Narco-Terrorism?....WTF?

[EvolveNow]

So, lemme get this straight. One of the provisions of Patriot Act II is to define the new crime of "narco-terrorism". So a low level dope dealer may be charged with terrorism because his/her profits eventually filter back up to the ultimate producer of the illicit drug...who is in fact none other than Al-Quaeda (sic?). So basically it doesn't matter that the street-level dealer has no ties whatsoever with terrorism, his/her actions contribute to the terrorist cause. If I didn't know better, I'd think this is a funny hoax. But to follow the (il)logic of this approach, shouldn't the Reagan/Bush (I) administrations be rounded up and declared to be terrorists? After all, with the best of intentions, these men and women supported, gave aid and comfort to Osama bin Ladn and his Mujahadeen during their fight to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. One could go as far as to say that American aid pretty much built Al-Quaeda. Hmmm....Reagan/Bush + cronies arrested and jailed....maybe Patriot II isn't so bad after all.

Cheers

M

[Sundog]

This is precisely what can be expected when Republicans are in power. That's why, though some of my views are conservative and some liberal, I would never, ever vote for a Republican. Their agenda is all too clear: to turn this country into the country THEY want and ram it down the throats of the rest of us.

It's not bad enough Nixon made criminals of pot smokers; now we're terrorists.

[schplurg]

I didn't realize that Al Qaeda operated out of Humboldt County, California. Those growers seem like such "normal" redblooded pot-growing Americans, I never knew! Ashcroft needs to take a few bong-hits and re-think all of this crap. Sure getting high has it's side-effects, but I doubt war would be one of them, heh.

Trying to maintain a sense of humor amidst all of this is getting harder and harder.

[Tony]

This is stupid, but predictable. Mabey leftists will think about the possible outcomes when they argue for more government authority?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony
This is stupid, but predictable. Mabey leftists will think about the possible outcomes when they argue for more government authority?

But Tony, this is being done by the right!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


But Tony, this is being done by the right!

With power given to them by the left.

When you argue for more government intrusion and authority, don’t be mad when you get it.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


With power given to them by the left.

When you argue for more government intrusion and authority, don’t be mad when you get it.

Huh? How is the left responsible for either Patriot Act?

I understand that you think the left often is guilty of this, and you're probably right. But let's call a spade a spade here, this is Ashcroft's baby.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
With power given to them by the left.

When you argue for more government intrusion and authority, don’t be mad when you get it.

So excessive right-wing intrusions into people's lives is the fault of the left?

[eli54]

Originally posted by Sundog
This is precisely what can be expected when Republicans are in power. That's why, though some of my views are conservative and some liberal, I would never, ever vote for a Republican. Their agenda is all too clear: to turn this country into the country THEY want and ram it down the throats of the rest of us.

It's not bad enough Nixon made criminals of pot smokers; now we're terrorists.

Marijuana was made illegal LLOOOONNNGG before Nixon...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
With power given to them by the left.

When you argue for more government intrusion and authority, don’t be mad when you get it.

He's right, folks. When you give a good politician the power to do good, you automatically give a bad politician the power to do bad.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by eli54


Marijuana was made illegal LLOOOONNNGG before Nixon...

But it was Nixon who came up with the Schedule of controlled substances and really declared war on pot smokers. All for political purposes; to punish the damn hippies.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


But let's call a spade a spade here, this is Ashcroft's baby.

Im not trying to say ashcroft isnt responsible.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


Im not trying to say ashcroft isnt responsible.

So, what did you think (I'm asking, not suggesting any position here) of Ashcroft's misuse of government power in the form of the Homeland Security agency to track down the "missing" Texas lawmakers for purely right-wing political purposes, or his use of government funds to travel about the country espousing right-wing political views in support of restrictive, unconstitutional "patriot act 2" laws?

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


So, what did you think (I'm asking, not suggesting any position here) of Ashcroft's misuse of government power in the form of the Homeland Security agency to track down the "missing" Texas lawmakers for purely right-wing political purposes

I thought it was an abuse of power. I also thought the fed. government had no place getting involved in a Texas issue.

or his use of government funds to travel about the country espousing right-wing political views in support of restrictive, unconstitutional "patriot act 2" laws?

Isnt that a normal function of his position?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by jj


So, what did you think (I'm asking, not suggesting any position here) of Ashcroft's misuse of government power in the form of the Homeland Security agency to track down the "missing" Texas lawmakers for purely right-wing political purposes, or his use of government funds to travel about the country espousing right-wing political views in support of restrictive, unconstitutional "patriot act 2" laws?

to what are you referring? Is it democrats leaving Texas on a couple of occassions to be absent from a vote on something? I vaguely recall this being brought up on the forum before.

What is the speculation of how Patriot Act 2 could be used to track down these lawmakers? I am at a real loss as to what the issues are, what the concern is that elected officials did not show for a vote, other than their constituents may have been disenfanchised. Did Ashcroft in fact misuse a power? Which power? Can this be confirmed?

[American]

Way to draw attention to yourself, law-breaker. God why don't you get a bullhorn and go announce it on the corner, downtown Main Street.....

[DialecticMaterialist]

Some quick and dirty info on the situation:

What is narcoterrorism?
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), narcoterrorism refers to terrorist acts carried out by groups that are directly or indirectly involved in cultivating, manufacturing, transporting, or distributing illicit drugs. The term is generally applied to groups that use the drug trade to fund terrorism. However, it has also sometimes been used to refer to the phenomenon of increasingly close ties between powerful drug lords motivated by simple criminal profit and terrorist groups with political agendas, particularly in Colombia.

But some experts say that the term is too vague and is mostly used by politically driven Western politicians and journalists out to score rhetorical points. They argue that nearly every terrorist group operating today raises some money from the drug trade, and that while terrorists and drug traffickers often share some short-term goals, they have different long-term objectives (political goals for terrorists, greed for drug lords) and shouldn't be conflated.


More at: http://www.terrorismanswers.com/terrorism/narcoterrorism.html


Overall I suppose if the drug money is being used deliberately and directly to fund terrorist activities or the drug makers start doing mass murders and such with bombs, then it can be considered terrorism. However simply selling drugs or drug related crimes are not terrorism in my book.