Skip to main content

Snitching For The DEA Isn't As Fun As It Sounds

Juan Medina has an IQ of 77. Suffice to say he ain't no rocket scientist. Medina's limited mental capacity precludes many potential employment opportunities, but it was good enough for the DEA, which made him a secret agent. It didn't work out very well.

From The New York Times:

Mr. Medina, who had no previous criminal record, said he became involved with the D.E.A. in the fall of 2004, a few months after his father was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison on drug conspiracy charges. He said he was told that if he helped the agency, his father might win an early release.
...
Mr. Medina said he signed a contract even though he told agents he knew little about his father’s criminal associates.

Despite his limitations and the "unremarkable life" he'd led, Medina managed to infiltrate a gang of drug dealers in Brooklyn. Things took a turn for the worse when Medina's criminal associates took him along on a robbery. He claims to have notified DEA of their plans and even waited around for police after the heist went down. To his surprise, no one at DEA would corroborate his story.

The D.E.A. has acknowledged that Mr. Medina, 24, was under contract as an informant. But the agency has not come to his aid, and is, in fact, helping prosecute him on charges of burglary, robbery and criminal possession of a weapon stemming from the robbery at a Bronx apartment. If convicted, he could be sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Whether or not the DEA knew about the robbery, as Medina claims, they bear full responsibility for his actions. They took a man with a limited mental capacity, exploited his love for his father, and sent him on dangerous missions. Their assistance in his prosecution is a rather transparent attempt to cover up their mistake.

This is a perfect example of the reckless abandon with which the DEA operates. Their insatiable greed compels them to create crime and confiscate the proceeds. Sadly, innocent people like Juan Medina are the easiest prey.

Feature: Prison Rape and the War on Drugs

According to a just released study, sexual assaults against prisoners are an endemic problem, not an isolated one, the drug war makes it worse, and drug war prisoners are among those most likely to be victimized.

National African American Drug Policy Coalition Third Annual Summit

This year, the theme is "Substance Abuse among Vulnerable Populations: Enhancing Treatment, Eliminating Disparities, and Promoting Justice." The summit will focus on health and criminal justice issues among vulnerable populations within the African American community. Special workshops will focus on adolescents, women, and the reentry population. The summit will convene key leaders from our member organizations and other experts that span across a variety of disciplines.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Reading about the rhetorical gymnastics of the Supremes on the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case gives insight into the prohibitionist mindset. As I see it, the fact that the case is being heard at all is a joke. The facts, as I understand them, are clear cut. To sum up: Frederick was, at the time of the 'event' an adult under Alaska law. He was not on school property. The event was not a school sponsored event, merely one for which school had been dismissed. In other words, school was closed. The meaning of the message he displayed is unclear, though obviously provocative. Here is my take on what happened: The principal, seeing the banner, felt embarassed, failed to maintain her composure, allowed herself to become angry, and lashed out. Upon regaining composure, she realized her error, but by then the 'event' had transpired, so she looked for any excuse for her lapse, cited the 'drug message' as contrary to school policy, and suspended Frederick for 5 days. When he dared to question this, the penalty was doubled. This administrator displayed a dismaying lack of self discipline, and obviously DID restrict the rights of free speech of another adult. She should be fired, not promoted. If you doubt this position, consider this question: What would the principal have done had one of the adult homeowners across the street from the school unfurled such a banner in front of their own home? What if it had been the son or daughter of such homeowner, standing on their own front lawn, across from the school, with such a banner? Would she have been within her rights to tear that banner down? Of course not. So what difference would it make if they took a few steps forward onto public property? Would that change things? Of course not. What difference does it make if it is a homeowner standing on the public sidewalk adjacent to his property, or another member of the public? Of course, it should not make any difference at all. As to the discussions between the Supremes, the fact that they are discussing the displaying of signs inside a classroom during class, as if it were a parallel situation when it obviously is not, demonstrates that they are trying to find some pretzel logic way to find in favour of the school. Pity they have allowed themselves to be co-opted by the prohibitionists in power, rather than thinking for themselves. I fully expect them to find in favour of the school, and then watch the free speech limitations increase incrementally.
Subscribe to