Donate Today, Monthly, if You Can.
Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please sign up to Donate Monthly!
Posted on 08/12/2013 12:19:22 PM PDT by yoe
According to the Costa Rica Star, the United States Air Force (Costa Rica Will Stop Sending Cocaine to Miami) of government-seized cocaine from Costa Rica to Miami, Florida, on July 27th.
Commentary and official press releases from Costa Rica’s Organization of Judicial Investigations explain that the Central American nation had been encountering serious problems with the destruction of cocaine bound for the United States that local authorities had confiscated. With so much cocaine to destroy—and with their lone incinerator broken—, the government of Costa Rica had to resort to using a cement factory to dispose of the contraband. However, their relationship with the factory came to an end when employees and other individuals involved in the risky operation began stealing and stockpiling the drugs on the sly.
According to the Costa Rica Star, Costa Rica’s Organization of Judicial Investigations petitioned the United States’ Drug Enforcement Agency for help, and on July 27th, an American Air Force C-17 left Costa Rica with nearly twenty-four tons of the schedule II central nervous stimulant. However, few Costa Rican government officials knew about the operation, which has suggested ulterior motives and goals for the transport.
Ironically, the plane’s listed destination was Miami, Florida—one of the principal cocaine capitals of the world. Even more ironically, the plane made two stops on its way to Miami: once in Nicaragua and once in Honduras. Moreover, neither the U.S. Air Force nor the Organization of Judicial Investigations has been forthcoming about exactly what happened to the cocaine. Official press releases explain that their ostensible plan was to incinerate the cocaine with the assistance of the Costa Rican consul in Miami.
However, without any media coverage, independent investigation, or reliable sources, it is impossible to know what happened here. No one is following this incident. The military of the world’s leading cocaine market landed without proper permission in a foreign country and obtained nearly twenty-fours tons of a drug so criminalized in America that local governments imprison teenagers caught with just trace amounts of it. And this plane landed in two other leading cocaine trafficking sites. And then this plane landed in Miami. And no one cares.
While other military and government leaders are free to fly around with twenty-four tons of cocaine, local police still arrest and incarcerate petty dealers and users who are perhaps using the same cocaine our government is bringing into the country. It wasn’t that long ago our own CIA smuggled $14 million of cocaine into Los Angeles to assist the Contras in Nicaragua. This next double standard in the War on Drugs does not bode well for our nation.
Running guns from Benghazi, drugs in Miami.....
Soon will come the druggies telling you how all will be well if we just make this stuff legal in the U.S.A.
BTW, the plane isn’t stopping at Martha’s Vineyard, is it?
He’s gonna require a LOT of potato chips.
/johnny
I’m sure you’re kidding, having been here all these years, lol.
We shoulda shipped it all to NK, Iran and Afghanistan...
Why that could qualify as some sort of n.......
If however, you are trying to slander people that have a principled stand against certain policies by calling them druggies, you are just shallow, and vapid.
The drug issue needs to be moved away from the feds, who have no authority under the constitution, and left to the states, where police powers rightfully belong.
/johnny
*shrug* just remembering the success the British Empire had defeating China with opium, is all...
Yes, way back since the 1990’s Johnny.
I have NEVER taken nor “experimented” with ANY illegal drug, including weed.
Can YOU make the same statement?
Please, you're being ridiculous; you know there are a few pro-drug libertarians that have posted over the years.
You have the serious issue it appears.
Calling them druggies is a way to try to shut down debate on the principle.
I expected better.
And no, I don't experiment with drugs. I don't take anything stronger than aspirin, even when prescribed.
/johnny
OK so you’ve never experimented with any of them at any time in your life?
Druggies tend quite often to be very pro-drug. Hence my statement.
And no, I don’t want to see drugs flowing free in America.
If that offends, then so be it.
When you call someone a druggie on FR to shut down debate, you do conservatives a dis-service.
My position on drugs is clear. It's not a federal issue as defined by Art 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution, and police powers rightfully belong to the states.
/johnny
A druggie is a druggie, if they’re currently taking drugs.
I didn’t call any particular FReeper a druggie.
But you immediately launched into a tirade on me, including slander.
So, physician, heal thyself.
A cement factory? Wow.
Your words. I carefully did not slander you.
I'm getting tired of people shouting druggie and trying to shut down rational debate on the constitutional principles that do/do not authorize the federal government's involvment in law enforcement.
/johnny
The feds have been running drugs for years. I’ve spoken to and interviewed many that tell the same types of stories over and over again; some really didnt want to talk. There never really was a real drug on wars. An illusion was set in place to keep drug prices up while making billions on fees and fines related to drug charges. On top of that that they get to confiscate all the property that the drug dealers buy and resell it and pocket the change. They use one drug faction against another and find out what toys they have so they can seize them. War on drugs? Nah, Just one enormous money making enterprise.
~~~I carefully did not slander you.~~~
Oh yes, you did.
And I already pushed the abuse button on your #5.
AND #9
> It wasn’t that long ago our own CIA smuggled $14 million of cocaine into Los Angeles to assist the Contras in Nicaragua.
I happen to know a guy that was there.
Not buying it until I see some concrete proof.
They’re dealing with some big rocks.
And what if I believe that the current illegality
of drugs is illegitimate?
Even using the horrid technique of precedent (spit), a Constitutional Amendment was needed to grant the federal government authority to regulate alcohol.
Whereby is the authority to regulate drugs derived? [No such amendment exists in the case of drugs.]
The authority is claimed under the commerce-clause. In particular the expansion of the commerce clause under Wickard. Just before Wickard, the court was threatened with being packed for opposing the president/congress's fascist laws. Wickard was merely justification of contraconstitutional laws — much like the Roberts decision regarding Affordable Care Act — and asserted that even though the wheat in question wasn't involved in interstate commerce its involvement-in/impact-on the intrastate marked impacted the interstate market and therefore was regulatable under the interstate commerce clause.
This is bad enough, but the court has expanded on Wickard through the Raich case where they said, essentially: Even though there is no interstate market, because congress has made that market illegal, congress's regulations are still applicable because if there was a market there they would be able to regulate it.
— and so we see more expansions of federal powers until nothing is free from the state and the state consumes all.
What’s the difference between a drunk driver & a stoned driver?
A drunk driver will blow right past a stop sign. A stoned driver will wait for it to turn green.
;^)
Frankly I don’t care - it’s about incremental steps to making it so the bone-heads can purchase the stuff and sell it anywhere.
Are there ridiculous things? Of course.
Equally ridiculous is the notion that making it “legal” will be some sort of utopia.
Except of course that politicians will see it as an abusive way to tax people.
It’s lose-lose either way.
lol
If you cannot think about the law logically and articulate how these laws are rightfully the proper use of authority then why should I care what you think?
- it’s about incremental steps to making it so the bone-heads can purchase the stuff and sell it anywhere.
No, it's about incremental steps of [federal] government into every aspect of your life.
Hell, I was very careful to give you the reasoning behind why the War on Drugs is illegitimate and you turn around and say that it's about making drugs available. .. which is funny because I'm sure that I can go to a local high-school and find a supply of drugs, so I'm not sure the War on Drugs is successful even on THAT count.
I don’t care what you think.
If you think “logical” is the legalization of drugs then you’re off on another plain.
Don’t bother me with your legal-drug nonsense ever again.
Obvious.
If you think “logical” is the legalization of drugs then you’re off on another plain.
Go back and read what I said: I said nothing on the legalization of drugs.
Don’t bother me with your legal-drug nonsense ever again.
*shrug* — Don't bother me if you ever have a run-in with the police-state.
Yeah I know what’s happening.
Have you had a drug “run-in with the police state”?
You seem to act as if you have.
They tend to flip out the 'druggie' card like Jessie Jackson flips out the race card, and for the same reason, to shut down discussion.
/johnny
Almost-ish; I had my car searched [running a red-light]… and then found out that my state has an extended domicile view on things so, as far as the law was concerned, that was an invasion of my home.
Of course I had one incident that was completely free of drugs, or any illegal activity, and had police show up at my home threaten the landlady and her kids over my openly carrying… three days earlier at a different location. A little backtracking of things revealed the call to the police was third-hand [at least] and may have gone through a rumor-mill beforehand.
So the 'justification' the police had was a legal activity done days earlier.
You seem to act as if you have.
I'm sensitive to injustice — and I pray I never become desensitized to it.
Yeah, I can see that.
BTW, what did you think of that explanation I gave? [I’m thinking of elaborating it into a chapter-long item for a book on government-overreach.]
So did you have drugs or drug residue in your car in the first incident?
It’s not desensitized; it’s about opening the door to idiot states, like California and Colorado (IIRC) that tend towards pot-growers.
People on hallucinogenics, illegal or “legal,” create all sorts of risks for others. Much more so if they’re operating automobiles, trains, etc.
If you’re telling me the gov’t says one thing and then does another, well, gee, yeah they’ve been at that a long time.
/johnny
"Break clean and go to the neutral corners...."
“over my openly carrying… three days earlier at a different location”
I’m not sure what is missing in the ellipses there.
Openly carrying what?
/johnny
Nope. My drug use
consists of alcohol and maybe a cigarette a year — never done anything else because I never wanted to.
It’s not desensitized; it’s about opening the door to idiot states, like California and Colorado (IIRC) that tend towards pot-growers.
What are you talking about? I hate injustice all around, seeing the Constitution trampled makes me angry.
People on hallucinogenics, illegal or “legal,” create all sorts of risks for others. Much more so if they’re operating automobiles, trains, etc.
And?
If you’re telling me the gov’t says one thing and then does another, well, gee, yeah they’ve been at that a long time.
Which is why they ought to be held to a high standard, no?
I'm all for dropping the benefit of the doubt for police and government agents; there's a reason we used to say innocent until proven guilty
.
Good point, though considering my book’ll be on federal government overreach I’m not sure how/if I’ll put it in.
nothing's missing, just a pause-elaborate.
Openly carrying what?
A firearm.
~~~People on hallucinogenics, illegal or “legal,” create all sorts of risks for others. Much more so if they’re operating automobiles, trains, etc.
And?~~~
Do you REALLY require further explanation of that? Seriously? C’mon.
So, you ran the red light. What was their claim to extend a search?
I’ve seen jerk cops (a few, not most) take advantage of things. I agree, that’s a problem to be dealt with. I’ve been on those threads and abuse of power.
Almost all police powers need to be moved back to the states, and away from the feds.
/johnny
I think they said officer safety
or some BS like that. [It was years ago.]
If open-carrying a firearm is legal in the area where it was done, then I’m all for it.
I’ve been a gun owner for many years. I must admit, about 20 years ago, I ran across a guy open-carrying in an area where you never saw anybody doing so. It took me by surprise, it was outside an auto parts store in Johnson County, Kansas.
I’m all for CCW btw. If open carry is legal in any particular area, then that is just fine, too.
I’ve always tried to be extra careful on transporting a weapon, separating the gun from the ammo, gun locked, etc.
I have no problem working on abuse of power.
I just hate blanket non-solutions, like 11 million people broke the law, so let’s just erase the illegal immigration thing, etc.
You got that right — if I were in charge
I'd start by cutting all agencies that aren't directly commissioned/authorized by the Constitution, and if they are cutting them to only the constitutional duties for which they were created. (i.e. Secret Service only involved in counterfeiting cases.)
No doubt such abuses abound. I hate them, too.
I was in Texas, recently. There was a red light camera that fired, as near as I could tell, completely inconsistent with the traffic.
I hated to even try to turn right as the camera fired at odd intervals. I could see it happen from the Whataburger and CVS parking lots.
It looked to me like a great way to steal money from whomever at the intersection. It was so bad, I eventually just avoided that intersection simply to not be falsely-accused and stuck with a revenue “ticket”.
On the other-hand, I'm all for blanket solutions to to the problems: the NSA violates the 4th as a mater of course? Abolish the NSA and charge everyone in it (or employed/contracted to it) with deprivation of rights under color of law and conspiracy against rights. The IRS is targetting organizations based on political viewpoints? Do the same, with the addition of tax-reform to a single-rate, no-withholding, no-exemption, no-credit, no-exception system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.