1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

USA - DEA: drugs and terrorism

Discussion in 'Drug Policy Reform & Narco Politics' started by Guest, Jan 20, 2003.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Reputation Points:
    Check this out:
    <H1 align=center>Drug Intelligence Brief</H1>
    <H4 align=center>SEPTEMBER 2002</H4>
    Prior to September 11, 2001, drug trafficking and terrorist activities were usually addressed by the law enforcement community as separate issues. In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, the public now perceives these two criminal activities as intertwined. For the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), investigating the link between drugs and terrorism has taken on renewed importance.
    Throughout history, various aspects of the criminal world have been linked together, such as drug traffickers with connections to illegal gambling, prostitution, and arms dealing. Perhaps the most recognizable illustration of this linkage is the expansion of the Italian Mafia in the United States during the early 20th century. The links between various aspects of the criminal world are evident because those who use illicit activities to further or fund their lifestyle, cause, or well-being often interact with others involved in various illicit activities. For example, organizations that launder money for drug traffickers also launder money for arms traffickers, terrorists, etc. The link between drugs and terrorism is not a new phenomenon.
    Globalization has made the world a smaller place, changing the face of both legitimate and illegitimate enterprise. Criminals, by exploiting advances in technology, finance, communications, and transportation in pursuit of their illegal endeavors, have become criminal entrepreneurs. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this “entrepreneurial” style of crime is the intricate manner in which drugs and terrorism may be intermingled. Since September 11th , the public’s image of terrorism is magnified. Not only is the proliferation of illegal drugs preceived as a danger, but also the proceeds from drugs are among the sources for funding for other criminal activities, including terrorism.
    The nexus between drugs and violence is not new; in fact, it is as old as drug abuse itself. The mind-altering strength of drugs has always had the power to create violence, but there is another kind of connection between drugs and violence—the use of drug trafficking to fund the violence perpetrated by terrorist groups.<SUP>1</SUP>
    Within the context of current world events, narco-terrorism is difficult to define. Historically, DEA has defined narco-terrorism in terms of Pablo Escobar, the classic cocaine trafficker who used terrorist tactics against noncombatants to further his political agenda and to protect his drug trade. Today, however, governments find themselves faced with classic terrorist groups that participate in, or otherwise receive funds from, drug trafficking to further their agenda. In this respect, are narco-terrorists actual drug traffickers who use terrorism against civilians to advance their agenda? Or are narco-terrorists first and foremost terrorists who happen to use drug money to further their cause? Perhaps, the correct answer is that narco-terrorism may apply in both situations.
    DEA defines a narco-terrorist organization as “an organized group that is complicit in the activities of drug trafficking in order to further, or fund, premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets with the intention to influence (that is, influence a government or group of people).”
    The Pablo Escobar Example
    One of the most infamous “narco-terrorists” was Pablo Escobar. As leader of the Medellin cocaine cartel in Colombia, he became one of the wealthiest and most feared men in the world. At the height of his success, Escobar was listed in Forbes Magazine among the world’s wealthiest men. While on the surface, he was nothing more than a street thug who became successful by trafficking in cocaine, Escobar had political aspirations and strove to project the appearance of legitimacy, claiming his wealth was the result of real estate investments. He eventually ran for Congress and campaigned for foreign policy changes that would prohibit the extradition of Colombian citizens to the United States.

    Escobar had a penchant for violence. He wreaked havoc on Colombia while attempting to persuade the government to change its extradition policy. Due to the numerous assassinations of politicians, presidential candidates, Supreme Court justices, police officers, and civilians, as well as a number of bombings culminating in the bombing of an Avianca commercial airliner in 1989, Escobar enraged both Colombia and the world. These actions resulted in a massive manhunt and his death in 1993.

    Escobar was a drug trafficker who used drug-related violence and terrorism to further his own political, personal, and financial goals. Moreover, he funded his terrorist activities with the money obtained from his drug trafficking endeavors. He was the classic narco-terrorist; his cause was simply himself.
    Terrorist organizations use a number of sources to garner funds for their activities, such as petty crimes, kidnap-for-ransom, charities, sympathizers, front companies, and drug trafficking. Most of the known terrorist organizations use several of these methods to collect funding, while preferring particular methods to others. Drug trafficking is among the most profitable sources. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Americans alone spend an estimated $64 billion on illegal drugs annually.
    Drug trafficking has always been a profitable means for criminal organizations to further or fund their activities. The complicity of terrorist groups in drug trafficking varies from group to group and region to region. In the broadest sense, some terrorist groups may be involved in all aspects of the drug trade, from cultivation, production, transportation, and wholesale distribution to money laundering. These groups may also provide security for drug traffickers transporting their product through territory controlled by terrorist organizations or their supporters. Finally, in some cases, terrorist groups or their supporters may require a “tax” to be paid on illicit products, or passage through controlled territory. No matter which form it takes, or the level of involvement in drug trafficking, many terrorist groups are using drug money to fund their activities and perpetrate violence against governments and people around the world.
    Afghanistan Under the Taliban

    <DIV align=left>As in the case of formerly Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, narco-terrorism was not limited to terrorist organizations. Afghanistan is a major source country for the cultivation, processing, and trafficking of opiates, producing over 70 percent of the world’s supply of illicit opium in 2000. Because of the country’s decimation by decades of warfare, illicit drugs have become a major source of income. The Taliban’s Afghanistan would be an example of a state primarily funded by illicit opium production. Through this drug income, the Taliban were able to support and protect Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda organization. As in this case, drugs and terrorism frequently share a common ground of geography, money, and violence. </DIV>
    <DIV align=left>
    Narco-Terrorism Versus Drug-Related Violence
    When looking at the connection between drugs and violence, it is important to differentiate between drug-related violence and narco-terrorism. By definition, terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets. With drug-related violence, we see financially motivated violence perpetrated against those who interfere with or cross the path of a drug trafficking organization. While we see drug-related violence on a daily basis on the streets of major cities, narco-terrorism is, in many cases, less visible. Drug-related violence permeates society at all levels and is visible at every stage of the drug trade, from domestic violence to turf warfare between rival drug trafficking gangs or groups.<SUP> 2</SUP> With narco-terrorism, the acts of terror are clearly evident, but the funding source is often well-disguised.
    Evolution of Narco-Terrorism
    Any region, in which illegal drugs are cultivated, transported, distributed, or consumed, is susceptible to narco-terrorism. Throughout the world, insurgent groups, revolutionary groups, and ideological or spiritual groups, who use violence to promote their political mission may use drug proceeds to fund acts of terror in furtherance of their ideology. Leadership, cultural, political, and economic change may affect the ideology or mission of a group. Internal divisions and splinter groups may result, each seeking to pursue their goals via different avenues, be they legitimate political activity, perpetuation of violence, or criminal activity, such as drug trafficking.
    History has shown that narco-terrorist organizations fall into different categories. One category includes politically motivated groups that use drug proceeds to support their terrorist activities; activities that will confer legitimacy upon them within the state. These groups usually call for a ceasefire with the government or take measures to establish a legal political party whereby their political goals are realized through nonviolent, legal means. Groups that fall into this category are generally viewed with skepticism by the state. An example of a group in this category is the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK).
    Another category consists of groups that continually pursue their ideological goals while participating in aspects of the drug trade; for example, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia or FARC).
    There are notable examples of narco-terrorist groups in almost every corner of the world. Many insurgent and extremist groups are suspected of drug trafficking involvement, such as Hezbollah and the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) in the tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil; Sendero Luminoso (the Shining Path) in Peru; and the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) in Spain. The level of involvement in drug trafficking by actual narco-terrorist groups and the evolution of the groups and their purposes are often very different.

    Kurdistan Worker’s Party

    The PKK in Turkey was founded in 1974. Developed as a revolutionary socialist organization, the goal of the PKK is to establish an independent nation of Kurdistan. In 1984, the PKK began to use violence against Turkish security forces, gradually escalating the level of violence to include civilians. In the early 1990s, the group added urban terrorism to their repertoire of violent activities.
    The PKK, considered a terrorist organization by most Western Governments, is represented in Kurdish immigrant communities throughout the world and is particularly prevalent in Europe.

    The PKK is known to benefit from drug trafficking, but the extent of their involvement is often debated. The Government of Turkey consistently reports that the PKK, as an organization, is responsible for much of the illicit drug processing and trafficking in Turkey. Turkish press reports state that the PKK produces 60 tons of heroin per year and receives an estimated income of US$40 million each year from drug trafficking proceeds. According to historic DEA reporting, the PKK may receive funding from a number of illicit means, including kidnap-for-ransom and drugs.

    Reporting from the early 1990s indicated that several large drug trafficking families were supporters or sympathizers of the PKK, and that direct funds from their trafficking organizations were provided to the PKK to buy supplies. However, recent changes in the structure of the organization, due in part to the group’s founder declaring a peace initiative in 1999, have led elements of the PKK to strive for legitimacy and possible involvement in Turkey’s political process.

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=567 align=center>
    <TD vAlign=top bgColor=#ffcc99 height=464>

    Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia

    The FARC is one of Colombia’s major insurgent groups. The FARC is a pro-Communist group that wants to replace the current Colombian Government with a leftist, anti-U.S. regime. The FARC emerged in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, with the goal of overthrowing the government and the ruling class of Colombia. The FARC is the largest, best-trained and equipped, and most effective insurgent group in Colombia. Over the past two decades, the FARC has controlled large areas of Colombia’s eastern lowlands and rain forest, which are the primary coca cultivation and cocaine processing regions in the country.

    The FARC is an economically self-sufficient organization, supporting its mission through kidnappings, extortion, bank robberies, and the drug trade. Some FARC fronts are promoting coca cultivation, managing cocaine processing, selling drugs for cash, and negotiating arms deals with international drug trafficking organizations to support their broad based weapons procurement program.

    Recent DEA reporting indicates that some FARC units in southern Colombia are directly involved in drug trafficking activities, including controlling local cocaine base markets and selling cocaine to international smuggling organizations. At least one FARC front—the 16th Front—has served as a cocaine source of supply for one international drug trafficking organization.

    In March 2002, the United States announced its indictment of several FARC members. This case marks the first time that members of a known terrorist organization have been indicted in the United States for their drug trafficking activities, including selling cocaine in exchange for currency, weapons, and equipment.

    Despite the differences between the PKK and the FARC, both were initially motivated to take action in furtherance of their ideological goals—the desire for independent homelands or political thought. The drug trade and terrorist activities were the means through which these groups furthered their missions. Changes in leadership, politics, and economics affected the varying outcomes; that is, movement toward political legitimacy for the PKK, and pursuit of an ideological mission through engagement in the drug trade by the FARC.
    International Efforts Against Narco-Terrorism
    There are three crucial elements to attacking narco-terrorism: law enforcement efforts, intelligence gathering, and international cooperation. Many terrorist groups rarely act within the borders of one state, but tend to have a more global view in regard to their activities and fundraising. This means that combating narco-terrorism requires a global network of law enforcement and intelligence officials tackling this issue wherever it appears. It is the cooperation at all levels of law enforcement and intelligence organizations that will prevent atrocities such as those financed by drug money in South America, Southwest Asia, and the rest of the world.
    Several international measures have been taken over the years to combat terrorism. According to the U.S. Department of State, there are 12 major multilateral conventions and protocols on combating terrorism.<SUP>3</SUP> International efforts to combat narco-terrorism are focusing on asset seizure and control of all funding sources used by terrorist organizations. In 1999, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism was adopted. It required signatories “to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of terrorists, whether directly or indirectly, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in such illicit activities as drug trafficking or gun running.” Under this convention, signatories also were required to hold those who finance terrorism to be criminally, civilly, or administratively responsible for their acts.
    In response to the incidents of September 11, 2001, the international community is expanding their efforts to control and extinguish financing that supports terrorism. On September 28, 2001, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted an anti-terrorism resolution that called for the suppression of terrorist group financing, and improved international cooperation against terrorists. The resolution, identified as Resolution 1373 (2001), requires all states to prevent and abolish the financing of terrorism, and to criminalize the willful collection and distribution of funds for such acts. Furthermore, the resolution created a committee to monitor the implementation of the guidelines set forth in this resolution. The Security Council noted, “the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, sub-regional, regional and international levels to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security.”
    The events of September 11th brought new focus to an old problem, narco-terrorism. These events have forever changed the world and demonstrate the vulnerability to acts of terrorism of even the most powerful nation. In attempting to combat this threat, the link between drugs and terrorism came to the fore. Whether it is a state, such as formerly Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, or a narco-terrorist organization, such as the FARC, the nexus between drugs and terrorism is evident.
    Nations throughout the world are aligning to combat this scourge on international society. The War on Terror and the War on Drugs are linked, with agencies throughout the United States and internationally working together as a force-multiplier in an effort to dismantle narco-terrorist organizations. Efforts to stop the funding of these groups have focused on drugs and the drug money used to perpetuate violence throughout the world. International cooperative efforts between law enforcement authorities and intelligence organizations is crucial to eliminating terrorist funding, reducing the drug flow, and preventing another September 11th.
    <HR align=left width="50%">

    <SUP><A name=f1></A>1</SUP> According to Chapter 22 of the U.S. Code (USC), terrorism is the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. International terrorism involves citizens, or territory, of more than one country. A terrorist group is any group practicing, or that has significant sub-groups that practice, international terrorism.
    <A name=f2></A><SUP>2</SUP> According to the DEA Briefing Book, “one-quarter to one-half of all incidents of domestic violence are drug related”.
    <SUP><A name=f3></A>3</SUP> According to the U.S. Department of State, the United States is party to all 12 conventions and protocols.</DIV>Edited by: Alfa
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Reputation Points:
    AHAHAHAHAhhahahah those fagit Dea f**ks
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Reputation Points:
    sry couldn't help my self
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Reputation Points:
    The problem that terrorists controll the drug traffic can solved in a very easy matter.... just legalize it and make it under legal cercumstances in the us... then the terrorists woudnt make money of drugs and the people woud get what they whant:)
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Reputation Points:
    I agree w/guest, people are going to buy drugs no matter who sells it to them. It's human nature to be curious about altered stated of conscienses, it all begins when you're 3 years old and you spin around until your so dizzy that you fall down. Then what happened? You got up and did it again didn't you? If we take the drugs out of the terrorists hands they have no way of making money, well it will kill 70% of their income anyway. As long as drugs are legal, terrorists will continue to reap profits and turn them into weapons for their Jihad.

    Sleep on that one Mr. Bush.

  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Reputation Points:
    Drugs are not sold by terrorists. Do you actually believe that bullsh*t?
  7. Do_Japan

    Do_Japan Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Isnt it interesting that all of the sudden after 9/11 terrorists became drug dealers literaly over night.

    I dont think most of the drugs these so called terrorists make are sold in america anyway, except for cocaine, and i wouldnt concider columbians terrorists. They are more like entripenours who are willing to kill, but only to protect their industry. It wouldnt really be in their interest to blow up a building in american would it.
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Reputation Points:
    When Afganistan was ruled by Taliban, it had almost no production of heroin anymore, but right after the US has taken over, the production has started directly and now the EU is expectiong a overwelming amount of Afgan heroin each year.
  9. Hollywood

    Hollywood Gold Member

    Reputation Points:
    Jul 26, 2003
    54 y/o from U.S.A.
    I think that now that we are over there in Afganistan it will be easyer to bring it over here. I have always heard that the CIA hasalways been involved in the trafficing of Illegal Drugs. And the terrorist will finance there cause by any and all means possible. I have a friend that was there when the US took over Panama. He said that many, many troops were trying to smuggle keys,"themselves" out of Panama. The temptation was too great..............................................................................
  10. Android

    Android Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    Jan 17, 2006
    from U.S.A.
    Drug sales support terrorists??

    No shit?? So swim's mortgage company, utility companys, banks, satellite, broadband, and every other bill paid from swim's profits are operated by terrorists??? How did those companies know swim's money came from drug sales, and who do the regular working class neighbors pay their bills to?? This has opened quite a can of worms, theorietically speaking, so further evaluation of this typical government issue boneheaded propaganda intended, fodder for the unthinking majority sheep will, thankfully, be ignored by me.
  11. Nagognog2

    Nagognog2 Iridium Member

    Reputation Points:
    Feb 1, 2005
  12. BeetleJuice

    BeetleJuice Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    Feb 11, 2005
    33 y/o
    propaganda and total kaka (shit).
  13. stoneinfocus

    stoneinfocus Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    Jun 23, 2006
    So if it were all legal busines, there were considerably less reason to attack and bleed "terroristic" groups like, ehhm, like....

    Isn´t everys country armed and willing to kill to defend its cultur and way of live, resp. trade?
  14. xctico

    xctico Gold Member

    Reputation Points:
    Dec 11, 2004
    37 y/o from costa_rica
    here's one of the dangerous terrorists that where taken down thanks to the DEA....

    tommy chong...

    Attached Files:

  15. OccularFantasm

    OccularFantasm Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    Mar 5, 2007
    from U.S.A.
    Drugs and terrorsm is an interesting issue. The largest paradox i found however is that the United States is the largest terrorist organizationinthe world, yet they have a prohibition on almost all drugs. Also I find it quite ironic that The United States claims to fight terrorism only after deceiving th public into the war and then only using terrorism as a means of 'retaliation'. Also, the leality of drugs is a goal of the united states, but not until it is controlled with perscription medicine so that the most money can be taken from the working poor than could be with public distrobution. I also find it quite odd the U.S. would effectively withdrawl its digniture from the internation war crimes treaty less than a year after 9/11.(As reported by Human Rights Watch)** In light of all this I think that the DEA is nothing more than a puppet.

    ** I read all the rules and such and I don't think it breaks any rules but if im not supposed to cite the website please let me know and Ill erase that part immediatly. Thank You.
  16. xctico

    xctico Gold Member

    Reputation Points:
    Dec 11, 2004
    37 y/o from costa_rica
    The US gov is also the world's largest drug dealer... they don't just throw away all the dope they confiscate...
  17. kreation

    kreation Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    May 25, 2007
    make that the largest drug and arms dealer in the world, so its no wonder they associate drugs with terrorism, they support both!

    but seriously the DEA is a contradictory mess of an organization and this is as usual the media propaganda typical of the American police state. :thumbsdown:
  18. johnsonbiscuit

    johnsonbiscuit Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    Apr 4, 2008
    from U.K.
    so's violence
  19. Greenport

    Greenport Palladium Member

    Reputation Points:
    Jan 5, 2008
    from earth
    What they don't realize is that if drugs were LEGAL then there wouldn't be CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS working with them, it would be LEGITIMATE PEOPLE...

    Because of that, the entire above article is complete rubbish - because the dea could just as well eliminate drug-related terrorism by not prosecuting those who use/transport/make/sell/whatever drugs. Ever hear of an underground terrorist-funded chemical market for Prozac? or Aspirin? I didn't think so.

    They could end drug-related terrorism by simply not existing. In this way, they are causing more damage to the world than they can ever understand. If MDMA were completely legal, let's say, all of those criminals (not saying that in a bad way ravers :D) would become legitimate businessmen, customers, chemists, WHATEVER. They would no longer be fueled by terrorist activities, rather they would be fueled by their drive to make money, or have fun.

    If they would legalize drugs and instead consider new treatment options (which more could be found if the drugs were legal - SINCE THAT WOULD MEAN WE COULD FINALLY DO SOME FUCKIGN RESEARCH ON THEM! ) for those that do become addicted, we as a whole society would be safer, happier and better living.

    MY hope is that through marijuana's global decriminalization which I'm sure is going to happen within the next 20 years (at least to some extent) will show this. Sure, people will seek treatment for marijuana addiction, but then we'll have available treatments and education about it too. If it turns out to become a success, maybe the world will look at our other drugs such as MDMA (which I think will be the second one to become decriminalized, followed by one of the psychedelics) and think about increasing treatment and decreasing criminalization of them.

    The reason that these people are criminals is because the laws of their respective countries are forcing them to do their work in an illicit manner. If a drug dealer accepts something from a known terrorist, it is because (s)he can't obtain it any other way because of the current laws in place.

    Criminalizing drugs causes people to build labware from home products, which is a danger to human health. It causes there to be a huge amount of people who fuck up doing synths, and people DIE because of it. WTF would happen if somebody were to take a tab that still had some Formic acid in it? or H2SO4? Bet that would be lovely for the inside of your stomach! The sad thing is I bet many people actually have, and are damn-lucky they didn't get something that did kill them. ("That's not meth, that's LITH-DOPE!")

    If they were decriminalized, this type of work could be done in safe conditions either by trained individuals or by companies. There would be a 99% purity rate on all of our currently always impure chemicals, which would cause an overall health INcrease. That's what the criminalization of drugs was meant to do - was increase physical and mental health, but it didn't work and just made things worse, and now we need to revert.

    Listen to the words of "System of a Down - Prison Song" :)


    Following the rights movement
    You clamped on with your iron fists
    Drugs became conveniently
    Available for all the kids

    I buy my crack, I smack my bitch
    Right here in hollywood

    (nearly 2 million americans are
    Incarcerated in the prison system
    Prison system of the us)

    Theyre trying to build a prison
    (for you and me to live in)
    Minor drug offenders fill your prisons
    You dont even flinch
    All our taxes paying for your wars
    Against the new non-rich

    (The percentage of americans in the prison system
    Prison system, has doubled since 1985)

    All research and successful drug policy show
    That treatment should be increased
    And law enforcement decreased
    While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences

    Utilizing drugs to pay for secret wars around the world
    Drugs are now your global policy now you police the globe
  20. jilola

    jilola Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    Apr 8, 2008
    This current entanglement of drugs trade and terrorism may actually be a good thing. Drugs were the previous "common enemy", terrorism is the next.

    There may be a transitional period going on that mingles the two but one that ultimately will resolve in terrorism bearing the brunt of the propaganda and the major target of action as the outside threat.

    This would leave the drugs policy open for chance since it would no longer be the necessary outside threat to justify legislative policy choices. Physical threat would trump mental and general health issues as well as related domestic crime. As always.