The shared roots of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, in one chart

The shared roots of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, in one chart

If you had any doubts that the War on Drugs and the War on Terror aren't the same thing, just look at this chart below.



Yes, you are reading that right. The federal government uses most of its wire tapping ability to listen to drug dealers.

Drug wiretaps came up last week when USA Today reported that the Drug Enforcement Administration had been secretly listening in on billions of Americans' international phone calls, starting well before 9/11 and the War on Terror. "For more than two decades, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking," USA Today found. The program "provided a blueprint for the far broader National Security Agency surveillance that followed."

As Andy Greenberg recently wrote in Wired, "the program serves as a reminder that most of the legal battles between government surveillance efforts and the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections over the last decades have played out first on the front lines of America’s War on Drugs." You can add surveillance to the ever-growing list of controversial criminal justice practices with roots in the drug war: Sales of surplus military gear to local cops, civil asset forfeiture, skyrocketing incarceration rates for non-violent offenses, harsh penalties for real or imagined drugs in the schoolyard.

Both of these "wars" are a violation of our rights as Americans and we should be standing up to our government to get these unconstitutional polices removed from the books. They are clearly piggy-backing off of each other to strips rights further and further away from citizens while increasingly pushing us towards a police state. It's disgusting that any American still supports either of these two "wars" still. They clearly aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing.

I leave you with this second chart from the same source:

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The DOJ is also suspected of concealing the origins of evidence from drag net national security communications intercepts which have been 'redirected' to local law enforcement for criminal prosecution outright defying the 4th amendment.

Inside the Shocking DEA Scandal -- Global Surveillance Tools Used to Help Arrest Americans for Small Crimes

The U.S. Department of Justice has begun reviewing a controversial unit inside the Drug Enforcement Administration that uses secret domestic surveillance tactics — including intelligence gathered by the National Security Agency — to target Americans for drug offenses. According to a series of articles published by Reuters, agents are instructed to recreate the investigative trail in order to conceal the origins of the evidence, not only from defense lawyers, but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges. "We are talking about ordinary crime: drug dealing, organized crime, money laundering. We are not talking about national security crimes," says Reuters reporter John Shiffman. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, says this is just the latest scandal at the DEA. "I hope it is a sort of wake-up call for people in Congress to say now is the time, finally, after 40 years, to say this agency really needs a close examination."

a reply to: greencmp

"I hope it is a sort of wake-up call for people in Congress to say now is the time, finally, after 40 years, to say this agency really needs a close examination."

I agree. Except that I think this organization should be disbanded altogether. They've become more than what they were originally chartered to do.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

"I hope it is a sort of wake-up call for people in Congress to say now is the time, finally, after 40 years, to say this agency really needs a close examination."

I agree. Except that I think this organization should be disbanded altogether. They've become more than what they were originally chartered to do.

Yes, there really is no need for any federal police force except on federal land.

a reply to: greencmp

Well I can understand the need for having, say the US Marshal's office for escaped convicts, or FBI agents that can track crimes across state lines and stuff. But for the most part, I agree, federal police forces need to be SEVERELY curtailed in their abilities.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Well I can understand the need for having, say the US Marshal's office for escaped convicts, or FBI agents that can track crimes across state lines and stuff. But for the most part, I agree, federal police forces need to be SEVERELY curtailed in their abilities.

Good point, I would keep Marshal's as well as treasury police (secret service).

a reply to: greencmp

I severely believe that ending the war on drugs (and now the war on terror) would end SOOO many of America's current domestic problems, including employment, incarceration rate (obviously), the police state, institutionalized racism (well most of it), and more. I'd include illegal immigration, but I'm sure that will never go away. Though by ending the war on drugs, it would SEVERELY curtail the cartels' income and thus their power. So I'm sure that it would have SOME effect on illegal immigration since cartel violence has been the thing fueling much of the this immigration recently.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree though, I am hesitant to set the expectations too high lest the presumed benefits (and therefore their measurements post disband) be overestimated.

Can't help but notice how far down the line bribery is. It's almost like they don't even want to stop that. I feel like the war on drugs is finally on it's last leg.

With several presidential candidates (hillary, rand, using TWOD and prison reform as major topics, i hope we see some real change soon. It would be nice if Obama could see to it before his term expires.



a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Woodcarver

The problem with Obama is that even if he DID move against it, the Republican led Congress would block him just to spite him.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly!

You know something is wrong if you can loose your chances at quality employment over MJ essentially for life when the law gets involved, but if you don't get caught you could be the President of the United States.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly!

You know something is wrong if you can loose your chances at quality employment over MJ essentially for life when the law gets involved, but if you don't get caught you could be the President of the United States.

Fixed:
"You know something is wrong if you can lose your chances at quality employment over MJ, essentially for life, when the law gets involved- but if you don't get IN TROUBLE you could be the President of the United States."

See, you have to differentiate between getting caught and getting in trouble. If you're a senators kid and you get caught, chances are good the bribes will keep it off your record.

Perhaps it is because they are cutting into their business.

Or they want to get a heads up on the daily prices.

a reply to: lordcomac

Ask Jeb Bush about his daughter.

a reply to: largo

That sad reality is Jeb Bush will use his daughter's drug problems as his excuse why prohibition shall be continued. If a republican is elected(and Jeb will most likely get the R nomination), then we are in for more draconian drug laws in my humble opinion.

This information should come as no surprise to any of us who have been paying attention. The War on Drugs is indeed profitable for law enforcement, otherwise they would not lobby so hard for strict drug laws.