money & guns

The subject of this post is an article, originally from The Nation, on asset forfeiture and conflict of interest in the drug war.  Except, saying it that way is glibly misleading.  The article really illuminates, whether the authors know it or not, one of the primary underlying motives of the War on Drugs—namely an additional legalized channel of funds for government agencies.  The drug war is funded partially through taxes and partially with funds extorted from the populace in the name of the Drug War.  The article was written 10 years ago, but the situation remains the same or worse today.

George Mason, co-father of the Bill of Rights and Paris Hilton’s 8th great-grandfather still weary of such British practices that lead to the American Revolution, said at the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

“…the purse and the sword ought never to get into the same hands, whether legislative or executive…”

In 1984 Congress gave police control over both the sword and the purse when they set up the rules of civil forfeiture used today.  The rules give police the power to seize assets (money, cars, homes, boats, whatever) and keep them for their own benefit—it gives police the power to rob citizens at gunpoint in their own homes, in their cars, or on the street whether or not they are ever even accused of committing a crime, and then use the money for their own purposes.  This is not hyperbole or misrepresentation.

In 2005, the DEA seized [DEA.gov] $1.9billion in “drug proceeds”.  The operating budget [DEA.gov] (money given to the DEA by taxpayers) of the DEA in the same year was $2.1billion.  Let me state that a different way: the DEA stole half of it’s total funding for 2005.  In addition, through the law’s “equitable sharing” provisions,

“Some small-town police forces have enhanced their annual budgets by a factor of five or more through such drug-enforcement activities.”

Police agencies are definitely aware of what a cash cow the War on Drugs has become for them:

“At the Justice Department, a steady stream of memos exhort its attorneys to redirect their efforts toward “forfeiture production” so as to avoid budget shortfalls. One warns that “funding of initiatives important to your components will be in jeopardy if we fail to reach the projected level of forfeiture deposits.” Several urge increasing forfeitures “between now and the end of the fiscal year.” The department’s task force study bluntly suggests that multi-jurisdictional drug task forces select their targets in part according to the funding they can produce.”

Even if you operate under the presumption that it’s OK for the police to take the property in the first place, there is no way to justify allowing the police to fund themselves with it rather than putting it in direct control of the city/state/country to which they are servants of.

Some more select quotes from the article:

“In Louisiana, police illegally stopped and searched massive numbers of drivers, seizing money that was then diverted to police department ski trips.”

“Despite several unsuccessful efforts to corroborate the informant’s claim, and despite advice that Scott posed little threat of violence, the L.A. Sheriffs Department dispatched a multi-jurisdictional team to conduct a military-style raid. On October 2, 1992, at 8:30 A.M., thirty officers descended upon the Scott ranch with high-powered weapons, flak jackets, dogs, a battering ram and what purported to be a lawful search warrant. After knocking and announcing their presence, they kicked in the door and rushed through the house. There they saw Scott, armed with a gun in response to his wife’s screams. With Scott’s wife watching in horror, agents fired two bullets into Scott’s chest and killed him.
…
The investigation found that as they invaded the property, the officers—with two asset forfeiture specialists in tow–were armed with a property appraisal of Scott’s ranch, a parcel map of the ranch marked with the sale price of a nearby property and instructions to seize the ranch if at least fourteen marijuana plants
were found.”

Recently, Finland sentenced their largest drug ring ever.  As part of the sentence €7million were extracted from the group.  I’d like to know how this relatively straight-laced nation deals with such funds.

Expect to hear much more from me on the subject of the Drug War and the ways it’s used as a cover for the institutionalization of otherwise ethically unjustifiable acts.