From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: DEA on 60 minutes
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:41:19 GMT

In article <1127@beagle.UUCP> chandler@beagle.UUCP (Jim Chandler) writes:
>Let's not slam the DEA quite so hard.  

No, let's slam them as hard as we can.  They're a secret police force that
is undermining the legal and moral fabric of this country.  It is administered
by individuals who explicitly form policy to undermine the civil liberties
of the people it targets.  It is staffed by individuals who go along with 
those policies.  There are no "innocents" in the DEA.


>Although they are probably taking
>the law to the extreme, what they are doing is legal.  

Seems I recall the Gestapo's activities were quite legal as well.  Or was
it merely that the legal system rubber-stamped their *illegalities*?


>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.

Laws are one thing; however, this country works on the premise of *inter-
preted* law, common law.  Statute gets tested.  It goes to a *judge*.  The 
judge makes a *ruling* based on the particular case before him.  That *ru-
ling* gets adopted into the corpus of law, and is intended to influence the 
decisions of judges confronted with similar cases down the road.  

Law isn't simply a matter of Congress passing statutes, judges interpreting 
them verbatim, everything cut and dried--real life is much more complicated 
than that. 

Who are these judges?  They might be neo-Nazi Reagan political appointees;
they might be Johnson-era Great Society types; they might be publicly elected, 
further down the ladder.  Judges often ARE very political, reflecting the 
interests and wishes of their "installing" benefactor.


Among other things the DEA's been doing: 

1. It (with the cooperation of Customs) has introduced the concept of 
*targeting* international travellers, based upon their travel profiles (e.g., 
go to Columbia 5 times a year, expect to be strip-searched and have things 
shoved up your ass next time you arrive at JFK).  They don't need to display 
any *evidence* that you are explicitly suspected of any crime: only that your 
travel/lifestyle profile matches those of smugglers or other "undesirables."  
And the Supreme Court has upheld this!

2. It has introduced the concept of using the RICO statutes to confiscate 
*all* assets from a suspect.  I.e.: suspect thus doesn't have access to his 
money, so he can't hire the best legal assistance, and is dependent upon the 
public defender to get him out of it.  Note that, even though this was not 
*Congress'* intent, and even though this violates every precept of due 
process, the DEA *explicitly* campaigned for this capability, *precisely* 
because big-timers were able to *legally* maneuver out of hot situations 
because they had access to (often considerable) personal funds.  What this 
means, of course, is that DEA is issuing an a priori judgement of guilt.  
And the Supreme Court has upheld this.

3.  It (along with FBI) has introduced the concept of snatches: i.e., abducting
US or foreign nationals from other countries, with a *US* arrest warrant,
even though such activities explicitly violate the laws of the country such
operations are being conducted in.  And, you guessed it, the Supreme Court
has upheld this.


And then we have all the other fun stuff, other fall-out from the War on
Drugs: random search and seizure, random drug testing, etc.  All of which
has marginal short-term value, at best, but ALL of which is very danger-
ous precedent for later suppressive activity, especially of a political
nature.


Think about it: was the drug problem anywhere NEAR as bad as it is now,
BEFORE the "war on drugs" started?  I think not.  One thing that these 
pseudo-fascists don't seem to want to realize is that there's always going
to be some degree of "deviant" behavior in a democracy.  The more you 
suppress such behavior, the worse, and widespread, it'll get.


The bottom lines are:

1.  Congress is passing politically expedient, poorly thought-out laws to
appease the blood-lust of an increasingly frustrated electorate.  These
are providing the opportunity for agencies to push the limits of due process.

Solution: recall the bastards that are doing this.

2.  Organizations like DEA have a mandate, do not *care* about Constitutional
limitations, and will push as far as they possibly can, to get the job done.

Solutions: Disband the DEA, and force Congress to pass laws restricting such 
"envelope-pushing."


Regardless of whether one fancies one'self a "law and order" type, the basic
notions of justice REQUIRE that all suspects be considered INNOCENT until
PROVEN guilty.  Before you support measures like those the DEA is adopting
(and which WILL trickle down to your local police force), just ask yourself
how YOU, innocent, but injustly accused, would feel if you were on the
receiving end, and how LIKELY it would be that you'd be able to get out of
it--even if you WERE innocent.  And ask yourself: even if you were *guilty*,
are the consequences proportional to the crime?  (e.g., the total DESTRUCTION
of a career following a positive urinalysis?)


>I believe that the DEA and other agencys sell these airplane, boats, cars,
>jewelry and other property at auction.  They must be some great deals to be
>had in Florida when they have one of these.

IF I recall correctly, DEA also set the precedent that these auctions can
be used as a form of back-door financing for their operations.  Thus, not
only do you have search and seizure without due process, it's an indirect
form of taxation.  

Have a budget shortfall this year?  Target and appropriate the assets of just 
about any rich guy in Miami with beige skin and a Spanish accent.





---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd