LETTER TO CASPAR W. WEINBERGER FROM CHARLES B. RANGEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87M01152R000400540035-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 11, 2010
• Sequence Number: 35
• Publication Date: April 16, 1985
• Content Type: LETTER

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
TRANSMITTAL SLIP ,j-2 May 1985
ROOM N0. BUILDING
FROM: Charles E. Allen, NI0/CT-NARC
ROOM NO. 13UILDING
EXTENSION
DORM NO. REPLACES FORM 36-8 (47)
1 FEB 56 241 WHICH MAY BE USED.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
L:NARLES B. RANGEL NtW YORK
? " CHAIRMAN
PETER W. P001140. .I. NEW JERSEY
FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK. CALIFORNIA
JAMES N. SCNEUER. NEW YORK
CAROISS COLLINS. ILLINOIS
DAN.EL K. AKAKA. HAWAII
FRANK J. GUARINI. NEW JERSEY
ROBERT T. MATSUI. CALIFORNIA
DANTE B. FASCELL FLORIDA
WALTER E. FAUNTROY. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM J. HUGHES. NEW JERSEY
MEL LEVINE. CAUFORNIA '
SOLOMON P ORTIZ. TEXAS
LAWRENCE J. SMITH. FLORIDA
EDOLPHUS -ED- TOWNS. NEW YORK
VIA . R)ou5e of rpresentatibe5
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ?.
NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL
ROOM H2-234. HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANNEX 2
WASHINGTON. DC 20515
April 16, 1985
The Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger
Secretary of Defense
Department of Defense
_ The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Dear Mr. Secretary:
BENJAMIN A GILMAN. NEW YORK
FLANKING MINORITY MEMBER
LAWRENCE COUGHLIN PENNSYLVANIA
E. CLAY SHAW. J. FLORIDA
MICHAEL G OXLEV.OHIO
STAN PARRIS. VIRGINIA
GENE CHAPPIE. CALIFORNIA
DUNCAN HUNTER, CALIFORNIA
JOSEPH J D.GUARDI. NEW YORK
MICHAEL L STRANG. COLORADO
JOHN G. ROWLAND. CONNECTICUT
JOHN T. CUSACK
CHIEF OF STAFF
ELLIOTT A. BROWN
MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
Over the past few months this Committee has received numerous
highly responsible requests to explore the feasibility of expanding the
participation of our military services in drug interdiction and enforce-
ment. This issue has received an increased amount of media attention
? and several groups of public officials, such as-the Southern State
Governors' Association, the Gulf State Governorg' Association and the
National Association of Attorneys General, have called for increased
utilization of the military in drug interdicti6n.
Proponents of an increased role for the military argue that:
1. Our current interdiction efforts, including the South Florida Task
Force and the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System (NNBIS)
have failed to appreciably reduce the amount of illegal drugs
entering the United States. A massive infusion of resources is
needed to respond to the drug trafficking threat. Therefore, it is
imperative, while the nation is not at war, that we use Army, Navy
and Air Force equipment and,manpower to combat drug trafficking.
2. The military has available manpower, equipment and bases that can
be used against drug smugglers more quickly and at less cost than
would be required to build up the manpower and resources of DEA,
the Customs Service and the Coast Guard to perform the same missions.
3. Drug trafficking is a national security threat because it under-
mines the health and welfare of the country. As such, combating
drug smuggling is a proper national security role for our military.
Moreover, the military should be actively participating in activ-
ities that guarantee the security of our nation's borders. If our
borders are vulnerable to drug trafficking, they can be equally
vulnerable to the entry of aircraft, weapons and other dangerous
devices and materials that can endanger the security of the United
States.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
The Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger
? April 16, 1985
Page Two
Opponents of an increased role for the military in drug enforcement
make the following arguments:
1. Any further extension of the role of the military in drug law
enforcement would be a threat to civil liberties. As the House
Judiciary Committee noted in its report on the 1982 Defense Author-
ities Act exception to the Posse Comitatus statute:
Most importantly the Committee rejected the granting
of arrest and seizure authority to the military -
because.it believes that such a grant of authority
would fundamentally alter the nature of the relationship
between the military from day to day involvement in
the execution and operation of the civilain laws crust
overcome a strong presumption against it. Any change
in this tradition may affect the rights of the civilian
comriunity, and may also have a potentially negative
effect on the necessary apolitical professionalism of
our Armed Forces. In this situation the case for a
change was not made.
2. The fundamental and paramount role of the military is national 611,
defense. Any large-scale depletion of resources to engage in
civilian law enforcement activities will affect military readiness,
according to Lt. General R. Dean Tice, Director of DoD's drug
enforcement task force. ,
The 1981 amendments to the Posse Comitatus statute provided for
military cooperation with civilian law enforcement officials to the
extent of furnishing drug intelligence information collected in the
course of military operations, the use of military equipment and facil-
ities, training and advice to civilian law enforcement personnel, and
military personnel to operate and maintain military equipment in the
hands of the civilian law enforcement agencies.
The civilian agencies inform us that in their judgement two pro-
visions in the Posse Comitatus amendments of 1981 that have prevented
effective utilization-of military support in their drug enforcement
efforts have been (1) the requirement to reimburse the military for
support services when they have no funds for this'purpose, and (2) the
requirement that military commanders cannot provide support if it
detracts from their defense readiness capability. This causes military
commanders to be extremely cautious in lending equipment to civilian
drug enforcement agencies lest they be charged with weakening their
military readiness.
. I would like to begin the examination by this Committee of the
feasibility of increased military participation in drug interdiction and
enforcement with a-closed briefing of the Committee by respresentatives
of the Department of Defense and the Army, Navy and Air Force.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
The Honorable.Caspar W. Weinberger
April 16, 1985
Page Three
I would like the following proposals, which are the most frequently
made to us to be addressed at the briefing:
1. Given the fact that U.S. Customs and the DEA estimate that about
18,000 aircraft and another 18,000 boats or vessels are entering
the United States annually with illicit drug cargoes and only 2
percent are interdicted, the Congress should enact legislation
declaring for a specific period of time that an auxiliary mission
of the U.S. Armed Forces under the direction of the Secretary of
Defense is to interdict the illicit importation of narcotic and
psychotropic drugs into the United States. If this "auxiliary
mission" is properly defined and funded is there any reason why the
DoD could not support this legislation. ,
2.? Congress should enact legislation authorizing and requir.ing the
United States Navy, pursuant to specific authority of the Secretary
of Defense, to conduct drug enforcement operations at sea. Specif-
ically, the Navy should be charged with intercepting narcotic
trafficking at sea, particularly, but not limited to, the areas of
the Caribbean and southeastern shoreline of the United States. It
should be empowered to stop vessels of any nationality about which
there is reasonable cause to believe that illegal narcotics are on
board and intended for delivery within the United States, to search
such vessels and to seize any illegal drugs-or narcotics and any
narcotics contraband found thereon. Additionally, Navy personnel
should be permitted to make arrests and to-deliver any person so
arrested and any seized contraband to the appropriate civil author-
ities of the Federal Government of the United States. If properly'
authorized and funded.for this mission is there any reason why the
DoD,could not support this legislation?
3. Congress should enact legislation authorizing and requiring the
United States Air Force, pursuant to specific authority of the
Secretary of Defense, to utilize its aircraft, radar equipment, and
personnel to assist drug enforcement officials of the Federal
Government in detecting and intercepting drug smuggling aircraft
attempting to penetrate the coastline and land borders of the
United States. The Air Force would be required to provide suf-
ficient radar equipment, intercept aircraft and personnel to
ensure coverage of the coastal and border areas most vulnerable to
the illegal importation of drugs. Air Force personnel would be
authorized to assist civilian federal drug enforcement officials in
performing searches for and seizures of illegal narcotics and in
making arrests. Ifthis7mission was to' be :prop erlydefined;:rand;?
funded is_there .any:reason why DoD could not support this-legis-
l ation?
4. A. Congress should enact legislation authorizing and requiring
the use>of-=UnitedStates Army personnel.; pursuant to specific
authority of the Secretary of Defense, to'assist the United
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
 ? Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11 : CIA-RDP87M01152R000400540035-6
The Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger
April 16, 1985
Page Four
States Customs Service drug enforcement efforts at all ports
of entry, including, but not limited to, all major seaports
and all airports receiving international flights. Army
personnel working in conjunction with the U.S. Customs Service*
will be authorized to patrol land border and coastal areas
used by drug smugglers to penetrate the United States. Also
to perform searches of baggage and cargo for illegal narcotics
in conformity with the authority granted by Congress to Customs
officials, to seize any narcotics found, and to make arrests
for referral to the appropriate civil authorities of the-
Federal Government. Is there any reason why, if this mission
is properly defined and funded that the DoD could not support
this legislation?
B. The legislation would also authorize the use of U.S Army
personnel and equipment, pursuant to specific authority of the
Secretary of Defense, to assist the Drug Enforcement Admin-
istration and the officials and law enforcement units of the
Bureau of Land Management, the National Forest Service and the
National Park Service detect and eradicate the cultivation of
marijuana and any other narcotic crops found on land owned by
the United States Government?
Is there any reason why, if this mission is properly defined
and funded the DoD could not support this legislation.
C. Pursuant to specific authority of the Secretary of Defense,
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau of the Army would
assist the State National Guards on a need basis with heli-
copter and fixed wing aircraft, ground vehicles and logistical
support to enable them pursuant to the orders of their Gov-
ernors to effectively assist Federal, State and -local law
enforcement units in the detection and eradication of illicit
marijuana and other narcotic crops within their states.
Is there any reason why, if this mission of the U.S. Army
National- Guard Bureau._is.properly defined and funded that the
-DoD.could not support=it?
The briefing we are requesting we would very much like to. have from
8:00 a.m. to..9.00_ a.m.: on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday i n May. We
would hope :to haveit in theRayburn Building. All persons attending
would have "Top Secret Security Clearances." In addition to --25,.members
offthe.:Select_Cornmiatee on Narcotics Abuse and C-ontrol- that;might-
participate we would anticipate inviting many other members who have an
important interest in the issue of expanded military involvement in drug
enforcement.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6
? ine nonoraose %.asydr w. weInueiycr
April 16, 1985
Page Five
Please have your representative communicate with Chief of Staff,
John T. Cusack, of this Committee to arrange for the time and place of
the briefing. I very much appreciate-~rour ooperation in this matter.
ARLES B. RANGEL
Chairman
cc: The Honorable Peter W. Rodino,.Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary-
The Honorable Les Aspin
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services
Ail Select Comittee Members
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/03/11: CIA-RDP87MOl 152R000400540035-6