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

Reason ^ | 2001-09-27 | Sam MacDonald

[Storm Orphan]

Thanks. You too. Godspeed.

[Storm Orphan]

Frighteningly brief. ;^)

[Roy Tucker]

Good article and I think most people are concerned about the permanence of a cabinet position of Homeland Defense. I hope it disappears when the terrorist threat abates. I do doubt it. A legitimate function of any state is to protect its citzenry from attack from outside. I believe we should be on a war-time footing and our enemies have no rights in our country. If these people arrested are found guilty of aiding and abetting the terrorists they should be executed as spies and their property siezed.

[Cato]

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.

Depends on how you define BENIGN.

A little Xlintoonista NewSpeak for this lovely morning.

You take care,
CATO

[Jolly Rodgers]

I'm certain our rights and freedoms will be safe and secure once the Federal government wrests them from the hands of a pesky and untrustworthy citizenry and locks them away where they can't be abused. [/sarcasm]

[annalex]

Misguided indeed. "Stupid" is another term that comes to mind.

Reasonable people see no offense to others in doing drugs. No reasonable person would dispute the offense of a terrorist act.

Normal people respond to the temptation of pleasure, that drugs offer. Most resist the temptation, but it is there, hence drugs are so difficult to eradicate. No normal person sees the attraction of killing human beings.

The drug lords would gladly leave you alone unless you are a customer. The reasong of being of a terrorist is not to leave you alone.

I don't have any reason to question Mr. Ashcroft's innate mental prowess. We have to conclude that proximity to power does something to human intelligence, worse than cocain.

[annalex]

italics off.

[Cato]

Thanks for closing my tags.

CATO