Your Federal Government, Enforcing Drug Laws By Sending Homicide Bombers to Central Asia
Did you need another reason to hate the Drug Enforcement Agency? Here's a good one, care of The New York Times:
American authorities sent David C. Headley, a small-time drug dealer and sometime informant, to work for them in Pakistan months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, despite a warning that he sympathized with radical Islamic groups, according to court records and interviews. Not long after Mr. Headley arrived there, he began training with terrorists, eventually playing a key role in the 2008 attacks that left 164 people dead in Mumbai.
The October 2001 warning was dismissed, the authorities said, as the ire of a jilted girlfriend and for lack of proof. Less than a month later, those concerns did not come up when a federal court in New York granted Mr. Headley an early release from probation so that he could be sent to work for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in Pakistan. It is unclear what Mr. Headley was supposed to do in Pakistan for the Americans.
"All I knew was the D.E.A. wanted him in Pakistan as fast as possible because they said they were close to making some big cases," said Luis Caso, Mr. Headley's former probation officer.
One senior American official knowledgeable about the case said he believed that Mr. Headley was a D.E.A. informant until at least 2003, meaning that he was talking to American agencies even as he was learning to deal with explosives and small arms in terrorist training camps. […]
Mr. Headley, 50, born in the United States to a Pakistani diplomat and Philadelphia socialite, has pleaded guilty in connection with the Mumbai plot and a thwarted attack against a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Whole murky story here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sorry; comments got inadvertently locked there for a while.
I think we're all a little disturbed by the fact that HnR even has the ability to lock comments.
Did this "inadvertant" comment-locking have something to do with sheep and high level DEA officials?
I am so going to draw a cartoon of you-know-who in the comments section now.
There are some who say that Matt Welch herds sheep, still others say there is no proof whether he is a sheep herder.
It's pronounced hoarder and he has a problem.
Ack! misspelled "inadvertent" with the correct spelling right under my nose.
Oh, the shame of it all.
this is not surprising, osama bin laden was trained by cia, obama hussein is a mooslime terrorist from kenya, people refuse to believe that islam is a terrorists cult. 1.5 billion mooslime terrorists worldwide is no joke.
1.5 billion mooslime terrorists worldwide is no joke
Actually it is.
No, that's more accurately characterized as "unhinged bullshit".
I'm sure all the people responsible for this fuck up were promptly fired and they revised their policy. Right? Right?
The House Committee on Government Reform is undoubtedly scheduling hearings at this very moment.
So exactly how much weight should the Feds put on accusations of being a terrorist from ex-girlfriends in the absence of other evidence? Would a change in policy really cause more good in keeping more terrorists locked up than harm to innocents?
Enough to keep them from paying one to be a drug informant in a country where the intel service is a known supporter of international terrorism?
Maybe the feds should stop wasting billions of dollars (and making deals with scumbags) trying to keep people from using drugs.
I know it's a radical notion, but...
Using my superpowers of internet blog-poster hindsight I'm able to divine that what we have here is a case of some folks in the government working to get their informant in place and not really seeing any danger posed by his radical interests.
That being said, it is also fairly obvious that anyone with ties to the US government (past or present) being involved in an attack on a foreign country could be interpreted as proof of US government involvement in the plot.
So, like so many other stupid decisions made by functionaries carrying out misguided missions (in this case the drug war), these guys made a fully understandable mistake given the information they had available, but they wound up making us less safe.
Just like the SWAT agent busting in a kitchen door to serve a search warrant and provoking a shooting, or the nation-building in Iraq provoking suicide bombers, or a stupid decision about interrogation techniques leading to a bunch of morons in Abu-Ghraib taking "torture pictures", and on and on... I don't blame any of the low level functionaries that create these debacles that make us less safe. I blame the people that put them in the position to fail in the first place.
When there's no reason to conduct a paramilitary raid to search a house, I blame the commander who ordered it. When he ordered it because of the drug war, I blame the idiot politicians who perpetuate it. And when we vote in the "law and order" guy over the "soft on crime" guy who would end the drug war, I blame all of us. The same goes for the fallout from Iraq. The idiots who made the go call on that invasion are responsible for all of the results. And since the US population was regularly polled at 77% in favor of invading Iraq, well, I guess we know who to blame on that one too.
" All I knew was the D.E.A. wanted him in Pakistan as fast as possible because they said they were close to making some big cases[...]"
I bet those were those big cases nobody heard about a couple of years ago that didn't win us the "War, on Drugs".
On the positive side, i'm sure some drug warrior got a promotion out of it. And hey, maybe some cops even got to play dress up and pretend to be soldiers for a thrilling afternoon - minus the danger of course.
Where next will the US War on Drugs reach out to do its harm? The Shadow knows.
The problem here is so simple really. It started when someone decided that there was a 'War on Terror'. This would be similar to a 'War on Sniping' or a 'War on Pincer Manuevers'. The US went to war against a tactic.
In WW2 we were at war with Nazism and Fascism--and we fought the supporters of those ideologies at home, and abroad.
We have avoided even the appearance of being engaged with the ideology that is fighting us now.
We are at war with Islam.
Islam is a faith, but it is a faith designed as a political system, a faith designed as a world conquering ideology.
In WW2 we fought the ideologies of Fascism and Nazism in all the places it appears--against nations and groups.
And we did not hide from what we were fighting against.
Now, we fear speaking the truth. Even supporters of the 'War on Terror' refuse to make this connection--to them, we fight 'jihadis', or 'islamists'. And we do this because not all Muslims are jihadis.
Not all Germans were Nazis, Not all Italians were fascists--but we understood that we had to fight, and win--or die.
Then, we chose our life, and the life of our ideals over the lives and ideals of those promoting horror.
We must make that same stance today.
The Bund is building centers to teach the lessons of Mein Kampf. Why can we not see that?
Because it calls itself a faith?
I have a feeling the D.E.A. thing is a cover story for whatever agency he was really working for. I really don't think combatting the drug problem was our main priority in Pakistan for the last couple years
The term "homicide bomber" is pretty stupid.
I second that. Some people on Fox News say it, but I expected Matt Welch to know better. The phrase abuses the English language to make a tedious political point. Many bombings result in homicide, but it's specifically the element of suicide that makes suicide bombings so uniquely senseless and hard to deter.
But this guy wasn't a suicide bomber to begin with, so that's irrelevant.