only following orders that's what makes the men and women of law enforcement against prohibition so brave and so valuable they have decided to stand up as examples to so many on the force struggling every day with solutions that could make them cops or peace officers conscience comes first before the law before the system before your orders if you are a police officer or no one who wants to make a choice to be a police officer not a cop please consider joining and supporting law enforcement against prohibition leap that c.c. your rights are at stake if we allow this un-american prohibition to continue that's our show tonight and tomorrow when we'll be joined by carolyn hellman and susan organizer of the rally in the end of the protest there supreme court decision they're out of vs the man talking are.

would you have so you know law enforcement against prohibition would say that ending the war on drugs would lower the rate of dozens of law enforcement officers unnecessarily in the line of duty but i don't think that's right. i don't think the less officers would die in the line of duty of local drug use and it's a no. so are attorney generals in such denial about the war on drugs that he doesn't think it is even responsible for the deaths of any of the officers whose names they had just finished reading to be dedicated to the memorial we have some of us of law enforcement against prohibition join us tomorrow executive director neil franklin's colleague was killed in an undercover drug buy and former d.a. analyst shawn dunnigan who might take issue with the attorney general's statements will get their reaction to the entire encounter with eric holder as well of some of the other encounters we had with police officers at the memorial events and some of the mentality that was we were able to capture in terms of the current law enforcement's attitude towards just following orders but th

there for noble reasons there were no enforce the laws that are based on real disasters some of our you would like even we have law enforcement against prohibition have come out and said we don't want to enforce some of these are just laws and we're how does that fit. well i mean the key is not which laws willing to enforce but which laws are they not willing to enforce there are of course hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations on the books that can be used to attack just about every citizen ever and so the important thing i think is the core needs to go out to the police to be honorable and noble defenders of liberty to say look what laws are you not going to enforce you know twenty percent of convicted inmates in two thousand and two which is the latest year that statistics are available in for violent crimes everyone is in for nonviolent crimes or tax evasion or some sort of other non try him and there's incredible estimates that if you got rid of the war on drugs you'd have ten thousand or more fewer homicides every year so even those who are in for violent crimes a lot of that violence has to do with the drug war so the important thi

law enforcement powers or internal security functions." members of the congress is legal experts interpreted that language as a clear prohibition against any internal security function under any circumstanc circumstances. a group of c.i.a. officials have a different interpretation. they decided that the 1947 law contained legal gray areas that allowed the c.i.a. to monitor american citizens for possible contact with foreign agents. they believed this meant that they could secretly tap americans' phones, open their mail and plint listening devices in their -- and plant listening devices in their homes, among other things. this secret legal interpretation led the c.i.a. to maintain intelligence files on more than 10,000 american citizens, including reporters, members of congress, and a host of antiwar activists. this small group of c.i.a. officials kept the program and their -- quote -- "gray area justification" of the program a secret from the american people and most of the government because, they argued, revealing it would violate the agency's responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. did th