Drug War Redux - The attorney general's misguided model for the War Against Terrorism

Reason ^ | 2001-09-27 | Sam MacDonald

[Benoit Baldwin]

September 27, 2001 Drug War Redux The attorney general's misguided model for the War Against Terrorism By Sam MacDonald Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and an army of Justice Department officials have descended on Congress this week, lobbying hard for a utility belt of new police powers that they say would allow them to fight the critical war on terrorism. Disturbingly, Ashcroft's rhetoric reveals an ignorance of the immediate past instead of a vision for the future. In an attempt to show just how benign the War on Terror will be for law-abiding citizens, Ashcroft has chosen an odd model: the War on Drugs. At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Ashcroft repeatedly said that the tools in the fight against terrorism should be at least as strong as the ones used to fight gambling, organized crime, and illegal ("illicit" in government parlance) substances. Law enforcement officials, he said, should be able not only to freeze terrorists’ assets, but seize them--"Just like we have for those individuals involved in drug trafficking." There isn't a single person in Washington, D.C. who would object to seizing Osama bin Laden’s fortune. On the other hand, Ashcroft seemed unaware that more than a few people have objected to civil asset forfeiture and the escalating power it has given police agencies. In fact, widespread concerns over racial profiling, bans on computer encryption, and the increasing U.S. military presence in South America -- all concerns that have striking parallels in the new fight against terrorism -- have forced many people to rethink their position on the drug war. This is not a knee-jerk libertarian response. The In Defense of Freedom Coalition, an ad hoc group of more than 150 organizations concerned about Ashcroft’s new grab for power, is a prime example. Cobbled together in the week following the terrible attacks on September 11, groups signing on include everyone from the liberal ACLU to Phyllis Schlafly’s arch-conservative Eagle Forum. If the startling display of left-right unity surprises Ashcroft, he wasn’t paying very close attention in the days before the attack. Indeed, a strikingly similar coalition gathered on September 10 to present a united front against invasive policing in the War on Drugs -- the very war Ashcroft now raises as a model in the fight against bin Laden and associates. With 63 participants it was smaller, but just as diverse: The Eagle Forum and ACLU also took part in that effort, which called itself the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties. A driving force behind both coalitions was the super-conservative Free Congress Foundation. If Ashcroft hadn’t personally heard of the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties, the Senate Judiciary Committee certainly had. On September 10, the group delivered a letter to the committee -- the same leaders Ashcroft addressed this Tuesday -- begging members to consider privacy issues before approving John Walters to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The hearing was scheduled to take place at 10 a.m. on Sept. 11. I was standing in line to attend it when the Senate Hart Office Building was evacuated. Ashcroft's comparison aside, there are important differences between the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs. Terrorists can deliver a violent payload in ways that drug-addled teens never could. Many people oppose invasive policing in the War on Drugs because they think the war itself is fundamentally wrong; no one, not even left-leaning commentators who think U.S. actions abroad brought on the attack, thinks terrorism can continue unopposed. Perhaps what is similar between the two wars is the reaction by civil libertarians. People across the political spectrum fear that increased police powers will lead us down the path of oppression. As this battle unfolds, Ashcroft should keep in mind that people are listening very closely to his words, and that the words he chooses are critical. By raising the specter of the War on Drugs--a costly, failed national effort that has landed legions of American minorities behind bars and forced millions more to sacrifice civil liberties bit by bit -- he is doing little to inspire confidence in a national police force bolstered with wide-ranging new powers. It certainly doesn’t help when the U.S. attorney general admits, as he did this Tuesday, that even if the tools he is asking for were in place prior to Sept. 11, security officials might not have been able to stop the deadly attacks. People deserve a national effort that will fight terror effectively, not the same tired drug-war rhetoric they have seen fail for years. Sam MacDonald (smacdonald@reason.com) is REASON's Washington editor.

[Storm Orphan]

Reason bump.

[Storm Orphan]

Okay... so the Drug War has been such a success that most people don't even know what marijuana
looks like, so we should apply this same winning, liberty-enhancing strategy to fighting terrorism.

go back into my bomb shelter now to hide. this is really scary.

[dvan]

The In Defense of Freedom Coalition, an ad hoc group of more than 150 organizations

Oh Boy a new group has been added! The liberals can spin them out faster than you can print business cards for them.

[Storm Orphan]

The liberals can spin them out faster than you can print business cards for them.

Cobbled together in the week following the terrible attacks on September 11, groups signing on include everyone from the liberal ACLU to Phyllis Schlafly’s arch-conservative Eagle Forum.

Eagle Forum is a liberal group?

[dvan]

Eagle Forum is a liberal group?

Just because this guy says they are signed on doesn't mean it is so. I'll believe it when he submits ALL the name od these groups. They sure got organized quickly. I imagine Greenpeace is among them.

[Storm Orphan]

Perhaps you should read before sounding off.

Follow the link above. The members include: the Rutherford Foundation, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Gun Owners of America, the Libertarian Party, the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, and the Second Amendment Foundation, among others.

[Storm Orphan]

*ping*

[Storm Orphan]

*ping*

[Storm Orphan]

*ping*

[Storm Orphan]

*ping*

[Storm Orphan]

*ping*

[js1138]

The war on drugs doesn't work because a significant minority of people want drugs and will do anything to get them. Last time I looked there were few voluntary consumers for exploding jet fuel.

[longshadow]

lurking placemarker bump

[Storm Orphan]

I imagine Greenpeace is among them.

If you follow the link to the list, you will find they are not.

[Romulus]

In the interest of the survival of Christendom (it's in your interest too; believe me), I am willing to push the envelope a little. But in this case asset freezing works just as well as asset forfeiture, and it's vastly less corrupting.

I happen to believe that the best historical analogy to what's happening now is the emergence of the Soviet Union -- when a prompt and firm response from the West would have vastly reduced the danger. Instead, through Western cowardice and treachery, we were exposed to 60+ years of mortal danger. Federal authorities already have plenty of power to track terrorists here. Maybe I'd modify the wiretap laws and enforce stronger cockpt security, but the other proposals seem mostly unnecessary and dangerous. The chief danger is still abroad, and that's where I think the enemy should be attacked -- early, often, and in an intelligently targeted way.

Thanks for the flag. I've been thinking about you. Stay in touch.

[Uriel1975]

In an attempt to show just how benign the War on Terror will be for law-abiding citizens, Ashcroft has chosen an odd model: the War on Drugs.

Eeek!

(sorry, that's all I have to say)

[Askel5]

Thanks for the flag, Storm Orphan.

Owe you a thank-you, Carbon.

[BenR2]

As an evangelical-fundy type, I must say that Ashcroft DEEPLY disappoints in this matter.

Apparently he has learned nothing in his long public service career about the lunacy of calling for FedGov trampling of our freedoms in order to defend them.