The war on drugs, a phrase first used by President Richard Nixon in 1969, is quickly taking on the characteristics of a real war. At home it is as if martial law has been declared. Some of the same troops that invaded Panama are now being used against U.S. citizens in a militaristic marijuana eradication campaign. The National Guard is assisting in the drug war in 49 of the 50 states and SWAT teams routinely serve search warrants related to drug offenses. The police commonly search people on the streets of underclass neighborhoods, as well as travelers on the highways, in airports, train stations and bus terminals. Public housing projects have been subjected to house-to-house searches, neighborhoods have been roadblocked, and rural areas have been subjected to intensive helicopter surveillance by men in camouflaged uniforms.

The United States has sent its troops abroad to Latin America. Uncle Sam has invaded Panama, captured its leader and brought him to the United States for a drug war trial. In other countries the U.S. has set up military encampments, sent in Green Berets and provided military equipment, personnel and training. The U.S. government has threatened blockades, the U.S. courts have judged that the rules of our Constitution do not apply and the U.S. military has kidnapped foreign nationals to bring them to the United States to stand trial for drug war crimes. Countries that refuse to cooperate in our war on drugs are threatened with financial cut-offs. They must accept our battle plan or pay a heavy price.

Since the eight decades of trying to control people's choice in the use of various substances has failed, the U.S. government has moved toward a more militaristic drug policy at home and abroad. The more we try, and the more we fail, the more the spiral of violence and war escalates. As Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman said in a recent plea to drug czar William Bennett:

"Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes 'on suspicion' can be seriously considered as a drug war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations."

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ignored the plea of Mr. Friedman and has since continued on an even more militaristic path. Across the seas U.S. armed forces are becoming engaged in a jungle quagmire. At home, U.S. police and the National Guard are becoming more militaristic and treating U.S. citizens as traitors in the war on drugs. Our government seems bent on enforcing its choices on its citizens at the point of a bayonet.

The History of Military Involvement in Law Enforcement

Distaste for military involvement in law enforcement is evident at the roots of the founding of our country. King George's use of troops to enforce laws in the colonies, laws which sometimes involved the use of the once-prohibited caffeine, was one of the causes of rebellion against England.

The First Continental Congress passed a series of resolutions in September 1774 that included a protest against "the keeping of a standing army in these colonies in times of peace." Two years later the Declaration of Independence declared that the "King of Great Britain" had established "an absolute tyranny over these states." As proof of that declaration our Founders stated that: "He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power."

The U.S. Constitution's provisions concerning the quartering of troops in private homes and the use of the military "against invasion" demonstrate the antipathy the founders had for standing armies. The Constitution nowhere expressly authorizes use of the army to execute laws. To place clearly into law the historical and constitutional antipathy toward military involvement in law enforcement the Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878.

In proposing the Posse Comitatus Act, Representative William Kimmel of Maryland stated in 1878 that "This dread and detestation of standing armies appears on every page of their progress toward independence and the establishment of the Constitution in 1789." In an hour-long speech he quoted many of the Founding Fathers' views on this improper use of the military. Patrick Henry described standing armies as used "to execute the execrable demands of tyranny." George Mason stated such use would "make the people lose their liberty." Moreover, the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, saw such use of the military as "one of the greatest mischiefs."

Interestingly, much of the opposition to the act was around concern over the sheriff's inability to enforce whiskey laws in the mountains of Kentucky where moonshiners were supported by the local population. Enactment of the Posse Comitatus Act would put an end to the use of the army to raid illicit whiskey distilleries.

After passage of the act, court decisions acknowledged that the law was merely an extension of the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. In United States v. Walden, the court said:

"The policy that the military involvement in civilian law enforcement should be carefully restricted has deep roots in American history. Whether there should even be a standing army was a question fiercely debated among the framers of the Constitution. In the congressional debate on the Posse Comitatus Act several senators expressed the opinion that the Act was no more than an expression of constitutional limitations on the use of the military to enforce civil laws."

The Military Joins the Drug War

In 1981, in the name of the war on drugs, Congress began to violate the Founders' notion that the military had to be kept separate from civilian law enforcement: amendments to the Posse Comitatus Act that allowed the military to provide law enforcement with intelligence information, lend law enforcement authorities military equipment, and train and provide technical assistance for civilian drug enforcement authorities.

That was the beginning of a path that the drug warriors could not resist pursuing. Once again in 1985, Congress passed amendments to the act which gave the military authority to stop, search and arrest suspected smugglers anywhere on the world seas. The amendment's sponsor, U.S. Rep. Charles Bennett (D-Fla.), whose son died of an overdose of Valium in 1977, said he sponsored the amendment because "I don't want to waste my pain." He went on to describe the Posse Comitatus Act, as a "sinful, evil law."

Measures passed by the House in 1986 and by both the House and Senate in 1988 ordered the president to deploy enough military equipment and personnel to halt the penetration of U.S. borders by aircraft or vessels carrying narcotics, within 30 days. The bill gave DoD 45 days after deployment to "substantially halt" the drug flow.

Opposition to the military's involvement has come from a variety of sources. The most significant opponent to the amendment was Casper Weinberger, secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan. Weinberger said in a letter to Congress the amendment would break down "the historic separation between military and civilian spheres of activity," which he described as "one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy." The defense secretary said, "We strongly oppose the extension of civilian police powers to our military forces."

Since the amendments to the Posse Comitatus Act, the military has played an increasingly important role in drug enforcement. In 1990, the military was allocated $1.2 billion for the drug war. The military has by law now been designated the lead agency in drug interdiction and eradication. It has loaned equipment to civilian authorities, used AWACS and E-2C radar planes for surveillance, and, during the 1985 marijuana harvest, Navy and Coast Guard vessels blockaded the Colombian coast. Even before the invasion of Panama, the United States had sent troops into Bolivia and Peru.

A secret directive, signed by President Reagan on April 8, 1986, and announced by then-Vice President George Bush on June 7, defined the drug trade as "a national security concern" and authorized expanded military support to the war on drugs. One month later, Operation Blast Furnace was announced and U.S. Army personnel and equipment entered foreign soil to fight the war on drugs. The operation also involved the deployment of 170 U.S. military personnel, six UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters and a Hercules C-130 cargo plane carrying trucks, jeeps, radio equipment and field gear to Bolivia's Chaparé region for a four-month mission. In addition the operation included raids on suspected cocaine laboratories by DEA agents and Bolivian anti-drug forces, known as 'The Leopards." This major U.S. initiative produced a temporary decline in cocaine production but made no significant seizures of cocaine, supplies or suspects. As soon as the four-month operation ended, coca prices resumed their normal level.

In 1988, the military began Operation Snowcap, a long-term U.S. presence in the coca growing regions of the Andean mountains of Peru and Bolivia. The military provided support for U.S. helicopter strikes by DEA agents and local forces against drug laboratories. Hand-picked teams of U.S. Special Forces personnel provide training to local military and police forces in counterinsurgency and small-unit tactics.

Secretary of Defense Cheney has differed with his predecessors — Weinberger in particular — on the proper role of the military in the enforcement of drug laws. On Sept 18, 1988, Cheney issued a directive to all U.S. military commanders, ordering them to develop plans for a major campaign in the drug war. He declared that the drug war was "a high priority" and that the Defense Department "will assist in the attack of illegal drugs at the source."

Under Cheney's administration the DoD has taken on a more aggressive role in drug enforcement. Among the activities that occurred under his administration are: the invasion of Panama justified by the need to bring Manuel Noriega to the United States to face drug charges; the sending of Army Special Forces to Bolivia and Peru, along with 100 civilians and at least 50 Green Berets working under "Operation Snowcap" in Peru and 60 to 100 military specialists in Colombia; the use of AWACS to monitor air traffic in the Andean Region; and the sending of a flotilla to the Colombian coast.

Vietnam Analogy

It is always dangerous to mention the Vietnam War in discussion of current policy because of the powerful emotions raised by that difficult period in American history. However, it is an analogy that is inescapable when the increasing involvement of the armed forces in the drug war is discussed. There are so many similarities that a comparison with the Vietnam experience must be considered.

U.S. troops are faced with a very complex situation. In September of 1989 Peruvian drug lords communicated a threat to U.S. personnel by sending 20 headless corpses floating down the Huallaga River past a U.S. Special Forces base in the heart of Peru's coca-growing territory. In early 1989 the United States had to suspend Operation Snowcap, a DEA and Green Beret military presence in the Upper Huallaga Valley of the Andean mountains, because safety of U.S. personnel could not be ensured. In April 1990, while Peruvians used M-60 machine guns, Huey Helicopter gunships were flown by U.S. pilots, in a fierce two-hour firefight with guerillas supporting the coca growers. The 30 American drug warriors and 500 Peruvians were defending the U.S. base at Santa Lucia in the Upper Huallaga Valley against the Shining Path guerillas.

By providing housing and sports facilities to the urban and rural poor, the drug traffickers have succeeded in gaining some level of popular support. Guerrilla forces, which are trying to overthrow their governments for cultural, political and economic reasons, are engaged in civil wars in both Peru and Colombia. At times, tenuous alliances, or "marriages of convenience," may take place between drug traffickers and guerillas, but the two are actually ideologically opposed. While the U.S. media portrays the Colombian conflict as one between drug traffickers and the government, the situation is much more complex. Indeed, presidential candidates, judges, police, prosecutors, reporters and civilians all have been assassinated. Since 1980 the death count in Colombia has reached over 17,000, and estimates in Peru were just as high. Yet the main agents of murder are not drug traffickers or guerrillas, but right-wing paramilitary death squads. These death squads are comprised, in part, of drug traffickers, in addition to other economic elites (e.g., large landowners) and members of the Colombian security (military and police) forces.

The countries in the Andean region are widely corrupted by drug money. Even before the war begins in earnest, local governments have been compromised by the so-called enemy. In addition, the governments are not trusted by their own people because the governments have historically abused the human rights of their citizens. Thus, the U.S. government is allying itself with governments that do not enjoy the safety of the hearts and minds of their people.

The drug war, like the Vietnam War, is being fought in difficult jungle terrain, making it impossible for normal military tactics to be successful. Opposition forces do not find it difficult to resist or evade attack. Moreover, the U.S. is entering into a jungle quagmire that could encompass much more land mass than Southeast Asia. Vietnam and Cambodia are 195,000 total square miles. The square miles of Bolivia, Colombia and Peru total over six times that: 1.3 million square miles. Now that cocaine production is spreading to Brazil, one can add 3.2 million square miles to that figure.

While the similarities with Vietnam are forboding, the differences may be even more important. Unlike Vietnam, this is a war being financed, on both sides, by American dollars. Drug consumers in the U.S. spend billions of dollars for drugs from the cartels. At the same time, the U.S. government gives hundreds of millions to the Colombian government to fight the cartels.

The War at Home

The National Guard has been involved in drug enforcement throughout the 1980s. The role initially was to work in marijuana aerial surveillance and eradication programs. But as the drug war has escalated the Guard has become involved in a va-
riety of tasks including monitoring the Mexican border, assisting local police in processing and analyzing intelligence information and providing radar support in the Caribbean. The Guard is playing a growing role in many aspects of domestic drug enforcement.

Active duty federal troops were used for the first time in history during Operation Greensweep in northern California in July 1990 and Operation Ghost Dancer in Oregon in August 1990. Declarations made by people living in the areas under siege describe living in a war zone where rights are routinely violated. As a result of this activity the Drug Policy Foundation filed Drug Policy Foundation v. William Bennett, No. C-90-2278FMS (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California). The lawsuit alleges a variety of constitutional and statutory violations.

Our local police have come to be more and more like armed forces. It is as if they are acting with martial law authority, even though martial law has not been declared. The Los Angeles police have used a tank to attack crack houses. In Northern California, the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting, has roadblocked entire towns, used helicopters to harass local residents and trespassed onto private lands without search warrants. In Chicago, police have locked the doors of housing projects and conducted house to house warrantless searches. In suburban Fairfax, Virginia, as in many parts of the United States, every drug search warrant is served by a SWAT team.

Unfortunately, the courts have allowed this increasing militarization. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld warrantless helicopter searches for marijuana growing inside a greenhouse, allowed police to stop, detain, and question travelers who fit a broad set of characteristics resembling drug traffickers, and have allowed police to use dogs to search travellers' luggage without probable cause.

In addition, police may search boats on inland waterways without probable cause, obtain search warrants based on anonymous tips, ignore "no trespassing" signs and barbed wire fences and enter private property without search warrants. When it comes to enforcing the drug laws police have broad powers resembling martial law.

Even the court system is taking on the characteristics of wartime courts. The Congress has limited the constitutional right to bail, authorized seizure of assets before conviction, required harsh mandatory sentences, limited appeal rights and is now talking of limiting habeus corpus. Courts have allowed lawyers to be subpoenaed to testify against their clients before grand juries, allowed seizure of assets to be used to pay an accused's legal fees, and allowed courts to prosecute foreigners kidnapped abroad or even brought to our courts after an invasion.