What's with all these narcoterrorists?

The past decade has seen an astonishing number of technical terms jammed into the common vernacular through careless and intentional misuse. Until recently, you could have counted on zero hands the number of people in your orbit who identified as a “classical liberal.” Today, at least a quarter of the guys you graduated high school with are classical liberals, as are several close relatives, work colleagues, and people you’ve had the misfortune of speaking to at parties.

Personally I don’t know what the hell a “classical liberal” is. I do know that anyone who pretends that they are and have always been a classical liberal is not “gaslighting” you, because that would, per Merriam-Webster, which named “gaslighting” its 2022 Word of the Year, indicate:

“Psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”

Rather, they are mostly likely simply full of shit.

As are the many people currently throwing around “narcoterrorist,” a term that, outside of a small spike in 2022, didn’t cause a stir in Google Search Trends until the past few months, when it suddenly became as ubiquitous as Valley Girl-speak in 1983.

The definition of “narco-terrorism” has always been somewhat flexible. Per EBSCO (a global provider of research databases, in case you’re in the market for one of those), “the term was first coined by Peruvian president Fernando Belaúnde Terry in 1983, primarily in response to attacks by drug traffickers against law enforcement.” Pablo Escobar more famously fit this definition: a drug trafficker who used violence not only to hobble competitors, but to influence government and society.

“Narcoterrorism” evolved to encompass the intersection of terrorist organizations and drug traffickers (or, as the FBI put it in a 1987 law enforcement bulletin, “the involvement of terrorist organizations and insurgent groups in drug trafficking”), as well as terrorist organizations that financed terrorist acts through the transport and sale of narcotics.

What’s important to note throughout is that drug trafficking itself was not considered a terroristic act. Not because “The War on Drugs” was woke, but because no matter how evil you might consider the sale of mind-altering substances, the act itself does not fit legal definitions of “violence” — and the intent behind it is to make money, not influence government or society. Nobody has ever sold a dime bag, a kilo, or 400 kilos, and thought, “After this, the US will have no choice but to change its foreign policy.”

Over the past few months, MAGA has transformed a somewhat flexible term into a contortionist engaged in shocking acts in a burlesque club charging shocking prices for bottles of vodka that level out the shocking volume of cocaine consumed by patrons in bathrooms wallpapered in vintage centerfolds that might have once been considered shocking, but now serve as a warmly nostalgic reprieve for tourists carrying Black Card passports.

Now, “narcoterrorist” means anyone involved in the drug trade, in any capacity. I could cite any number of elected and appointed officials, pundits, and influencers who misuse the term this way, but the most explicit explication of this unacknowledged shift comes from Mo Brooks, the former Alabama congressman best remembered for inciting a mob at Trump’s January 6th “Stop the Steal” rally and, before that, literally running away from a reporter trying to ask him about his colleague, alleged child molester Roy Moore. Said Brooks, in an AL.com op-ed:

“America must understand that narco-terrorists and drug cartels are at war with America. The only difference between them and America’s other enemies is that drug cartels and narco-terrorists usually kill with deadly narcotics rather than armies, bombs and bullets. The murder weapons used should make no difference. Last I checked, you’re dead either way.”

Which all sounds vaguely reasonable until you remember that the term “narcoterrorist” was coined precisely to describe drug dealers who used bombs and bullets. (And again, not against rivals or clients, but against law enforcement, government officials, and the civilian population at large.)

Brooks at least used big boy words to formulate his childishly obtuse justification. The same can’t be said for current members of the House:

That’s not to say that cartel leaders don’t engage in narcoterrorism. Of course they do. But drug dealing in and of itself isn’t terrorism, and never has been. Using violence against government or society in an attempt to force official and unofficial tolerance for your drug dealing operation is (a distinction Ohio GOP rep Mike Turner understands, but Alabama GOP rep Mike Rogers does not). If you extend the narcoterrorist designation to every single person who facilitates the trafficking of narcotics, you could justify missile strikes on a lot more people besides moonlighting fishermen.

For instance, we could have targeted Ross Ulbricht, the Silk Road founder whose folk-hero status among libertarians helped Trump get elected. Or Changpeng Zhao, the Binance founder whose exchange was so awash in narcotics spoils, one employee joked “We need a banner ‘Is washing drug money too hard these days - come to Binance we got cake for you.’” Why not? These men were far more pivotal to cartel operations than replaceable couriers. Why put them through a trial when you can send a warning to other crypto and dark web kings that their deliberate failure to safeguard their services will result in a Hellfire missile fired to the face?

Of course Trump, for reasons of political and financial capital, pardoned both men. Because of our erstwhile policy of not murdering those involved in the drug trade, he was also able to pardon or grant clemency to over 100 other drug world figures, many of them too high level to be framed as victims, and many providing transactional value to Trump. 

Another guy whose Trump pardon you might have heard about: Juan Orlando Hernández, the former Honduran president convicted of helping move 400 tonnes of cocaine into the United States. Hernández was extradited to the United States on April 21st, 2022. He wasn’t alleged to have ordered murders (not his role), but, ironically, he might be a reason for the isolated spike in searches for “narcoterrorist” over that next week.

Legally, “narco-terrorism” means nothing, at least according to flaming liberals like… Fox News legal analyst Andrew McCarthy, who defended Trump against his first impeachment, and wrote a whole-ass book about why Obama should be impeached. Morally, though, you could argue that a statement attributed to Hernández in court, “Stuff the drugs right up the noses of the gringos,” moves him a step closer to terrorism than the average drug trafficker. He didn’t just want money and power. He wanted Americans to suffer, perhaps for our moralizing drug-war hypocrisy, perhaps for our history of brutally exploiting his country for banana profits, who knows.

But Trump didn’t argue that. He pardoned the man. Said he was horribly mistreated by the Biden administration, even though he was first tied to narcotics by rabid Trump loyalist Emil Bove, who named Hernández a co-conspirator after successfully prosecuting his brother, Tony.

Which hasn’t stopped the MAGAverse from trying to make “fetch” happen. Not just trying, but succeeding. It’s enough to make classical liberals disavow the Republican Party.

If only such people actually existed.