Spy Satellite Photos Used To Fight Drug Smugglers 381
Hugh Pickens writes "The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, part of the Department of Defense, is using satellites to track the activities of drug cartels operating along the US-Mexican border. The agency is supplying photos to pinpoint Mexican narcotics operations and anticipate smuggling attempts into the United States. During a conference on border security held in Phoenix last week, Scott Zikmanis said his agency already has supplied some data to the El Paso Intelligence Center, a federal clearinghouse for investigating drug cartels. Any border-security surveillance will be done over Mexico, not the US says Zikmanis because a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act, strictly limits US military operations on American soil unless such operations are authorized by Congress. Civil rights attorneys question the use of satellite technology in law enforcement. 'We are in the midst of a really dangerous time in terms of technology,' said Chris Calabrese, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'The idea that such a powerful tool might be turned on US citizens is really troubling.'"
Military required? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is drug smuggling really such a big problem to require the use of military resources? It seems like something like this falls much more into the realm of law enforcement than something the military should get involved in.
I know that it is sometimes called the war on drugs, but is it really so bad that it deserves to be called a war?
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Funny)
If that's the case, why doesn't the US just annex MX? I mean, we've already got about half the people here, why shouldn't we get the real estate too? Nice beaches, etc....
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Funny)
Sexist bastard!
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea! Then the drug smugglers would be US citizens, able to make use of their Second Amendment rights.
Well, of course, they already do their shopping in the US anyway, but it would be slightly cheaper crossing the border, no need to bribe customs officers.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's (probably) not true. It's much easier to buy arms by the truck load on the black market from China, Russia, or Venezuela than it is to buy a few at a time in the US and sneak them back over the border.
Re:Military required? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because then we'll need a new "threat to the American way" to rile up the idiots so they can be politically manipulated -- illegal Mexican immigrants won't be usable for that anymore.
Who would we blame for taking our jobs? Who would we blame for the drug trade? Who would we pay terrible wages to labor in our fields and in our kitchens -- they'd need to be paid a decent wage if we annexed Mexico!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
But Mexico has/had soldiers on their southern border to prevent people from coming in.
Plus they have draconian immigration laws relative to the USA.
Their hypocrisy vis a vis their complaints about crackdowns on illegal immigration against their citizens is ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would we blame for taking our jobs?
Make it expensive to hire illegals and they'll stop coming. Then people will take jobs at a higher wage, things will get a bit pricier, and there's nothing to blame.
Who would we blame for the drug trade?
Remove the drug trade and there's noone to blame.
Who would we pay terrible wages to labor in our fields and in our kitchens -- they'd need to be paid a decent wage if we annexed Mexico!
Or, if we punish employers enough to remove the incentive, we'll pay better wages, and the CEOs will have to deal with just the one huge mansion.
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Funny)
How are you going to make it expensive to do something illegal? Are you going to pass a law?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Employers like having a supply of illegal labor that they can, in effect, abuse. Until there is enough of a penalty for hiring illegals that it makes having easily exploitable labor not worth it, people will continue to hire illegals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The "threat"(s) would be the failed culture, society, government (even if we annexed it we'd have to allow democracy which would return the same people to office), and economy of Mexico.
While it is fashionable to point out what is wrong with the US, it's worth noting that we have vastly more immigration than emigration. If we add annexation of failed states to that, the ideal of a welfare state for Americans becomes even less practical.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a better idea. What if we gave some of the Dem states to Canada and Mexico??
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people are expressing concerns about Mexico's stability in the face of drug-cartel related violence.
Then legalize the drugs. Then use the profits from the government-sold drugs to start up rehab centers. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah right.
I agree with you in principle, but this description of how it would play out borders on the hilarious.
I mean, what do you do with the hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in prison on drug charges? Do you just let them out, or do you go further than that? What do you do about the thousands of socially marginal people who just lost their jobs (yes, if you are willing to risk prison to distribute drugs, you are likely socially marginal; sorry.)? And so on.
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yeah. Hell, it's already happening as budget shortfalls are making people realize that spending millions on keeping potheads locked up might not be the best way to spend cash.
or do you go further than that?
What, like give 'em a cookie or something?
What do you do about the thousands of socially marginal people who just lost their jobs (yes, if you are willing to risk prison to distribute drugs, you are likely socially marginal; sorry.)?
And...you lost me. Try this experiment: type in socially marginal jobs in Google, and be just fucking amazed at all the hits you'll get.
And so on.
So on what? you said in your first sentence that the implications of what GP said border on the hilarious, but the rest of your post...devolved somewhat. Care to actually explain yourself?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(I do think that there are some people who might feel like maybe the time they spent in prison was a bit unjust when they get out because the law was changed because it was decided that putting people in prison for the things they did was unjust; they might not be entirely satisfied with just getting out)
And? No really, and?
You realize almost no one is in prison for life without parole due to drugs... they're going to get out eventually, and regardless of whether the law has changed, they are probably going
illegal drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, yes, pot heads shouldn't be in jail. But... Get to drugs much harder than that and they should be. Harder, more addictive, drugs add to crime, and not just drug crimes. Hard drug users are a deeper social problem than the mere moral crime of marijuana use.
Where is the evidence from peer reviewed scientific studies that shows drugs cause deep social problems? Oh and don't forget to include alcohol, I bet it causes a lot of problems.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually some drugs have been shown to cause problems, I'm thinking of meth, where long time abusers can even be worse then alcoholics.
Best thing with these people (including the hardcore alcoholics) would be to give them cheap heroin. Cheap heroin is pretty harmless, people using can take 1/2 to 3/4 of a dose in the morning, and be productive members of society and get wasted in the evening.
Even a heroin user who uses way to much is pretty harmless as long as he can get more.
Yeah right (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with you in principle, but this description of how it would play out borders on the hilarious.
I mean, what do you do with the hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in prison on drug charges?
Set them free. More people are in prison in the US, and the US has the highest highest prison population in the world [wikipedia.org], because of drugs than any other reason. And many of them are non violent.
Right now people in prison now for drug offenses are a drain on taxpayers when they could be taxpayers themselves.
Do you just let them out, or do you go further than that?
You apologize for falsely imprisoning them.
What do you do about the thousands of socially marginal people who just lost their jobs (yes, if you are willing to risk prison to distribute drugs, you are likely socially marginal; sorry.)? And so on.
Citation NEEDED!!! I dare you to find science studies that reach that conclusion.
I don't any now but I knew many people who bought, sold, and used illegal drugs and not one was worse than alcoholics I also knew. Those addicted to a legal drug are worse than those who use illegal drugs.
Falcon
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
They were not, by and large, falsely imprisoned. They were found guilty and sentenced according to the law. I'm sure there are a few that are in there on questionable evidence, but the overwhelming majority of them were caught, tried, and sentenced as the system is supposed to work.
That you do not agree with the law does not make it false imprisonment. I believe that a good portion of them should be let out, and that certain uses should be decriminalized (if not outright legalized), but that's a far cry from accusations of false imprisonment.
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Informative)
If only there was some country that had already experimented with this... Oh wait. There is.
In 2001 Portugal did just this. They decriminalized everything. [opioids.com] and 7 years later it's working better than imagined [salon.com].
Everyone caught using is suggested to go to a class (but it's not required.). Sure they're a bit smaller than the US, but there's no reason it couldn't work here.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal drugs bring higher profit with no responsibility whatsoever.
If the currently legal drugs like alcohol, coffee and tobacco become illegal, their prices will skyrocket, and the government won't have to put effort into quality control, regulation etc. Everyone who uses them will be a criminal and easy to jail when they become inconvenient for any reason.
At the same time many people would be able to make a killing on the black market. Some of these people may or may not be in collusion with the governme
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just doing that will cut the profit...and take a lot of the crime out of it.
Start with pot...I mean, if people can grow it themselves, why buy from Juan the MX drug thug?
Re:Military required? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, most people won't grow it them selves, they will probably buy in from a legal distribute, like cigarettes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, most people won't grow it them selves, they will probably buy in from a legal distribute, like cigarettes.
Yeah, and to me the biggest downside of legalization would be that the cigarette companies would start selling mj cigarettes that are significantly cut with tobacco. To them, THC's lack of chemically addictive properties would be a downside, and they'd want to continue to enjoy the benefits of an addicted customer base.
It's so easy to grow (in the right climate) I can see many hippies doing i
Re:Military required? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because many industries, including agricultural today, have a natural tendency towards consolidation? Because I fear that there will be licensing required to grow or sell and this will only help encourage the creation of a few mega-corps around it? Because the big tobacco companies would be the ones best poised to take advantage of legalization from the outset? Because that's what's happened with tobacco in the first place?
Try buying a cigarette that isn't loaded with additives that just make the damn things even less healthy. Your choices are American Spirits and... yeah, hope they have American Spirits at the convenience store. It's hard just getting a cigarette that's pure tobacco, so I just don't see many of the big players not cutting joints with at least some tobacco, and using whatever financial muscle is necessary to push the ones who won't play lets-keep-our-customers-addicted ball.
Now I don't think this will happen, it's just my biggest worry over legalization. I worry that the way in which it will be legalized, combined with economic forces, will result in problems. As long as both possession and cultivation are made completely legal, then it probably won't be a big deal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So start a company that doesn't do that. Jeez, you make it sound like the world is static. Not everybody drinks budweiser.
Yeah, so I'll just run down to the store and buy some non-pasteurized beer...
Oh wait.
My fear is that in the course of legalizing it, in order to get to the next step which is taxing it, the government will have to keep control over who is allowed to grow and sell it. Much like with tobacco and alcohol today. Which is why there is, as far as I know, one cigarette brand that doesn't use
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't have a problem with what recreational drugs people partake of in the privacy of their own homes, operating a car, boat, train, or plane while under the influence should result in the permanent loss of one's license to operate said vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, no one should operate a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs.
Why should opium not be legal for recreational use?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Next, legalize opium... I mean, if people can grow it themselves, why buy from Arif the Taliban drug thug?
For suggested reading I would recommend The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit drugs http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/cu/cumenu.htm [druglibrary.org] . It's free online. It details how prohibition got us from relatively harmless opium to the dangerous drugs such as heroin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alcohol is legal. Operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not legal. Why would you ever assume that just because drugs became legal that operating a vehicle under their influence would suddenly be OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Next, legalize opium... I mean, if people can grow it themselves, why buy from Arif the Taliban drug thug?
Exactly!
While I don't have a problem with what recreational drugs people partake of in the privacy of their own homes, operating a car, boat, train, or plane while under the influence should result in the permanent loss of one's license to operate said vehicle.
Driving under the influence is driving under the influence, whether it's alcohol or another drug. Actually marijuana, pot, may help prevent some
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we need to maintain a wall of separation between the military and law enforcement. Even if it's expensive to do so.
I wouldn't welcome any more steps towards the US becoming a fascist state.
Re: (Score:2)
For me it really depends on which satillite your using. If it is a Sigint/comint then yes I have a problem with it. If it is a photoint then no I really don't
They can only see what you could see from a plane anyway. Train some civilian interpreters and there is your separation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the satellites are over the US, why not use them to check for cars parked in front of fire hydrants? Remodeling being done without required permits? Littering? Dog owners not picking up their droppings? Violations of housing development CC&Rs? Unlawful gatherings without permits? Expired parking meters? Jaywalking? Zoning ordinance violations?
Re: (Score:2)
Jaywalking is a crime. Speeding is a crime. Maybe we should mandate satellite-friendly car tagging and skull tatoos so that everyone will be identifiable from space.
That way we can start ticketing all speeding and jaywalking criminals.
We can crime-fight and collect the money to keep the crime-fighting effort at the same time.
And, when we need more money, we can make more things illegal. Like not reporting a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
That way we can start ticketing all speeding and jaywalking criminals.
I've always said the best thing that could ever happen to traffic is that every speeder gets ticketed. It'll suck for exactly 1 day, and then the unprecedentedly large riots would ensure that the speed limit gets raised to a reasonable number. And maybe they'd have to stop putting a "speed limit 45 next 10 miles, minimum fine $375" sign five miles back from every construction site that is a solitary orange cone six feet from the road ne
Re: (Score:2)
Border control is a legitimate military function, and the data can be shared between agencies.
Mexico is an unconventional threat, its people forced out of the country by the failure of their culture, society, and government. Monitoring as much of the border areas as practical is common sense.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I will be the fear monger here.
Read this shit [cnn.com]
It's scary as hell! Maybe the US needs the technology to counter people like this--the drug cartel is running havoc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The guy also had a day job. If border crime is as ruthless as the media says it is (and I doubt that because I've lived on the border for 18 years of my life), then a man with a family would be wise to stay out of the traficantes' business.
[tinfoil ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Military required? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pretty out of control down in Mexico. The cartels outgun the law enforcement agencies and they have paramilitary training. It isn't unheard of for drug gang enforcers to use bodyarmor, automatic weapons and hand grenades.
I'm not as worried about the spy satellites as I am about the government using Mexico's problems as justification to limit our 2nd amendment rights. The handwriting is on the wall with this one. There are numerous stories in the news about how the guns in Mexico are coming from the United States. I can see what is going on in Mexico being used as yet another justification for a NAU style homogeonization of laws (read: a further erosion of the Constitution by entering into treaties with foreign countries).
Re:Military required? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you draw the line between military and law enforcement? Its outside of our borders, but dealing with a non-state organization who have made attacks on our territory and citizens... in many ways similar to hunting down bin Laden and al-Qaeda (neglecting the misadventures that followed).
Personally, I'm not seeing what the big deal is, its only being used outside of the US borders and its being used for national security, exactly what they're supposed to be used for.
Protecting the borders (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't protecting the borders exactly what the military are supposed to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Not protecting the borders in THAT sense.
Protecting the borders in the invasion sense, not the smuggling sense. The few countries that watch their border with soldiers are afraid of an enemy invasion(like North Korea and probably hotbeds like India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq etc.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Over ten million people have illegally entered this country, destroyed our economy, and likely influenced our elections.
I call that an invasion.
States have every right and duty to demand border enforcement from the federation.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that it is sometimes called the war on drugs, but is it really so bad that it deserves to be called a war?
Calling it a war on drugs is nothing more than propaganda. If government really wanted to stop drug smuggling and gang, organized crime, violence they'd legalize drugs. Treat them just as one of the most dangerous drugs, alcohol, is treated. Legalize and tax them. If someone is under the influence when they commit a crime charge them for that crime. If they get pulled over while driving char
Re: (Score:2)
The Romans probably had the right idea with Hadrian's wall.
Towers every 555 yards and small fortresses every 5000 feet.
Put in an actual wall with a ditch and a few soldiers in every tower with heavier equipment in the fortresses.
With modern sensors and each tower supporting the adjacent towers for rapid response (either in manpower or firepower) there wouldn't be much making it across the border.
Re: (Score:2)
At almost 2000 miles long that doesn't sound like such a good idea to me, although with modern weaponry we could space out the small fortresses much further, like every 30 miles or such.
Even at that point you're still looking at spending a hell of a lot of money to accomplish something nobody really wants to accomplish.
Really, electronic fencing with video based surveillance is all you really need with camps every few miles or so. If it detects enough movement or heat signatures then it sets off alarms an
what is needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, electronic fencing with video based surveillance is all you really need with camps every few miles or so.
No, what's really needed is to get rid of stupid, liberty denying, racist laws.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
License, regulate, tax. (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough said.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding. More people have been killed in 2008 due to drug violence in Mexico than US casualties in Iraq for the same year!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is arguable that some drugs might sneak up on you, notably the socially acceptable ones; but you don't go from boy scout to raving meth head without some outside motive.
Re:License, regulate, tax. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you an expert on addiction? On the physiological and psychological pathways to addiction?
No? Didn't think so.
Plenty of people have gone from boy scout to raving meth head. Addiction to meth, like addiction to alcohol, often results in comorbidity with other psychological diseases (like chronic depression, different types of schizophrenia, etc). It's a bit of chicken-or-egg problem, but modern research suggests that not only can meth and/or alcohol addiction exacerbate existing pysch disorders, but they can cause disorders in people with no prior history of mental disease.
Anything that screws with your neurotransmitters can screw with your mental health.
Re:License, regulate, tax. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying anybody is immune to meth addiction, or addiction generally. Once you hit the neurochemistry, anything is possible. I am suggesting that people don't just pick up meth the way they just pick up scrapbooking or model airplanes. The fact that meth is seriously bad news, even by drug standards, is well known. I'm saying that, without some impetus, people don't just pick up things with reputations like that.
Different societies, and different subsections of society, have different rates of drug use, drug abuse, and adverse drug outcomes. They also use different drugs in different proportions. That is what I'm talking about. As you say, meth can get to pretty much anybody once they start using it. However, some circumstances are more likely than others to induce them to do that. That was the point of my question.
What is it about the economic, social, political, arrangement of the area that causes people to pick meth up in greater numbers?
I'm sorry if I expressed myself poorly. I neither think nor intended to imply that resistance to drugs one has been exposed to differs substantially between people(though, with some drugs, there does seem to be a genetic factor). I do think that there are significant differences between social contexts in how many people are induced to be exposed to drugs.
And even making inroads into big cities (Score:2, Interesting)
OMG like meth could someday come to Philly?
The collective amnesia that goes on with the drug war is so sad.
Decades ago, before pseudo was the precursor and little old ladies and everyone else had to sign books to get allergy medicine, the meth precusor was p2p. There was a decades old movie where Harrison Ford lived amongst them Amish because of police conspiracy involving p2p.
I keep hearing how the meth menace will spread from the mid west to the east coast. I just laugh because the only thing that has cha
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, this is insightful and informative.
Re: (Score:2)
meth is so clearly destroying the heartland of America (and even making inroads into big cities) that legalization and taxation is not an option
You're making the assumption that if meth were legal and regulated that it would continue to destroy people. I'm not convinced that's the case.
You're also making the assumption that it's better to restrict people's freedom and have a quasi-police state for everyone than to let a few people who chose to ruin their own lives continue to do so quietly at home. I'd much have more freedom for all, even if that means the few people who can't handle that freedom destroy their own lives. As you've observed, they're
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:License, regulate, tax. (Score:4, Insightful)
Alcohol destroys lives too. We tried prohibition, and found that it only made things worse. Given that anyone who wants meth can get it anyway, why not legitimize the trade, make a profit off of it, and treat those with a problem medically instead of criminally?
Re:pcp? meth? (Score:4, Informative)
PCP is a disassociative and is not habit forming. The only folks who claim it is claim MJ is addictive.
That you cannot use some drugs and walk away is again bullshit. No one gets addicted in one use, that takes time and effort. You have been believing to much propaganda.
If you do not have the freedom to decide what chemicals you can consume you are not very free.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg [wikipedia.org]
moron:
alcohol isn't nearly addictive as meth
its a simple pharmacological fact
so there's a legal difference
does that radical concept have any meaning to you?
Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How about they just secure (physically) the border??? Just stop them from coming across with drugs? Stop all illegal migration north of the border?!?!
Re: (Score:2)
How about you bother to attempt to understand the scope of what you are saying they should do?
Re: (Score:2)
Few people truly comprehend this problem as the ramifications of the possible solutions.
If you make it difficult for people to cross the border then all kinds of commerce is also hurt so it costs you more than just materials to build a wall but also lots of lost revenue.
Think about how many people you probably know that avoid flying because they hate airports and the security bullshit you have to put up with?
From my own corporate experience, you make security so unfriendly and people will either circumve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you starting and finishing? If you're coming from, say, Flagstaff, it's doable, in three days. Will you get tons of "quality time"? Maybe not. But you can certainly get a little more than the "Clark Griswold head bob" scenic view.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The LA Times has been on it much longer than CNN and Fox have.
http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/its-a-war [latimes.com]
So they'll get someone else to do it (Score:3, Interesting)
So, does anyone think the US is interested in, say, chinese or russian sattelite images of the US for this purpose?
Anyway, I find it hard to believe that law enforcement is not following the letter of the law and saying "It's not on soil! It's in SPACE!"
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But why bother with chinese or russian images, when they can just swap intel with the UK or other close allies?
Well, I'm sure that competent lawyers could convince a judge that the spirit of the law would forbid this as well, even *if* the letter of th
query: (Score:3, Funny)
Did we check to see that US military flights over another sovereign nation would be OK with them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Once you get above the magic 100 km marker, its all international space.
Originally, when Sputnik flew over what might have been considered US airspace, the Eisenhower administration intelligently agreed that it was legal and valid... otherwise you couldn't have any kind of orbit that wasn't geostationary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Originally, when Sputnik flew over what might have been considered US airspace, the Eisenhower administration intelligently agreed that it was legal and valid... otherwise you couldn't have any kind of orbit that wasn't geostationary.
Ok, I'll bite... if it's international space, then why worry about posse comitatus in this case?
Re: (Score:2)
Because we don't want to have our own military/intelligence services spying on US citizens on US soil?
The satellites may very well be over the US when they're observing the border, the key is that the product is strictly restricted to images of areas outside of our borders unless strict court proceedings are followed... and continued development of commercial offerings make that less important.
The real problem is that its a fuzzy area between law enforcement and national security. I think the strict adhere
Spy Satellite Photos Used To Fight Drug Smugglers (Score:2)
Doesn't sound like a posse comitatus problem to me (Score:2)
While the spy satellites are indeed owned by the military, no military troops are being deployed to meet up with the smugglers. While I haven't exactly read the act lately, I thought it just prohibited the active deployment of troops... I was not under the impression it prohibited cooperation between the military and DoJ.
The GPS system is owned by the military too, but nobody argues that the use of GPS isn't permissible because merely because it's owned by the DoD.
SirWired
Re: (Score:2)
While the spy satellites are indeed owned by the military, no military troops are being deployed to meet up with the smugglers. While I haven't exactly read the act lately, I thought it just prohibited the active deployment of troops... I was not under the impression it prohibited cooperation between the military and DoJ.
The posse comitatus act prohibits military cooperation with law enforcement fairly broadly, but additional laws passed in 1981 give the effect you note when dealing with drug cases--the mil
Damn (Score:3, Funny)
I knew we shouldn't have run the whole drug-smuggling operation on the roof.
At least all of our communications were done inside, on the phone. Those should be safe.
Satellite is nothing (Score:2)
Wait until Argus hits the skies.
Why won't anyone think of the children!!!! (Score:2)
Afghanistan drug activity (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting that while US is trying to do something about Mexican drug smuggling (probably because it borders with US), they turn the blind eye (or even worse) to the Afghanistan drug production, which floods the Europe with locally-produced opium. It is estimated that Afghanistan is accountable for more than 90% of world's opium production, and most of it goes to the Europe.
It is also worth to note that before the US invasion of Afghanistan, Taliban was able to contain the problem - the drug production declined some 94% during its reign.
But ever since the fall of Taliban regime, opium production has continued to rise each year at an alarming rate:
"The increase in opium production in Afghanistan was from 185 metric tons in 2001 to 6,100 metric tons in 2006." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/drugs-market.htm [globalsecurity.org]
One has to wonder about the US involvement in this:
"Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?" http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3294 [globalresearch.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
How many "wonderful lefties" currently do not pay tax on cigarettes? Very few.
As for your snide comment about "None would ever break the law"... I'll ignore that ignorant, blanket statement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Drug smugglers" aren't a problem exclusive to brown people outside the border(if they were, your position would be merely jingoistic). They are also a problem inside, and among various other groups(not much of a market among people a few inches from the border).
"As much military intervention as it takes" will mean domestic surveillance, domestic military actions, search and seizure, all kinds of forced entry, and so forth against American citizens. That is an outrageously authori
Don't Blunt our Spear!! (Score:2)
There are limits to power that must be respected. Our country gets into trouble when projects its power in a blundering way.
Keep the military miles and miles and miles away from drugs. Drug money will corrupt the poorly paid officers and NCOs. It is absolutely stupid to put our soldiers in a position where they can be bribed.
Iraq and Afghanistan are stupid because the USA's not getting anything out of either stupid war.
We are excellent at shock and awe. We can destroy any enemy FAST. Bush and Obama don
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)