> U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
>
> DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
>
> TARGET AMERICA:
>
> TRAFFICKERS, TERRORISTS & YOUR KIDS
>
> A NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON NARCO-TERRORISM
>
> Hosted by the DEA Museum & Visitors Center
>
> Tuesday, December, 4, 2001
>
> 10:04 a.m.
>
> DEA Headquarters
>
> 700 Army Navy Drive
>
> Arlington, Virginia
>
> P R O G R A M
>
> PAGE
>
> **Welcoming Remarks**
>
> William Alden, President, AFFNA DEA Museum
>
> Museum 3
>
> Asa Hutchinson, DEA Administrator 5
>
> **General Remarks**
>
> Congressman Mark Souder 9
>
> **Opening Remarks**
>
> Moderator: Mr. Robert Novak 20
>
> **Panelist Remarks**
>
> Mr. Raphael Perl, Policy Analyst,
>
> Congressional Research Service 23
>
> Mr. Steven Casteel, Assistant
>
> Administrator for Intelligence, DEA 32
>
> Mr. Larry Johnson, Principal,
>
> Berg Associates, LLC 44
>
> General Jose Rosso Serrano, Retired,
>
> Colombian National Police 53
>
> Mr. Stephen Pasierb, President,
>
> Partnership for a Drug-Free America 62
>
> Mr. Brian Dyak, President, Entertainment
>
> Industries Council 75
>
> **Opening Questions & Discussion with**
>
> **Panelists** 85
>
> **Questions & Discussion with Audience**
>
> **Members** 98
>
> **Conclusion and Future Plans**
>
> Peter Bensinger, Former DEA Administrator 120
>
> [P]{.underline} [R]{.underline} [O]{.underline} [C]{.underline}
> [E]{.underline} [E]{.underline} [D]{.underline} [I]{.underline}
> [N]{.underline} [G]{.underline} [S]{.underline}
>
> MR. ALDEN: Good morning. My name is Bill Alden, and I\'m president of
> the AFFNA DEA Museum Foundation, and along with Administrator
> Hutchinson, pleased to be your host for today\'s symposium.
>
> First of all, I\'d like to explain for those of you who are unfamiliar
> with AFFNA, what AFFNA, the DEA AFFNA Museum is. AFFNA is an acronym
> for the Association of Former Federal Narcotic Agents, and the
> foundation is a nonprofit foundation whose mission is to educate the
> American public on the history of drugs, drug abuse, and drug law
> enforcement in the United States in partnership with the Drug
> Enforcement Administration.
>
> The foundation works to support the efforts of the DEA Museum and
> Visitors Center through fund-raising, advocacy, and outreach, exhibit
> sponsorship, and educational program development like today\'s
> symposium that we\'re having here at DEA headquarters.
>
> The board members for the foundation came from various places around
> the country and, with the exception of one member who is currently in
> the air right now, are all here for today\'s symposium. I\'d like the
> board members who are seated in the second row to please stand up and
> be recognized.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. ALDEN: Thank you. It is through the work of the various board
> members that were just recognized that we\'re able to sponsor this
> today.
>
> And now it\'s my pleasure to introduce the administrator of the Drug
> Enforcement Administration. Asa Hutchinson was confirmed as the
> administrator of DEA on August 8th, 2001. While he was serving his
> third term in the U.S. Congress, he was asked by the president to
> serve as the administrator of DEA. Something unique happened after
> that. He, in a bipartisan vote by the U.S. Senate, it was a vote of 98
> to 1, which is kind of unusual for this U.S. Senate. But prior to
> that, prior to coming to Washington, Mr. Hutchinson was an attorney
> practicing law in Arkansas, in rural Arkansas for 21 years. During
> that period of time he also served as the U.S. attorney for the
> Western District of Arkansas under President Reagan. He was also where
> the rubber meets the road. He tried over 100 jury trials while he
> served as a lawyer and U.S. attorney in Arkansas.
>
> In Washington, while he was in the U.S. Congress, he also served on
> the Speaker\'s Drug Task Force for a Drug-Free America, which also
> helped pave his way for the position at DEA.
>
> It is my pleasure, then, to introduce Mr. Asa Hutchinson.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> ADMINISTRATOR HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Bill. I\'ll say this for Bob
> Novak, I want to express appreciation to the AFFNA Foundation for
> their idea and for their support of the DEA. I particularly want to
> also thank the board of directors of the museum. I think they have
> done a terrific job. I appreciate the support and the encouragement
> for this particular symposium.
>
> This is a great opportunity for us to focus our country on the
> extraordinary connection between drugs and terrorism. When President
> Bush asked me to head up the DEA about 3 months ago, after I was
> confirmed, I did not anticipate that the events of September 11, of
> course, would even occur, but how it would significantly change the
> viewpoint of America and the attitude of our country toward drugs and
> how it would shape America\'s view of our nation\'s fight against
> drugs.
>
> History tells us that in times of national emergency, our country has
> a way of clarifying our national values. The fuzziness has a way of
> going away. Things are more clear. Responsibility is emphasized. And,
> clearly, September 11 was a national emergency that has had a way of
> clarifying the values of our country, what is really important, what
> really is wrong and what really is right.
>
> And if you look back in World War II, during other times of national
> emergency, we had the lowest level of drug use in our nation\'s
> history. And so I hope that we will be entering a phase in our nation
> that moral values are emphasized, responsibility is emphasized and
> that we, as an agency, the DEA can take advantage of that opportunity.
> Law enforcement has understood the connection between drugs, and
> terrorism, and violence for many, many years, but now there is a
> growing public awareness of that.
>
> Just yesterday I saw Congresswoman Sue Kelly, who was telling me that
> she spoke in a school in which the principal was talking about how
> drug use had actually gone down in the school, and he believed that it
> was because the students understood that they not only do something
> illegal and something that is harmful, but something that also helps
> those people that would do violence in our society, and they don\'t
> want to be a part of that. And so I am grateful for that kind of
> leadership.
>
> I am particularly grateful for the leadership of one member who is
> with us today, Congressman Mark Souder of Indiana, who is a member of
> Congress, who I got to know, who preceded me in Congress, and I knew
> him immediately as someone who provided leadership, who knew his
> values,a need his responsibility, an dhe spoke very clearly and with
> great articulation about the values that are very important in our
> fight against drugs.
>
> I happened to follow him as he spoke to a meeting of National Guard
> folks, and I\'ve never heard a clear articulation of the necessity of
> our fight against drugs, what it means to our nation\'s future and
> what he stated that day.
>
> For those reasons, among others, Congressman Mark Souder has been
> appointed by Speaker Hastert to head up the Speaker\'s Task Force for
> a Drug-Free America. In that capacity, he has traveled to other
> countries. He is very familiar with the issues. He has just returned
> from Europe. He has certainly been a leader in the Congress and even
> internationally on our fight against drugs. So I am delighted that he
> can join us today.
>
> Please join me in welcoming Congressman Mark Souder for his remarks.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. SOUDER: Well, it\'s a great privilege to be here this morning, and
> I am excited to have my friend as DEA administrator, and I\'m sure
> he\'ll do a great job, as he did in Congress.
>
> And as he mentioned, this issue of the interrelationship between
> terrorism and drugs is not new; as we\'ve worked on our Oversight
> Committee since the Republicans took over Congress in \'94, in looking
> at these different links under Bill Zellif, under our now-Speaker
> Denny Hastert, under John Mica, and now on the Oversight Committee
> that I chair. We were over at Khobar Towers. We had Larry Johnson in
> numerous times to talk and look at the interrelationships, as we saw
> how terrorists work in Colombia and other places around the world, and
> the Middle East and how it related to the drug trade.
>
> I wanted to share a few opening comments that I am sure you will hear
> multiple elaborations on as we go through the panel discussions.
>
> First, one of the misconceptions that we get in Congress and elsewhere
> is that we\'re somehow going to eliminate certain social problems.
> It\'s not a question of whether we\'re going to eliminate drug use,
> eliminate terrorism, any more than it\'s a question whether we\'re
> going to eliminate spouse abuse, eliminate child abuse, eliminate
> rape.
>
> What you do is you try to minimize, reduce, and then contain, and
> that\'s really where our focus has to be. Because if we set
> unrealistic goals, we will not achieve them, and people will say these
> battles have failed, when they haven\'t, in fact, failed, because I
> believe that the root problem is evil and sin, and no government,
> through any regulation, will ever eliminate sin. Therefore, what you
> do is you try to manage and contain.
>
> Now, when we go through, another variable that we in Congress do is we
> have different crises, and then we declare war. We have a war on
> poverty, we have a war on illiteracy, we have a war on drugs, a war on
> terrorism, a war on juvenile delinquency, a war on teen pregnancy.
> It\'s important\--and since governments have done this in all
> different forms for thousands of years, it\'s unlikely to
> change\--that you do that. Because when a certain problem reaches a
> higher level, you dominate resources in that area, you concentrate the
> resources, and you try to address it, and everything else kind of
> shapes around it. And right now the American focus is on terrorism. It
> doesn\'t mean the other problems disappear, but you look for links.
>
> Thirdly, many people who have worked with this at a high school level
> understand the basic link, and that is when someone does an illegal
> activity, such as a teenager smoking, then they\'re more likely to
> move to drinking, then they\'re more likely to move to marijuana, then
> they\'re more likely to move to cocaine and heroin, then they\'re more
> likely to rob to fund a habit, they\'re more likely then to create a
> violent crime.
>
> Now does that mean that the first puff of a cigarette means you\'re
> going to get the death penalty later on for a violent crime?
> Obviously, not. Not everybody who goes along this chain goes all the
> way through. But you don\'t get to the end of the chain most likely,
> unless you started with an illegal activity at the beginning, and when
> you do one illegal activity, you associate with people who do illegal
> activities and are more likely to get caught up in that.
>
> We also know some direct links where we see the links between
> terrorism and narcotics. Clearly, the Taliban, as well as our enemy,
> the Taliban, as well as our\--I wouldn\'t necessarily call the
> Northern Alliance our friends, but our nonenemies, that control drug
> trade. The Taliban, in particular, since they get funding from the
> drug trade and then they fund, directly or indirectly, al Qaeda, means
> that al Qaeda, who did the 9/11 attack, got their money indirectly
> through the heroin trade, at a minimum, through the Taliban, and that
> means that our terrorism attacks in the United States on September
> 11th were funded, in one way or another, through the drug trade.
> That\'s a direct tie.
>
> We\'ve seen in Colombia, and I\'m sure General Serrano, my long-time
> friend, as he\'s battled there, we met one of the former members of
> the FARC who\--a couple of us were waiting for he and now-Speaker
> Hastert to come on another helicopter\--got to talk with a defector
> from the FARc, and he said his job was to get the fee that they charge
> from the coca people. We asked if he had ever killed anybody, and he
> said yes.
>
> And we said, well, how did you\--
>
> He said, well, the man didn\'t pay what he owed, he said, so I killed
> him.
>
> Well, what do you mean he didn\'t pay what he owed?
>
> He said, well, I warned him three times, and he was supposed to pay us
> 10 percent to help finance our efforts, and he didn\'t.
>
> We said, well, how did you kill him?
>
> He said, well, I went up, he was having lunch in a restaurant, I went
> up behind him, and I shot him. He said, but he didn\'t pay his bill.
>
> Now we\'ve seen the connection, as the FARC does terrorism, that when
> they provide protection and increasingly delivering, that we see the
> funding of the terrorist activities in Colombia.
>
> Now we potentially are going to see, much like I had mentioned, if a
> student does illegal activity and illegal smoking as a teenager at
> school, then he is likely to do illegal alcohol, and if he starts to
> do that, he\'s going to be exposed to other illegal activities. Our
> big concern in this area is we\'re going to see the interconnectedness
> of international terrorist organizations. The IRA maybe is starting to
> connect with the FARC, the Russian mafia is starting to connect. How
> are organizations like HAMAS and Hezbollah\--because one of the things
> I remember in talking with a duma member in Russia and some of their
> businessmen, I asked, why do you sell your weapons to our enemies,
> whether it be Libya or Iraq?
>
> And they said, well, who else is going to buy Russian weapons?
>
> That\'s part of the problem. As we start to do better tracking of
> money, as we crack down on illegal laundering through charitable
> fronts, the money is going to tend to have to go to illegal activities
> to fund terrorist organizations, and the tendency is for those
> terrorist organizations to interconnect around the world.
>
> Lastly, I want to talk about how the drug war and the war on terrorism
> interconnect in some of the things that we\'re seeing. We\'re doing a
> series of border hearings next Monday. It\'ll be in Seattle-Vancouver.
> I was just up with the Canadian Parliament. We did one on the Vermont
> border and the New York border looking at how these things
> interconnect. And, clearly, when you control and look for terrorism,
> you\'re going to be doing a lot of the things you look for and other
> illegal activities.
>
> At Gander, Newfoundland, when they grounded 8,000 people, what they
> found, as they were looking for weapons, was lots of Ecstacy. But when
> we weren\'t doing the bag searches on all bags, we wouldn\'t have
> found the Ecstacy. We\'re going to find the funding patterns for the
> narcotics also as we look for terrorists. We\'re going to see this as
> we look for high-risk immigrants. We\'re going to see overlaps. We\'re
> going to see this as we get organization laws.
>
> In the Netherlands, where they don\'t even give you a penalty if you
> try to escape from prison because it\'s viewed as natural that you
> would want to escape from prison, they don\'t have an organizational
> law where we can turn a criminal inside to find the tracking. As we
> work with them, as we work with Spain on an extradition law, hey,
> doesn\'t this sound strange? We battle with Colombia on extradition,
> we battle with Mexico on extradition, now we\'re battling with Spain
> on extradition. We\'re going to see similarities as we tackle the war
> on terrorism to what we\'ve seen in the war on drugs.
>
> I\'d like to conclude with this. Seventeen thousand Americans died in
> 1988 of drug problems. What we have to realize is that we can\'t back
> off of one effort to address another, that we are under chemical
> attack. We worry about anthrax. As Congressman Cummings, the ranking
> Democrat on our subcommittee said, we\'re already under chemical
> attack. It\'s cocaine and heroin, and we had 17,000 deaths on that and
> other overdoses, and we shouldn\'t back off on one to address the
> other.
>
> Seventy to eighty percent of all crime in the United States is related
> to drug and alcohol abuse. Last night, when I was at Drug-Free Noble
> County, one of the judges came up to me and says, it\'s not just all
> criminal activity. He said 80 percent of cases in civil court are
> related to alcohol and drug abuse, bankruptcy, divorce. He said people
> who don\'t pay their bills or their child support, because of their
> drug habits, they aren\'t meeting their financial goals either. And we
> cannot back off of one war, as we address the other, and we\'re
> increasingly going to see the interconnectedness.
>
> It\'s been a great honor to be here this morning. I look forward to
> hearing the panelists.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> ADMINISTRATOR HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Congressman Souder.
>
> Before we move to the panelists, I did want to recognize some of the
> distinguished guests that we have here. I am delighted that we have
> former administrators of the DEA, Peter Bensinger, and former
> Administrator Donny Marshall with us. We appreciate their
> participation.
>
> We have representatives from the embassies of Thailand, Panama,
> Canada, Mexico, and Great Britain, and I am sure that we have others
> as well that have not been brought to my attention. We have our U.S.
> military counterparts, State Department representatives, Partnership
> for a Drug-Free America officials, representatives from the Office of
> National Drug Control Policy, staff members from the House of
> Representatives, and we also have CIA officials who have joined us for
> this particular occasion.
>
> As Congressman Souder indicated, we have a huge challenge ahead, and
> one of the important parts of it is that, first of all, we share
> intelligence that Congress has directed us to, that we follow the
> money and see where it leads, and then, finally, that we educate the
> public on what is going on. And that is where this symposium plays an
> important role.
>
> We must express the many ways terrorists use drug trafficking against
> us. The DEA and our museum foundation are launching an effort to build
> a first-class museum exhibit about narco-terrorism. As we move into
> the panel, I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce Mr. Robert
> Novak, who has been a great friend of the DEA. He joined us for a
> panel discussion during our 25th anniversary celebration a few years
> ago. During the course of his career, Mr. Novak has covered national
> politics and international events and has interviewed scores of world
> leaders. We are honored to have him moderate today\'s symposium.
>
> Mr. Novak is a commentator for CNN, where he co-hosts the \"Evans, and
> Novak, Hunt, & Shields\" interview program. He appears on and serves
> as co-executive producer of CNN\'s political roundtable \"Capital
> Gang,\" regularly co-hosts \"Crossfire,\" and appears occasionally on
> \"Meet the Press.\"
>
> Mr. Novak also writes \"Inside Report,\" one of the longest-running
> syndicated columns of the nation. He is an author of several widely
> acclaimed books, including his most recent, \"Completing the
> Revolution: A Vision for Victory in 2000.\"
>
> Following service in the United States Army as a lieutenant during the
> Korean War, Mr. Novak worked as a reporter for Associated Press and
> later for the Wall Street Journal. He received his B.A. degree from
> the University of Illinois.
>
> Among many honors and awards, Mr. Novak is a 2001 winner of the
> National Press Club\'s \"Fourth Estate\" award for lifetime
> achievement in journalism.
>
> Please join me in welcoming Mr. Robert Novak and thank him for his
> participation.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The good news is that I
> am not here as a talking head. I am a moderator and facilitator. That
> was the role I performed I think 3 years ago when one of the questions
> was, is the war against drugs continuing? And the answer, by a panel
> of former DEA directors, was that the war against drugs had never
> started, and I haven\'t seen it start in the last few years either.
>
> What makes this remarkable is that we have a war, a full-fledged war
> against terrorism. And from my\--I am not an expert\--but from my
> reporting, I don\'t think you can separate the narco and the
> terrorism. I think it\'s one word \"narco-terrorism.\" It\'s illegal
> drugs finance terrorism all over the world, and Congressman Souder
> alluded to an unpleasant truth, as he often does, that our new best
> friends who are winning the ground war, helping us to win the ground
> war in Afghanistan, are deeper into the opium trade than the Taliban
> was.
>
> So I really think it has been disappointing that the narco
> effect/aspect of the war on terrorism has been down-played or
> neglected, and I hope that will change soon.
>
> This is going to be an interesting couple of hours because we have a
> cast of thousands of experts here. We have a large major panel, and
> then we have shadow panelists who, oddly, look to me very unethereal.
> They don\'t seem so shadowy to me, but they will be brought in, in due
> time.
>
> Our first phase, however, is I\'m going to introduce each of the major
> panelists, and as I introduce them, they will give a brief 5- to
> 7-minute presentation. I would hope that each is closer to 5 than the
> 7 minutes, and then maybe I\'ll ask each a question, and then when we
> finish that, we will go into a general question period, also bringing
> in the shadow panelists and the audience as a whole.
>
> For a global outlook and the history of the war against illegal
> narcotics, we\'re going to start with Raphael Francis Perl. Mr. Perl
> is the senior policy analyst for international terrorism and narcotics
> issue with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of
> Congress. He has a long background as a writer and expert, and he
> speaks regularly at academic institutions and government police
> functions and has testified before Congress on terrorism, narcotics
> and crime issues.
>
> Mr. Raphael Perl?
>
> MR. PERL: Thank you, Bob.
>
> The links between drug trafficking and terrorist organizations are
> well documented. Recent history confirms that in areas where
> government control of territory is weak, both terrorist and
> drug-trafficking organizations have often thrived. In the past, when
> one looked at areas or nations such as Lebanon, the Balkans, Chechnya,
> Colombia, Peru, Burma, Afghanistan, what organizations or groups have
> stood out? Groups such as the FARC, the ELN, Sendero Luminoso, The
> Kosovo Liberation Army, and Chechen radical groups. Analysts threw our
> attention to Hezbollah and the Bekaa Valley, and more recently
> attention focuses on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
>
> It is well established that in such areas beyond the reach of
> government control and beyond the rule of law, the criminal world, the
> drug-trafficking world, and the terrorist world merge. The line
> between them is becoming increasingly difficult to draw.
>
> Historically, we\'ve also seen in many instances strong connections
> between states that sponsor terrorist activity and those that support
> or condone drug-trafficking activity. It is noteworthy that at least
> four of the seven states on the State Department\'s Sponsors of
> Terrorism list have had at least some history of supporting or
> condoning drug-trafficking activity: Syria, Iran, North Korea and
> Cuba.
>
> If links between drug trafficking and terrorist organizations, the
> so-called \"guns for drugs connection,\" are well established and not
> new, then what are we seeing here today that is new? And I would
> suggest there are basically three phenomenon that have changed.
>
> First of all, what is new is that in today\'s increasingly deregulated
> and interconnected global economy, both legitimate and illegitimate
> activities are expanding in scale, scope, and reach. And the ability
> of illegitimate activities, such as terrorism and drug trafficking, to
> harm the population of the United States and to do damage to important
> United States interests is dramatically expanding as well.
>
> Second, what is also new is that income from the drug trade has become
> increasingly important to terrorist organizations. Terrorist
> organizations need money to operate. But in today\'s globally
> interconnected world economy, state-sponsors are increasingly
> difficult to find. What world leader today in their right mind will
> risk global sanctions by openly sponsoring al Qaeda or funding them?
> Similarly, what state today exists that will risk global sanctions by
> openly funding the FARC in Colombia? Increasingly, terrorist
> organizations must fund themselves, and the illicit drug trade serves
> as an attractive and highly lucrative source of income for them.
>
> And, number three, finally, what is new is the enhanced threat level
> that the combined forces of drug trafficking and terrorism pose to
> U.S. interests, to U.S. stability, to U.S. national security, to our
> future and to our youth.
>
> We always thought of the United States homeland being the prime target
> or a prime target for drug-trafficking activity, but when we thought
> of the targets of international terrorist incidents, we usually
> thought of them as being overseas. The events of September 11th have
> clearly demonstrated the United States homeland is the desired target
> of preference, not only for international drug traffickers, but for
> many international terrorists as well.
>
> There is seemingly no escape once organizations or groups become
> involved in the drug trade. Traditionally, terrorists often had
> political goals which potentially might be achieved or might be
> subject to some form of negotiation for an end to violence. But in the
> case of drug organizations, the trade often becomes addictive to the
> people or the organization involved in the trade. And the danger to
> organizations such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, or the FARC is that the
> trade becomes institutionalized and impossible to break away from.
>
> If we look back in time a decade or two, we see that links between
> drug trafficking and terrorist groups were recognized, but they were
> often treated as two distinct and separate phenomena. After all, the
> terrorists sought political power and the drug traffickers sought
> profit.
>
> Today, however, the law enforcement, the intelligence, and the
> national security analysts, while recognizing the difference, sees a
> lot more in common here. An analyst studying both drug trafficking and
> terrorism might well note that both terrorism and drug trafficking are
> classic examples of interdisciplinary issues. They cut across
> traditional federal agency jurisdictions and bureaucratic turf. Both
> operate globally and transnationally and benefit from trends
> associated with globalization and an open deregulated environment.
>
> Increasingly, we live in a multiethnic, globally interconnected,
> seamless world. In this world, both terrorists and drug traffickers
> try to merge into unsuspecting local ethnic communities to provide a
> cover for their illicit activities. Both terrorists and drug
> traffickers operate from base countries or regions not under strong
> government control. They seek weak states in which to develop and
> implement operations. Both exploit porous U.S. borders and seek
> loopholes in immigration controls. Generally, they seek to take
> advantage of our trusting and open society. Both rely heavily on
> technology to network and avoid detection. Examples include use of the
> Internet, use of encryption technology, use of satellite and cell
> phones, GPS technology, and surveillance and eavesdropping technology.
>
> Both types of organizations rely on the services of the underworld
> community. They need forged documents, they need safehouses, they need
> items like stolen cars, they need guns, and they need money laundered.
> Both bring violence to our cities. For both, violence is an instrument
> to an end. They both seek to undermine our rule of law. Both seek to
> create a climate of intimidation and fear in our society.
>
> As Congressman Souder mentioned, both are long-term, ongoing phenomena
> for which there are no quick fixes or all-decisive victories. Both
> indiscriminately target populations. For the determined drug
> trafficker, as for the determined terrorist, it is open season with
> the general population as fair game.
>
> Both terrorists and drug traffickers target youth, especially as a
> source of recruitment to their ranks. Moreover, the determined
> terrorist often seeks to demoralize and intimidate a society by
> launching attacks against school children and a variety of youth
> locales, such as clubs and amusement parks. In the case of
> drug-trafficking organizations, youth are targeted for recruitment
> into long-term addiction.
>
> Both terrorists and drug traffickers seek a world incompatible with
> democratic principles, with the types of values Congressman Souder
> talked about, with terrorists seeking to destroy Western democracies
> and the values they represent. Terrorist organizations seek to exploit
> and subordinate the individual to their rule and their ideology.
> Drug-trafficking organizations seek to exploit and enslave the
> individual with their drugs. In societies ruled by terrorists and in
> societies where drug addiction prevails, individuals are not free to
> act and develop their potential.
>
> We, in the United States, we are a caring, open and trusting people.
> We have opened our hearts, and we have opened our borders to the
> world, but increasingly, voices are being heard that the time has come
> to open our eyes to the extent the drug-trafficking and terrorist
> organizations combined pose a serious threat to our society.
>
> Thank you.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: Mr. Perl, President Bush has been articulate and inspiring
> in his call for a war against terrorism and has promised we will win
> the war against terrorism. Do you believe that when you win the war
> against terrorism, you automatically win the war against drugs?
>
> MR. PERL: The answer is no.
>
> MR. NOVAK: That\'s a good answer.
>
> MR. PERL: But to be more specific, I think we have more of a chance of
> winning the war of terrorism by winning the war against drugs because
> it\'s, to a large degree, drug funding today that funds the terrorist
> organizations, and the terrorist organizations cannot operate in
> today\'s world without funding.
>
> We kind of have a global country club in this interconnected world,
> where everybody needs to belong, and states will probably not openly
> support or fund terrorist organizations in this type of a world.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Okay. Our next panelist is Steven W. Casteel, who is
> assistant administrator for Intelligence, of the Drug Enforcement
> Administration.
>
> Mr. Casteel entered the federal service in 1972. That seems like a
> long time ago, but it was 15 years after I got to Washington. Mr.
> Casteel became a special agent that year with the U.S. Department of
> Justice, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, which, as we all
> know, was the forerunner of the DEA.
>
> In July of 1999, Mr. Casteel was named the DEA\'s assistant
> administrator for intelligence, supervising and setting policy for the
> DEA\'s intelligence program and its 700 intelligence analysts
> stationed worldwide.
>
> Steven Casteel?
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. CASTEEL: Thank you, Bob. It\'s always nice to begin a speech with
> someone that makes you feel younger, so I appreciate your comments
> there.
>
> I\'m a bit amazed, as I sit here and look around the room at this
> crowd and think about what we\'re here to talk about. Before the
> events of the 11th, the people would have never thought about these
> three subjects coming together: our kids, terrorism and drugs. But I
> hope after this symposium, that we are now looking at the world a bit
> differently, and we have the opportunity to use this as an advantage
> and to talk about this.
>
> Also, we have a lot of people in this room that have devoted a lot of
> their lives to law enforcement and pursuing these kinds of issues. And
> it is not amazing to us, but it must be to the public, that drugs just
> don\'t suddenly appear. They don\'t just fall out of the sky, and
> appear in your neighborhoods, and appear in your schools, and appear
> at parties down the street from your house. These drugs are produced,
> they\'re transported, and they\'re distributed by very violent
> organizations, and there\'s nothing new about that, but now maybe we
> can look at it a bit differently because now we\'ve linked it to that
> word \"terrorism,\" which has everybody\'s attention.
>
> Now DEA is not a terrorist organization or an antiterrorist
> organization I guess is a better way to say that\--
>
> \[Laughter.\]
>
> MR. CASTEEL: But because of what we do, we bump up against terrorism
> every day. Before the events of the 11th, if you had run the word
> \"terrorist\" in our database, you would have got over 1,200 hits. We
> weren\'t looking for terrorism, but there were 1,200 individuals-plus
> that we came across as part of this. You\'ve heard the speakers before
> talk about it. It\'s not the money, but it\'s the money. And I agree,
> state-sponsored terrorism is diminishing, maybe not as fast as we\'d
> like it to, but it\'s diminishing, and these organizations are looking
> for funding, and drugs bring them one thing\--quick return on their
> investment.
>
> They use gun trafficking, they use white slavery, they use a variety
> of different ways, but guns and drugs seem to be their two favorite,
> and drugs seem to be now becoming their almost number one way of
> approaching this.
>
> Now let the record be clear, a lot of people dance around this
> subject, but let\'s just set the record straight: The Taliban were a
> drug-trafficking group. They sought to be involved in the drug trade,
> they used it as a major source of funding for their control of the
> area, and that is clear as it can be. It is also clear that al Qaeda
> participated with the Taliban in these kind of activities and used
> money and influence out of these associations to get in a position, as
> you see today, of protection and hiding in Afghanistan.
>
> Now the Taliban, you wish they were running your 401(k) plan. In 1995,
> they took a country that was producing a decent amount of opium and
> rose it to 71 percent of the market share. Now the businessmen sitting
> in the audience and ladies would love to run a business that had 71
> percent of any market share.
>
> And by 1999, then you can say 71 percent of the illicit heroin in the
> world started in this region under their control. But then all of a
> sudden something happened. They came out. They said we\'re against
> this, in 1999, and people thought, oh, my golly, you know, they\'re
> really serious about this.
>
> It is our opinion, though, they did this as a business decision.
> Number one, they were looking for some good public relations, they
> were trying to get the world and global community to accept their
> government, and this is one way to do it.
>
> Second of all, as any good businessmen, they were trying to drive the
> price of their product up. And what you saw after that ban is the
> price of opium skyrocketing.
>
> And, thirdly, they were trying to consolidate their market share.
> That\'s clear. They wanted to control opium out of this region, and al
> Qaeda participated in that. They facilitated, and they assisted, and
> they were part of a player. There were three par factions in that
> region. You had the Taliban, you had the al Qaeda, and you had the
> traditional criminal groups, and they came together in a symbiotic
> relationship and supported this.
>
> But also think of why bin Laden or al Qaeda would have an interest in
> this besides simply money. Before the events of the 11th, if you asked
> the average public, stood out on the street corner and said, name the
> weapons of mass destruction, I think probably maybe 10 percent of them
> would be able to name them. Now, after CNN, we all can name them,
> right? We know it\'s all ABC\--atomic, biological, chemical.
>
> Al Qaeda looks at this as D, too, drugs. Drugs is a weapon of mass
> destruction that can be used against Western societies and help bring
> them down. You might think that the attack on America began on 9/11 as
> many of us saw that plane go into the Pentagon behind us. Well, 2 days
> before that, we seized 53 kilos of Afghan heroin in New York being
> distributed, by the way, by Colombians, to show the relationships, and
> I would argue that we\'ve been under attack in this country for a long
> time, and it didn\'t start on the 11th.
>
> But these criminal groups consist around the world, hiding behind
> social change, revolution. Criminal groups have done this for years.
> If you go to Southeast Asia, you have the HUA, the Sha \[ph\] Army in
> the Golden Triangle region. Major source of funding, heroin. Now
> they\'re flooding Southeast Asia with methamphetamine. Nothing new
> about that.
>
> Move to the Middle East, HAMAS, involved in heroin traffic, and by the
> way very active in our hemisphere down in the tri-border region of
> South America in moving money, moving drugs, and things like that.
>
> The Basque, the ETA, those operations in Europe, tied to drug
> trafficking in some way or the other.
>
> But think about it, we all now are afraid of terrorism in the United
> States. Up until the 11th, terrorism was something we saw on CNN, and
> we thought was 12 time zones away. The 11th has brought it home, and I
> would argue it\'s been here all along. Ask a citizen of Colombia, as
> General Serrano, my esteemed colleague, will tell you in a minute,
> were you afraid of narco-terrorism? Their answer would be yes.
>
> We talk about America being violent. We average 6 homicides per
> 100,000 of our population, and people tell us how violent we are. In
> Colombia, they average 77.5 homicides per 100,000. Ask them if they
> like seeing Avianca airplanes blown out of the sky. Ask them if they
> like to see the DOS \[ph\] building, their version of the FBI, blown
> up. Ask them if they like their Supreme Court to be taken over. Ask
> them if they like their presidential candidates to be shot.
>
> We don\'t have to go halfway around the world to see this problem. Go
> to Mexico. I was just down there last week reading in the paper from
> Juarez, two more high police officials killed. If you go to Mexico to
> Culiacon, a city the size of Cincinnati, and in the last 4 years,
> they\'ve had almost 4,500 murders.
>
> But I would ask you to even take a step closer into here. Not that
> many years ago, I talked to a grandmother across the river in
> Southeast D.C., and asked her if terrorism scares here and why she\'s
> afraid to sit on her front porch on a Sunday evening when it\'s warm
> or let her grandkids sit out in front of the house because of drive-by
> shootings, or walk down the hall here and look in the museum and take
> a look at that crack door that\'s hanging up there and ask yourself if
> terrorism hasn\'t affected this country before 9/11.
>
> Now we have a great opportunity here. Two things: Number one, in
> Afghanistan, we have an opportunity to eliminate that part of the drug
> market. It\'s going to be a long, consistent battle of building an
> infrastructure, doing it with our partners, such as the U.K. That can
> be done.
>
> But the second thing we can do is right here in America. Two things
> came out of 9/11 I have found very interesting. The first question is,
> typical American thing, what can I do? And you had people coming
> forward, what can I do? My wife, the nurse, can I go to the hospital
> and work more hours?
>
> DEA had it lucky. We could volunteer to be sky marshals. We could go
> out and look for these criminal organizations. We could go out and
> find the money. The average citizen is still saying, what can I do?
> And I think symposiums like this will give you the opportunity to see
> what you can do.
>
> Because the second thing is one great theme came out of 9/11\--the
> heroes in America. And we heard about those police officers and
> firemen that rushed into that building, and we hear every day about
> our soldiers in Afghanistan, but I would argue there\'s plenty more
> heroes in America. I would argue that a teacher is a hero, a nurse is
> a hero, a volunteer teaching Sunday School Sunday morning is a hero,
> and people in this room, and people outside of this room that try to
> keep us from getting involved in drugs and funding terrorism can be
> heroes too.
>
> Thank you, Mr. Novak.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: Mr. Casteel, maybe DEA intelligence can clear up one thing.
> Every newspaper story or many newspaper stories about the Taliban
> mention that the Taliban had prohibited the growing of opium, with the
> implication that they had gotten out of the narcotics trade. Can you
> explain that.
>
> MR. CASTEEL: Well, I\'m an old farm boy from Central Illinois. I\'m
> happy to hear you went to Illinois. When my father went out and cut
> corn in the fall, he didn\'t sell it. He went, and he put it in a corn
> crib, and he let it dry, and he waited until the market rose, and
> that\'s all the Taliban did.
>
> If you flood any market, like was happening there when they reached
> that 71 percent, the price is going to drop to a point where it\'s
> almost not practical to use. By stockpiling it, and up until extremely
> recently, and it may be part of the war, part of their stockpiles
> running out, up until recently, we saw very little effect. There was
> not a drug availability problem in Eastern and Western Europe. There
> was not a drug availability problem in Russia in the Stanz region
> because they had stockpiled it.
>
> Opium is just like gold. You bury it in the ground in your backyard
> today, and you dig it up a year later, it\'s got the same value. It
> doesn\'t diminish. And so by stockpiling, by making a business
> decision, the Taliban tried to get a positive PR spin. On the other
> hand, they made a business decision to make it more profitable.
>
> They taxed opium production 10 percent. They taxed laboratory
> operations a certain amount. They taxed the movement of drugs. They
> now possess all of this opium. What are they going to do with it? They
> want the highest price for it, and that\'s what they did.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Thank you.
>
> Our next panelist is Larry C. Johnson, who is an owner and founder of
> Berg Associates, which specializing in money-laundering
> investigations, financial analysis and investigations of violations of
> international property rights.
>
> Mr. Johnson is a veteran of the CIA, both operations and intelligence,
> and later was the deputy director of the State Department\'s Office of
> Counterterrorism. Mr. Johnson, with that background, has been a
> valuable guest frequently on television, including on \"Crossfire,\"
> and why I\'m happy to say that we\'re almost always on the same side.
>
> \[Laughter.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: So Larry C. Johnson.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Bob.
>
> Terrorism does not operate without money. That\'s the bottom line. And
> we have got to recognize in this country that when we start drawing
> these artificial distinctions between what constitutes terrorism, what
> constitutes narco-trafficking, what constitutes\--
>
> MR. NOVAK: Larry, can I interrupt?
>
> MR. JOHNSON: Sure.
>
> MR. NOVAK: The panelists are not speaking directly into the mikes, so
> if you will be careful and do that, we\'d appreciate it.
>
> MR. JOHNSON: I\'ve usually never been accused of having a small, quiet
> voice.
>
> \[Laughter.\]
>
> MR. JOHNSON: Going after the money is critical. And when we look at
> the issue of terrorism, there really are two challenges presented. One
> is that some of the money that is flowing in to terrorist activities
> does come out of the traditional money-laundering arena. That means
> there is a predicate crime. Someone was selling drugs, selling
> weapons, stealing money or stealing the money and then trying to
> launder it so it would be clean. But we\'ve also seen, particularly
> with the bin Laden network, what I\'d call the money-dirtying process.
>
> The money does not start out, in the bin Laden businesses, as dirty
> money. It doesn\'t start out as money generated from illegal
> activities. In fact, in some of the cases, it\'s money generated by
> charitable contributions that flows into bank accounts, flows through
> the system, and it\'s only when it comes out at the other end, is put
> in the hands of those folks who are going to go out and kill and
> murder people, at that point you then have a criminal act.
>
> DEA, in my view, and I cannot be accused of being brainwashed, even
> though two of my partners are former DEA employees, but I\'ve had the
> virtue of working with the State Department, with the Central
> Intelligence Agency, with the FBI in the investigation on Pan Am 103
> and some other issues, with the U.S. military, and we\'ve been
> involved overseas quite a bit.
>
> I can say, hands down, that the best intelligence we have on the
> ground overseas is DEA, and yet, after all of the time I\'ve been
> involved with counterterrorism, not once have I seen a DEA body
> sitting at the table, at the CSG meetings which go on over at the
> White House, where you\'re talking about combatting terrorism. And let
> me, I brought a visual illustration of the links here.
>
> Mr. Whalid Zyad Massise \[ph\], is currently a merchant in the
> cologne-free zone of Panama. Now I came across Mr. Massise 3 years ago
> when we were conducting an undercover investigation looking at the
> selling of products that were violating the intellectual property
> rights of a U.S. corporation. And when we first went into Panama, we
> asked the local DEA office if they could recommend a local Panamanian
> to work with us and help us track this problem, provided someone. We
> worked closely with this individual. The individual was not employed
> by DEA or the U.S. government or the Panamanians, but he worked with
> us. In the course of this, we found Mr. Zyad violating these
> intellectual property rights.
>
> Well, this book is titled, \"Palestine: The Burning Silence,\" and
> I\'m translating from the Spanish. \"The Fundamentals for
> Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.\"
>
> Mr. Zyad is really the head of to Intifada in Central America at the
> time that he wrote this book. And he brags in the first couple of
> pages about how he entered Palestine clandestinely, met with leaders
> of the Intifada. Now he also has the distinction of he went to jail in
> Panama for money laundering. And I\'ve said sometimes that if you go
> to jail in Panama for money laundering, you have to really be either
> bad at it\--
>
> \[Laughter.\]
>
> MR. JOHNSON: \--or you were really doing a lot of it, and I\'m not
> sure which is the case in his instance.
>
> But what we\'ve seen over and over again is when this money moves
> through banking systems, these individuals, whether they\'re involved
> with terrorism, whether they\'re involved with drug trafficking, they
> are exploiting the system, and what they come up against, their
> biggest ally in this is how the U.S. government, and I don\'t want to
> use the word is organized to confront this problem, how the U.S.
> government is disorganized to confront the problem, and I will give
> you a very specific case in point.
>
> In 1994-1995, there was a debate raging between the intelligence
> community and some of former colleagues and personal friends out at
> CIA who were in the counter-narcotics center who maintained that the
> FARC was not involved with drug trafficking. Meanwhile, DEA was
> saying, sure, they are. And I did not understand this fully until I
> got out of government and had the opportunities that I\'ve had over
> the last 3 years.
>
> Here is the problem: The CIA analysts were not seeing the DEA-6s, the
> DEA reports that are generated in the course of law-enforcement
> investigations. That information comes together in DEA in isolated, on
> specific cases, is not shared with the intelligence community. They
> didn\'t know. They didn\'t have a reason to know.
>
> And those kinds of\--I call them artificial barriers, which hinder
> understanding the problem, proved to be very difficult in bringing the
> CIA along to finally saying, wait a second, the FARC is involved.
> Because what we saw when the Soviet Union collapsed, particularly
> groups that had previously received funding from the Soviets, like the
> Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the National Liberation Army
> of Colombia, the Kurdistan Workers Party in Turkey, PKK, all of them
> shifted their activities to making money because, if you\'re going to
> conduct operations, if you\'re going to train soldiers, if you\'re
> going to train terrorists, if you\'re going to buy explosives, you\'ve
> got to have money. American Express doesn\'t issue you your own
> personal credit card just because you\'re a terrorist. You\'ve got to
> have the money in a bank account to pay for this.
>
> Let me close with one final illustration of why I think DEA, in its
> capacity in following drug money, needs to be brought into this
> process. Three years ago when we first set up Berg Associates, we were
> working on supporting the local Police Department in Oakland County,
> Michigan, on a drug trafficking case. We went to meet with the local
> DEA, SAC at that time.
>
> There was myself, my partner, John Moynihan; and former DEA Agent Jack
> Toal, sitting in the room then; two current DEA employees, one of them
> Cliff White.
>
> Jack Toal is the one who arrested Kiki Moscara \[ph\]. Moscara was the
> one who put together the plot that blew up the Avianca plane. Jack
> Toal arrested one of the major terrorists that we were looking for in
> the 1990s and did it in New York City. That was a DEA operation.
>
> Cliff White had been working in Pakistan when Ishtiak Parker \[ph\],
> one of the collaborators of Ramzi Yousef, the first bomber of the
> World Trade Center, was hiding out in Pakistan. Ishtiak Parker walked
> into the U.S. Embassy and said, I know where he is. The embassy did
> not send the CIA, the embassy did not send the FBI, the embassy did
> not send Diplomatic Security. The embassy sent DEA, with their foreign
> employee, to go find Ramzi Yousef.
>
> My point is I\'m not trying to carve out new bureaucratic turf for
> DEA, but I\'m pretty practical about these things. If you\'ve got
> information, and you know what\'s going on, you ought to be at the
> table. And one of the keys in going after the money that is involved
> with drug trafficking, that spills over into international terrorism
> is that DEA has got to be at the table.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: Mr. Johnson, do you think that the Bush administration\'s
> war on terrorism effort to get after money laundering is hitting the
> drug money that you\'re talking about, as of today?
>
> MR. JOHNSON: Yes, they\'re stumbling across it. This is one of the
> things that we\'ve done for a long time in this country, and it\'s
> actually been I\'ll call a bipartisan failure heretofore. We\'ve
> talked about going after the money, but we\'ve never been serious
> about it. And when you go out and start rolling up these terrorist
> assets, what we begin to see is that the channels\-\--let\'s just
> think it through practically.
>
> When the Taliban or even the Northern Alliance, when they sell the
> drugs, they\'re not giving that opium away. They\'re getting something
> in return for it. Sometimes they\'re getting weapons, but they\'re
> also getting dollars. Who buys that from him? Well, that\'s called the
> Russian mob, in part. And when the Russian mob buys that money or buys
> those drugs, they\'re not just pulling it out from under a mattress.
> It\'s sitting in a banking system somewhere. And so when that money
> comes through and is passed to the Taliban, the Taliban also put it in
> banking systems. So, when you track this through and you start going
> after some of the terrorist money, you start disrupting the drug
> networks.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Thank you very much, Larry.
>
> Our next panelist is General Rosso Jose Serrano Cadena. General
> Serrano is one of the heroes of the war against drugs. He\'s one of my
> personal heroes, since I first met him in Colombia a number of years
> ago, when I found that the politicians all, none of them had a good
> word to say for General Serrano because he had that rare combination
> of integrity and competence.
>
> He got after the drug dealers, and he got after the crooks in the
> police force. He has been called, in his role as Director General of
> the Colombian National Police, now retired, as the \"Best Policeman in
> the World,\" and I\'ll second that.
>
> General Serrano?
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> GENERAL SERRANO: \[Interpreted from Spanish.\] I will be speaking in
> Spanish, and I\'ll have an interpreter.
>
> I am delighted that we all agree that there is
> narco-traffic\--narco-terrorism. Before we used to talk about
> narco-traffic and look at terrorism as something very far away, very
> distant. In Colombia, narco-terrorism arose over 15 years ago. Pablo
> Escobar did this, introduced this in order to avoid being extradited
> to the United States.
>
> Moreover, in 1990, Mr. Escobar killed 500 policemen in Medellin. He
> charged between 2- and 3,000 per death. He killed four presidential
> candidates. He killed General Ramirez, who was the director against
> traffic; he killed the attorney general of the nation; and with a car
> bomb, he killed 157 people in Bogota. That is narco-terrorism.
>
> They said they preferred to be dead, to be in a Colombian tomb, rather
> than to be jailed in the United States. So that narco-traffickers use
> terrorism to control both the state and the society. Pablo Escobar
> partially won that battle because he avoided extradition.
>
> After his death, we\'ve seen another form of narco-terrorism. Both the
> organization and self-defense organizations combined with
> narco-traffic promoting this terrorism. But behind the word of
> Ambassador Tambs in Bogota over 15 years ago, there are other crimes
> that we should look into\--arms trafficking. As some of the panelists
> here were explaining, in Latin America, the only ones who buy this are
> the FARC and the self-defense units. Contraband, chemical precursor
> type of traffic, and money laundering itself, these are the series of
> crimes that are behind narco-traffic.
>
> There is a fact that I believe is very important to point out here.
> Since I was the director of the Internarcotics Police in 1991, we saw
> that there were a group of Afghan citizens who had come to Colombia to
> teach us how to grow poppy seeds. They asked for visas through Ecuador
> and Bolivia, and over 100 of them actually entered our country. When
> we in DEA discovered the poppy seed, they had already sold over 4,000
> hectares in Colombia. And the question we face today is who brought
> these Afghan citizens, the FARC or the narco-traffic dealers.
>
> Today, there is more narco-traffic in Colombia than before because
> both the FARC and the self-defense teams have promoted this, despite
> the fact that we no longer have the medellin and the Cali Cartels. In
> my opinion, as long as there is narco-traffic, there will not be peace
> in Colombia.
>
> We have spoken about this with Mr. Souder, FARC and many other people
> who know this problem very well in Colombia, as well as with many
> members of Congress, DEA, and the CIA who know the Colombia problem
> extremely well.
>
> Let\'s work on the basis of knowing that there is narco-terrorism, but
> having a different approach. Let\'s work on the basis of the fact that
> the FARC and the self-defense teams work with this in Colombia, and we
> have to tackle them together. And nowadays they use nonconventional
> weapons, such as gas cylinders that they throw at the police, for
> example, and the population at large. This is a method that the IRA
> taught FARC.
>
> At present, we see international alliances with the Russian mafia,
> which is the one that imports or brings in weapons with the Japanese
> Red Army, with ETA, which have been providing advice to FARC for a
> long time now.
>
> Our problem, therefore, is narco-traffic, which is behind acts of
> terrorism and other crimes affecting our country, but what are we to
> do? In my opinion, international agencies should deal with all of
> these problems and not only with the ones that they deal with directly
> because at times we focus on one single issue, and we forget all
> others. It seems to me that we must go at deeply the narco-traffic
> money. We must get to it.
>
> We feel disappointed because there are banks and there are states that
> are not really going after the money laundering, and this is
> resulting, also, in weapons and other ills. We must pursue the arms
> dealers. Some of them are keeping part of the money of the
> narco-traffic. Bin Laden was one of them. I have often said that bin
> Laden did not use the money that came from his inheritance, as has
> often been alleged, but rather money that came from the heroin
> traffic.
>
> We must look deeper into the international mafia alliances and
> connections. It seems to me that the Russian mafia is becoming a
> leader in narco-traffic, in Europe, Florida, the Caribbean islands and
> some of the South American countries as well.
>
> I also want to warn against an increase in synthetic drugs. The state
> focuses on natural drugs, but I see that there is a deviation towards
> other types of drugs, especially synthetic drugs. It seems to me that
> we must strengthen the connections among all of the various
> intelligence agencies internationally, build confidence, provide
> information selflessly, and make it possible for international
> agencies to work better than narco-traffickers and terrorists.
>
> In my opinion, if we do not do away with narco-traffic, it will be
> extremely difficult to fight against the other crimes.
> Narco-trafficking is the gist of our problems, and countries
> throughout the world have to accept this. We cannot just point our
> finger at others, by saying that that country is a producer, that
> other one a consumer, money-laundering country, a country that
> produces illegally chemical precursors, et cetera. This is a worldwide
> problem, and to the extent that we accept this, we will decrease the
> problem. I am very concerned with the Colombian problem not because of
> the FARC or the self-defense teams, et cetera, but because of
> narco-trafficking as such.
>
> There are new cocaine consumers, such as Europe, which was
> traditionally a heroin consumer. In Russia, Australia and other
> countries cocaine is consumed. Where do they go to get cocaine?
> Colombia. Right now in Afghanistan, since there are war-types of
> controls, they want to seek the very best heroin they can come up
> with. Colombia, Peru, where there are other strains of heroin, and
> Ecuador, to some extent, that\'s where we have to be on the alert. I
> repeat that the problem in the world is narco-traffic, and it\'s two
> aspects, both natural drugs and at present, unfortunately, also
> synthetic drugs.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: General Serrano, thank you. Just briefly, could you tell
> us, in your opinion, what the impact of the Colombian government\'s
> peace initiative with the FARC, which a great deal of land has been
> given to the FARC and peace negotiations have been attempted, what has
> been the impact of this policy on narco-trafficking in your country
> and internationally?
>
> GENERAL SERRANO: \[Interpreted from Spanish.\] In this process, the
> biggest problem is that you have narco-trafficking and terrorism
> meshed in there. President Bush has said that it is narco-traffic that
> promotes terrorism, and this is very important for Colombia. And as
> long as the FARC is not detached, so to speak, from narco-traffic, it
> will be very difficult for this process to really take hold because
> this represents a very big strategic advantage. Because with the money
> that comes from narco-traffic, they buy weapons need they grow.
>
> The state cannot buy arms with money coming from narco-traffic. It has
> to seek help, both from the American Congress and from the American
> government. Unfortunately, for Colombians, this process has been
> losing credibility.
>
> And, in my opinion, if the narco-traffic exists, it\'s very difficult
> to legitimize the self-defense systems because all the laboratories,
> both of heroin and cocaine, are protected by subversive actions. And
> it is increasingly difficult, both for the police and the military
> forces, to deal with this since resistance is even bigger now than in
> the past.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Thank you very much, General. I appreciate it. Our next
> panelist is Stephen J. Pasierb. Mr. Pasierb is the president, has been
> the president since October 1st of the Partnership for a Drug-Free
> America. He has been with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America,
> fighting drug abuse, in cooperation with a national network since
> 1993, and Mr. Pasierb has some visual help to aid in his presentation.
> Mr. Pasierb.
>
> MR. PASIERB: Thank you, Bob, very much. There\'s always the one guy
> with the visual aids. Here today at a conference on Traffickers,
> Terrorists & Your Kids, I see my role today as the \"and your kids\"
> piece of this puzzle.
>
> Clearly what we have heard is that globally drugs and terrorism are
> linked at the hip. So for us in a way drugs are terrorism. They are
> inextricably linked. Drugs are terrorism. And my job today is really
> to release some new information.
>
> We asked the question what does all this that we\'ve talked about
> today mean for parents and the youth? And in the partnerships context,
> parents and youth are essential that we speak to both them. You can\'t
> speak to either one in a vacuum. Parents and kids are linked.
>
> Our existence is really to deliver to the American public persuasive,
> credible, relevant information about what\'s going on around this
> issue, and clearly the events of September 11th, as we have
> established today, have put America on that national stage with other
> folks.
>
> As Steve said, it\'s not 12 time zones away any more. Terrorism is a
> very real thing here in America.
>
> So what is that persuasive information and all that we have learned
> here that really would help influence attitudes?
>
> I want to make the case very strongly to you that attitudes drive
> behavior. Simply generating awareness about something like the link
> between drugs and terrorism isn\'t enough. We have to deliver
> information that helps change people\'s attitudes, shape those
> attitudes around this issue, so their behaviors change.
>
> I want to give you a couple examples in history before we get into the
> new information and the new research we would like to unveil today.
>
> Go back a ways, and you look at the last 15 years of the marijuana
> issue in the United States, and some of the things that happened very
> clearly, you see two key attitudes in the research that changed in
> American history over that last 15 years: perception of risk and
> social disapproval.
>
> As you might imagine, as the perception of risk of marijuana use went
> up, as the social disapproval of marijuana use went up, the result in
> behavior change, drug use went down.
>
> Unfortunately, just like night follows day, we know that when we take
> our eye off the ball, when we take the issue off the front burner of
> the nation, as attitudes change, in this case a weakening of
> perception of risk and a weakening of social disapproval,
> unfortunately you see use go back up.
>
> So clearly what you have here is attitude, resulting behavior,
> attitude, resulting behavior. It\'s very clear.
>
> Compare that to another drug that we have challenged with in this
> country, cocaine, and the progress that we have made as a nation on
> cocaine. We came out of the early 1980s pretty much with cocaine
> actually having a perception of benefit. A lot of people thought it
> was an okay drug, and they didn\'t see the downside of it.
>
> We had the death of Len Bias. We saw what cocaine an crack cocaine did
> to our cities, what it was doing to the American public, and you see
> the rise in the perception of risk in cocaine in America. It should be
> no surprise then that you see the decrease in use. The attitudes
> around this and the behaviors around drug use are inextricably linked.
>
> So for the partnership, really we have to say what are the leverage
> points, who are the people who can influence our kids, who can stop
> the inflow of folks into drug use? Key to everything we do are
> parents. We talk so much about kids. You cannot forget parents, that
> caregiver, that aunt, that uncle, that grandma, that grandpa, that
> person in a child\'s live who provides that nurturing and provides
> love, and the information that they deliver to a child.
>
> Take the example of marijuana once again. Look at teenagers who learn
> nothing about the risks of marijuana from their parents. You see their
> use rates. Fairly high. Because they\'re not learning anything. They
> have a very different attitude set.
>
> You contrast that to kids who learn a lot about marijuana risks and
> problems from their parents, you see major progress. Again, a
> different attitude set, a different behavior set by the information
> that that caregiver in the child\'s life is delivering.
>
> Parents are absolutely essential in this as we talk about the drugs
> and terrorism link. And clearly we know we have huge room for
> progress. We have got to get parents involved with teenagers, because
> you see the leverage they can have. But, unfortunately, only 29
> percent of teens in this nation report that they are learning a lot
> about the risks of drugs from their parents. So we have got 71
> percentage points worth of improvement that we as a nation could make
> and go forward on this issue.
>
> So we have to bring it all around. Would the knowledge of the drugs
> and terrorism link support the demand reduction message? What does the
> drugs and terrorism link mean to parents? What does the drugs and
> terrorism link mean to teenagers?
>
> Partnership went into the field and we did research, talking to
> parents, talking to teenagers exactly about this, and the findings we
> got from that were amazingly surprising, and that\'s the new data that
> we want to release today.
>
> If you look at parents very quickly, clearly, yes, the drugs and
> terrorism link is there. Take a look at parents. Do you think that
> international terrorism is financed, at least in part, by the illegal
> drug trade? You see 54 percent. The outstanding thing about that
> isn\'t the enormous leverage opportunity here and the fact that
> parents have this understanding, it\'s that they think this even
> before there\'s been an education effort on this. They think this
> before there have been symposiums like today and this has come onto
> the national agenda.
>
> So the parents in this nation are already onboard on this. They
> already see the link very clearly.
>
> So you go to the next step and say would knowing this make you more
> likely to talk to your teenager about drug use? Now you\'re getting
> the overwhelming results. Twice as likely, 62 percent, to have that
> conversation with the kids. And we know from the earlier slide the
> value of that conversation with their teenagers.
>
> So you have got the understanding, you\'ve got the opportunity to act
> here, and clearly how do parents want to go about this? There\'s a
> willingness to listen. Parents are looking for more information on
> this. So if we can craft messages to help them understand this linkage
> and motivate them, the pieces they need to talk to their teenagers,
> parents are going to join us on this effort.
>
> But you can\'t have parents just having this conversation. You see it
> right there. Strength in the parental understanding, in the parental
> willingness, in the parental need for information. But where do the
> teenagers sit on all this? What do their kids feel about the same
> thing that we\'ve seen? Ask those same questions of the teenagers, and
> while the line is a little bit less than the parents, clearly 45
> percent of teenagers\--again we are talking about 12 years, 13 years
> old, 14, 15 years old, understand what\'s happening and what\'s going
> on in the world, the terrorism and the drugs are linked.
>
> The same thing with them. Knowing this\--and here is an amazing
> story\--knowing this would help them understand that link, would make
> them less likely to want to use drugs. There\'s real power in the
> drugs-and-terrorism link. Teenagers say the same thing to us. They
> want to have more information delivered on this. They want to
> understand this issue, they want people to be delivering the facts,
> the relevant, the credible information to them about the
> drugs-and-terrorism link.
>
> And you see it again in the summary of the teenage data. There\'s real
> strength in this issue.
>
> Now from the Partnership\'s perspective, an organization that\'s been
> around for 15 years, we have always talked about the disconnect
> between parents and kids, the fact that parents are in a different
> place on this issue than their kids are. This is the first time in our
> history that we have had that clear, clear, strong connection, that
> both mom and dad and the kids are on the same place on this issue,
> they both want information, they are both looking for our help as
> leaders in this nation to provide that information to them, and when
> they get it, they\'re going to act upon it. That\'s real strength.
>
> One of the important points was that any good hypothesis should
> probably stand up to replication. So we went back out into the field a
> month later and we replicated this research. We wanted to see if these
> amazing results that we found truly held up.
>
> What we found a month later was in fact they did. It held up with
> parents in terms of their understanding, it held up with parents in
> terms of their willingness to take action with this understanding.
>
> The same thing held true for teenagers. They see the link, the link
> has held up. Understanding this link would cause them to behave
> differently around drug abuse.
>
> So the power is there, it\'s been proven twice in two separate
> measurements.
>
> So we know from the things that we\'ve looked at today, we can reduce
> demands for drugs. America has made a lot of progress on the drug
> issue. I think it\'s probably one of the biggest secrets in all this
> is we have made enormous progress. The media, communities, the
> government, everyone working together has generated enormous progress.
>
> Attitudes clearly drive behavior. We looked at drugs, but you look at
> it all across life. People\'s attitudes toward a situation, toward a
> product, toward a person, drive their behavior. So attitudes are key.
> That\'s the first step in the puzzle.
>
> Knowledge of the drugs-and-terrorism link positively impacts anti-drug
> attitudes. You see the findings among the parents, more likely to talk
> to their kids. You see the findings among teenagers, less likely to
> use drugs. That\'s enormous power.
>
> But most important is that common ground I spoke of. We have an issue
> here where everyone is ready to listen. What is going on now in the
> world, and Americans\' understanding of their place on the global
> stage, has clearly made them ready to receive this information, and we
> know we need to help inform and educate the public. There is real
> power in this message. The Partnership\'s job is to continue this
> research, to work on the message strategies, to work with our partners
> in the communication industry, to find out what those pieces are, what
> is that relevant credible information. And that is in fact what we\'re
> doing right now. We are doing the research, we are working with
> advertising agencies, we are ready to work with the media to
> communicate out this link.
>
> The Partnership\'s job is to find out what\'s relevant in the lives of
> parents and teenagers and very clearly the drugs-and-terrorism linkage
> is amazingly relevant in folks\' lives, and an important message that
> we\'ve got to deliver.
>
> So, again, we\'ve got the understanding on the part of everybody.
> There\'s an opportunity to act. They are ready to do something with
> this understanding. We\'ve got to provide them the learning. They\'re
> ready to listen to what we have. And if we do this, we believe very
> strongly this is a piece of leverage, this is an ability to motivate
> the country that we have had not over the last 15 years, and it should
> be a part we play in the larger whole of the drugs-and-terrorism link.
>
> Thank you.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: Mr. Pasierb, would you like a little help from the
> government, the U.S. government, which has a very big megaphone? We
> have senior officials on television for many hours every day on cable
> TV and even on network TV. Would you like them to talk about this link
> between narcotics, illegal narcotics and terrorism a little bit more?
>
> MR. PASIERB: Absolutely. Absolutely. The understanding of this link is
> essential, and that\'s what our leaders can do. Leadership in this
> nation can help our people understand this link, give the background
> in it, and really take action.
>
> I mean this data would hold up for anyone, for any leader in the
> community, to be able to deliver this kind of information, is going to
> have real power.
>
> So I would hope after today, and with the understanding that we have
> gotten across this panel, that America would be ready to really take
> this issue on and talk about it openly and actively.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Okay. Thank you. There are several battlefronts in the war
> against drugs. Afghanistan, Colombia, Hollywood. And one of the
> warriors in the Hollywood battleground is Bryan Dyak, our final
> panelist. He is the founding president and chief executive officer of
> the Entertainment Industries Council, Inc., and he is executive
> producer of the Prisms Award, the entertainment industry\'s annual
> recognition of television shows and feature films that accurately,
> accurately portray drug and alcohol use and addiction on screen.
>
> Mr. Brian Dyak.
>
> MR. DYAK: Thank you.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. DYAK: I would like you to take a moment and put yourself in
> another place. The entertainment industry is a small piece of this
> puzzle, but a fairly dynamic piece, given our reach. And what I would
> like you to do is to actually select who you want to be for the next
> six or seven minutes.
>
> There\'s five key people that make up the crux of developing a film or
> a television show. That\'s the writer, the producer, the director, the
> executive in charge of production, and the talent. So you can be a
> celebrity, if you\'d like, you can be a talk show host. You are also
> someone that has an expertise in creating comedy, drama, adventure.
> And I would like you to be in that place of who you now are as a
> creator in the entertainment industry as you listen and think about
> what I have to say.
>
> I would like to first give you now all these new creators of
> entertainment product, some new information, again research that we
> conducted through an independent research group, to look at violence
> in television. And uniquely, when we conducted that survey, we
> discovered that there were elements of the results that were usable
> beyond looking at the term of violence, and specifically gun violence.
>
> We asked the audience to rate 10 film characteristics, factors in
> relationship to their attractiveness of movies and TV shows, and the
> audience preferences were humor; special effects; adventure, right up
> in the 75 to 80 percent selection area; mystery and suspense was at 67
> percent; non-violent action was at 62 percent; sex and romance was at
> 55 percent; physical conflict and non-physical conflict were at 40
> percent; violence in general was at 21 percent; and gun violence was
> at 19 percent.
>
> The study suggested that the audience was already moving away from
> violent film and TV shows prior to September 11th, and there is a
> sense in Hollywood today that the audience has moved even further from
> violence, given the violence we are experiencing in our real life.
>
> Secondly, the study looked at how the audience attitudes are
> influenced. We are concerned as creators about what our audiences
> thinking because we really want to know their attitudes so we can sell
> that to our advertisers to support the shows so we can now write,
> produce, direct, create and star in the television show or the feature
> film.
>
> Again we believe that the results may mirror other attitudes beyond
> violence. The audience\'s own personal experiences were the
> predominant factor, the attitude shaper.
>
> Second was the parents and guardians.
>
> Third was the news. Friends were fourth. Teachers, TV shows and movies
> all tied at 19 percent. Video games were at 18 percent. Books and
> magazines at 13 percent. Music lyrics at 13 percent, and the internet
> was 11 percent.
>
> Our sample was 462 people on the internet. The population was from 18
> to 65, 50 percent, and 50 percent were younger than 18 years of age.
>
> So what can we do to support our nation\'s war on terrorism and get
> involved as creators and this issue of narco-terrorism?
>
> Accurate depiction of important issues, avoiding misinformation to the
> audience is key. So as a creator, when you\'re developing a story
> line, consider showing tolerance as a deterrent to prejudice and
> injustice, and try to avoid ethnic stereotyping.
>
> Discourage paralyzing fear from terrorism and promote preparedness for
> future attacks. As creators, be sensitive to the mental health
> realities of terrorism. It causes shock, grieving, fear, pity,
> helplessness and anger.
>
> When you are developing a character, use the character to help the
> audiences be aware of these feelings and understand coping mechanisms.
>
> Promote restoring emotional well being and a sense of control and
> encourage positive action.
>
> Consider story lines that promote donating goods, donating blood,
> volunteerism in school, victim assistance programs. Display the
> American flag in memory of those lost to terrorism.
>
> When it comes to children, encourage children to help others. Recently
> the Sesame Workshop, the producers of Sesame Street conducted a survey
> of children\'s mental health after September 11th. Half of the
> children studied were from Washington, D.C. and the New York area; the
> other half were from across the United States. Their perspectives were
> really insightful.
>
> Despite expressions of fear and death and violence, many children
> showed empathy and sadness. Almost no children expressed vengeance or
> anger. Children responded to heroism as well as the pop culture. While
> children in previous studies wanted to be like popular entertainers,
> the advent of \'N Sync, Brittany Spears, now they also want to be like
> heroes, real and imaginary, like rescue workers, police officers,
> political leaders, and even Superman.
>
> Children want to help. Many want to fly like a super hero. They want
> to stop the bad guys. And others said they collected money to help
> victims and participated in vigils.
>
> For the children\'s sake as a creator, consider depicting hope for the
> future. Encourage children to talk about events. Assure them that they
> are cared for. Help them recognize that they have shown courage in
> scary situations and empower them so they know that institutions of
> democracy are still in place and our government is intact.
>
> There are a number of other depictions that creators can explore to
> create images and messages that serve our audiences and maybe get us
> some ratings.
>
> Help audiences understand the importance of preparedness. Take
> seriously a family communication plan, an evacuation plan, as well as
> gathering emergency disaster supplies and first aid supplies. Show
> neighbors working together. Show people being vigilant in your
> productions, paying attention to what\'s going on around them, and
> knowing what to do and who to call to report strange situations. Help
> audiences understand what homeland security really means to the safety
> and well being of our great nation, and reinforce patriotism, our
> military, our fire departments, and our law enforcement officers.
>
> Twenty years ago our industry had been charged with pushing the limit
> when it comes to glamorization of drugs. Since then movies like \"The
> Insider,\" \"28 Days,\" \"Trainspotting\" and \"Traffic\" that
> highlighted the important life-threatening work of DEA agents and many
> other films have shown that our industry can create profitable
> entertainment when it takes on issues such as drug trafficking, abuse
> and treatment.
>
> As creators, put terrorism into perspective when it comes to drug
> depiction. Any glamorous drug depiction without a negative consequence
> is supporting terrorism, narco-terrorism, the ultimate story, the
> ultimate drama, and the ultimate adventure, to follow the money.
>
> Consider the story lines and the characters that are sensitive to the
> realities of stress and substance abuse.
>
> Stress increases the potential of self-medication to people never
> exposed to drugs. This is what health science tells us. That among
> drug-free cocaine abusers in treatment, personal stress can lead to
> increased cocaine cravings. Health science tells us that the stressful
> situation induces relapses to cocaine, alcohol and heroin.
>
> As creators, you can promote drug prevention programs, help audiences
> understand if someone is buying and using drugs that they need to
> stop, they need to get help and they need to get into treatment.
>
> It\'s also suggested that creators protect the integrity of our law
> enforcement officers and our agencies, law enforcement agencies doing
> the battle against narco-terrorists.
>
> Help audiences understand the reality of drugs and terrorists. Boost
> the respect, trust and integrity of the good guys, the DEA and other
> government agencies.
>
> You can do all of this as a part of original programming that\'s
> provocative, entertaining, and profitable. Each of you, as writers,
> directors, producers, executives, the celebrity that you\'ve chosen to
> be in this room, can wage a war through the creative process.
>
> These are only suggestions. In this country you as creators have the
> right to produce whatever you want, and that is a freedom that we\'re
> fighting to protect today.
>
> It is for that reason, though, that as a member of the creative
> community, you need to consider the dimensions of the images, the
> characters, the story lines, that touch the audiences as a part of our
> war on terrorism and threats of narco-terrorism.
>
> Consider using your creative gift, your creative talent, to enhance
> the art of making a difference in the lives of your audience.
>
> Thank you.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: Mr. Dyak, briefly, do you think that the leaders of the
> entertainment industry effectively connect that little powdery
> substance called cocaine with terrorism?
>
> MR. DYAK: I think the leaders of the entertainment industry are
> connecting the whole notion of terrorism as it affects us and the
> economy, and the whole notion of drugs. Narco-terrorism is going to be
> a very interesting introduction.
>
> MR. NOVAK: An introduction.
>
> MR. DYAK: I don\'t think anybody is naive in terms of the
> entertainment industry leadership, you know. I mean let\'s look over
> the last 20 years that the Entertainment Industries Council has been
> involved in drug work. Until \"Traffic,\" the connection was minimal.
> So it was just in the last year, prior to our current situation, with
> an Academy Award-winning feature film that was profitable helped make
> the connection, I think.
>
> MR. NOVAK: I\'m going to introduce the shadow panelists now, who are
> actually really human beings. Robert B. Charles is president
> of\--raise your hand, because you don\'t have a sign in front of you,
> when I introduce you. He is the founder of Direct Impact, president of
> the company, which produces strategic consulting communications,
> focusing on law enforcement, counter-narcotics and international
> issues.
>
> Joyce D. Nalepka, who is president of Drug-Free Kids, America\'s
> Challenge.
>
> Ann B. Wrobleski has a long experience in studying the drug problems
> and is now chief operating officer and executive vice president of
> Jefferson Waterman, International, which represents corporations and
> foreign governments.
>
> And Harv Presnell, who is an actor.
>
> Now you may recognize him. If you haven\'t been living in a cave for
> the last several years, you\'ll recognize him. Any of you see
> \"Fargo\"? One of the great movies. You surely remember him from
> \"Fargo.\" He was also in a few other small films like \"Saving Pvt.
> Ryan\" and \"The Legend of Bagger Vance.\" And he\'s also interested
> in fighting narco-terrorism.
>
> Now in exactly\--not exactly, in approximately 11 minutes, we are
> going to open this for questions from the audience, but I am going to
> do something very dangerous in the meantime. I\'m going to let
> the\--this is going to be like an 11-person Capitol Gang. I\'m going
> to ask the people up on the table who have already had a little bit to
> say, and also the shadow panelists, just to comment on what has been
> said in our symposium so far. Just raise your hand, and I\'ll try to
> catch you.
>
> Anybody have a comment on what the rest of you said? Yes, go ahead,
> Harv.
>
> MR. PRESNELL: Well, as a member of the motion picture industry and an
> actor, a player, a Montana rancher, a guy who flies airplanes, I think
> the entertainment industry has in the past been more of the problem
> than the solution. I am sad to say that. I think we are going to
> change some things around here now that our freedom has been once more
> seen to be in jeopardy by those bad guys.
>
> We have a crisis unparalleled in our history, recent history, anyway,
> since the Second World War.
>
> There\'s a couple of things that I would like to say about about the
> money side. We never talk about the problem we have in the money that
> is created by the drug trade and the amount of it and where it is and
> what it\'s being used for, except today. I\'m very proud of this
> agency. It\'s the only government agency I ever heard of that makes
> more money, or takes in more money than it costs to run it.
>
> \[Laughter.\]
>
> MR. PRESNELL: They don\'t seem to be able to get the benefit of it
> because it disappears in some agency called the Treasury that goes
> into the general fund.
>
> I have been involved with the DEA off and on for the last 15 years. I
> am terribly concerned as a grandfather with 12 grandchildren and six
> children, and I am interested very much in what the industry can do to
> put a positive spin on this, and I think it\'s a movie we\'re going to
> do which is already financed, about the money side, recalling the
> currency, getting a handle on the half a trillion dollars that\'s been
> created by the drug trade, money laundering that\'s out there, that\'s
> been there for 10, 12 years, 15 years. Very serious subject. And
> we\'ll do it as a comedy, of course, because that always makes the
> best story.
>
> There is a funny side to it. These guys are a bit inept. I don\'t know
> where they were in any of the revolutions that we\'ve gone through,
> but a friend of mine said it very well during the oil problem a few
> years ago. He asked me and he said, \"Listen, I\'ve got to know
> something from you.\" He said, \"We can put movies on a disk no bigger
> than a sourdough pancake, we can count the warts on a frog\'s ass from
> space, and yet we let a bunch of bandits with towels wrapped around
> their heads get us by the nuts, and when they say tap dance, we tap
> dance.\" He said, \"It\'s the money. It always has been, it always
> will be. The money. Why don\'t you do something about the money? Why
> don\'t you talk about the money?\"
>
> Well, today we\'ve heard something about the money, and there is
> something we can do about it, and if you go to the Bureau of Engraving
> and see what they\'re doing technically, you will find out that they
> are way ahead of the power curve. So let\'s get rid of that half a
> trillion dollars out there. Let\'s bring it home. Let\'s tax it.
> Let\'s reissue new stuff that we can identify from space. The movement
> of bulk currency. How does it get out of the country? Where does the
> float go? How does it get there?
>
> I happen to know one way because they used to confiscate these
> airplanes, and then Jack Lonn asked me one day, can you sell this Lear
> Jet? I said I can fly it and sure, I\'ll try to sell it, and the only
> guys to come up with the money to buy it back was the same guys they
> confiscated it from. So that\'s one of the problems.
>
> Anyway, I\'m very delighted with this panel, delighted to be with you
> folks, and when the movie comes out, I\'ll let you know. We got the
> money for it, and now all we\'ve got to do is do it.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: I neglected to mention somebody else who is sitting with
> the shadow panelists, one of our most distinguished guests, and that
> is Peter Bensinger, former DEA administrator. Peter will be introduced
> and he will speak at greater length later, but he also is a shadow
> panelist.
>
> Any of you other panelists? Yes, sir, go ahead.
>
> MR. CHARLES: I\'m Bobby Charles, and I just wanted to ask a couple of
> questions, actually, and also compliment the DEA in particular, and
> obviously Administrator Hutchinson who has led the charge here, as
> well as Donny Marshall, who previously started this, and Congressman
> Souder, who has really been a leader for almost a decade on this.
>
> I also wanted to compliment the Partnership for a Drug-Free America
> because as I stand here, I think we are all in this room standing more
> or less out of the box, and the cornerstone of my question, which I
> will direct really at maybe Larry, who also used to testify in front
> of us for a number of years when Speaker Hastert was running some of
> these same initiatives, and also I\'ll direct it at Mr. Pasierb,
> Steve.
>
> It\'s a twofold question. The first part of it is how important is it
> that we get the President of the United States to come forward at the
> very front end of this and recognize how real that connection is
> between drugs, which are really the oxygen in the form of the money,
> for terrorism and terrorism itself?
>
> And the second part is\--and this is something that has certainly
> plagued those in policy for as long as we\'ve known about the
> connection\--how do we get this message out? We are all here out of
> the box. It would be great if all of America for a moment, and then
> for an extended period, could be out of the box.
>
> To me, the whole thing boils down really to four words, and those
> words are learn. Learn the facts. Learn that the PKK, the KLA, the
> FARC, the ELN, the ELP, Hezbollah, Hamas, all the bad guys of the
> world get their money chiefly\--not incidentally, not in small
> measure, but chiefly from drugs. That\'s the learn part.
>
> I\'ll go further than any panelist up here. As someone who has spent a
> lot of time working in this area with some of these people, I believe
> that drug funding for terrorism is the seminal, post-Soviet fact
> relating to international stability, bar none.
>
> The second thing is educate. How do we educate kids to do this, to
> learn? How do we educate parents to be brave enough to talk about
> this?
>
> And then finally, the \"don\'t blink\" part reminds that this is bad
> news. When you learn how deep this is, how deeply rooted it is already
> in the United States\--I mean we don\'t have sleeper cells, we\'ve got
> sleepers everywhere, and they\'re all tied to this phenomenon.
>
> It reminds me of Speaker Hastert who in 1997 was traveling with
> Congressman Mark Souder and a couple of other members of Congress down
> to Colombia, and the news was\--he was on top of this. He kept saying
> this, as Congressman Souder and Congressman Asa Hutchinson at that
> point, had been saying this for a long time. This link is real. It\'s
> going to come to bear fruit, and it\'s going to be bad news for
> America.
>
> We landed at Howard Air Force Base, which has now vanished\--different
> story. But we left for Colombia about an hour away in our own plane,
> and diplomatic security came over to me and said, as the guy that was
> the staffer involved, \"We\'ve got some bad news for you. There are
> some things happening in Colombia we need to tell you about.\"
>
> By the way, these same things can happen in the United States and have
> and are in the abstract.
>
> He said, \"We\'ve got 12 sticks of dynamite that they\'ve just
> uncovered underneath the\--and some other explosives underneath the
> Supreme Court. They\'ve just taken down the\--the FARC has just taken
> down three police stations outside of Bogota, and we\'ve got some
> serious problems here.\" And so he said, \"You need to tell the
> leadership about that.\"
>
> So I went and talked to Hastert and I said all these facts to him. And
> he lowered his glasses and coughed a little bit and said, \"Well, it
> seems like we\'re more than halfway there, aren\'t we?\" We\'re more
> than halfway there right now. We need as a nation to not blink and
> keep going, and as bad as the facts become, figure out how to solve
> these problems.
>
> So the two questions are, does the President need to get deeply into
> this, and how deeply? And how do we educate America? How do we get
> that message, which we have not been able to do for a long time?
>
> MR. NOVAK: Mr. Johnson.
>
> MR. JOHNSON: Let me illustrate. Four weeks before September 11th, four
> or five weeks before that, in Colombia, three members of the Irish
> Republican Army were picked up, and if you notice, despite the United
> States not putting the Irish Republican Army on the list of foreign
> terrorist organizations three or four years ago when we first put that
> list out, the IRA consistently refused to disarm.
>
> After September 11th when President Bush went on the offensive, noting
> that we were going to take the battle to the terrorists, to
> international terrorists, it became clear that the IRA also was going
> to be on that list. And it\'s worth noting that after September 11th,
> the IRA finally decided to surrender its weapons and get serious about
> the peace process.
>
> I use that to illustrate that the President\'s role in this is vital,
> and it\'s not just talking about what\'s going overseas, because what
> I have been seeing in Panama, the money that\'s being deposited and
> laundered is not coming out of Panamanian banks, it\'s not coming out
> of Panamanian companies, it\'s coming out of U.S. banks and U.S.
> companies, and in some cases the U.S. companies are witting that
> they\'re taking drug money. And that\'s where it\'s important for
> people like the President to get out in front and put the heat on
> everybody, domestically as well as internationally.
>
> MR. NOVAK: The other question was directed to Mr. Pasierb. Do you have
> a comment?
>
> MR. PASIERB: Absolutely. I think the leadership of the President is
> essential. We\'ve actually had a leader out on this issue in
> Administrator Hutchinson who has been speaking about the links between
> drugs and terrorism, and his leadership on this I think is what
> brought us here today.
>
> But we need to remember\--we\'ve talked about Colombia, we\'ve talked
> about Afghanistan. The drug problem at its roots in America is a
> community problem. It happens where people live, in Wichita, Kansas or
> Fresno, California, or Sarasota, Florida, and that\'s where the moms
> and the dads and the kids are that we need to reach to.
>
> So not only do we need the President on this issue speaking about
> this, we need our leaders in the administration, we need the
> Speaker\'s task force and the folks in Congress. We need our Congress
> people when they\'re back at home, we need our governors, we need our
> mayors, we need our council people to do it.
>
> But at the end of the day, how do we deliver this message? The
> Partnership is going to do its part from that standpoint and deliver
> those messages that are relevant for kids and teenagers. We are going
> to need the media to join us in this and get these messages out in
> front of the public. We are going to need to work with the news media
> to get it out. We are going to need to work with the entertainment
> media to get it out.
>
> So there isn\'t one answer, there\'s a complex series of answers that
> begins with the President, pervades society down to the lowest level,
> but really at the end of the day comes back to parents and kids.
> We\'ve got a linkage here, that drugs are terrorism. Parents believe
> it, kids say knowing it is going to make them less likely to use. They
> are hungry for this information, they are hungry for greater
> understanding, and there has never been, at least in our experience, a
> more compelling way to move parents and to make kids think twice than
> all this.
>
> So we need everybody in this room, from the President on down, to be
> talking about this, and we need the media to join us when those
> messages are finished.
>
> MR. NOVAK: We have to move to the audience now, but Mr. Perl would
> like to make a brief intervention.
>
> MR. PERL: Brief point. I think Mr. Charles made a very important point
> when he talked about education, but I also think there\'s another way
> of looking at the educational issue than the way we\'re looking at it
> today.
>
> The way the Partnership for a Drug-Free America looks at it is it
> brings the message to youth, saying we\'re taking the drug tangent and
> we\'re stressing and we\'re educating you about the links to
> terrorism.
>
> I think what is lacking in our society is looking at it from the other
> way, and that is educating youth about terrorism. Part of the
> education of democracy should be the threats to democracy, and we need
> to develop curriculum to educate children about terrorism, the threat
> to terrorism, and also that way to bring in the drug issue.
>
> So to approach it in kind of a bifurcated approach on the educational
> basis.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Thank you very much, Mr. Perl. Okay, it\'s time for
> questions from the audience now, and I am told that microphones will
> magically appear for people who have questions. But don\'t ask the
> question until the microphone appears.
>
> Okay. Raise your hand if you want to have a question. Yes, ma\'am.
>
> FLOOR QUESTION: Hi. Could you tell me \--
>
> MR. NOVAK: I\'m sorry, if you would direct your questions to any of
> the shadow panelists or any of the major panelists, but don\'t direct
> them to all panelists because that won\'t work.
>
> FLOOR QUESTION: This is for Mr.
>
> Casteel. Could you tell me what the status is of the opium flows out
> of Afghanistan, where the stockpiles are that have been identified,
> what steps the DEA has taken to disrupt these stockpiles and the flow
> of opium?
>
> MR. CASTEEL: Well, you know, that reminds me of those of those
> Rumsfeld questions he\'s always complaining about. There\'s about five
> parts to it. So make sure I hit them all, okay?
>
> As I said, up to the time of the war, even with the supposed
> destruction of the opium crop, we saw no signs of that based on the
> stockpiling.
>
> When the war immediately hit, we saw for a short period of time\--I
> guess the best word to describe it, a fire sale. You started seeing
> people getting the opium out of Afghanistan as far as they could,
> selling it for any price, but that now has stabilized back to the
> original high prices based on the stockpiling.
>
> It is our belief there are still stockpiles in Afghanistan. Not all of
> them. Part of them have been moved out of the country, but there still
> remains some major ones there. We are attempting to identify those
> locations, and I can assure you that we have a good mechanism between
> us and the Department of Defense in providing that information through
> DIA to those locations.
>
> Also beginning tomorrow, I\'m on a plane to London, for example.
> We\'re sitting down with the British authorities and trying to compare
> what intelligence they have available to assist us in this matter.
>
> We recognize that our opportunity with Afghanistan is a short time, a
> small window, and we want to make sure, because this is the time of
> year now when they\'re replanting their crops, that we make every
> opportunity to stabilize that situation from a law enforcement
> perspective and don\'t miss this opportunity.
>
> I think I hit all four of your questions there.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Very good. You can give Rumsfeld some lessons on that.
>
> Ms. Nalepka, do you want to comment?
>
> MS. NALEPKA: I agree with everything that I heard everyone say, and I
> just want to say also I\'m so proud to be in this room with all of
> these people who think on the same plane.
>
> I want to just reassure you that the parents that everyone has
> mentioned, I believe are there and are the key. We just have to begin
> to rebuild that system that existed during the 1980s when Ann
> Wrobleski worked for Nancy Reagan and we were able at that time to
> form over 5000 groups of parents. We asked them to start in your home,
> protect your family, then go to the school, your local legislatures,
> your state and on to the Federal level. It really began to work. And
> our motto during that time was \"Changing America\'s Attitude About
> Drugs.\"
>
> We are working very hard to rebuild that with CADCA and other groups
> that are already in existence, and one of the important things I think
> we need to do, and many of us are aware that DEA is doing that, is to
> notice the drug culture. Educate the American people that there really
> is a pro-drug culture out there and help them understand what it is.
>
> One of the beginnings is to buy yourself as a parent a copy of High
> Times magazine and find out what your kids are reading. This happens
> to be a 1979 issue, and one of the people that I consider to be the
> father of the marijuana epidemic in this country wrote a letter to the
> editor in here, and his name is Keith Stropp. I will quote what he
> said on what the kids had been reading. He says over and over again
> there\'s no evidence that even those few young people who use a great
> deal of marijuana necessarily hurt themselves academically or
> otherwise.
>
> The medical marijuana hoax movement that\'s sweeping the country is
> led by those organizations, and we are working with the help of
> legislators\--Congressman Souder needs to be applauded for this, and
> our DEA administrators, on an express preemption that will essentially
> educate the public and it basically says you cannot change state laws
> that violate Federal laws, but specific to the Controlled Substances
> Act.
>
> We are also working on a non-punitive random school drug testing which
> in the schools where it has been tried really works. We have talked to
> a lot of the principals who say within two years their schools are
> drug-free. And we really do need to think about that.
>
> I would ask all of you here who I consider to be experts in this room,
> and if you weren\'t when you came in, you\'re going to be when you
> leave, when you see an opportunity to write a letter to the editor,
> speak up. If you read letters to the editor regularly, the pro-drug
> groups write all the time. And we now have rebuilt the national
> network that existed during the \'80s to the point that Sunday a week
> ago there was a column criticizing the DEA and talking about the
> medical marijuana initiative. We got the message very early Sunday
> morning, and by Sunday noon we had seven letters on e-mail from people
> who really knew what they were writing about that went directly to The
> Washington Post.
>
> Unfortunately, only one was printed, but if we keep it going, they
> will pick one from time to time.
>
> Should the President be asked to do something? Yes, he should. I like
> what he is saying. I\'m so proud of what\'s happening in this country.
> I\'ve sent a request to the White House asking him, and I would ask
> Administrator Hutchinson and Souder and Marshall and my board member
> Bensinger back here all to encourage him.
>
> I think these young kids are just waiting to be asked to do something.
> Kids are very patriotic, they want to help, and I would love to see
> the President take one of his Saturday radio addresses or, even
> better, a prime time TV time and call to the kids to do something for
> your country in the easiest way possible, and that\'s basically to tie
> back to what Nancy Reagan, refuse to do drugs. Get your friends\--show
> your friends how to have a good time without it. And they can have a
> direct link to stopping trafficking.
>
> The other important thing is to help kids understand that that link is
> direct. When they buy that joint on Saturday night, it goes all the
> way back to Afghanistan and the other countries that are producing.
>
> We are, as everyone has said, producing the market. I\'ll read you
> just one sentence that shows you at the most pathetic level what drugs
> and drug terrorism really is to me. This was published in The
> Washington Post, and I had told my husband that morning, you know, I
> think I\'ve had enough of fighting drugs, I think it\'s time for me to
> go sit in the sand and let somebody else take over. I picked up The
> Washington Post and started to cry, and he said to me, \"What\'s wrong
> with you?\"
>
> There was a story about a crack house in Washington, D.C. It says when
> paramedics arrived, they found not an adult victim, but a tiny
> four-month-old girl. She was dirty and reeked of an awful odor. The
> skin beneath her unchanged diaper was raw, ulcerated and rotting.
> Doctors found two pounds of fecal matter in the diaper of a 10-pound
> baby. And this baby\'s name was Charlette, but since then there\'s
> been Brianna and Caitlin and stories that many of you have read. This
> is the thing that we have to keep foremost in our mind and get this
> drug war refocused on protecting kids and stop paying so much
> attention to the people who are marching around with signs trying to
> get us to legalize everything.
>
> I thank you all and I\'m very proud to be here among you.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: Questions? And I think, if you don\'t mind\--I should have
> asked you before, if you could, questioners, give your name and
> organization, it might be interesting.
>
> FLOOR QUESTION: My name is Maria Franco. I am here representing Voice
> of America, the Spanish branch. We broadcast to all Latin America in
> Spanish, and this question is to General Serrano. Bear with me. I\'m
> going to ask the question in Spanish to him, and then I will tell you
> what I said.
>
> \[Speaking in Spanish.\]
>
> FLOOR QUESTION: What I just asked is if the Colombia people are aware
> of this connection of narco-traffic to terrorism, and if so, what
> impact, if any, has it had in what they do or don\'t do about drugs?
>
> GENERAL SERRANO: The Colombian people know and understand this for
> over 15 years now because terrorism does not discriminate. It is
> against the civil society, it is against the state, et cetera. There
> is no discrimination. But since it was primarily domestic, it did not
> have a bigger impact until the events of September 11th. After
> September 11th, this term of narco-terrorism took on an entirely
> different and very precise meaning and it will be used as such from
> now on in all meetings. Before all of these were isolated factors,
> narco-terrorism, terrorism, money laundering, et cetera, but from now
> on it will belong to all agencies and all governments.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Questions? Yes?
>
> FLOOR QUESTION: I have a question for Mr. Novak which is coming out of
> this seminar, do you think that journalists like you could help us get
> the message across to the American people about the links between
> narcotics trafficking and terrorism?
>
> MR. NOVAK: Yes, I think that is true. I think we can. I think I would
> hope to. I have written a lot about narco-trafficking in Colombia and
> in many other places. I wrote a column about the fact that some of our
> friends in Afghanistan are not very clean on opium, but I could do a
> lot more, and I would hope to, and I hope other journalists would do
> the same.
>
> Yes? Does anybody else have a question? Yes, sir, please. You want to
> give your name and organization?
>
> FLOOR QUESTION: All of you mentioned the horrible problems from drug
> use. The executions, the terrorism, things like that, and yet to my
> knowledge there\'s never been a trafficker who\'s ever had the death
> penalty. There\'s never been one executed.
>
> And on the other hand, on the other side, talking about education, you
> had those charts up there. Mr. Pasierb showed a third of the people
> responding to whether they considered this a big problem and said no.
> And that kind of equates to this idea that there\'s a tremendous use
> of drugs throughout the country where people, it seems to me, can\'t
> be educated. They are under the influence of drugs. They can\'t
> believe these bad things are happening. And, of course, that\'s why I
> agree with Mrs. Nolepka and the student drug test thing because
> that\'s the thing, whether they believe it or not, that gets to the
> students and helps the parents understand there\'s a problem that
> needs to be solved with treatment, not punishment.
>
> Would you all, any of you, comment on this idea that no trafficker has
> ever been executed, received capital punishment for these horrible
> things, and at this other end that you really can\'t educate people
> where the drugs are telling them we\'re all lying?
>
> MR. NOVAK: Anybody have a comment on either of those points? General?
>
> GENERAL SERRANO: In my opinion, Pablo Escobar was the biggest
> Colombian drug terrorist in the history of the country, and if I may
> say so, I would like to make a connection between him and bin Laden.
> He died in the course of a confrontation with the police in Medellin
> in 1993 because he did everything not to be captured. There are many
> people who are being punished presently both here and in the United
> States and in Colombia through extradition. I believe that this is a
> good example of international cooperation.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Anybody want to comment on the death penalty for drug
> traffickers? How about the question I think the gentleman was asking
> of young people not really regarding drug trafficking as a big crime.
> Yes?
>
> MR. DYAK: I believe that there is another way to look at that
> question, and that is starting with an untapped force in terms of
> helping young people talk to other young people, and that is that most
> kids don\'t use drugs. That is an untapped resource. You know,
> programs like DARE, the things that have happened since elementary
> school through to the kind of programming that kids are watching
> today.
>
> Again, most of the audience that we look at in terms of the youth
> culture and the youth ratings, a lot of those kids aren\'t using
> drugs. They are not listening to the President\'s radio address,
> either, by the way.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Questions?
>
> MR. PASIERB: I wanted to add, Bob, if I could that we view that data
> as not a problem but a huge opportunity. That is very promising, very
> hope-generating kind of data that we got out of that poll. Parents see
> the link, kids see the link, and the folks who don\'t, that\'s the
> opportunity of communications is to help them understand the link.
> Because clearly the people who understand the link are willing to take
> action.
>
> Parents are going to talk, kids are going to act differently, and
> that\'s really the opportunity of communications. We were surprised
> when we did this data that it was as strong as it was, and for us it
> underscores the point. The situation isn\'t hopeless, we are not
> helpless. There\'s power in this message, and as Brian said, you\'ve
> got to come from the basis that most kids don\'t use. Most kids are
> already on our side.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Do you want to come up to the microphone, please?
>
> MS. NALEPKA: Certainly. We have to look at the fact that teachers,
> particularly in their school\--I mean in their city areas, tell us
> that six, 10, 20 percent of the kids are using, and we are all yelling
> at the teachers because the kids aren\'t learning. If we put in place
> the systems such as drug testing and those kids know there\'s going to
> be accountability, we have to get that 10 percent or 16 percent off of
> drugs so they stop interfering with the learning of the other children
> and can learn themselves.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Questions from the audience? Yes?
>
> FLOOR QUESTION: I\'m Donna Leinwand with USA Today. I guess this could
> go for Mr. Perl or Mr. Casteel or Mr. Johnson, whoever wants to answer
> it.
>
> What does the United States and the international community need to do
> in terms of law enforcement and changing banking laws to deal with the
> money laundering that so obviously took place between say, you know,
> the terrorists who passed their money through Deutschebank and, you
> know, the banking laws?
>
> MR. JOHNSON: Well, let me take some credit, not for me, but for my
> partner, John Moynihan, who testified before the House Finance
> Committee six weeks ago, and one of the specific recommendations he
> made that was later incorporated into the act, was specifically going
> after these money remitting businesses.
>
> Prior to that act, it was possible that you could be an unlicensed
> money remitter, and under U.S. law at the time, you could plead
> ignorance. Well, I didn\'t know I needed to be licensed. And ignorance
> was an excuse. That has now been changed, and one of the money
> remitting houses that was shut down after that law went into effect,
> Al Barakat, came out because of that.
>
> You know, there\'s an enormous amount of information that is generated
> by the financial sector that sits untapped and unused, an enormous
> amount of leads. And part of the problem is to go out and take those
> financial leads and do the financial analysis to track it through. To
> develop viable money laundering cases does require some manpower. It
> needs to be done, in my view, with\--you know, you\'ve got FBI running
> off in one direction, you\'ve got U.S. Customs going in another
> director, and you\'ve got DEA, and yet everybody\'s really trying to
> accomplish the same goal with the financial investigation. And so
> therefore I think we need to tap into those resources and add to that
> the capabilities at CIA for a more focused attack upon these financial
> networks.
>
> Someone made the point earlier that when the security measures went
> into effect, you didn\'t find any weapons, but you were finding
> Ecstasy. And we found the same thing in the Gulf War when security
> measures were put in place to boost aviation security around the
> world. We don\'t know if we deterred terrorism, but we caught a lot of
> people with stolen tickets, with drugs, with\--you know, engaged with
> criminal activity.
>
> My point is that when you target this and when you go after it, you
> will catch the people who are engaged with the criminal activity.
>
> MR. NOVAK: I\'d like to call on ann Rowleski, who was the architect of
> the \"Just Say No\" campaign. Ann.
>
> MS. ROWLESKI: Actually, I was going to ask a question that was just
> asked, which was about money laundering, but I guess since all of you
> are here, I would ask you, since you\'ve got Congressman Souder here
> and you\'ve got some people who know a little bit about appropriations
> issues in the audience. It seemed to me that I guess when\--I guess
> maybe three months ago, the drug war seemed to be a state where we
> seemed to be winding down, to a certain extent. There was a lot of
> questions about what we\'re doing in Colombia, are we doing the right
> things. There was a lot of questions in Colombia about the way the war
> was being waged, we are spreading the right thing, we are spreading
> the wrong thing. It\'s a presidential year, as the general well knows.
> And it seemed to me that there was sort of this feeling that the drug
> war needed new energy, refocusing. Joyce was talking about refocusing
> parents. And clearly this entire issue of narcotics trafficking and
> terrorism is a new issue.
>
> So if you have a clean slate, you\'ve got what seems to me to be a
> willing audience in Congress and the American people, not to mention
> America\'s children, what\'s the one or two things that you need
> today, in the next 30 days, in the next 60 days, that will make a
> difference?
>
> We all know, everybody in this room has been in this long enough to
> know that there are no silver bullets. But there has to be one or two
> things on the financial side\--and, Larry, you just answered that
> question\--but are there things that can be done or policy changes or
> legislative changes or attitudinal changes that will make a
> difference? And I guess we can start with Raphael.
>
> MR. PERL: I would go back to a point that Larry Johnson made, and I
> think that in combatting terrorism the DEA has a lot to offer, and
> it\'s important to plug them into the policy process as much as
> possible.
>
> At the same time we have to be careful that we don\'t overemphasize
> the value that going after drug trafficking can add to going after
> terrorism. Because if we focus too much on drug trafficking, it can
> detract, perhaps, from more effective ways of going after terrorism.
>
> So you need to strike a healthy balance here.
>
> MR. NOVAK: Anybody else want to make a quick comment on that?
>
> MR. PASIERB: Ann, you put it in the frame of the next 30 days. And
> personally one of the things I\'d like to see is I\'d like to see the
> President talk about this issue, both to parents from their unique
> viewpoint of this, and to kids, to make that appeal to parents, to
> have that conversation with their kid, that dialogue, and to talk to
> teenagers about what they can do. Because Steve made the point very
> early on, which I think should pervade everything we talked about
> here, Americans can asking what can they do. And I think they need to
> hear that from the President in the context of a lot of the other
> things he\'s asked America to do.
>
> We know if we make progress on this front, we\'re going to make
> progress on a lot of others. So it needs to be back on the front
> burner. It\'s a limited stove, but on the front burner of the American
> agenda.
>
> MR. NOVAK: All right. It\'s time now for closing comments from one of
> our really distinguished experts on this subject. Peter Bensinger is
> the president and chief executive officer of Bensinger, Dupont &
> Associates, which is a privately-owned firm providing professional
> services, including the promotion of a drug-free workplace. Mr.
> Bensinger is well remembered in Washington. In January of 1976, he was
> appointed by President Ford as the administrator of the U.S. Drug
> Enforcement Administration, and he served\--Mr. Hutchinson, listen to
> this\--he served for over five and a half years in that post.
>
> \[Laughter.\]
>
> MR. NOVAK: And served very well, indeed. So, Peter Bensinger.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. PERL: Peter, could I just respond still for a second to Ann\'s
> question?
>
> MR. BENSINGER: Please.
>
> MR. PERL: That would be I would suggest a bumper sticker \"Fight
> Terror, Fight Drugs.\" Okay. Just a very simple bumper sticker. I
> think it could draw a lot of attention.
>
> MR. BENSINGER: I would add to your comment, Raphael, that I think you
> need, in answer to Ann\'s question, and you raised a couple of
> suggestions, attitudinal changes, legislative changes, the President
> speaking. I think you need all of it.
>
> I think what we have tended to do over the years is look for one magic
> solution, whether it\'s interdiction, demand reduction, law
> enforcement, international. We need to do all of them well at once.
> Some of the suggestions made today I think would go a long way to
> doing just that.
>
> I want to thank Bob Novak for his leadership in this field long before
> arriving at this podium.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. BENSINGER: I also think, from a personal standpoint, I think the
> terrorism on September 11th, a tragic incineration of 5000 souls in
> New York and here, was different than the American public perceived as
> terrorism in the past when terrorists targeted government buildings,
> military ships, embassies. All of a sudden, the attacks were against
> citizens. Innocent citizens. I think this got America\'s attention and
> unification, and it\'s been different than the type of terrible
> terrorist attacks against Supreme Court justices or candidates for
> president, or embassies.
>
> I also think we\'ve had too high a tolerance for violence in this
> country, and that the drug traffickers are the terrorists in our inner
> cities, and the turf battles there are being waged daily by gangs and
> people are dying, and the money and the fear and the drugs are
> intermittently linked.
>
> So this is not just a battle, as I think Steve suggested, 12 time
> zones away, it\'s in our own cities every day.
>
> I think Asa Hutchinson is to be commended for his leadership, and my
> personal hope is that he will exceed my tenure as DEA administrator.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. BENSINGER: I want to express my gratitude to Raphael Perl, Larry
> Johnson, Steve Casteel, General Jose Serrano, Steve Pasierb, Brian
> Dyak, to Bill Alden, the president of the DEA Museum Foundation, to
> the shadow panelists who have been introduced, and to the audience and
> media. And the media plays an important role, and it was raised
> several times because this message and the linkage between terrorism
> and drug trafficking, which are interwoven like two poisonous vipers
> that breed off each other, this message has to get to the public, to
> the parents, to the kids, and the media can carry the message of
> today\'s colloquium, today\'s conference symposium, and I hope will do
> so.
>
> This is the first major proactive DEA event of its kind on the issue
> of narco-terrorism. It\'s only the beginning. As Bill Alden mentioned
> at the beginning, AFFNA, an association of former federal narcotic
> agents, and the DEA Museum Foundation are working to develop, with DEA
> support, a nationally touring museum exhibit that will reach
> throughout the country on narco-terrorism, and will also reach, we
> hope, Capitol Hill and Washington and our permanent exhibit, which I
> hope you will visit later.
>
> The Partnership\'s effort to educate American public on the links
> between drugs and terrorism is real important. I am delighted that
> that effort is going forward. The exhibit here will complement those
> efforts that will appear on the national media, those efforts that the
> parent group movement will extol.
>
> I would again remind you that as you leave, you will see there is a
> display in the DEA museum across the lobby from this auditorium
> featuring illegal drugs in America. A comprehensive look over 150
> years of drugs and drug abuse.
>
> Museums are a wonderful institution. They give truthful messages,
> objective, factual, and this one is not only interesting but
> important. I hope you will look.
>
> I want to thank everyone for participating today. I want to take a
> message of commitment away with me that carries this message from this
> day forward to make a safer America for all of us.
>
> Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. BENSINGER: If the panelists and the shadow panelists and moderator
> would remain for any questions from the media. The other members of
> the audience are invited to tour the museum. Have a good lunch and a
> good afternoon at this time. We will remain here for a moment.
>
> \[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the conference was concluded.\]