-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
WASHINGTON - American authorities sent David C. Headley, a small-time drug dealer and sometime informant, to work for them in Pakistan months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, despite a warning that he sympathized with radical Islamic groups, according to court records and interviews. Not long after Mr. Headley arrived there, he began training with terrorists, eventually playing a key role in the 2008 attacks that left 164 people dead in Mumbai.
The October 2001 warning was dismissed, the authorities said, as the ire of a jilted girlfriend and for lack of proof. Less than a month later, those concerns did not come up when a federal court in New York granted Mr. Headley an early release from probation so that he could be sent to work for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in Pakistan. It is unclear what Mr. Headley was supposed to do in Pakistan for the Americans.
“All I knew was the D.E.A. wanted him in Pakistan as fast as possible because they said they were close to making some big cases,” said Luis Caso, Mr. Headley’s former probation officer.
There is something seriously wrong with our priorities when the DEA’s overseas operations are trumping warnings about a terrorist threat. When some of this story came out last month — the Times story adds some new details that paint an even more damning picture of the government’s handling of Headley — Jim Hanson wrote:
[M]aybe, just maybe if we could get all of our law enforcement, intelligence and operators fighting our real enemies, we wouldn’t be paying the bills for a guy who is fully on board with the other team. If we call off the drug crusade we don’t have to alienate large swaths of the population in places we are trying to make friends like, oh I don’t know Afghanistan!
Indeed, while the Headley case is appalling for its stark illustration of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror working at cross purposes, counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan are also quietly undermining our efforts there. Christopher Hitchens noted this two years ago, and suggested a better approach:
Surely a smarter strategy would be, in the long term, to invest a great deal in reforestation and especially in the replanting of vines. While in the short term, hard-pressed Afghan farmers should be allowed to sell their opium to the government rather than only to the many criminal elements that continue to infest it or to the Taliban. We don’t have to smoke the stuff once we have purchased it: It can be burned or thrown away or perhaps more profitably used to manufacture the painkillers of which the United States currently suffers a shortage. (As it is, we allow Turkey to cultivate opium poppy fields for precisely this purpose.) Why not give Afghanistan the contract instead? At one stroke, we help fill its coffers and empty the main war chest of our foes while altering the “hearts-and-minds” balance that has been tipping away from us. I happen to know that this option has been discussed at quite high levels in Afghanistan itself, and I leave you to guess at the sort of political constraints that prevent it from being discussed intelligently in public in the United States. But if we ever have to have the melancholy inquest on how we “lost” a country we had once liberated, this will be one of the places where the conversation will have to start.
The anti-opium strategy in Afghanistan has gotten slightly less stupid since Hitchens wrote that — the focus has shifted from burning farmers’ fields (a great way to make more enemies) to targeting refiners — but the policy Hitchens suggests would cut the refiners off at the knees. Policymakers generally think of counternarcotics and counterterrorism as two sides of the same coin; the former is seen as an attack on terrorists’ funding. But there are much more effective ways to undercut the profits that our enemies make on the drug trade; we just need to stop making a fetish of destroying things that get you high.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/08/the-war-on-drugs-vs-the-war-on
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- The Continuing Crisis
- Consternated Conferences
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Margie| 11.8.10 @ 8:06PM
"..we just need to stop making a fetish of destroying things that get you high."
Spare me, Tabin.
Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 9:01PM
Marijuana is rarely as benign as the posters here would have you believe. A good 2/3-3/4 of all of my inpatients have urine drug screen positive for THC when they are evaluated in the ER before admission. Among the Maori I treated in NZ, it was closer to 90%. I agree with Margie, and do not favor legalization.
Warrior | 11.8.10 @ 9:55PM
Today's marijuana is not the same stuff the flower children indulged in. Through breeding and other horticultural modifications, it is much more potent today. That said, the problem in Afghanistan has nothing to do with marijuana.
Margie| 11.8.10 @ 9:58PM
Proving yet again that Libertarians are Leftists.
After all, how do they really differ?
They want the same things.
Basically an anything goes society in the name of "liberty."
Ronald Reagan:
"But in the end, the war on crime will only be won when an attitude of mind and a change of heart takes place in America, when certain truths take hold again and plant their roots deep in our national consciousness, truths like: Right and wrong matters; Individuals are responsible for their actions; Retribution should be swift and sure for those who prey on the innocent."
Drug dealers prey on the innocent. Is there any question?
Those who try and say that everything ought to be legal have no moral compass, and like the Left they want to foist their immorality on the rest of us.
malcolm kyle| 11.11.10 @ 7:25AM
You appear to be living in some strange parallel universe, one where prohibition actually works, here is part of the testimony of Judge Alfred J Talley, given before the Senate Hearings of 1926:
"For the first time in our history, full faith and confidence in and respect for the hitherto sacred Constitution of the United States has been weakened and impaired because this terrifying invasion of natural rights has been engrafted upon the fundamental law of our land, and experience has shown that it is being wantonly and derisively violated in every State, city, and hamlet in the country."
"It has made potential drunkards of the youth of the land, not because intoxicating liquor appeals to their taste or disposition, but because it is a forbidden thing, and because it is forbidden makes an irresistible appeal to the unformed and immature. It has brought into our midst the intemperate woman, the most fearsome and menacing thing for the future of our national life."
"It has brought the sickening slime of corruption, dishonor, and disgrace into every group of employees and officials in city, State, and Federal departments that have been charged with the enforcement of this odious law."
http://www.druglibrary.org/sch.....talley.htm
malcolm kyle| 11.11.10 @ 7:27AM
Debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. Are drugs like Heroin, Meth or Alcohol dangerous? It simply doesn't matter, because if we prohibit them then we sure as hell know that it makes a bad situation far worse. If someone wants to attempt to enhance or destroy their lives with particular medicines or poisons, that should be their business, not anybody else's. Their lives aren't ours to direct. And anyway, who wants to give criminals a huge un-taxed, endless revenue stream?
Why on earth do you think it's acceptable to want to control certain behaviors, such as the bedroom habits or choice of poison of fully grown adults? Isn't it high time we evolved enough to get past this crap? Surely we need to accept, that the only way to truly be free, is that you agree, in return, to allow other people to be free, even if it offends your personal sensibilities. What's more; if it's not directly hurting you and you forbid it, then you can be sure that it will create unforeseen circumstances, which WILL have an adverse affect on YOUR wellbeing! -- Actually, a large proportion of those arising circumstances may not come as such a surprise to those of us who are capable of paying due attention to historical precedent.
Kirk Muse| 11.8.10 @ 8:23PM
I thought conservatives oppose nanny-state policies. Obviously I was wrong.
What could be more pro nanny-state than marijuana prohibition?
Beyond the fact that marijuana prohibition is counterproductive and a complete waste of money, what about the right of adult
citizens to be left alone--especially in the privacy of our own homes.
We don't punish those who attempt suicide and survive. So why do we punish those who consume the wrong (politically selected)
recreational drugs?
I don't want my government attempting to protect me from myself.
I want my government to protect me from those who want to harm me against my will.
Today, our nanny-state government tells us which recreational drugs we may or may not consume. (Note that Viagra is OK, but marijuana
is not). Note that nicotine is OK, but marijuana is not.
Tomorrow, our nanny-state government will tell us which foods we may or may not eat. Of course, they will cite noble reasons for doing so.
bluecollarbytes| 11.8.10 @ 8:54PM
If 'we' were serious about eliminating Afghanistan poppy crops, we would have done it years ago. Either there are alternative crops suitable to Afghanistan that could provide their farmers incomes, or maybe for all the talk there's been no serious U.S. effort to 'encourage' such a transformation. Or maybe the Afghan farmers will always grow it like Americans grow tomatoes and there's really nothing we can do about it.
mad libertarian guy | 11.8.10 @ 9:04PM
"we just need to stop making a fetish of destroying things that get you high."
Legalization of drugs might be the biggest step we can take towards liberty. 1.5 million fewer people will be jailed for wanting to enjoy themselves in a way that doesn't involve liquor (which is unmitigated poison), and the drug cartels that cause violence worldwide would be crippled.
It would also save tens of billions of dollars a year and divert valuable law enforcement resources towards *actual* crime rather than victimless, consensual crimes.
Yes. Even heroin.
Dale Cord| 11.9.10 @ 1:29PM
The war on Drugs? The war on Terrorists? LOL! What a Joke! It would be funny if it weren't so tragic to have taken so many American lives with its deceptive Titles. It's about as ridiculous as one believing that those responsible to keep the enemies of freedom, from invading America in keeping with their oath of office after elected. This evil government has never been in the remotest way trying to stop drugs, terrorists or illegal aliens from killing Americans. If anything they have promoted and have been on the receiving end of these crimes against humanity to fill their coffers. Just follow the money and motives for deploying so many military forces in counties that have oil and drugs as their main source of revenue. Iran will be the next target for the demonic suits in Washington. Washington politicians are no different then their counter parts in Hollywood. They parade before the "cameras", the deceptive vehicle used in the process of creating a false image to the multitude of on lookers, to fleece them of their livelihood in the name of Entertainment and Freedom. Vanity, Vanity Hypocrites all! If you think we invaded Viet Nam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and all of these other small countries for the past 60 years to remain a free nation, you are sadly mistaken and easily deceived. Our brave American soldiers have been used for cannon fodder, to keep the vermin in Washington in the lavish life style they have been accustom to these many decades now. You don't have to believe me, check out the homes and cars they drive to their scrooge bank vaults. A criminal background check would show a history of illegal operations and transactions made, to get them where they are today, at the top of a stinking dung hill supported on all sides by laundered money made by Drugs, prostitution, Murder, Pornography, Gun running, The kidnapping and marketing of Men, Women, and Children to other countries for medical experiments, slave labour and sex. Wake up to the real world you live in and stop the denying of truth, and proven facts and statistics of past atrocities, committed by these predators who are not what they claim or seem to be. Look to the most crime invested state in this union and also the entertainment Capital ,for the crippling and killing epidemic of mind and body and you will truly find the enmity of Christianity, peace, Justice, Freedom and Liberty. Washington DC and Hollywood, California, Two Whore houses producing and feeding the population propaganda and poison needed for its eventual demise.
malcolm kyle| 11.11.10 @ 7:57AM
Pragmatic libertarians (minimal-statists) and "true" Conservatives agree that many, if not most, of society's problems are caused by government usurping choices that could better be made by individuals and that government is just about the worst way of doing almost anything. Where libertarianism normally parts company with "fake" conservatism is over moral issues. But a true conservative would have no problem with agreeing, that what people do with their own bodies, and especially in the privacy of their own home, should be supremely their business, and that anything else would entail ignoring the basic tenet of limited government.
Fake-Conservatism on the other hand has much in common with socialism; Both Leftists and Fake-Conservatives appear to harbor the belief that nature does not exist and that any human can be anything he wants to be, or can for the "greater good", be "re-educated" into being. Leftists therefore think little boys can be conditioned into preferring dolls over toy soldiers, and similarly Fake-conservatives believe that adults can be coerced into choosing alcohol over marijuana. A true conservative, just like a pragmatic libertarian, would immediately reject both ideas as nonsense.
If you support prohibition then you are NOT a conservative.
Conservative principles, quite clearly, ARE:
1) Limited, locally controlled government.
2) Individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.
3) Free enterprise.
4) A strong national defense.
Stop being hypocrites and start being a TRUE conservatives!
To support prohibition you have to be either a socialist, ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, insane or corrupt.