hello

 

like to pose the question on how many people out there think goverment agencies are working with drug cartels to help combat the war on terroism.

thought: easiest way to smuggle a weapon, or chemical into an industrialised nation would be through the assistance of people who already have highly developed networks to do so. such as drug runners. whom import millions of tons of product into nations world wide.

countries such as iran and afganistan that produce large amounts of opium would be well aquainted with such organizations.

to help prevent terrorists from making use of such organizations, how many out there think that goverments that normally combat these drug runners, might be working with them to prevent their being used for such operations.

if your choice is allow them to bring in their product in exchange for imformations and refusal to help terrorists. or risk their aiding the enemy that could resault in the deaths of tens of thousands. would those people addicted to the drug product be concidered an acceptable loss for the added security?

 

strange thoughts

 

mr d

yup. quid pro quo. If local law enforcement does it; then so are our boys within the IC. At the local LE level, sometimes letting some of the little fish survive is a the best way to getting some of the bigger fish as well as whats going on elsewhere.

 

Its a little different at the IC level, especially when dealing with foreign entities whose economy/political/law enforcement system is driven by illegal drug trade. Sometimes you gotta play with the bad boys to get what you want.

This doesn't seem far fetched at all.

 

 

The Islamic terrorist are starting to realize that the best kind of Jihad isn't a suicide bomber, but a slow parasitic criminal war.

 

Instead of murdering us directly, the Jihadist are getting into criminal operations which are both safer, and extremely lucrative. It's hitting two birds with one stone for them. They get rich, and they screw westerners.

 

However, because they are getting into criminal operations, they are in direct competition with the criminals who own U.S turf. So they are essentially costing U.S druglords/criminals cash.

 

So why wouldn't the government and the local criminals be working together? It's better to be screwed by family than by a neighbor.

yeah, it certainly re-softens that spot in my heart reserved for mobsters, first created by hollywood's vision of soft-hearted criminals and the Godfather movies.

Maybe to some extent I could see some benefits here, but you have to be careful with stuff like this. Iran-Contra comes to mind.

in other words, Pangloss, if our beloved CIA wants to make deals with criminals, they should never tell the public about it.

That's not the kind of caution I was thinking of, no. The thing you have to watch out for is that in the process of "working with" the drug cartel you don't inadvertently give them a pass for things they should be held accountable for. You also have to watch that you don't increase their power and capabilities so as to make enforcement impossible in the future.

 

There's something to be said for allies of convenience -- nobody wants the ship to sink while we're busy fighting over who gets to steer. But once the holes are patched and the water is bailed out, we really ought to deal with the rusty rails and get that new paint job we've been talking about.

That's not the kind of caution I was thinking of, no. The thing you have to watch out for is that in the process of "working with" the drug cartel you don't inadvertently give them a pass for things they should be held accountable for. You also have to watch that you don't increase their power and capabilities so as to make enforcement impossible in the future.

 

But that's the problem, isn't it. The US decided to ally with the Soviet Union during WWII (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). But, doing so allowed the Soviets become a world power in the next decade.

 

We'd like to work with the existing cartels, but that would give them more power, which would make them more difficult to squash in the future.

Yes, that is the problem. Bear in mind that even investigative and prosecutorial focus is a form of "help", and we do this every time we decide to have a "War on N", where N = whatever people are most annoyed about today. For example, the "War on Terror" had a direct "cost" in the Justice Department -- the setting-aside of the "War on Pornography", which was all set to launch in early September of 2001.

 

We also work with them/help them every time we cut a deal with a drug dealer for information about his supplier, etc. That certainly helps the drug dealer who was caught.

 

So I don't think we can express something like this in absolute terms. It's more a question of what degree we want to work with these kinds of people, and being careful about what kinds of direct help we give them and paying attention to what it's going to cost us in the long run.

 

This is the kind of thing, by the way, that points out the need for non-partisanship in politics. The very last thing you want getting in the way when decisions like these are being made is whether one party or the other is in power, making the other party look bad, and so forth. When Tom DeLay stamps his feet and talks about the benefits of partisanship in Washington, he's got a point, but he's forgetting about stuff like this.