Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Failure by Design - Lawmakers Give Terrorists a Pass
Action America ^ | 9/11/02 | John Gaver

Posted on 09/11/2002 1:09:32 PM PDT by Action-America

Action America

Federal Failure by Design
Lawmakers Give Terrorists a Pass


September 11, 2002
by John Gaver

John Gaver  

It has now been a year since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon.  In that time, our military has performed admirably, in rooting out known terrorists from their caves and hideouts.  President Bush and Congress have now had plenty of time to take effective legislative action against the terrorists.  Yet, as this anniversary date arrives, we find that our elected lawmakers have done little on the legislative front, that will aid in the War on Terrorism.

In the intervening year, President Bush, Congress, the military, numerous federal agencies and media policy wonks have been telling us repeatedly, that one of the most important things that we can do to win the War on Terrorism, is to cut off the source of funds to terrorist organizations.  So we ask, why do our lawmakers refuse to even consider the one thing within their power, that would have the most devastating impact on terrorist funding sources?

Before going any further, let me make it clear that I do not intend, in any way, to disparage any of our various intelligence operatives, who have managed to track down a small amount of terrorist funding sources, outside of normal banking channels, since the terrorist attacks.  In fact, because the Arab world has its own banking system, those agents are to be commended for tracking down as much as they have.  The questions that I will raise, are only about the ineffectiveness of our lawmakers, as regards fighting terrorism.  Also, the proposal that I will present is intended to make the work of those agencies easier and more effective and allow them to shift more resources to the War on Terrorism.

Moreover, it is primarily through the excellent work of our various intelligence operatives, that we have acquired two solid facts about how terrorists fund their cowardly ventures - facts that our lawmakers have conveniently ignored.  Those facts are:  

  1. Only a negligible amount of the terrorists' funds ever passed through the US banking system or any other Western financial institutions.  Essentially, the accounts that the terrorists had in the US were almost exclusively personal accounts that the individual terrorists used for living expenses and paying for flight school.  There were no major money laundering operations connected with the US banking system.  More specifically, the Arabs have their own banking system, that is completely isolated from the US banking system and that is what the terrorists used.
     
  2. A major source of funds for terrorist organizations derives from the sale of drugs - drugs that are eventually injected, sniffed or smoked by our children.  That translates into a double win for the terrorists - they make millions, while addicting our children.  In fact, in an address to the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Twentieth Anniversary Conference, on July 30, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft went to some length to make the connection between terrorist organizations and drug trafficking organizations.  Specifically, he stated that after comparing a list of major drug trafficking organizations with the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, "Nearly one third of the organizations on the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations appear also on our list of targeted U.S. drug suppliers."

This would indicate to any reasoning person that attacking US financial institutions would yield only negligible results, while taking action to reduce terrorist drug profits would severely cripple the terrorists.  But, who ever accused our lawmakers in Washington of being reasonable?

The Unreasonable Response

Within a few short weeks after the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Centers, our lawmakers overwhelmingly passed and the President signed, the ominous USA Patriot Act (Public Law No. 107-56), aimed NOT at cutting off the terrorists' access to drug money, but at the same Western financial institutions that the terrorists had so scrupulously avoided.  In fact, of the 362 pages that comprise the USA Patriot Act, over one third (125 pages) are concerned only with American banking and finance.  Now, think about what that says about our elected officials.  Instead of doing something to hurt the terrorists, they pass a bill aimed squarely at US citizens and US businesses.

There are only two possibilities.  Either they knew what they were doing... or they didn't.

As the available facts show, if they really thought that the USA Patriot Act represented a significant step toward fighting terrorism, they would have to be totally incompetent.  On the other hand, if they knew what they were doing, then they must have another agenda - an agenda that they consider more important than fighting terrorism.

We can safely assume that most of our elected officials are not totally incompetent, since getting elected to such a high office would normally preclude that possibility (at least in most states).  So, we are left to conclude that they must have some other agenda that they consider more important than fighting terrorism.  This raises a very serious question.

What is it that our lawmakers consider more important than fighting terrorism?

To answer that question, we have only to look at what they have accomplished, in place of cutting off the terrorists' source of funds.  In fact, not a single legislative action taken by our elected officials, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has had more than a nominal effect on terrorist funding sources.  So, what is their great accomplishment?

Most constitutional scholars, regardless of political persuasion, consider the USA Patriot Act, that our lawmakers did pass, to constitute the greatest single attack on the Constitution in the history of the United States.  In fact, they point out that the primary feature of the USA Patriot Act was to give the government unprecedented (and unconstitutional) authority to spy on US citizens, going about their normal business.  This new authority was not aimed at foreign nationals, Arabs in general or even young Arab males in particular.  It was aimed very broadly at US citizens and US financial institutions.

So, addressing the question of what our elected officials have really accomplished, since September 11, it becomes clear that they have callously and significantly increased their own power over those who elected them, at the expense of the Constitution (particularly the 1st, 4th and 10th Amendments), while having no significant impact on terrorist funding sources.

Since, as we saw above, it's not reasonable to attribute these actions to total incompetence on the part of our lawmakers, it is only reasonable to conclude that our elected officials were simply using the War on Terrorism to further their own political ambitions and tighten their stranglehold on US voters.  The USA Patriot Act has little to do with fighting terrorism and everything to do with subverting the Constitution and giving the government unprecedented power over US citizens and granting them unprecedented access to the private records of US citizens.

It seems that Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709–1784) was right, when he said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."  However, I am more inclined to agree with Ambrose Bierce, who submits that it is the first.

A Reasonable Response

As shown above, our best intelligence has shown that a significant portion of the terrorists' funds come from the sale of drugs.  In fact, our intelligence services have been telling us this, since long before the attacks of last September.

It's no secret.  The government knows the problem.  They just refuse to do the one thing that would not only cripple the terrorists financially, but reduce drug usage by our kids.

By far, the most significant negative impact that we could place on terrorist finances, would be to deny them their drug profits.  And by far, the best and most cost effective way to do that would be to take their market away.  So, what is this magic pill?

[ Click here to read the rest of this article. ]

 


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; drugs; libertarians; patriotism; powergrab; privacy; usapatriotact; waronterrorism; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 09/11/2002 1:09:33 PM PDT by Action-America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *libertarians
Ping!
2 posted on 09/11/2002 1:25:54 PM PDT by Action-America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
Now we are startting to get to the real issue.

The "barbarians" are always (have always been) "at the gates".

The question is "who" let them in, and "why"?
3 posted on 09/11/2002 1:34:55 PM PDT by RISU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
I clearly recall the discussion topic on radio that fateful morning, before the attacks.

A black woman in California had been arrested in an airport for smuggling drugs. They were working on information (gleaned from tips) as to the color of her luggage (green if I recall), a description of her, and the fact that another woman was also traveling as a decoy, similarly outfitted.

There was outrage that she had been "racially profiled"

Of course, blame has been placed everywhere else, EXCEPT on the inability to focus on the FACTS if they potentially involve an issue of race.

Unless and until political correctness is out of the public dialog, we are doomed.

4 posted on 09/11/2002 1:42:28 PM PDT by lds23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WyldKard; TKEman; Boner1; BADJOE; Mayor Of Simpleton; Khepera; corkoman; fporretto; Cato
Heads up!
5 posted on 09/11/2002 1:53:35 PM PDT by Action-America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
What a great find. I'm going to have to follow this guys articles, logic and clairty is so rare to find.
6 posted on 09/11/2002 2:06:03 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Action-America; *libertarians
So John Gaver wants us all to stop looking for Islamist terrorists and instead get back to the job of putting marijuanna smokers in jail.

This is from the prestigious Hoover Institution.


Supporting the Drug War Supports Terrorists

by David R. Henderson

In recent months, the United States government spent $10 million of our tax dollars for its latest antidrug campaign. Its new pitch: if you buy illegal drugs, you're supporting terrorists because terrorists are intimately involved in the production, sale, and distribution of drugs. Guess what? I agree. People who buy illegal drugs do support terrorists. But here's what the government leaves out: by making drugs illegal, the government is supporting terrorists even more.

Have you ever wondered why terrorist groups get involved in the illegal drug market and not, for example, in the legal market for Coca-Cola, soap, or envelopes? The inaccurate answer that many people give is that the profits in dealing drugs are incredibly high, which attracts criminals. But profits are not incredibly high, once you adjust for risk: people in that trade have a nasty tendency to die or go to prison, and they insist on being compensated for that risk. Besides, if high profits were what attracted criminals, why don't those same high profits attract normal investors?

No. The reason terrorists get involved in illegal drugs is that they are criminals; once a market is made illegal, the high risk-adjusted prices of the illegal good reward those with "criminal skills." One such skill is the ability and willingness to murder people. That's why organized crime took over the liquor industry during prohibition—and quickly exited when prohibition ended.

Moreover, the United States government is effectively supporting left-wing terrorists in Colombia. How so? Say you're a Colombian coca producer trying to make a peso. Working against you are Colombia's military and police, pressured by U.S. government subsidies and threats and aided by U.S. military personnel and equipment. The first thing you want is protection, and the place to go for protection is to antigovernment people with guns who know how to fight. Two such groups are the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), both revolutionary leftists. You don't have to be a left-wing ideologue yourself to decide to pay them protection money, which is just what many coca farmers and cocaine producers do.

By one estimate, the revenue to FARC from drug-related sources is more than $600 million a year, which would make it the best-funded terrorist group in the world. Thus, the war against drugs actually strengthens the position of the leftist insurgents.

These insurgents have terrorized Colombian society. Between 1981 and 1986, for example, drug traffickers murdered more than fifty Colombian judges, including twelve supreme court justices. Colombian citizens are also terrorized: more than one million of them emigrated in the past five years. If a similar percent of Americans did the same, we would lose fourteen million citizens—almost half California's population.

A more informative ad line from the U.S. government would be: "When you support the drug war, you're supporting terrorists."

7 posted on 09/11/2002 2:48:07 PM PDT by JohnathanRGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list; balrog666; LloydofDSS; XBob; Wolfie; bassmaner; Capt.YankeeMike; FreeTally; Leto; ...
Bump!
8 posted on 09/11/2002 6:10:25 PM PDT by Action-America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strider; Eagle Eye; Principled; ashrad; KDD; nunya bidness; Nate505; WyldKard; gargoyle; ...
Bump!
9 posted on 09/11/2002 6:37:55 PM PDT by Action-America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
your brain is working better than mine tonight. how about give me a one sentence synopsis of what you understand from this gobble de gook.

Legalize drugs, and cut the price, and cut their funding?
10 posted on 09/11/2002 8:29:50 PM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: XBob
I don't agree with him that we should legalize drugs. I do agree with him that the WOD is an underhanded attack on Americans civil liberties. Here are some instances, a Mexican American truck driver, on the road all the time, drove his rig for years, and as many like him do, kept all his life savings in his cab. He gets pulled over in Podunk by a sheriffs dept. that likes to use the WOD's confiscation without due process laws, they search his cab, take his fourteen thousand dollars as suspected drug money, and send him on his way. Even if he wins in court they still refuse to return his money, or in some cases the victim gets a couple of thousand returned but never sees the rest of it.

A nursery owner, for years would take cash down to Florida and pay cash for his purchases at the nursery wholesalers, he had done nothing wrong, the woman at the airport check in line didn't like his looks and had security take him in for questioning, they took his 30 grand and turned him loose after harassing, questioning, and threatening him for hours. He never got his money back accept for 5 grand even though the judge ruled in his favor and ordered the full amount returned to him.

If you are driving through any state in the union with over $750.00 in your pocket and get pulled over, they can take it if you agree to a search, if you don't agree to a search, they take you in for suspecion of drug dealing and take your money then, and your car.

The D.E.A. began a "Know Your Customer" program and demanded banks report any unusual activity in a persons account, if you wanted to draw out a couple of thousand for a trip, or a new sofa, you had to explain to the bank why you needed that much money. It was stopped by the courts, now the IRS is attempting to enforce it.

In other words all Americans are considered guilty until they can prove their innocence or defend themselves against a government that is in full attack against the Constitution.

Now let's talk the Patriot Act, if you do 10 thousand dollars worth of business with any one company over the course of a twelve month period, that business must report you. If you have a decorator and are purchasing furniture over a period of time from one store, you get reported. If you own a parts business and buy from one wholesaler they have to give the government your name.

Your home can be entered and searched without a warrant or your knowledge, your emails can be read, your phone conversations taped, all that is needed is suspecion of terrorism.

No one has yet been able to name me one government program or agency that has not eventually been abused and used to harm the average American. From the I.N.S. to the B.A.T.F., to Welfare, etc. Just as the government statement about terrorism, it's not a question of if, but when. The Patriot Act, a bill that was never read by Congress, how convenient, will be abused and it is not a question of if, but when.

We silly sheep assume that the man we are electing is smart enough to hold office, yet we give them credit for all the stupidity in the world when they pass legislation they claim they have never read by a voice vote no less. They are not stupid, they know exactly what they are doing, and that means they are not on our side, the side of the Constitution, the side of freedom. They are fully aware and fully determined to strip us of them.

All that is needed to stop drug traffic into the country is border control. There is no telling how much damage has been done to the shipment of drugs due to the firing of illegals alien airport workers. The clincher to the problem would be tight border controls, but as reported by those that bring it up in D.C. the attitude there is, drop dead.

The WOD, and the Patriot Act are both rackets, rackets to strip civil liberties if not today then tomorrow. Not many are as astute as this author is to see it. Although I think his answer to the problem is lame and attempts to serve his personal agenda.

11 posted on 09/11/2002 9:26:21 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt
So John Gaver wants us all to stop looking for Islamist terrorists and instead get back to the job of putting marijuanna smokers in jail.

Check your target before you open fire. Read the rest of the article at the link.

12 posted on 09/12/2002 4:34:00 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
women !!!! - that's the last time I'm going to ask for a single sentence synopsis.
13 posted on 09/12/2002 5:37:43 AM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: XBob
See, your first mistake, was asking a woman for a single sentence synopsis. It's against nature. Of course I could have used all comma's instead of periods I suppose...humm.
14 posted on 09/12/2002 6:23:49 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
I don't agree with him that we should legalize drugs.

Why not?

15 posted on 09/12/2002 6:34:33 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Don't you think that drugs are detrimental to a healthy society? How many drunks and addicts do you want in cars, driving the streets putting your family at risk? How many drunks and addicts do you want at the bank losing your deposit?

In a perfect world, the individual would weigh his total freedom against his responsibility to deal with that total freedom in such a way as to insure no injury to another person. But that is not the world we live in.

In a perfect world, the citizen demanding to be armed as well as the military would have the perfect right to own or make his own nuclear device. But quite frankly it would make me very nervous to know that the drunk next door has one in his closet, even though he is a sweet drunk.

Because it isn't a perfect world, and people are more selfish than responsible, we have civil laws to insure a healthy society. Do we have far too many civil laws? Of course because imperfect people think they know far better than the individual how to run everyone else's lives on every single imaginable issue. There has to be a balance here and we have by no means reached it.

16 posted on 09/12/2002 7:08:17 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Don't you think that drugs are detrimental to a healthy society?

Attempting to coerce adults to not put drugs into their own bodies is even more detrimental to a healthy society.

How many drunks and addicts do you want in cars, driving the streets putting your family at risk? How many drunks and addicts do you want at the bank losing your deposit?

That's an argument for either banning both alcohol and other drugs, or for banning neither. Which do you advocate?

In a perfect world, the citizen demanding to be armed as well as the military would have the perfect right to own or make his own nuclear device.

False analogy. Putting alcohol or other drugs into one's own body does not have the potential to cause mega-death.

17 posted on 09/12/2002 7:34:44 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Would you be prepared to accept long hard prison time for those that abuse such government sanctioned use of drugs should they end up causing harm, injury, or death to another because of their drug use? Would liberal politicians block legislation that demands accountability for such harm? Would liberal judges return to the street those that have committed such crimes?

Are you prepared to endure a society that because of drug use fails at most, if not all, of their endeavors, that becomes a burden on the productive to the point of needing welfare to offset their incompetence. A society where a person addicted to drugs finds that breaking into homes and/or robbing business's to pay for their habit is much easier than attempting to hold a job that they can't do competently?

Are you prepared for the effect of drugs on the family unit? On the productivity of the nation? On the moral decay and the threat of it's blurry ignorance of our Constitution and lack luster dedication to upholding our foundations? If so you are far braver than I am.

18 posted on 09/12/2002 8:15:53 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Would you be prepared to accept long hard prison time for those that abuse such government sanctioned use of drugs should they end up causing harm, injury, or death to another because of their drug use?

All harm to others should be penalized---and already is.

Would liberal politicians block legislation that demands accountability for such harm?

They can't---laws against harming others are already on the books.

Would liberal judges return to the street those that have committed such crimes?

Those same liberal judges are returning drug users to the streets right now---so they're just as much a weakness for the anti-drug-freedom side as the pro-drug-freedom side.

Are you prepared to endure a society that because of drug use fails at most, if not all, of their endeavors,

Never happen. There are only 13 million illegal drug users in the USA; even under legalization, there is no reason to think their number would reach as high as the 100 million alcohol users we have now, and with whom we do not "fail at most, if not all, of our endeavors."

And even if your scenario was plausible, it's not government's job to restrict our freedoms to keep us "successful."

that becomes a burden on the productive to the point of needing welfare to offset their incompetence.

As a true conservative, I oppose welfare and do not use one Big Government program as an excuse for more Big Government.

A society where a person addicted to drugs finds that breaking into homes and/or robbing business's to pay for their habit is much easier than attempting to hold a job that they can't do competently?

Those crimes are a result of the War On Some Drugs. Alcoholics don't rob to get their fix because their drug is legal and therefore affordable through collecting cans, panhandling, and other non-criminal means.

Are you prepared for the effect of drugs on the family unit? On the productivity of the nation? On the moral decay and the threat of it's blurry ignorance of our Constitution and lack luster dedication to upholding our foundations?

The drug alcohol is used by far more people than other drugs ever will be, and we're handling its effects.

19 posted on 09/12/2002 8:29:20 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
I'm enjoying this discussion and not trying to be confrontational, just wanted to make that clear. But wouldn't the 100,000,000 alcohol user's eventually turn also to drugs, or at least a large percentage of them, and wouldn't that effect society overall?
20 posted on 09/12/2002 8:47:13 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson