flowing--is critical in our nation's fight against terrorism. Our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies need this information to better defend our nation, and our citizens need this information to better debate massive financial expenditures for anti-terrorist measures, changes in law that aid law enforcement and diminish civil liberties, and the upcoming Presidential election

The problem is that the current administration has consistently used terrorism information for political gain. Again and again, the Bush administration has exaggerated the terrorist threat for political purposes. They're embarked on a re-election strategy that involves a scared electorate voting for the party that is perceived to be better able to protect them. And they're not above manipulating the national mood for political gain.

Back in January, the Bush administration released information designed to convince people that the Christmastime Code Orange alert, with its associated airplane flight cancellations, increased police presences, and broad privacy invasions, were motivated by credible information about a real terrorist threat. There was a new intelligence source, we were told.

The trouble is, the intelligence this source produced turned out to be nothing at all. And all the potential terrorists aboard those cancelled international flights turned out to be false alarms. One "terrorist" was a Welsh insurance agent, another an elderly Chinese woman who once ran a Paris restaurant. Yet another was a child. And the man who failed to show up for his ParisLos Angeles flight, the man whose name matched that of a senior Al-Qaeda operative, turned out to be a Indian businessman with no links to terrorism at all.

On 10 June 2003, days before Minnesota FBI agent Coleen Rowley blew the whistle on a badly botched pre-9/11 investigation into some of the terrorists, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the arrest of a terrorist planning on detonating a "dirty" nuclear bomb in the U.S. Jose Padilla was "disappeared": he was denied any access to an attorney, or any right to have the evidence against him put before a judge. The evidence against him was so flimsy that, even today, it has never been presented in public. (Currently the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Padilla's behalf, as well as two other cases challenging the government's claim that it can detain anyone indefinitely, without allowing them the ability to defend themselves.)

Fourteen months later, the government announced another "victory," the arrest of an arms smuggler who arranged to sell a surface-to-air missile and planned to smuggle 50 more--missiles that could be used to shoot down commercial airplanes. Never mind that he seemed more like an innocent dupe entrapped by the intelligence services of Russia, Britain, and the U.S. The case against him has never been brought to trial, so we'll never know.

Even during World War II, German spies captured in the U.S. were given attorneys and tried in public court.

Another well-touted victory was the arrest of six men in Lackawanna, New York, on 13 September 2002. Any evidence against them was never presented in court, because their guilty plea was induced by threats of removing them from the criminal justice system and designating them "enemy combatants"--who could be held indefinitely without access to an attorney.

What does it say about the fairness of our justice system when prosecutors can use the threat of denying an accused access to that system?

Finally, in February, a federal prosecutor in Detroit actually sued Attorney General John Ashcroft, alleging the Justice Department interfered with the case, compromised a confidential informant and exaggerated results in the war on terrorism. Again, making political hay trumped national security concerns.

Security is always a trade-off, and making smart security trade-offs requires us to be able to realistically evaluate the risks. By continually skewing the available information, the Bush administration is ensuring that Americans don't have a clear picture of the terrorism risk. Through stern warnings of imminent danger, the administration is keeping Americans in fear. Fearful Americans are more likely to give away their freedoms and civil rights. Fearful Americans are more likely to sit docilely as the administration guts environmental laws, shields businesses from liability, rewrites foreign policy, and revamps the military--all in the name of counter-terrorism.

[zombienote: In the case of drug war propaganda, getting people used to accepting more drug testing, of giving law enforcement more and more powers, as well as generally tolerating the war on medical marijuana.]

There are two basic ways to terrorize people. The first is to do something spectacularly horrible, like flying airplanes into skyscrapers and killing thousands. The second is to keep people living in fear through constant threat warnings, security checks, rhetoric, and stories of terrorist plots foiled by the diligent work of the increasingly intrusive Department of Homeland Security.

[zombienote: The State of Perpetual War described in 1984.]

The Republicans have spent decades running for office on "the Democrats are soft on Communism." Since 9/11, they've discovered "the Democrats are soft on terrorism." The effectiveness of this strategy depends on convincing Americans that there is a major terrorism threat, and that we need to give the government free reign to do whatever it sees fit.

Security is complicated, and countermeasures we put in place to defend against one threat may leave us more vulnerable to another. The truth is that the risk of terrorism in this country is as small as it has been since before 9/11. The risk of governance by a corrupt government is much greater. And it's becoming greater still with every policy decision made in the name of "the war on terrorism" that gives more power to the government and less to the people.

Bruce Schneier is the CTO of Counterpane Internet Security, Inc., and the author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World."