Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:44:15 -0500 From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Subject: ASHCROFT: "I want to escalate the war on drugs." &... To: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:54:10 +0000 From: Peter Webster <vignes@monaco.mc> Subject: [] ASHCROFT: "I want to escalate the war on drugs."
[forward] ReconsiDer Tidbits
Bear in mind as you read Ashcroft's statements in this interview with Larry King that President Clinton spent more on the drug war in his first yea and a half in office than Presidents Reagan AND Bush spent in their combined terms (12 years)! Yes, he cut the staff in the Drug Czar's office, but every other aspect of prohibition funding increased substantially with record numbers of arrests, the result. Nevertheless, drugs are cheaper, purer, and more plentiful than ever before on the streets of America. I guess we're in for more of the same old thing...if something doesn't work, just keep doing it.
CNN - Larry King Live
John Ashcroft Discusses His New Job as Attorney General
Aired February 7, 2001 - 9:00 p.m. ET
[EXCERPTS ON DRUGS ONLY]
KING: War on drugs, any change?
JOHN ASHCROFT: Well, I want to escalate the war on drugs. I want to renew it. I want to refresh it, relaunch it if you will.
KING: Is it a failure?
JOHN ASHCROFT: Well, we haven't done what we need to do. When the Clinton administration came in eight years ago, they took the drug czar's office and cut the staffing there from about 140 down to about 25. And frankly, the war on drugs requires leadership, and when the president of the United States says, I maybe didn't inhale but I wish I had, and he says that on MTV, you have to understand it -- drug use began to come back up, substantially. We've had tremendous...
KING: Do you think that affects people, a president making...
JOHN ASHCROFT: Absolutely. I think when it is signaled -- of course, we had a surgeon general of the United States who said, hey, we ought to just legalize all these drugs. When you've got the president saying, I probably wish I had inhaled, and the surgeon general saying these things ought to be made legal, I think that sends the wrong signals.
KING: So you're going to be what? Tough, tougher?
JOHN ASHCROFT: We want to relaunch the war on drugs and we want to bring parents into the equation. You know, it's hard for a government to direct children (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for parents. And if we can help parents be better parents -- and the president sure has an interesting program called the Parent Drug Corps. So he wants parents to be educated and to help them make presentations to their kids, that's a good idea.
But we'll enforce the law with vigor and with intensity. We've got to stop this upswing in drug use. And the statistics are alarming.
Let me just -- I've got some of them on a piece of paper here. The number of high schools seniors who have tried drugs is at its highest level in over a decade. Compared to 1992, daily use of marijuana -- within the previous 30 days, pardon me, increased by 700 percet between '92 and '97.
KING: What do you do, General, though, about demand? I mean, you have to have demand.
JOHN ASHCROFT: Well, one of the things you do about demand is that for -- particularly, in young people -- you get their parents involved, and you try to educate children away from demand, and you try to lead children away from demand. That's why I think it's so important to have a president who will speak forcefully against drug use than -- rather than wink and give the nod in some sense like saying, "Well, I didn't inhale but I wish I had." That's just the wrong signal to send. --
### From: "Them" <hoohah@cybertrails.com> Subject: What no one asked Ashcroft Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:39:09 -0700
This is one of the reasons WAT (We At Them) opposed the nomination of John Ashcroft. This and the fact that his "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" would have permitted secret, warrantless searches. See http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/stopeds/2001/jan/edtt011601.htm Too much like the Gestapo or KGB for our tastes. Of course, if anyone can get a response from Mr. Ashcroft concerning these issues, please let us know.
------ Thursday, February 8, 2001A question no one asked Ashcroft
By Joseph Farah
---- 2001 WorldNetDaily.comNow that the confirmation hearings for Attorney General John Ashcroft are concluded and his appointment official, I have a question for the man.
I didn't raise this question earlier, not because I didn't think it was important, but because on balance, I believed, Ashcroft was a superior choice for the job. Ashcroft is a decent man. I've met him. He's sincere, down to earth. He's not power-hungry. And, generally, seems to revere the Constitution.
All that is high praise coming from me. There are very view politicians in any party who would qualify for such remarks under my rigorous standards. That's why I supported his noination and confirmation. And that's why I believed most of the questions posed to him by opponents were sophisticated camouflage to obscure the fact that they simply didn't want someone in the job who would uphold the law. They didn't want a moral and ethical man in such an important position. They preferred someone like Janet Reno.
Nevertheless, I have some very serious concerns about Ashcroft's approach to law enforcement in the recent past. And they go right to the heart of how this man views the Constituton of the United States.
As recently as 1999, Ashcroft sponsored in the U.S. Senate a bill, S486, known as the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act," which would have allocated $25 million more to the federal government's insane war on drugs. Furthermore, the bill would have expanded the unconstitutional use of asset-forfeiture techniques that often end up victimizing innocent people.
How does asset forfeiture work? Well, let's say a friend of your 18-year-old son drops an illicit pill in your automobile. You don't know about this kid's drug use. Your son doesn't know. But the police pull the car over, search the occupants, the car and find the pill. Do you know that you could lose your automobile -- permanently? It could be seized by the cops. In fact, it happens all-too-routinely. And it happens even before a trial occurs.
That's right. The way asset-forfeiture laws are written and executed, not only are those involved guilty until proven innocent, people not even involved in the crime are punished before a trial occurs!
I'm not kidding, folks. It happens in America every day. And laws like this constitute my reason for opposing all federal law enforcement of drug offenses. We just cannot trust Washington to respect any common-sense limits when it comes to the rights of Americans.
One of the reasons asset-forfeiture laws are so popular among law enforcement officials is that they actually provide incentives for cops to seize property. You see, under most such laws, it's the cops who get to keep the booty. They can use it or sell it and buy more weapons and surveillance equipment so they can go out and round up more victims and more booty.
I know many of you are shaking your heads in disbelief, right now, thinking Farah has lost his mind. "Surely this could not be happening in America today," you're saying to yourself.
Well, I've got news for you. It is happening. And this is why the drug war has to be called to an immediate halt. It is actually a war on our civil rights. There's simply no other way to describe it. It's a horror show -- a nightmare. As a reporter I have seen way too many innocent victims pay the price for overzealous police work. I've seen people lose their homes. I've seen people lose their lives -- all because we have turned cops into pirate-mercenaries.
This would have been a legitimate line of questioning for John Ashcroft if we had a political system that worked. But we don't. The people who talked about civil rights during the hearings weren't at all concerned about the innocent victims of federl storm troopers. They were concerned about privileged people who didn't get appointments as ambassadors or didn't get a high-paying government job as if they had a right to feed at the public trough. Those are not civil rights. Civil rights are the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Those are the rights that are being denied by government at every level as the drug war intensifies -- turning some of our communities into virtual police states.
But one of the reasons I supported Ashcroft is because I know he is a decent man. I know he doesn't want to victimize innocent people. He, like many of you, is probably just unaware of what's happening out there on the streets. His predecessor knew. While Janet Reno was in power, there wasn't even much point in talking about issues like asset forfeiture. The whole nation watched as she burned down a church full of men, woman and children and got away with it. It would not have been possible to discuss rationally with her problems like asset forfeiture and how the drug war was a mistake.
Maybe I'm nave, but I believe Ashcroft just might listen to a logical argument on this subject. I believe he might just look objectively at the evidence against such practices. And that's why I supported him.
Now, Mr. Ashcroft, can you tell me why you introduced that hideous bill? Do you have any second thoughts about the drug war and the government's unconstitutional seizure of private property in its conduct of that war? Now that you are in office, willyou take a look at the evidence against such practices by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies?
----Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?21650
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/