DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws, page 3

Please be careful with what we are discussing. I could go on for hours about why something is illegal, but it would be against the T&C. Plus, we're discussing the DEA's intimidation here.
What I will say is I'm quite sure there is money behind this as the driving force. BigPharma, or some other constituants. Then again, an earlier poster could have well been correct about a Senator recall vote over their vote to detain Americans.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
IMO, the DEA is UnConstitutional. Can anyone tell me what part of the Constitution grants them their power?

The DEA is part of the executive branch of the constitution. The President is the head of the executive branch, but basically Congress has to fund them. They were created in 1973 by President Nixon in conjunction with Congress in an arrangement that consolidated several other agencies. DEA history wiki link

Basically created and ultimately answer to the President, but, since they are funded by congress that's usually who they answer to. Money talks......

The Montana state Sheriff needs to step in and kick the Feds out of the state. Wyoming seems to have a handle on things:

politicalvelcraft.org...

This may be a little off topic, but people need to know. The date of the Montana Primary is June 5, 2012.

See this link, and do a ctrl+f and type in Montana:

Primary Schedule 2012

I think we know which candidate wants to defend true justice, liberty, and freedom for all. Anybody from Montana needs to register to vote this year, and choose carefully.

reply to post by ARandomAfflictionOfSense

---

Um, no it was not satire, it's the truth. And no, I wasn't just saying "hey go after black neighborhoods" at all. It was in no way intended to be stereotyping whatsoever. Which is why I said "ANY neighborhood in America". Because it is true. The "War on Drugs" is indeed a total failure, which was my point, because you CAN go into any neighborhood and find drugs wherever you want, they are everywhere. It's not hard to find drug dealers anywhere, so why does the DEA not go after them, heck, I could walk outside and point them out if need be

But it is sad that drugs are as rampant and available everywhere and anywhere as they are. All the DEA has to do is step outside...

reply to post by webpirate

---

I hate to be the one to point out the fallacy in your topic post: McCarthy was more or less right(something leftist's love to ignore). Over 1/3rd of the People he accused of being Communist spies where in fact communist spies.

www.canadafreepress.com...
www.wnd.com...

I believe you owe McCarthy's descendants an apology.

I have been wondering for some time now how the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Crime Act (RICO) would apply to federal agencies such as the DEA.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually do it.

The Drug Enforcement Agency, one of many who fairly qualify for prosecution under RICO, has a long record of criminal abuse, consider just one example:

On August 6, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, chaired by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL), held a hearing on "drug diversion investigations by the DEA," in which witnesses testified about abuses by the DEA (Bill McCollum, "Crime Subcommittee Hearing on Drug Diversion Investigations by the DEA," Press Release, August 6, 1998). Late in 1997, with no prior warning, two dozen pharmacists in the Wichita Falls, Texas area received letters from the US Attorney demanding up to $400,000 in civil fines for alleged record keeping violations which involved no diversion of controlled substances (Michael Slozak, "Texas Pharmacists Fight DEA Nightmare," American Druggist, March 1998, p. 15).

I don't know if it could work, but there sure seems to be some poetic justice to the idea of states using RICO to file suit against rogue administrative agencies with no Constitutional mandate, acting like any other criminal gang or mob does.

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by webpirate

---

I hate to be the one to point out the fallacy in your topic post: McCarthy was more or less right(something leftist's love to ignore). Over 1/3rd of the People he accused of being Communist spies where in fact communist spies.

I believe you owe McCarthy's descendants an apology.

There is a fallacy in you're belief my argument contains a fallacy. Wait...that came out all wrong.

First off, that wasn't my initial comparison. It was Representative Sands.

If you look long and hard enough, of course you're gonna find what you're looking for. How many innocent people did Joe McCarthy trample upon and ruin the reputations of just to find the evil communists he actually found? Besides...what he initially found weren't just communists lurking in the shadows, but were treasonous associates or citizens of the US immediately after WWII ended. Yet he kept looking.

It wasn't his looking for them so much as his method of looking. He violated civil liberties, he violated protections afforded to Americans by the Constitution itself...that same one which he claimed he was upholding.

Now...if you wanna use the argument that the ends justified the means, well...that actually would have made him as bad as the evil Soviet Empire itself. They were also able to silence the infidels and critics who were against Stalin, Khrushchev, and Mother Russia herself.

No...Ole Joe was as bad as what he was claiming to be fighting against. In reality..mostly what he did, was silence his political opponents. If you criticized him, surely you yourself were also a communist.

Let's end this by going one step further. Are you for or against the Guantanamo Bay "prison?" I would venture to guess that at least 1/3rd of the residents there who have never had a trial or even had the opportunity to face their accusers, are indeed, actually al-Qaeda, or the evil Muslim extremists they are proclaimed to be. The rest, are probably not. But we may never actually know, since they will never get their day in court. They will never have a trial.

Now...Representative Sands is claiming that the US Federal Government and it's agencies are doing the same type of thing to the lawmakers of the states, and possibly the government itself, just because they speak their mind or vote a certain way.

McCarthy used a type of profiling to find his communists. I'd argue that most prisoners....at least 2/3rd's in Git Mo are there not because they ever did anything wrong, but because of racial or religious profiling. Now....the DEA seems to be profiling certain political figures it disagrees with. I seriously doubt it actually comes from the DEA though....they are just the tool being used to accomplish the feat of intimidation.

If I were allowed to run roughshod over the American people too, I bet I could find a few bad guys myself. But ya know what? I honestly don't care who you are, or what you're looking for. Trampling civil rights or political intimidation is wrong.

reply to post by korathin

---

so umm what about the other 2/3rds do them getting falsely labled as communist sympathizers and getting screwed with by the government justifies the fact that you caught some of them? those arent good odds for the people being labled sorry if this is off topic.....

reply to post by KilrathiLG

---

That was my point too, and I don't think it;s off topic. Rep Sands is who brought up the initial comparison, and the other poster said Joey Mac was right at least 1/3rd of the time! But you're right. What about the rest? They were ruined for life, blacklisted and often became outcasts. Just because they were investigated.

Rep Sands was saying this is like that was. And now, her name is being smeared by the DEA as a potential criminal associated with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. We all know those charges will never stick, but....if this was a retaliation for the Senator recall vote as proposed earlier in this thread..which I don't think actually happened, at least yet, then it's retribution. Either way, yeah...she is getting smeared because she opened her mouth, and voted a certain way.

Sounds more like some of those other countries we don't get along with..at least on the record. because they do the same thing there.

reply to post by webpirate

---

The DEA is part of the executive branch of the constitution.

Could you show me Constitutional Law that says the POTUS gets his own drug police force? I don't recall seeing that.

GOP moves to keep Gary Johnson off the ballot
  Posted 9 days ago with 32 member flags

The GOP Conspiracy – Hidden in Plain Site
  Posted 10 days ago with 14 member flags

The JFK Assassination, An Overview
  Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags

The Politics of Rape
  Posted 3 days ago with 10 member flags

Retreat! Government shuts Arpaio probe; no charges filed
  Posted 11 days ago with 9 member flags

Mafia Hit-Man & Teamster Boss Helped Joe Biden Become U.S. Senator
  Posted 3 days ago with 8 member flags

My Political Rabbit Hole, Why I Won\'t Vote Obama OR Romney..Left or Right EVER Again.
  Posted 4 days ago with 6 member flags

Feminism and the Reorganization of Society
  Posted 2 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: