Viewed through jaded glasses, these prison industries could be construed as 'slavery-with-a-morally-justified-excuse'.
Some strong words there, and most probably not on topic for this thread... (thus, If you want we can discuss it more in depth offline via PM)..
But suffice it to say that drug trafficking, or any other criminal activity like it, will ALWAYS be more profitable than working on an assembly line, or running a network...
It's the cost/benefit analysis that has been skewed... Punishments do not fit the crime.... as well as there exists a pernicious psychological belief amongst elements of society that the system has screwed them, so they are entitled to screw the system...
I've known many folks who don't fit into traditional minority classifications... They aren't wealthy, and many of them work in some tedious jobs for hourly wages... Yet THEY haven't relied upon drug smuggling, or armed robbery in order to make their living. They live in the SAME system... And many are descendants from ethnic groups who once were considered minorities (Irish, Italian, Polish... etc)
Thus, those who make the claim that it's "the system", and not the choices people make sounds slight illogical to me. Opportunity exists for everyone who CHOOSES to seize it. Both of my parents came from "dirt poor" beginnings (literally), never went to college, yet my father was able to prosper to a comfortable status without engaging in illegal activities.
Bottom line is that many folks have this "get rich quick" mentality and a complete contempt for the rights of others. They are willing to do what's necessary to obtain that wealth, no matter who it hurts.
But that said, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT that there are OTHERS operating behind the scenes of these operations who should be locked up as well. Unfortunately, they are in that position because they are smart enough to cover their legal tracks better than the lowly street dealer.
The British thought we were terrorists because our soldiers hid behind rocks and trees, sniping against their superior forces
But we still were engaging their soldiers, not their civilians, as the primary targets.
It wasn't until WWII that we saw nations engaging in terror bombing against population centers, including the firebombings of London, Conventry, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.... But under the terms of "total war", there are no "innocent civilians because they are all engaged in perpetuating the war effort.
So if Al- Qaeda has declared total war against the US, and they are using total war logic in targeting their attacks, whoever harbors them becomes their ally, and thus, eligible for reciprocal attacks against their civilian population...
N'est pas??
You've hit a lot of points that I can't respond to here... But to give a blanket answer to most of your other points, I'm in total agreement that we should not differentiate between the facilitators, and the soldiers. We clearly have probable cause to believe that some folks had prior knowledge of this event, as indicated by short selling activities in certain sectors. Such knowledge makes them accessories to the fact... We might not be able to justify elimating them as combatants since they may not have been engaged in the planning and execution of this attack, but I'd say we are justified to seize their assets in the US (elsewhere if possible) and blare their names around the world as those who sought to profit by this act.
Hawk |
