Guide to the Upcoming Rebellion: Part 2:

Spoils of The Civil War

By: The Mystic | 29January2001

Did you say Civil War? Have you ever considered that phrase "war on drugs", what it means and does not mean? Most people understand the word 'war' in its usual sense. During World War 2 (for example), US forces maimed, detained and killed members of the Axis alliance. No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power. -- P. J. O'Rourke 'War' is also used to describe a campaign to eradicate a condition that some consider undesirable. In this use, the war utilizes education and other positive methods, not force. None of the various "wars on poverty" involved putting poor people in concentration camps. Businesses that only pay minimum wage, or lending institutions with high interest rates that help keep people poor have never been fined as part of that campaign. Ineffective teachers or school boards that emphasized athletics over academics have never been imprisoned, nor ignorant people jailed as part of the "war on illiteracy". The Drug War is a campaign against a condition that some consider undesirable to the degree that it involves attempts at reeducation -- most of which is either lame or the untruths of propaganda (which always accompanies the other kind of war). Although some drug users harm themselves by using, many more are victims of the war that the US visits upon them. More resources are spent by government forces initiating aggression against citizens than on education. The War on Drugs should be called the War on Drug Users. The aggressor is the US government and the victims are US citizens. The drug war is a civil war! Brigandage An interesting tidbit has come out of congressional hearings to confirm Dubya's preference for Attorney General. It seems that while John Ashcroft was governor of Missouri, he told more than one police official -- on more than one occasion -- that he would "look the other way" if they ignored a Missouri State Supreme Court ruling. That ruling affirmed a Missouri constitutional requirement that money acquired from asset forfeiture be distributed to local school boards, rather than kept by law enforcement agencies. Will this revelation of Ashcroft winking at an attempt to evade the law hurt his chances at becoming the chief of the US Department Of Justice? It would if the 'justice' in DOJ were more than just a meaningless appellation. In other words, it won't hurt Ashcroft a bit. So, what is this asset forfeiture? Well, we already know Missouri schools are supposed to profit from it. We also know the cops want to keep it for themselves. The assets are cash and property seized during traffic stops and drug busts. A forfeiture is any property subject to confiscation as punishment for a crime or offense. Asset forfeiture is supposed to be the spoils of the offensive actions being taken against US citizens that's called the "war on drugs". Across the country, law enforcement agencies such as police and highway patrols directly benefit from their search of citizens' homes and cars by keeping much of the cash and property they seize. Who does not believe this is a major potential conflict of interest? Given this situation, how many law enforcement agencies make arrests on the basis of what they think they will gain? Legal Laundry A War Criminal of extraordinary intellect "[In] my era everybody smoked and everybody drank and there was no drug use." --ex-DEA Chief Thomas Constantine, July 1, 1998 Many States have seen the potential conflict of interest in allowing law enforcement to directly profit from their arrests, which is why they have passed laws that block seized property from going directly back to the police. In Missouri, this seized property is supposed to benefit education. However, according to an investigation by The Kansas City Star, local police and state patrol agencies in at least half the States of the Union have figured out a way to "legally" evade their own State laws and keep 80% of the booty to themselves. They can do this when their partner in subterfuge is a Federal agency such as the Drug Enforcement Administration. The method they employ is called "adoptive forfeiture". Here's an example of how the police go about it: The police stop a car which is searched and contains drugs and a large quantity of cash. They 'detain' the assets, including the car, instead of 'seizing' them. Rather than involve State courts -- which usually have restrictive forfeiture laws -- they call in the Drug Enforcement Administration or other Federal agency. The DEA makes the stop and arrest a Federal case by accepting the seizure. This also entitles DEA to a 20% cut of the plunder. Then DEA returns the balance of 80%, legally laundered, back to the police. Now you know why John Ashcroft is such a fit politician to head the DOJ: While governor of Missouri, he demonstrated his belief that law enforcement should be allowed to pillage arrestees. For years, State and local law enforcement agencies have been partnering with DEA and other Federal agencies to circumvent State laws that would prevent them from plundering. DEA (and these other Fed agencies) are all part of DOJ, as is the Office for Asset Forfeiture. Them is Us One common reaction to abuses like that outlined above is, "So what?" Similar to reactions to the fact of prison rape, a lot a people simply don't give a damn about what happens to criminals. Criminals are low-lifes who get what they deserve. None of this directly impacts upright law-abiding citizens, right? Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing! This attitude is wrong on several counts (not that I expect my argument to dissuade anybody insensate enough to have that attitude). Even ignoring all other issues and concentrating on practicalities: What if there wasn't a hard and fast line between common citizens who mind their own business and those the government considers to be criminals? Of course this never happens, but what if persons were arrested -- even convicted -- for crimes they never actually committed? Obviously all cops are as righteous and well-mannered as was Jesus of Nazareth so this is purely theoretical, but what if police officers made arrests on the basis of what they could gain from the seizure? What if law enforcement -- with government's consent -- could arbitrarily confiscate citizens' property without charging them with a crime? 200+ Years Ago A Patriot and Revolutionary "Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere." --G. Washington, 1794 The complaints the founders of the United States listed against George III included: "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." and "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." This misbehavior of the government so seriously pissed off the colonists, they started a revolution over it: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -- The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, July 4, 1776 Two direct results of these British violations of due process and unjust seizures were incorporated into the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment is about the right of people to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The Fifth Amendment includes provisions of due process, and that private property can't be taken without just compensation. Rights Have Already Been Suspended However, as 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry learned in 1942, civil rights have a habit of mysteriously disappearing when the country goes to war. The US government has been in this civil war with many of its own citizens since the 1968 presidential campaign, when John Ehrilichman told Richard M. Nixon that narcotics repression was a "sexy political issue." Unfortunately, even if you limit yourself to ingesting government-approved stimulants, intoxicants or mood enhancers such as caffeine, alcohol or Valium -- or none at all -- being a law-abiding citizen does not guarantee your personal security. You don't have to be a drug user, buyer or seller to suffer collateral damage from this civil war against US citizens. Your government can completely disregard the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, search you and confiscate your property without even having to go to the trouble of charging you for a crime. It is done every day in this country. 'Against The Thing' Proceedings A War Criminal of extraordinary intellect "The most dangerous drug in America is a 12-year-old smoking pot." --ex-Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey, CNN Interview, 21Dec1997 The legal principle that law enforcement uses to circumvent the Bill of Rights is a obscure civil law doctrine to the effect that an object can commit a crime. Taking legal action against an object is called an in rem (Latin for 'against the thing') proceeding. The cops merely declare that any of your property that they want -- including your bank account -- is a moral agent capable of performing right and wrong and the property itself is accused of a crime. Since criminal proceedings allow the accused to make use of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, law enforcement engages in asset forfeitures through civil proceedings -- where Bill of Rights protections aren't as strong -- against the object being seized itself. Through the use of in rem proceedings, the DOJ has collected over $4 billion of dollars in property from citizens, many of whom were never charged with a crime. Unlike a criminal proceeding, it isn't necessary to have hard evidence before seizing property. Even hearsay from a paid informant is enough, and this tactic is regularly employed. If property is seized and the owner wants it back, s/he must file a claim and post a cash bond equivalent to 10% of the value of the property. The burden of proof is on the owner, not the government, to prove that the property is innocent "by a preponderance of the evidence". Examples Willie Jones bundled up money he had made from his previous year's profits running his Nashville nursery business and headed off to buy flowers and shrubs in Houston. It was a journey he made twice each year. Mr Jones uses cash during these buying trips because small growers prefer it. At the Nashville Metro Airport, a ticket agent alerted authorities that a large black man was paying cash for a flight. While waiting at the American Airlines gate, Jones was flanked by two police officers who took him back to an office, searched him and seized his $9600. Then he was told he was free to go. No charges have ever been filed. For the crime of being black and paying cash for a plane ticket, he lost his money to law enforcement and cannot get it back. [Many airline counter clerks make a second income from the cash awards they get for alerting drug agents to 'suspicious' travelers. A Continental Airlines clerk in Denver, Melissa Funner, netted at least $5800 in one year from this practice.] Allen Kidd was riding his Harley Davidson through Chesterfield County Virginia when he was stopped by local police. They found no drugs on Mr Kidd, but they took the $2780 he was carrying and his bike. He pleaded not guilty to drug charges and -- lacking evidence -- the case was dismissed three months later. Nevertheless, Mr Kidd had to wait more than a year to get his motorcycle and half his money back. The police kept $1390. Cheryl Sanders was stopped by Louisiana state police for speeding. Officers hauled her to jail and strip-searched her, claiming that they believed she -- with no prior arrest record -- was a drug dealer. No drugs were found. Her car was seized, however, and it took months and thousands of dollars for Ms Sanders to get it back, by which time she had to sell it just to pay her legal bills. A Patriot and Revolutionary "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." -- T. Jefferson Ethel Hylton arrived in a Houston airport from New York and was searched by a DEA agent in the baggage area. She was told she was under arrest because a drug dog scratched at her luggage. (Ms Hylton hadn't seen a dog and when she asked to see it, the officers refused to bring it out.) They searched her bags and strip-searched her, but found nothing illegal. The DEA did, however, find $39,120 in her purse. Ms Hylton had recently received an insurance settlement and had come to Houston to buy a house. The cops took all but $10 of the cash -- claiming it had a drug connection -- and sent Ms Hylton on her way. She was never charged with a crime. The Pittsburgh Press looked into her story, verified her insurance settlement, bank statements and found no criminal record. Ms Hylton still isn't sure whether she permanently lost her nest egg to Houston law enforcement agents because she is Jamaican, because she is black, or both. Donald Scott was a 61-year-old recluse who owned a 200-acre ranch in Malibu California, near a park maintained by the National Park Service. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department received an informant's report to the effect that Mr Scott was growing thousands of marijuana plants on his land. A team was assembled -- LASD, DEA, US Forest Service, National Park Service, US Border Patrol and California Air Guard -- to investigate using air and ground surveillance. They were unsuccessful at corroborating the informant's claim, yet they decided a military-style raid was in order. When they got to his house, they knocked, yelled, then kicked in the door. Mr Scott's wife screamed and Donald Scott, half-asleep, grabbed a gun. He was killed while standing outside his bedroom by LA County Sheriff's Deputy Gary R. Spencer. No marijuana or drugs of any kind were found in the house or on his property. Afterward, the Ventura County District Attorney investigated and reported that the purpose of the operation was the expected forfeiture of the $5 million ranch, which Mr Scott had repeatedly refused to sell to the Park Service. The above is a small sample of literally hundreds of similar stories I ran across while researching this subject. It happens every day in the US, mostly unreported. Already, A Police State "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." -- Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849 Given this uncontrolled power to completely ignore constitutional rights that is at the disposal of law enforcement, would any police officer or federal agent ever make use of it just to harass normal citizens? In 1998, a man named Chet Olsen wrote a letter to an Oklahoma newspaper -- the Woods County Enterprise -- urging the town of Waynoka to reconsider its purchase of a drug-sniffing dog. His letter was printed 03September1998. On 08October1998, a letter written by the Waynoka chief of police John Fuqua was printed in the same newspaper. It included this statement: "Also a couple of my friends who work for the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics in Oklahoma City were so impressed with (Olsen's) letter that they told me they were going to contact Mr. Olsen and visit with him about his concerns." Since we live in a country where a police chief can openly threaten to have officers "visit with" a person for disagreeing with him, please appreciate the risk we take by publishing these articles. It is possible -- likely, probably, in the long run if we keep publishing criticism of the civil war -- that one day, some law enforcement officer will decide he's had enough. The Justice Department's asset forfeiture fund pays millions of dollars to informants every year. They have the power to take away cars, houses, computers and whatever else they can take to our great inconvenience, in an effort to shut us up.