From: blean@rwb.esd.sgi.com (Bob Blean)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: DEA on 60 minutes
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:52:26 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1127@beagle.UUCP>, chandler@beagle.UUCP (Jim Chandler) writes:

|> Let's not slam the DEA quite so hard.  Although they are probably taking
|> the law to the extreme, what they are doing is legal.  Congress passed a
|> law that stated that all assets bought by, used for transportation of, or
|> otherwise involved in drugs or drug money can be siezed by the DEA or 
|> agents when an arrest is made.


Au contraire --let's slam them as hard as we can.  What they are doing is
inexcusable, and dangerous to our society.

This really hit a hot button of mine.  I am continually amazed at this sort
of attitude, and how wide-spread the attitude is.

The War On Drugs has succeeded in something I never would have thought possible
-- making me take seriously the idea that we should legalize drugs in this
country.

To put that in context, let me state my own personal beliefs about recreational
drugs: I am usually thought of as pretty "straight", and am completely against
recreational drugs.  In particular, I don't use them, I never have used them,
and I don't foresee ever doing so -- whether or not they become legal.

But the amazing assault on our civil liberties in the name of the "War On
Drugs" is a solution that is far, far worse than the problem it is trying to
solve.  The thing about this country that makes it so special is the degree of
freedom and liberty we have -- even compared to most other democracies.  The
more I talk to citizens of other democracies around the world, the more I get
convinced that the degree of freedom here is very unusual and very precious.

I understand your point that all the DEA is doing is what the law allows.  They
may or may not be operating within the limits of one or more bills passed by
Congress, but even if they are, I don't care.  It really doesn't matter.

* If the drug agencies' conduct is legal, it shouldn't be -- of course that
  isn't the DEA's fault.  Much of Congress should get stomped on (i.e. not
  re-elected) over that.

  For one thing, you may be corect in the phrase "when an arrest is made".
  What ever happend to innocent-until-proven-guilty?  How about a law that
  at a minimum says "upon conviction".  Not to mention one that fits the
  magnitude of the punishment to the crime committed?

  This is brought to you by the same people that cme within a couple of votes
  of making it legal to shoot down unarmed civilian airplanes without any
  pretense of legal due process.

* Even if the behavior is legal, it is so reprehensible in our society that
  there is no excuse for the behavior anyway.

	* International war crimes law makes the point that doing something
	  just because you were told to do so is no defense in certain cases.

	  I suggest that similar reasoning should apply here, because the
	  assault on the very basis of our society (e.g. individual civil
	  liberties, warrantless search, innocent until proven guilty,
	  punishment proportional to the crime, not being punished for the
	  actions of another, damaging/taking private property without
	  compensation, ...) is so grievous.

	  Anyone who participates in the war on drugs -- or at least the
	  offensive parts of it -- is in fact a serious criminal in my eyes,
	  regardless of what law Congress passed.

* Taking some those points one at a time:
	
	* Individual civil liberties -- obviously being trampled on.  Various
	  harmful things, up to and including death,  being done to people
	  without any notion of due process, court supervision, or proof of
	  guilt -- and then the government isn't responsible!

	* Warrantless search -- specifically forbidden by the constitution.
	  In the absence of a constitutional amendment, there is no way that
	  ANY law congress passes can justify this.  I challenge any politician
	  who believe the War On Drugs is on track to publicly propose such a
	  constitutional amendment.

	  Taking this to an extreme, here's an (admittedly hearsay) example.
	  The drug gestapo did a warrantless break in one night -- didn't even
	  get the right house -- saw a person moving in the dark -- and shot &
	  killed an unarmed woman who had gotten up to see what all the noise
	  was about.

	* Innocent until proven guilty -- you just don't do things like
	  confiscate or irreparably damage personal property until you have
	  proven (in a court of law) that the person is guilty.

	  That was (just one of) the problems with the proposed shoot-em-down
	  laws of a couple of years ago -- even if the people in the plane were
	  guilty, they hadn't been convicted in a court of law.  We just don't
	  execute people without trial in this country, even if the authorities
	  are sure they know the person is guilty.  Not to mention the fact
	  that they might not really be guilty after all.  ("Don't worry -- we
	  train our agents carefully.")

	  Remember a bit back when the government published its profile of a
	  plane that fit a drug-smuggling profile?  That really hit home,
	  because it very closely described what I'd like to have -- and would
	  cover a lot of personal planes that fly any backcountry.

	* Punishment proportional to the crime -- heretofore required in this
	  country.  I'm not sure whether constituionally, or just by judicial
	  tradition.  Seizing all property that might be in some way involved
	  with a drug offense is absurd.  Seizing a major amount of property
	  for a truly minor drug offense is simply too draconian.  The
	  punishment isn't reasonably related to the crime.  Have a guest come
	  into your house carrying drugs (unknown to you) and your house itself
	  is at risk?
	  
	  Unlikely, I admit, but possible these days.  Where is the justice in
	  that?  How would you feel in that situation?

	* Being punished for the actions of another -- again ridiculous.
	  Suppose you loan (or rent) you plane to someone who incidentally on
	  his trip buys a small amount of drugs.  Perhaps the rental was
	  through a typical lease-back setup, so you had no realistic way to
	  foresee that the renter would do such a thing.  YOUR plane gets
	  confiscated.
	  
	  Where is the justice in that?  How would you feel in that situation?

	* Taking property without compensation -- the government does damage
	  in either a relatively normal operation (such as a legal Customs
	  search) or an extraordinary operation (such as some of the War On
	  Drugs ones we have heard about).  They then admit you are innocent --
	  but STILL refuse to compensate you for the damage!  In other words,
	  they have evidently gotten to feel they can do anything they please,
	  and so long as it is part of the sacred War On Drugs, they don't have
	  to bear any responsibility -- either personally or organizationally.

I would agree that the drug agencies really do deal with some bad characters,
that they have a tough and dangerous job.  I wouldn't want to do it myself.
But for all of that, I feel very strongly that they are abysmal failures at
their job if they cnnot figure out how to do the job without trampling on
innocent people.

Giving drug enforcement organizations a profit incentive to violate our
liberties -- namely that in at least some cases, they  get to auction
confiscated goods and keep the profits -- is a terribly wrong incentive.

One final point:  One distressing observation I have made is how many
intelligent educated people blindly accept these actions, for the sake of the
goal, but only until you actually point out to the methods involved.  If you
can get them to THINK about the issue, then they change.  They may still suport
the goal, but they abhor the methods.

	* The good news -- we still don't believe in the end justifies the
	  means.

	* The bad news -- how many poeple aren't htinking for themselves.


-- Bob