Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

[Joe Newman]

I guess sometimes, the plural of anecdote really IS data

An epidemic of "isolated events"?

Wow. Just wow.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

 

[Pete Tar]

Yup.

 

[Mick West]

Meaningful thread titles please.

And can you perhaps explain what the point of this thread is? Where's the bunk?

 

[Oxymoron]

Maybe this is 'bunk'... 'Its a conspiracy to turn America into a terrorised nation afraid of its police force and government'... how about that?

From their map, I count around 60 deaths of innocents, (blue), due to these raids... OMGA better lock down America Call out the National Guard!!!

http://store.cato.org/reports/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america

Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units

The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.

These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they're sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors.

 

[Mick West]

Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy, it's just short-sightedness on the part of politicians.

 

[Oxymoron]

Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy, it's just short-sightedness on the part of politicians.

It is the militarization of the police and overkill to the nth degree... 10 or so 'para military' with essentially a tank and military grade weapons busting down peoples doors to issue a warrant on some teenager, (and that's if they get the right house)... who actually wants to live in such a society? It is insane.

 

[Mick West]

It is the militarization of the police and overkill to the nth degree... 10 or so 'para military' with essentially a tank and military grade weapons busting down peoples doors to issue a warrant on some teenager, (and that's if they get the right house)... who actually wants to live in such a society? It is insane.

But is it a conspiracy, a slippery slope to fascism, or just a bit messed up?

More from that author (Radley Balko)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radle...zation-use-of-force-swat-raids_b_1123848.html

According to Eastern Kentucky University criminologist Peter Kraska, the number of SWAT raids carried out each year in America has jumped dramatically over the last generation or so, from just a few thousand in the 1980s to around 50,000 by the mid-2000s, when Kraska stopped his survey. He found that the vast majority of the increase is attributable to the drug war -- namely warrant service on low-to-mid-level drug offenders. A number of federal policies have driven the trend, including offering domestic police departments military training, allowing training with military organizations, using "troops-to-cops" programs and offering surplus military equipment and weaponry to domestic police police departments for free or at major discounts. There has also been a constant barrage of martial rhetoric from politicians and policymakers.

 

[cosmic]

By the way, the ACLU has recently picked up where Kraska left off (link). Press release: ACLU Launches Nationwide Investigation into Police Use of Military Technology & Tactics

I don't see any reason to attribute this to anything conspiratorial. Seems like we have a fertile source of prosaic explanations: from misguided policies and federal funding incentives to flawed departmental protocols, all in the name of trying to enforce outdated laws.

 

[Oxymoron]

But is it a conspiracy, a slippery slope to fascism, or just a bit messed up?

I think 'a bit messed up' is an incredible understatement.

'conspiracy, a slippery slope to fascism', is my interpretation and I justify that in that mostly these 'actions' are either tacitly or explicitly endorsed, condoned and there is most often no or very little official recrimination let alone appropriate prosecution and punishment.

Authorization appears to 'come from the top', much in the same way that killings in Iraq etc and rendition and torture 'come from the top'.

My view is, that the police would not do it if they faced proper accountability.

This is I think a good example of the way the police are out of control in America. The fact he is exonerated and is still serving demonstrates higher culpability and is therefore a conspiracy. The actions are fascistic.

The cop is obviously waiting for him and moves in straight away and calls him by name "Ernie". Perhaps there was bad blood beforehand I don't know...



From description:

An investigation into the shooting says Duenez had a knife in his hand when he was getting out of the truck. The officer who fired was cleared by the San Joaquin District Attorney this week, the report stating the officer was justified in his use of lethal force.

However, an attorney representing Duenez's family says the knife was in the bed of the pickup truck. He also states Duenez's foot was caught in the seatbelt, preventing him from getting out of the truck. The dash cam video shows officers having to pull Duenez from the sideboard of the truck. He released a copy of the dash cam video to youtube this week.

From comments:

Whether its this video or the MILLION other ones showing cops killing people dogs cats whatever moves?? It doesnt matter u just have to get used to it cuz it will never stop!!! If they actually got punished for it maybe they would think a little more before acting. But they dont n they wont!!! America

 

[Mick West]

Perhaps you are just hearing more about this type of thing because there are a lot more video cameras now?

You can't extrapolate from individual events like this. The cop made a bad call. That does not seem like evidence of a conspiracy. How would authorization come from the top. Do they get a memo says "just shoot the bad guys if you feel like it, we'll get you off any charges".

And why do they have dash cams?

 

[Oxymoron]

Perhaps you are just hearing more about this type of thing because there are a lot more video cameras now?
And why do they have dash cams?

Quite, it is a dual edge sword, video provides evidence for the police ... but also against them.

You can't extrapolate from individual events like this. The cop made a bad call. That does not seem like evidence of a conspiracy. How would authorization come from the top. Do they get a memo says "just shoot the bad guys if you feel like it, we'll get you off any charges".

Pretty much seems that way.

OP

I guess sometimes, the plural of anecdote really IS data

I make the same analogy as the torture and rendition... it came from the top... Where evidence was so compelling and made public, some 'low level' people had to be sacrificed and were then prosecuted and received minimal sentences. Most went completely unpunished, (provided documented evidence was kept out of the media) i.e. no one was dumb enough to post on FB/YT.

 

[Mick West]

There are 800,000 cops/LEOs in the US. I hate to be cliched, but why has nobody talked? Even if it's just subtle encouragement, you'd think someone would have noticed.

 

[Oxymoron]

There are 800,000 cops/LEOs in the US. I hate to be cliched, but why has nobody talked? Even if it's just subtle encouragement, you'd think someone would have noticed.

Like with Abu Ghraib etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#AP.27s_early_report

On November 1, 2003, The Associated Press published a lengthy report [14] on inhumane treatment, beatings and deaths at Abu Ghraib and other American prisons in Iraq, based on interviews with released detainees, who told journalist Charles J. Hanley of inmates attacked by dogs, made to wear hoods and humiliated in other ways. [15] The article gained little notice. [16]"I wish somebody could go and take a picture" of what was happening, one freed man said.[15]
When the U.S. military first reported abuse in early 2004, much of the U.S. media again showed little initial interest. On January 16, 2004, United States Central Command informed the media that an official investigation had begun involving abuse and humiliation of Iraqi detainees by a group of US soldiers. On February 24, it was reported that 17 soldiers had been suspended. The military announced on March 21, 2004, that the first charges had been filed against six soldiers.[17][18]
[/ex]

The Leak: In 2004, Graphic pictures of prisoners being abused by U.S. military personnel in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison were given to journalist Seymour Hersh and the CBS News TV show, 60 Minutes II and then, made public. Amongst photographs of prisoners of war being tortured in compromising position, one shows naked Iraqi detainees piled on top of each other, with U.S security personnel showing thumbs-up signs in the background.

​

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/06/10/10-notorious-leakers-and-how-they-fared/slide/abu-ghraib-photo-leak/#ixzz2YNEMLAvu​

​

Leakers are the lifeblood of these stories. Leakers are more likely to be hunted and punished than the people who they have leaked about. They are therefore very rare.​

​

Serpico had to worry about being 'killed on the job by lack of backup or a 'stray friendly fire''.​

 

[Mick West]

No, not like Abu Ghraib. That was a relatively small number of people, and it still leaked.

Lots of different type of people are cops, or ex-cops, or know cops.

 

[Oxymoron]

No, not like Abu Ghraib. That was a relatively small number of people, and it still leaked.

Lots of different type of people are cops, or ex-cops, or know cops.

But Abu Ghraib is/was a small detention centre but one of a much larger complex and history tells us that Abu Ghraib is simply an example of the much wider and systemic problem.
The problem is also recognised in Canada but I suggest it is far less prevalent there than in the U.S

http://uppingtheanti.org/journal/ar...able-with-ex-cops-on-resisting-police-repres/

This was part of the acculturation process; it reinforced the false separation between the police force and civil society. To this day, this belief leads police to behave arrogantly and use their authority to intimidate people, especially people who do not trust the system. This distinction also favors the development of an esprit de corps ("gang mentality") that ensures that the police remain immune from internal criticism, even if egregious mistakes are committed.

Gaby: The military and the police are similar in many ways. Both institutions train with the goal of stripping persons of their individuality so they will unquestioningly follow orders, and neither institution values personal input or experience much. Training involves hazing rituals and rigorous physical activity aimed at breaking individuals down. Cadets at the academy, like in the military, are lined up to be berated and shouted at by their superiors for trivial things (boots not properly shined, creases on a shirt, etc.). Subservience is required – "yes, Sir!" – and talking back is unacceptable. Hazing is conducted in order to ensure that each person knows their place as a cog in the machine.
Like the military, the police serve the needs of those in power.

 

[Mick West]

This type of thing is a good example of how conspiracy theories are sometimes harmful. There's a very real problem here with badly trained cops killing dogs and raiding friendly poker parties. There's also a problem with institutional corruption, to some degree. But if the criticism of this is phrased as if it's a deliberate policy, a conspiracy on the road to fascism, then it's easy to dismiss that criticism as "just" a conspiracy theory, and ignore it.

 

[Joe Newman]

Perhaps you are just hearing more about this type of thing because there are a lot more video cameras now?

You can't extrapolate from individual events like this.

That's what I was curious about. When can you extrapolate? That was the point of my original title, "I guess sometimes, the plural of anecdote really IS data."

I thought it was pretty meaningful, since goes straight to the core issue of the thread:

It was spurred by the link:

An Epidemic of "Isolated Incidents"

"If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.

At what point does an "epidemic of isolated events" become a "reason for grave concern?"

Is there a rubric or something or some accepted means of determining such or is it just left to the individual to decide for themselves?

I know it's not rigorous science, but as I am unaware of the parameters of whatever data tools are used to determine such, I went with a more informal approach:

When your map of "isolated" incidents of botched paramilitary raids looks pretty much the same as what you get when you pull up Starbucks locations, it just may a cause for concern.

The issue is not SWAT raids, per se, although that's certainly a critical issue in and of itself.

The issue here, however, is at what point does the plural of anecdote become data? Is there one and how is it determined?

 

[Mick West]

The issue here, however, is at what point does the plural of anecdote become data? Is there one and how is it determined?

That's a meaningless question, because it depends on your definition of "anecdote" and "data". It's arguing over the meaning of words.

What's the real question here?

 

[lee h oswald]

Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy, it's just short-sightedness on the part of politicians.

Seems a little charitable to characterize politicians as 'short-sighted', 'corrupt', surely? - 'oh, those poor myopicists haven't a clue, ha ha ha' etc etc. So short-sighted they can't even see their future bank balances? Or perhaps it's a 'myopicist theory'? (Dunno what it means, but we can think of something later).
There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?

So there's a synopsis of sorts on an issue being raised right here on this site at the moment; not the first time, though. Mostly in another thread. The stating of an absolute opinion as fact (and in short order, too). That politicians are merely incompetent rather than complicit. There is no conspiracy (whatever that means). That analysis seems overly naive for a skeptic.

Mick, when someone's banned, like I've been for the last week, I think you should have some indication on the avatar, or summat? I suggest a skull with a dagger through one eye overlaid on the avatar - and maybe dripping red letters stamped over that, saying 'BANNED'? And....sorry, know it's a drag, but what about a countdown clock for when they get released from the MB Gulag? I know you can do it!
Also, I'm totally confused about the 'politeness policy', because I got a week ban for inferring that someone was 'thick' - and yet (irony?) that same person inferred (very clearly) that another contributor was a liar - and that they 'pull stuff out of their arse'. I can't help feeling that my reading of the policy is wrong - as hard as I've tried to never exceed the rudeness 'boundary' implied by everyone else posting here....

 

[Joe Newman]

What's the real question here?

The one I asked in response to your assertion that "you can't extrapolate from individual events like this."

When can you extrapolate from individual events?

 

[Mick West]

The one I asked in response to your assertion that "you can't extrapolate from individual events like this."

When can you extrapolate from individual events?

Immediately. The question is how do you determine the accuracy of the extrapolation?

 

[Mick West]

Seems a little charitable to characterize politicians as 'short-sighted', 'corrupt', surely? - 'oh, those poor myopicists haven't a clue, ha ha ha' etc etc. So short-sighted they can't even see their future bank balances? Or perhaps it's a 'myopicist theory'? (Dunno what it means, but we can think of something later).
There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?

So there's a synopsis of sorts on an issue being raised right here on this site at the moment; not the first time, though. Mostly in another thread. The stating of an absolute opinion as fact (and in short order, too). That politicians are merely incompetent rather than complicit. There is no conspiracy (whatever that means). That analysis seems overly naive for a skeptic.

There's certainly corruption. Saying "short sighted" was admittedly rather an oversimplification. I meant they were focussed on short term goals (often for themselves) rather than long term goals (for the country). But even when they are genuinely trying to make things better, some of them are just rather stupid about it - thinking that putting more people in jail will bring down crime. I does in the short run, but then just builds a divided culture of incarceration.

Mick, when someone's banned, like I've been for the last week, I think you should have some indication on the avatar, or summat? I suggest a skull with a dagger through one eye overlaid on the avatar - and maybe dripping red letters stamped over that, saying 'BANNED'? And....sorry, know it's a drag, but what about a countdown clock for when they get released from the MB Gulag? I know you can do it!

Yes, I was surprised that was lacking. I'll add it to the list - at least the indicator.

Also, I'm totally confused about the 'politeness policy', because I got a week ban for inferring that someone was 'thick' - and yet (irony?) that same person inferred (very clearly) that another contributor was a liar - and that they 'pull stuff out of their arse'. I can't help feeling that my reading of the policy is wrong - as hard as I've tried to never exceed the rudeness 'boundary' implied by everyone else posting here....

If you feel a quote goes of the line, then please report it. How things are dealt with are partly based on cumulative behavior, sorry.

 

[lee h oswald]

Surely anecdotes are data. Observation, empiricism etc. Ooh...me paradoleia's playing up again.

Missed a bit -

Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?

And another -

There is no conspiracy (whatever that means). That analysis seems overly naive for a skeptic.

 

[Mick West]

Surely anecdotes are data. Observation, empiricism etc. Ooh...me paradoleia's playing up again.

Anecdotes are observations. Generally though they are not very good ones. It depends.

Missed a bit -

And another -

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition. You can always frame the description of anything as a conspiracy. The questions you should be asking are just how hidden the conspiracy is, is it illegal, and what is the intent?

What was the intent of the War on Drugs? Just to put people in jail? Bring about a New World Order? Seem tough on crime so they get re-elected? Something that just happened because nobody stopped it?

 

[Joe Newman]

Immediately. The question is how do you determine the accuracy of the extrapolation?

That's a meaningless answer unless you explain what you mean within the context of what I am asking.

If you start with the position that something is an isolated incident until there is evidence to the contrary, fine. That's sound reasoning. But staying there after contrary evidence is presented is not sound reasoning.

So what would constitute evidence to the contrary? How it is determined?

 

[lee h oswald]

Anecdotes are observations. Generally though they are not very good ones. It depends.

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition. You can always frame the description of anything as a conspiracy. The questions you should be asking are just how hidden the conspiracy is, is it illegal, and what is the intent?

What was the intent of the War on Drugs? Just to put people in jail? Bring about a New World Order? Seem tough on crime so they get re-elected? Something that just happened because nobody stopped it?

Anecdotes are observations. Generally though they are not very good ones. It depends.

Good enough for the courts; eyewitness testimony, they call it.

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition

I'm only familiar with the dictionary def., is there another definitive source for definitions of words? (that's definitively an oxymoron, in there). Given that it's how we impart meaning to one another, I think it best if we all use the same book? Otherwise spark plugs might as well be monkfish.

You can always frame the description of anything as a conspiracy

Anything? I had a shower when I came in today. ...over....

The questions you should be asking are just how hidden the conspiracy is, is it illegal, and what is the intent?

Sounds like a trick 'question' in a fourteen year old's exam. I should ask 'just how hidden the conspiracy is'? If I want to chase my tail, sure. Illegal? Who cares? Wrongful and subversive seem to be more to the fore. Intent? Come off it!

What was the intent of the War on Drugs? Just to put people in jail? Bring about a New World Order? Seem tough on crime so they get re-elected? Something that just happened because nobody stopped it?

I reckon anyone with a snout can make their own answers for that bunch. It's almost like a competition to see how much straw could be woven in how short a time.

 

[Pete Tar]

(I've been meaning to mention Oswald, your avatar is a macabre work of genius.
Your posts still read like the rhetoric of a really snarky lawyer however )

 

[Mick West]

I was referring to you saying "Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?". Sure you can't reasonably frame your decision to take a shower as a conspiracy, but you can certainly frame anything that government or any organizations does as a conspiracy

You say you are only familiar with the dictionary definition, but which one?

1
a:to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement<accused of conspiring to overthrow the government>

b : scheme

2​

: to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>

Does your usage here require illegal acts, evil, or simply people acting in harmony?

Why even bother with the word? Why not get to the actual issues? Is there evidence of something illegal and/or evil going on with these raids?

 

[lee h oswald]

(I've been meaning to mention Oswald, your avatar is a macabre work of genius.
Your posts still read like the rhetoric of a really snarky lawyer however )

Ouch! Lawyer! Just wait till Zorp gets here! If you knew me, you'd laugh at that!....though I have whipped a couple of barristers as litigant in person - maybe I spent too long immersed in all their effluence....So help me Cod! I'll take that as a compliment, though - even if it's supposed to be an insult. Lots of things a bit inverted here.

Cheers!

 

[lee h oswald]

I was referring to you saying "Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?". Sure you can't reasonably frame your decision to take a shower as a conspiracy, but you can certainly frame anything that government or any organizations does as a conspiracy

You say you are only familiar with the dictionary definition, but which one?

1
a:to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement<accused of conspiring to overthrow the government>

b : scheme

2​

: to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>

Why even both with the word? Why not get to the actual issues? Is there evidence of something illegal and/or evil going on with these raids?

I find it hard to fathom why someone that has heard me lament the incorrect use of that very word time and again might think that I'm not fully up to speed with all the definitions of said word. It's perfectly normal for words to have more than one meaning - it's demonstrated to anyone using a dictionary. All dictionaries have slightly different wordings, but it's basically the same- but not all dictionaries are based on the same principles, and that is an important distinction. Postin g a cut and paste of a dictionary definition (abridged, by the look of it - certainly incomplete, by all other definitions) is to signify what? Go back to what was said and ask if this is really a valid response.

Does your usage here require illegal acts, evil, or simply people acting in harmony?

Pardon? The 'usage' can't be attributed here (latterly), or please show it if I missed it. [Edit: this is what I'm talking about]

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition

Why even both[er] with the word? Why not get to the actual issues? Is there evidence of something illegal and/or evil going on with these raids?

I wasn't bothering with the word until someone implied that there was another way of defining words that wasn't from a dictionary! The conversation went something like this:
'Well, if you're going to use the dictionary definition'
'Well, yeah - it's the only one I know'
'Which definition do you mean?'
'Huh?'

Is the ending of such posts with a volley of questions that really should be answered/dismissed internally, easily, by the asker, before being voiced out loud, a technique, or just a schtick? Could just be a trend, I suppose.

 

[Mick West]

Why don't you just explain what you meant by this:

There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?

 

[lee h oswald]

Why don't you just explain what you meant by this:

lee h oswald said: ↑

There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?​

​

​

​

Ok, but I thought we'd already agreed that, with the reply

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition

where it appears we are in agreement that it is a conspiracy, if we 'go by the dictionary definition'. I don't think it's a case of 'wanting' to go by the dictionary definition, it's that dictionaries are where definitions are found - so we all have a common language. It's definitive!

And the conversation moved on - when I wondered what other definitions there could be? Obviously, there can't be, so it's a done deal on that score. All communication is rhetorical to a degree, and probably more so in an environment such as this. Omissions and angles and focus all show up on the page, painting a quite detailed psychological picture in the process. As far as the question goes, it's clearly rhetorical, because no one in their right mind could say that The War on Drugs isn't a huge conspiracy with many levels and many participants - just because they don't recognise it as a conspiracy doesn't change the fact. There could hardly be a better example of what a conspiracy is. But, right here on this page I see

Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy

So we go from 'not a conspiracy', to 'yes, if we go by the dictionary definition', in the space of a few posts. Hopefully it's obvious where my objection arose.

As far as 'sloppy language', I think that's been covered. Perhaps I might be treated to a meaningful, genuine reply to explain the contradiction rather than another volley of apparently novice 'questions' or instructions on 'what I need to look at', or some such.

Thanks.

 

[Mick West]

When I said the War on Drugs was not a "conspiracy", I meant it in the sense that's usually understood around here, and is one of the dictionary definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiring

to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement

You seemed to be suggesting it was a more general "conspiracy", as in the second definition:

to act in harmony toward a common end

Hence I'm trying to figure out what you mean. What do you mean?

 

[lee h oswald]

When I said the War on Drugs was not a "conspiracy", I meant it in the sense that's usually understood around here, and is one of the dictionary definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiring

to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement

You seemed to be suggesting it was a more general "conspiracy", as in the second definition:

to act in harmony toward a common end

Hence I'm trying to figure out what you mean. What do you mean?

Hence? Amazing! Plumb away; there's always somewhere deeper.

Don't understand what I mean? I don't believe it. And please stop quoting selected dictionary definitions at me, it's embarrassing.

 

[Mick West]

Hence? Amazing! Plumb away; there's always somewhere deeper.

Don't understand what I mean? I don't believe it. And please stop quoting selected dictionary definitions at me, it's embarrassing.

I quoted both of them, so you could say which you were referring to.

I'd much rather you explain what you mean though.

 

[lee h oswald]

I quoted both of them, so you could say which you were referring to.

I'd much rather you explain what you mean though.

Well, let's take it from the top, then. This is how it goes, verbatim:

Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy

I responded

Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?

Reply

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition

LHO

[Then] it appears we are in agreement that it is a conspiracy, if we 'go by the dictionary definition'

Reply

When I said the War on Drugs was not a "conspiracy", I meant it in the sense that's usually understood around here, and is one of the dictionary definitions [usually understood around here?]... Hence I'm trying to figure out what you mean. What do you mean?

But rewind

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition

Presumably that would be the dictionary definition

that's usually understood around here

So many definitions, so little time. I'd prefer not to waste any more - I don't get paid for this.