Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
....Craig, I'm thinking that if we put you in charge of the drug war, you'd be focusing on all the little fish . . . every American in possession of just one joint. That'd be committing extensive resources to minor crimes rather than focusing on the big time dealers, especially of more addictive and more dangerous drugs.

Larry, I'm highly confident that you can come up with tons of examples of who knows what, but will you consider answering one question. How can I get one of those ignorance of the law free passes?

It's a fun exercise, what if I were king, not Brown, for a day. I'd probably get a little miffed if I thought investigators under me were blowing smoke up my... Quick question, is one joint still illegal or not? If it is, maybe I'd set up the equivalent meter maids and fund the whole department twenty-five bucks at a time by issuing a truckload of citations?

You're wrong that I'd ignore big fish or squander resources. I'd approach it from the philosophy that the poor little druggie is responsible for huge drains on our employers for lost time, our medical system for all manors of long term chronic disease treatment, and our sensibilities for the inability to make meaningful excuses. It would be my version of making 'em pay their fair share.

What would you do if you were head of a big intel agency? Please don't say you'd bury yourself in strategy and pr meetings.


Craig, how many times do I have to explain to you that it's NOT AN IGNORANCE OF THE LAW ISSUE? Charities lie to people all the time about how they spend their money. And you probably can't check the Palestinian Widows and Orphans Fund via Charity Navigator. (Did you know that you can't check the Clinton Foundation via Charity Navigator?)

You can shut down speeding in a hurry by putting a whole bunch of cops on the road and giving them awards for the ones who write the most tickets. The question is: Is it a good allocation of resources? How big do you want government to be? Same story chasing little fish who send money to support terrorism while thinking they're supporting widows and orphans. You catch the big fish, try "walking back the cat" on everyone who sent him money . . . but how many FBI counterterrorism agents would it take to make solid cases? And that's what the FBI is all about. They want proof that will stand up in court. And all you've got is proof that the little fish wrote a check to a charity. You don't have proof that the little fish knew the charity was a scam, covering up where the money was really going. HUGE waste of resources.

If I were running the FBI, here's the kind of little fish I'd be looking for: One who's admitted that she wants to shoot a whole bunch of people: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/teenage...k-47/ar-AAHr5fc She's a little fish who wants to become a big fish. Not an Islamist terrorist, but someone who's about to do what Bin Laden told Muslims was their duty: kill Americans. And that's the point you keep dodging. And by the way . . . "strategy" is very important. You only have X amount of resources (unless you've decided that you're a fan of much bigger govt than what we already have). And if I'm telling my counterterrorist people to focus on stopping attacks like Orlando before they happen, I'm thinking I've hit on the correct strategy.