Page 1 of 1

Pat Robertson - Drug War Draining Country's Vitality

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:19 pm
by MSimon
http://copssaylegalize.blogspot.com/201 ... -drug.html

Blames Liberals (you know who you are) for Drug Prohibition.
We've said, "we're 'conservative, we're tough on crime." That's baloney. It's costing us billions and billions of dollars.

Think of California. California is spending more money on prisons than it spends on schools. There's something wrong about that equation.

We need to scrub the federal code and the state codes and take away these criminal penalties.

Putting people in jail at huge expense to the population is insanity.

Folks, we've gotta do something about this. We've just got to change the laws. We cannot allow this to continue. It is sapping our vitality.
Dang. A Christian who cares about the imprisoned. I may have to revise my opinion about the country - if he gets results.
What is it we're doing that is different? What we're doing is turning a bunch of liberals loose writing laws -- there's this punitive spirit, the always want to punish people.

It's time for change!

More and more prisons, more and more crime. It's just shocking, especially this business about drug offenses. It's time we stop locking up people for possession of marijuana. We just can't do it anymore...You don't lock 'em up for booze unless they kill somebody on the highway.
What? A punitive spirit is unChristian? America has considerable spiritual growth in its future if what this guy is saying catches on.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:28 pm
by KitemanSA
And despite the huge current cost, they say they need much more!
Inside the Navy wrote:Fraser: SOUTHCOM Can't Stop Two-Thirds Of Known Traffickers, Needs
More Maritime, ISR Assets
By Jordana Mishory, March 7, 2012

U.S. Southern Command and its partners lack the maritime assets needed to stop two-thirds of the traffickers they track, the command's top general said today. To achieve its mission of helping to halt transnational organized crime, SOUTHCOM's commander Gen. Douglas Fraser said he could use more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets, as well as more maritime capability that can be used to intercept illicit traffickers traveling through Caribbean and eastern Pacific waters.

Fraser said that ISR requirements top his integrated priority list. "I'm a combatant commander, I could always use more ISR," he said.
"We intercept about 33 percent of what we know is out there, and that's just a limitation on the number of assets," Fraser said during a breakfast with reporters today. He noted more traffickers are getting through.

SOUTHCOM gets information on when a vessel leaves a particular port and what specific vessels to look for, he said. The command has maritime patrol aircraft that can find and follow these ships, but it's a struggle to have vessels available and positioned correctly to intercept the boats. SOUTHCOM and its partners also struggle with catching up with aircraft when they land because there are a number of different airfields in each country, and the traffickers are able to quickly unload their wares in about 15 minutes. "You have to be very, very capable and have assets in the right place, right time to counter that," he said.

Specifically, SOUTHCOM needs ISR with a fully penetrating capability to spot forces hidden in dense jungle canopies, such as in Colombia and Peru, he noted. "This is really an R&D effort right now, it's an effort that we really haven't gotten to a what I would say a capable foliage penetrating capability yet fielded," he said, noting that vessels that can be fully submerged under water are being built in the jungles of South America.

Fraser also said his command is looking at a non-traditional ISR approach. "That non-traditional approach is, there is a lot of information throughout the region right now [about] a lot of different
things that are happening," he said. "And I'm convinced that when there is illicit activity happening, there is someone who knows what that illicit activity is and is talking about it in some manner. If we can start gaining awareness and access to that information, we could start putting it together."

Fraser also noted that he has been in talks with the Air Force about using MC-12 light support aircraft as they return from Afghanistan. Regarding the shortage of maritime capability, Fraser said SOUTHCOM is helping to build partner capacity, providing some interceptor vessels such as Boston Whalers with small maritime radars to enable the ships to communicate and get directions to where they need to be to intercept a vessel. He said they're also looking at taking all the assets international navies have available and putting them toward this effort.

In addition, the State and Defense departments are working on capturing "go fast" boats and converting them into interceptor vessels that chase down traffickers.

Part of this gap in the number of ships being provided is due to the fact the Navy is retiring several frigates that have traditionally been used in the interceptor role and the replacement Littoral Combat Ship is not yet fielded. "We're working with the Navy to see what other types of vessels and capabilities that's coming back from Iraq might be available," Fraser said.

Fraser noted the problem is a dynamic one, as traffickers adjust their tactics. For example, these traffickers have started distributing loads onto many vessels to require even more interceptors to stop them, he said.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:48 pm
by ladajo
Define "huge" please.

Southern Command has always been the 'Red-Headed Step-Child' in regards to asset allocations by 2nd(now Fleet Forces) and 3rd Fleet schedulers.

JJ would giggle if he heard you say that.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:39 am
by choff
This is hilarious, so long as the DEA gives the green light to CIA contracted drug smugglers then the war on drugs is a total fraud. They could easily interdict everything coming in with a fraction of what they use right now.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:31 am
by MSimon
choff wrote:This is hilarious, so long as the DEA gives the green light to CIA contracted drug smugglers then the war on drugs is a total fraud. They could easily interdict everything coming in with a fraction of what they use right now.
There is a reason to keep the drugs flowing - to minimize gang violence.

Our rulers may be evil but they are not stupid.

So what has been done? Well the policing theories of David Kennedy have been put into practice - only go after the worst actors. This has been in effect since about 1990 or 1995 with roll out complete by the mid oughts.

Look at US murder rate stats. Also notice that you rarely see gangs taken out wholesale. That spikes violence. They try to run the system on the minimum acceptable level of violence principle. Which is nice of them - if they did it out of the goodness of their hearts. No - it is a practical matter - it reduces resents and opposition.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass
And that is why we have a drug war in black neighborhoods and not in white ones. The blacks accept it as their lot in life while whites expect and demand peace and quiet. Former Police officer Matthew Fogg started questioning drug prohibition when he was told white neighborhoods were off limits.

You can hear him discussing that starting at about 1:30 into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmgeCeGk--I

I have more to say on this here:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/03/fatherless-children/

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:03 pm
by choff
I'm pressed for time but I'll read the links tonight. Black people should not accept this as their lot in life. In Canada the police do in fact take a top down approach and we don't have the drug war like the States.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:38 pm
by ladajo
Yet.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:39 am
by choff
We don't have the same unequal law enforcement because both our police forces and our criminal organizations support full racial integration, (google the UN gang).
In fact the Vancouver police many years ago did a study of crimes by race and found the exact same percentage of criminal activity in each racial and ethnic group. The only group with even a miniscule higher number was the Vietnamese, but they were recent arrivals from refuge camps.
You have a different situation both in your country and on your southern border.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:12 am
by ladajo
As long as we mainting laws to force the equality of "race", then we will always see races with difference.

The other problem here in the states is that whenever an "ethnic" criminal or criminal group gets into the light, they immediately claim "racial inequality" and use race sensitivity and disproportion in the "equality" laws in their favor.

A white man gets beat up by a cop, no one cares. However, there are ethnic idiots who troll for "cop beatings" with friends in tow with cell phone cameras and hand held HD to film the "abuse", so they can then sue the police department and city with pro-bono social activist lawyers who team up to get "free" money from the municipality.

You will have your turn.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:16 am
by MSimon
ladajo,

The left is using the racist enforcement of drug laws against you.

I see two choices to cut the losses:

1. End it

or

2. Start enforcing it equally in white neighborhoods - which will end it

Then there is the do nothing option for the right - i.e. support the current efforts. Thus waiting until the left ends it. Which will allow them to call the right racist prohibitionist (IMO they are incorrect about the racism) party.

Both sides have their faith - despite more than enough historical evidence of failure. The faith of the right is less destructive to be sure - until it delivers us to the left. Nice going guys.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:25 am
by ladajo
Yup, you are right. A white cop busting a black or whatever dealer is a "race crime".

I however, do not equate that as an equality; Race issues v Drug issues.

Drugs don't care what color one's skin is. The "race" issue is independant, and is only mixed in as an attempt to muddy the drugs argument.

I have met way many more 'racist' folks that have some sort of "ethnic" heritage than "white folk". This racist behavior is presented with a sense of entitlement. "Well, I am <insert color> and that means I am entitled to be angry at the 'white man' ".

It is all a crock of shyte.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:31 am
by MSimon
ladajo,

Here is what we know about drugs - all races use drugs and deal drugs about equally. The laws are not enforced against whites and when they are the punishment is less draconian.

You enemies are beating you severely about the head and shoulders for this situation. You propose its continuation.

Objectively then you favor:

1. Illegal drug cartels
2. The left

It is 1962. Even idiots could see that Jim Crow was over. And yet some persisted, harming their larger cause. Racism moved me to the left (they had better PR).

Well, I'm some smarter now. Drug war racism has moved me to the libertarian camp. Smaller government limited by the Constitution. Say. I never noticed a Drug Prohibition Amendment. Am I missing something important? Probably.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:51 am
by MSimon
Ladajo,

It would be easy to apply a corrective. Call for about 8 or 10 million whites be incarcerated for drug crimes to equalize the numbers.

Start asking, "Why are whiles allowed to get away with dealing and using?"

I mean really. Since you believe in prohibition shouldn't you also believe in its equal enforcement?

And note: I'm not talking about interpersonal racism for which I believe not much can be done. I'm talking about systemic racism - for which there are actual moves that can be made - change the system.

Either enforce the laws equally or give them up. Which in the end amounts to the same thing.

Note: my attitude made me the black sheep of the family for decades. Then one of my distant cousins got busted and the whole family moved to my side. Funny that. Forty years of that and support for legalization of at least pot is now in the 50% range.

As I said. White people will not stand for a war on them.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:11 am
by MSimon
Let us do a thought experiment. Suppose the drug laws only affect .1% of the white population in any given year.

Forty years of that and you have 4% of the population - if each has 10 friends and relatives that pretty much explains the 50% favoring an end to prohibition (given an initial reservoir of 10%).

Now the above is only a thought experiment. But it does tend to indicate that the longer the war goes on the larger the opposition to it will become. i.e. in so many ways it is a self defeating proposition.

In honor of all my cousins who have come around I intend to keep making a nuisance of myself until the war on the American people ends.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:05 pm
by KitemanSA
MSimon wrote: 2. Start enforcing it equally in white neighborhoods - which will end it
Heck,you wouldn't even have to handle the neighborhoods equally, but the folks.

One of my favorite examples of racial inequality in the drug war is that incident wherein a pair of felonious fellows, one black, one white, received from an undercover narc an amount of cocaine intended for use at a small party with a few friends. They were then busted. The white "offender" was charges with possession of cocaine. The black "offender" was charged with possession of a specific amount of cocaine with intent to distribute. The white guy got off with probation, the mention of the specific amount in the black guy's charge kicked in the "manditory minimum" law and he got some ridiculous sentance like 20 years.

Yeah, that is racially equal.