Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Is the Drug War Being Won or Lost?

Aired April 23, 2001 - 19:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: ... carrying a family of American missionaries. CIA contract employees on a U.S. surveillance plane mistakenly targeted the missionary aircraft as possibly carrying drugs and drug dealers.

The family's mother and an infant daughter died in the crash, but surviving were the father, a son and the pilot. The badly wounded pilot today saying the tragedy will always haunt him.

The State Department says the CIA spotters cautioned the Peruvians against attacking the plane, and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the Americans had followed proper procedures. But President Bush yesterday suspended drug surveillance flights, and the planes today remained grounded.

The broader question: Should the U.S. be actively fighting drugs in Peru, Colombia and elsewhere? Is the drug war being won or lost? And is the Bush administration concentrating too much on drug supply and not enough on drug demand? -- Bill Press.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Major Messing, welcome to CROSSFIRE.

RET. MAJ. ANDY MESSING, NATIONAL DEFENSE COUNCIL FOUNDATION: Thank you, sir.

PRESS: Let's just review the facts here, if we can, of this tragedy in Peru. A plane carrying American missionaries shot down by the Peruvian military. A woman and her daughter killed; the pilot seriously wounded, said he may not walk again for at least another year; The plane having been identified by an American surveillance plane manned by the CIA. How can the United States government ever justify being an accomplice to such a tragedy as that?

MESSING: Well, as you know, this is the second incident, the first one being a C-130 that was strafed by the Peruvian air force. The idea that the CIA had contract people on board bothers me, rather than direct CIA personnel or American military people because they have a higher standard, in my opinion, than would the contractor personnel.

And if nothing else, they wouldn't have been intimidated by this Peruvian liaison officer on board the aircraft. So, there's a lot of things that need to be looked at with regard to that particular aspect of this very successful program. PRESS: But the fact that the CIA today is saying that they did everything right and the Peruvians, that they issued all these warning and told them be careful, don't particularly go in there, but the Peruvians ignored them, I have to ask you, sir, why should we believe what the CIA is saying? They lied in Vietnam. They lied about Guatemala. They lied about Cuba. I mean, that's their mission to lie. Why should we believe them?

MESSING: Well, what's going to happen is there is three sources of radio transmissions that we can tap into, NSA, CIA, on board tapes, and then, of course, the Peruvian air force and there may be even a fourth source, which is the tower itself may have been recording the transmissions of the pilot between the tower.

So, we're going to have a lot of evidence not to -- we may even have gun camera footage from the A-37, also, that winds up being part of the evidentiary procedure here. So, we're going to wind up getting to the bottom of this, and I think the president stepping back and suspending things so everybody can take a good look at what fault happened.

The policy is good, it's just that it was executed poorly in this particular case and, of course, it's a quadraphonic tragedy. It's an American who has, you know, hurt Americans that were hurt. It was an innocent person, Americans, missionaries and to top it all off, a beautiful woman and her infant daughter.

NOVAK: David Boaz, Major Messing said this was a successful program, and that's not only person who thinks so. General McCaffrey, who was the drug czar in the Clinton administration, had to say about this shoot down program and let's listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DRUG CZAR: The Peruvians have shot down more than 25 aircraft over the past six or seven years, and it darn near put a stop to air smuggling of drugs. Now, they're using Brazilian airspace and Venezuelan airspace. But you know, there's been an enormous decrease in cocaine production in Peru, more than 65 percent, much of it due to this very determined drug interdiction effort by the Peruvians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: So don't we have, in all candor, one mistake in what has been a very successful program?

DAVID BOAZ, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CATO INSTITUTE: Not at all. We have a terrible tragedy that was an inevitable consequence of a policy of following planes, of authorizing the Peruvian air force, agreeing with the Peruvian air force's policy that it will shot down planes if it doesn't know what they're doing, if they don't respond or for some reason, they don't know.

This is like a guilty until proven innocent policy. This time, it's been a tragedy. They have shot down 25 planes. Do we know this is the first time they've shot down a wrong one? It's the first time they shot down a wrong one with Americans on it, but the general kind of acknowledged what's going here. What we do is we concentrate and we can crack down and we can reduce the amount of cocaine coming out of Peru, and what appears? It comes out Colombia. It comes out of Bolivia. And now they're worried it's going to come out of Venezuela. I don't call that a success.

NOVAK: I just wonder, Mr. Boaz, I think all of us, including you, think there are times when the national security of the United States requires direct intervention. There's no question we're intervening in Peru and Colombia.

Some of us, I think Cato Institute and I agree about the question about whether the invention in Haiti, the intervention in the Balkans was desirable or necessary, but this is at America's doorstep, where both Peru and Colombia at various stages have had communist guerrillas financed by narco-terrorists. Major Messing has said both have been endangered, particularly Colombia, of being a narco-state. Don't you think that is a time when the United States' intervention is desirable and necessary?

BOAZ: No, I think that's a time when United States intervention is particularly dangerous. We are laying the groundwork for another Lebanon, another Somalia, another entanglement like we had in Central America in the 1980s. I think this is very dangerous, and it's not working.

Drugs prices in the United States are down. What does that tell you? It tells you that more drugs than ever are coming in. We are trying to export the solution to our drug problem in the United States. If we can't stop people from using drugs here, we tell the poor governments of Colombia and Peru that it's their responsibilities, and I think that's wrong.

PRESS: Major, I can see you want to jump in there.

MESSING: The last eight years have been a sabbatical. You know, if it wasn't for Barry McCaffrey getting with the program in the last three year because of Congress putting a blow torch to Barry McCaffrey, we would have had a continued downward spiral. We had a lot of success all way up until November of 1992. We had cocaine prices increased, availability started going down and then under the Clinton administration, it was, you know, they went out to lunch or something.

So, what you need is consistency in the drug war. We're never going to win the drug war, but what you're going to have is a reduction of availability means a reduction of use means a reduction of health problems means a reduction of crimes means a reduction of problems in the work force. So, you wind up, you know, having that kind of thing.

PRESS: But we've been hearing that for long time. The drug war, let's give Nixon credit for starting it. In 1968, we were spending $65 million. Under Ronald Reagan, 1982, $1.6 billion. Last year, under Bill Clinton, it was $19.2 billion, and people like you are still defending it. When are you going to admit after spending all this money for all these years that it's not working?

MESSING: Every time you have a ton of cocaine go across our borders, you have a billion dollars of ancillary damage: health damage, crime, all kinds of extra costs associated with it. The point is that you have to provide that back pressure on this event or else you have a bifurcation of capitalism where dark side capitalism takes root, criminal capitalism, of you must, and democracies in these regions are threatened at the throat.

I mean, it's a critical thing that you wind up having this back pressure or else you have unfettered drug production and then you have compounded problems by a factor of 10, maybe 20.

PRESS: David Boaz.

BOAZ: You're a real supply-sider, Andy. You think if drugs come in, that's what causes the problem. What causes the problem, to the extent that there's a problem, is that Americans want to use cocaine and heroin and marijuana. And you know, Bill, you said $19 billion, but in fact, the state and local government spend about the same amount.

So, you're talking about around $40 billion, and it went up every year during the Clinton administration. The number of arrests went up every year during the Clinton administration. We're arresting 1.6 million people a year for using drugs. How many would be enough?

MESSING: The fact is I'm also interested in demand side.

BOAZ: Arresting 1.6 -- excuse me.

PRESS: Go ahead.

MESSING: The point is, demand side activities take up a big chunk of that money. This is not all supply side interdiction. The point is, you wind up having to convince the American public that this causes problem to our environment. This causes problems to our health. This promotes crime. But you have to have consistent leadership, just like we had under Ronald Reagan, and for the most part, Bush I.

Those two presidents started being consistent and it started having an impact on the reduction of drug use and the prices of drugs went up.

PRESS: I believe President Clinton was as bad as they were in terms of the money he spent on the drug wars, as David pointed out. But look at what we're doing out there, like last year, Colombia, $1.3 billion. Three-quarters of it is for military assistance. We have U.S. forces there that are in the field training troops. Their U.S.- supplied combat helicopters, we're helping them pour poison from the ground to fight guerrillas.

You said, another Somalia. It sounds to me like an another Vietnam. MESSING: No, it's been capped in two instances by the Senate and a matter of fact, Bobby Byrd, who you are probably a fan of, wound up capping subcontractors. We are capped just like we were in El Salvador, so we have an upper limit on the amount of American personnel involved in this particular issue. The point...

BOAZ: Famous last words.

MESSING: 55 held the whole time.

NOVAK: Before we take a break, quick, one thing. You talked about, having another Central America. Isn't it fact that we saved Salvador and Nicaragua from Communist dictatorships and they both have struggling but Democratic systems right now?

BOAZ: No. I think what really happened is we got involved in some very bloody civil wars and then the Cold War ended, and without the Soviet Union around, things changed.

NOVAK: I think you have your time lines wrong.

PRESS: We will take a break there and we want to tell you that both of our guests have agreed to stay around and be in the chatroom, so you can throw questions to them after Bob and I get our turn. Join them by logging on to cnn.com/crossfire. Let's look at the war on drugs in general. Is it working or is it time to try something else? We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's been more than 30 years since the United States declared a war on drugs. A war embraced and continued by every president since, Republican and Democrat. Yet Americans continue to use illegal drugs. Some of them in greater numbers than ever. Does that mean the war on drugs is not working? Or that we're not yet doing enough? And should the American military be involved? That's tonight's debate with: retired Major F. Andy Messing Jr., executive director of the National Defense Council Foundation; and David Boaz, executive vice president of the CATO foundation -- Bob.

NOVAK: Mr. Boaz, I would like to read you something that was said by the president of Colombia, Andres Pastrana, and we'll put it up on the screen.

"I am certain that our bilateral efforts will have a positive and lasting effect in reducing the amount of the drugs that reach American streets and schools and reducing the violence that plaques Colombia."

That is his optimistic prediction but the question is: isn't that a desirable goal to try to reduce the amount of drugs coming into the United States and the violence in Colombia by the narco terrorists?

BOAZ: It would be a wonderful goal. The problem is, we have been spending a lot of money, risking lives, 2 million Colombians drove from their homes in the civil war... NOVAK: We drove them?

BOAZ: No. Not us, but the civil war that we are getting ourselves involved in, and I don't think that's a good policy. I think what we ought to be looking at, as long as there is demand for drugs in this country, there is going to be drugs coming in here, and if you stop it in Peru, they'll do it in Colombia and if you stop it in Colombia, it will move to Venezuela. And that's why the president of Uruguay has said, we ought to look at legalizing...

NOVAK: I just want to ask you about Colombia, Mr. Boaz. What is your alternative? Let's say, heaven forbid, that you were president and you were making these decisions, what would you do? Would you say, OK, we will let the narco terrorists take over Colombia, we will not try to impede...

BOAZ: No.

NOVAK: What is your alternative policy?

BOAZ: I would take hundreds of millions of dollars away from the narco traffickers by legalizing drugs in the United States so that the price would fall and they wouldn't be getting 500 million dollars. We have made the left wing guerrilla in Colombia the best funded guerrilla movement in the world, because of the high price drugs demand under prohibition.

MESSING: That's simply bizarre. To legalize drugs, you wind up creating a tenfold problem at the outset. I mean, you could have unfettered use and then, you would wind up -- which one of 230 drugs do you legalize? So you legalize half of them, and some of them are instantly mind bending; we can go into an argument, it would take another two hours of your time.

But the factory means the Colombia National Police stopped 35 tons. All total, the Colombian government, including the Colombian Navy, stopped a total of 62 or 63 tons, and like I said, every ton you stop four are deployed, means a billion dollars of our economy is saved and thousands of lives are saved in the United States, because they can't use that 65 tons. And that's what it boils down to.

He says, well, you get from Venezuela or you get it from another source. No, that's not necessarily the case. If you are being consistent, and you apply pressure across-the-board, you wind up, like we did all the way up to until November 1992 having a downturn in use. And you've got to always couch that with demand-side activities.

PRESS: Let me challenge that thinking that you're ever going to stop this supply, and you won't believe a left-winger...

MESSING: Not stop. Reduce, reduce. You've got to reduce it.

PRESS: Even -- even if you're going to win this war on drugs by focusing on supply. Don't take it from a left-winger like me. I'd like you to listen to someone else who's known as a hard-liner. At his confirmation hearing in January, here's what he had to say about whether the supply solution is going to work. Here's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I am one who believes that the drug problem is probably overwhelmingly a demand problem and that it's going to find -- if the demand persists, it's going to find ways to get what it wants. And if it isn't from Colombia, it will be from somebody else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: As long as Americans are willing to pay for it and they want it, it's going to get here, Major, you know that.

MESSING: You've got to remember Secretary Rumsfeld was secretary of defense in 1974, '75 at the height of the Vietnam experience, with all the drug problems associated with the military then. The point being that he's out of step, and what I mean by that is right now drug dealers are putting in more product than we can consume. And the object to the exercise is to reduce the product down as far possible so that you have less use and less damage to the American economy...

PRESS: Let me give you one other...

MESSING: ... and less lives lost.

PRESS: Let me give you one other piece of evidence, if I can. The RAND Corporation -- again, no left-wing group -- for the Pentagon did a study in 1996 that showed that money spent on treatment is seven times move effective -- if we could put it on the screen -- than domestic law enforcement, 11 times more effective than police interdiction, 23 times more effective than fighting drug production.

MESSING: Well, I...

PRESS: Why are you stuck on this supply solution?

MESSING: I don't necessarily -- no, I'm not stuck on just the supply solution. You have to demand and supply simultaneously. It's like a juggler that's throwing up balls. He has to concentrate on the balls equally.

But the fact remains there is less use -- I mean, less product means less use means less problems. Simple.

NOVAK: Mr. Boaz, I'd like you to tell me just how you're going to deal with the legalization of drugs? How are you going to keep cocaine and heroin out of the hands of 18-year-olds or 16-year-olds?

BOAZ: Well, I don't think you -- I don't think you've left me enough time for that. But what I would say is we tried prohibiting alcohol in this country and we found that it was a failure.

MESSING: Not the same. Not the same.

BOAZ: Now we're trying to prohibit cocaine and marijuana, and we're finding that that's a failure, and the American people know that.

NOVAK: We're out of time. Thank you very much, David Boaz, Andy Messing. And I will explain in closing comments what's wrong with Mr. Press' position.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Major Andy Messing and David Boaz are both in the chat room right now. So just log on to cnn.com/crossfire to ask them a question.

Bill, I broke the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) liberal a long time ago. Therefore, intervention when the American national interest is not at stake, as in Haiti, and against intervention where it is at stake, as in the Andean question.

But the real question, Bill...

(LAUGHTER)

... I have to ask you is this: Do you agree with David Boaz that the alternative to intervention is legalization of drugs, because that's the only viable alternative to this plan?

PRESS: I'll get to your question after I make my own statement, Bob. The problem with you conservatives is you talk about less government and you talk about spending less money and you talk about killing programs that don't work, and you find a ripe target like the war on drugs and yet you support it. You as a conservative ought to be against this war on drugs because it's not working.

NOVAK: Answer my question.

PRESS: Now, I'll answer your question. Yes, I support legalization along with George Shultz and some other conservatives.

NOVAK: Well, he's not for legalization of drugs.

PRESS: Listen: Regulate it and tax it and make money on it. That's the only solution.

NOVAK: And that is the road to deprivation of all Americans.

PRESS: That's what they said after Prohibition.

From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE. I'll see you later in "THE SPIN ROOM."

NOVAK: From the right I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE!

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com