Nixon, Ambrose & Ehrlichman on Narcotics program and Jurisdictional disputes

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

See where they want to set it up.

That would be a pretty interesting view.

It's so pretty.

It's the president.

They went around the desk or they went around the desk.

That's what they wanted.

Move your chairs around the desk.

Your main, your main job here is to want to be able to talk.

You've got to have enough energy to be able to talk.

Well, I thought it would be useful to get an update on our college program.

And, Buzz, I've seen your briefings.

You know, we've been emphasizing a lot of things in the program.

The other thing is

have been working very well on the problem of foreign governments, and doing well with the church, and doing reasonably well with some other countries.

I would kind of like to watch how that involves Turkey, that's in our nature.

That was some dope weather to say, right?

You know, the other side of the program that I've been emphasizing is questions, in other words, the prosecuting side.

And the problem we've got on the prosecuting side is if not a

We've got laws, we've got punting laws, and apparently the penalties are heavy enough.

But the problem really is the question of personnel, apprehension, organization in the lines, and very frankly, a lot of competition in the government.

That's right.

There's competition in the justice department, the trade department.

And as a matter of fact, it's plagued the Senate for a long time.

Now, if you recall, I laid out some direct names for the three directors.

Ending the competition, as I said, you get these departments to quit fighting each other and start fighting the drug problem.

On the purpose of this meeting is to get a brief report as to

where we are.

I don't want any snow job.

We've gotten too often.

I sat right in this office and we've gotten a snow job on because each department's trying to prove that it's entitled to more people and they're interested in how many slots they've got, how many people they've got working under them and therefore they can have a higher promotion.

I'm interested in that.

And I'm not interested in any phony statistics.

I mean, I have a little bit of a woods of bones, but we're really interested in this, as to whether we have a program that you can honestly stand up and say is active.

to deal with this problem.

Are we properly organized?

Have we stopped the jurisdictional fights?

And are we prepared to go forward and deal with the problem?

And that's what we've been talking here for.

In terms of our being properly organized right now, quite honestly, we're not.

Not yet.

Well, that's an honest answer.

But I think the fact of the matter is, frankly, we've heard this meeting call

The reason for that is that they have conflicting jurisdictions.

Both of them feel that they have concurrent jurisdiction, and they've had two people trying to make final decisions about what should be done at ports of entry, what should be done internally, and what should be done internationally.

So what we felt was necessary was to have one person who had law enforcement responsibility in the narcotics area, very much like we tried to do with Dr. Chaffee for the Manson.

We had the same problem among the various treatment agencies, OEO and IMH and the rest, and we put that under Dr. Chaffee, gave him that responsibility.

Now the same thing we feel is necessary in the law enforcement side of narcotics as well.

And we think that if we can set up a special program right now, out of the Justice Department, but with responsibility that expands the Justice Department as well as Treasury, and able to use the investigative resources of the Bureau of Customs, the Internal Revenue Service, as well as the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, with one man who is a theoretician,

for the overall prosecuted effort that will be able to cure that jurisdictional dispute, which has plagued this for 12 years, 12 or 13 years.

If I'm right, this thing goes back.

And what this would involve would be using the vehicle of the grand jury with special prosecution teams throughout the country.

And Commissioner Ambrose has done some work on this before.

Maybe you could describe how that team was set up.

Well, basically, the weakness, Mr. President, has been on the impact on the street itself and the impact on the community.

And what we have talked about is the utilization of the federal and state people interrelated with the federal agencies and the utilization of the grand jury and the resources of the community at the street purpose, where the most impact can be made immediately.

I think that the overseas program has been working well, and our program of interdiction has been working well, and the program possibly getting some of the principal individuals, but there has been, unfortunately, relatively little impact on the street.

This program would be designed to get at that area specifically.

Why the grand jury?

Well, because the grand jury gives you an opportunity to bring in all of the people who have...

It's a safeguard on civil liberties, and it's also the best inquisitorial mechanism we have.

Also, it has the great advantage of, when I say it's a fishing expedition, at least it's a fishing expedition with complete protection of the innocent, because it's all...

That's correct.

And also we have the opportunity of using the immunity statute to a great extent.

And I think this is the key that we need.

Which is essential in these kinds of cases.

That's correct, sir.

And I think that we can have a tremendous impact even in calling in the addict peddlers and giving them immunity.

No, thank you.

In a specific case.

Because they're the people who are the victims and who are also involved in the criminal process.

I would say it's a very substantial percentage.

So we feel that if we can get this program cleared up quickly, then we'd be able to disrupt the tracks at the local level.

It's a significant step because it moves the federal government into an arena where we have not been before, which is actually doing investigation and prosecution at the street level.

Before, we've been internationally involved in trying to work out our agreements with Turkey, Thailand, Laos.

They work very well.

We're moving this right down to the street level right now.

I think it would help to stimulate the local law enforcement agencies in their efforts, and I think this is where we can really get some impact because

We have 350,000 police officers in the United States, and their resources are not being utilized.

How many of them are...

Isn't there quite a bit of corruption in many of the police departments in major cities?

I agree a lot.

I think that this is such a profitable business.

I mean, the poor guy being exposed on that would be...

I think it's a significant problem, Mr. President.

I don't think it's anywhere near what it was portrayed to be, particularly in the New York situation.

I think that there's obviously been some corruption in New York.

But by and large, the average police department in the United States, while it may have some corrupt influences for gambling and other things, has not been involved in narcotic trafficking.

I think that's a very isolated situation when police departments are involved in the trafficking of narcotic drugs.

In my job, I want to, as you know, is defend police departments.

They have very little defense over recent years due to the fact that I know that they have a tough job and they need to be backed up.

On the other hand, you know, when we talk about respect for law, you've got to have law that deserves respect.

And that's why the law enforcement officials have got to be like Cesar's wife.

That's correct.

Now, generally speaking, though, your police department should be pretty comfortable doing the job.

Yes, sir.

The only place we've had a problem, and there's no question about it, has been in New York.

I think it's well known.

Sir, it's a very extensive city.

It's got a great temptation there.

Yet they've got some mighty fine policemen.

They've got the finest police department and the finest men, sir.

Correct.

For me, there's a problem.

And it's like a very football game.

They've got that problem.

Well, let me get to the business.

How do you think the farm was doing at the other time?

There was a problem with that department.

But, you know, a doctor in Chicago, we've got some good ones.

Thank you.

Yeah, go down to Great Los Angeles.

Or Houston.

Or Miami.

Every place I've been.

We've got some outstanding...

I would think so, particularly with the flood that we've had in recent years.

You know, we've had basically, Mr. President, ten years of total neglect of this problem.

of law enforcement places in the United States.

And to come from behind, to see this apathy that's existed all over the country for many years, has, I think, had an effect on the average policeman.

Absolutely.

That's right.

Now he's at least getting some backing, and that's what he's going to get.

I think this can have a kind of an impact, which would be very significant.

Yes, sir, I do.

You know, if I were a law enforcement, there is no area...

which would give me more satisfaction than the work in the area of narcotics.

Particularly heroin, you know, the hard stuff.

All forms of law enforcement, of course.

You catch somebody that's a ground cracker, you have to kill somebody.

You catch somebody, you have to murder them, rape them, or whatever you call them.

But these are people that destroy life by

The lives, spiritually, morally, physically of young people by the hundreds of thousands across the country, and eventually in the short term.

If you look at the societies, the great societies of the past, you will find, particularly those in the southern hemisphere, over and over again, that they have issues with drugs, and beyond that, a collapse.

I don't think we're going to come to that.

I think you're, Mr. President, it's one thing they've got at this point.

To give you an idea of it, I know that you have, you're not particularly keen on the statistics, but this thing, the first nine, the first nine months of this year.

No, I know, but this is...

This year, though, in the first nine months, we've seized about 1,000 pounds of heroin compared to 26 pounds in the previous year, nine months.

1,000 pounds of heroin would be how many, what we call, what we call fixes.

How many?

Millions.

Many, many millions.

Millions of fixes, yes.

i see you break it down it's uh triangle banks that's right it's five percent of we get pure heroin so we're talking about pure state

for people who would be in the Army?

Yes, sir.

Mr. President, while we're receiving more heroin and our arrests have increased, the real test is whether or not there's less, more or less heroin available on the streets.

And that's what this program is designed to attack, is to be able to reduce the amount of heroin available on the street.

Just the number of seizures that we've had or the number of rests we've made, these are operational indices.

But the real test is whether there's more or less there.

That's what we're shooting for, is to reduce the amount that's there and drive people out of the heroin pattern into treatment.

Well, I read that there was a story around the Times the other day that heroin was driving supplies dry.

Is there anything to that?

We, John, we had it checked out.

There was no basis to the story of what's the weapon.

We didn't find out.

They quoted an officer in the New York City police department.

We checked with the supervisor.

There's no indication.

They try to relate it to the Dock Strike.

Because the Dock Strike could end in... One of the two good things about the Dock Strike is that it happened, sir, but unfortunately it didn't happen.

Tell me, to what extent is your operation a dangerous one?

Is it or not?

You know, you see movies and TV and the rest of the people that work on them apparently it's quite dangerous, isn't it?

It's an extremely dangerous thing.

area of activity, Mr. President.

But fortunately, our agents, both ours and the NDA's, and those that have been involved in this, have done well trained.

And I think this

I would imagine, of course, that where you've got a pusher who's an addict, you've got potentially a very dangerous person.

That's correct.

This is correct.

What is one of the problems we're going to have in this program?

Basically, a man who's very responsible and acting on his own belief.

That's what I would be concerned.

There's no way of judging what kind of an action we'll take.

That's true.

What about cooperation now between the federal officers and the local law enforcement officers?

John, what we're suggesting here is a program which would be designed to enhance the cooperation, get some utilization of the federal and the state and the local police,

and much more of a cross-exchange of intelligence and information.

And this is where we have to get some movement in order to get a handle on this situation locally.

I think we can do it this way.

I really do.

Because we can ask them to work in an area which is already their jurisdiction with no questions of whose responsibility or who's going to get the credit or any of this kind of nonsense.

It's a question of pinpointing and isolating individuals who are the threat to the community.

I think they can do it.

Great assistance.

The costs are not great.

What we're talking about is a maximum of $7 million, we estimate, right now.

We did reprogram some money in the Bureau of Narcotics available for others to Bureau of Processing, and I don't know what that increase is, Dr. Schultz, in the Bureau of Narcotics, but I think it's gone from $34 million to... Well, about $37 million when the President came into office, or about $115 million in fiscal year 1972.

So there's been big increases.

in the effort here in terms of the budget.

But we're operating under instructions from the president to put the money into this program that's needed to do the job right.

We can deploy people in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Customs and the Internal Revenue Service for this.

That's right.

This, in other words, I think, would be just a program in which they could follow up on.

The real need that we're going to have here is in the additional people would be the lawyers that would be actually handling the grand jury work

And this requires, as you know, Mr. President, a very skillful group of people and dedicated because, again, we're asking them to put in a tremendous amount of time and effort in this area.

He set up a special record jury of grand juries in New York.

They had a terrific effect in the late 30s.

Now, do you think that we could adapt the same kind of technique nationally here to attack drug traffickers, especially if we get the same kind of effect, using the brightest young attorneys that we could bring in to this program, using the current resources of the Bureau of Narcotics, Customs, and IRS for investigation purposes, and then

all bring it in here to the Justice Department.

We have a very effective team and effective program.

I think it's very difficult.

As I recall, I don't know if this is what I said, but I also recall that he's got potential balance and resilience.

He's very...

assaulting people who are really going into the criminal law and are at the top of the class.

Well, they don't have to be at the top of the class, but they've got to be at least in the ballgame.

And now it seems to me that if we could encourage young lawyers

They talk about all the services I'm serving, the public, and I go in and, you know, they have their suits on.

And these are all very important things.

Equal rights, or the environment, or all these very nice, pleasant things.

or at least popular subjects, but the criminal law is an area that, as you know, John, as you know, but as a mental law student, you want to, but not many of the plans you'll recall.

Also, there aren't very good teachers.

Isn't this the weakness?

I think it is being cured.

I think that if I were a young man in law school today, wanting to do something,

for the country.

I would go right into that.

It used to be that, hey, Dewey.

That's right.

Dewey thought it was a way to a great political career.

It used to be that people would say, well, I'll be the prosecutor, and I'll be the DA, and the prosecutor, and the attorney, and the county attorney, and then maybe Mr. Cotter, and then maybe for the Senate, and then it would be something else.

But today, they become, they go into the great corporate law firms, and they become the lawyers for, and counsel with our department, you know, working with these, what I call, software kids in the heart of it.

Well, some of the attorneys general have very active recruiting programs, and they come into the law schools on a competitive basis along with the big law firms and the other people.

Well, it's interesting to note, though, that when you look at your state attorneys general, for the most part, they are sufficient kind of lawyers and not on the criminal side.

Well, they don't run criminal law, John.

Louis Lefkowitz and some of the others are coming in.

Edward Younger and some of them are coming into the law schools.

The prime minister is around the corner, sir.

In any event, they're getting some good people to come into the press.

I mean, are we aware of the fact that, I mean, are we all aware of the fact that we're really inspired by the lawsuits that have been made?

to produce and to get to other people.

What are we doing about it?

I wonder if we shouldn't talk to, I mean, we need good lawyers, good lawyers in the prosecuting side.

Don't you agree?

No question about it.

Great question.

because it just isn't a thing.

A part of it is paid, but we take care of that.

But depending on God, I mean, it's the way it is.

I can't get back to the back of the criminal law, but the first hot subject in my lawsuit, the first, we just didn't have anybody in the dark about it.

Well, I'm going to keep going.

Yes, and to...

track these foals away from here.

We don't serve your country.

These foals are for me.

Bushy tail, the other half is for our own.

We're going to run away.

We're going to have to call back.

We're going to have to run away.

The FBI is not going to follow these people and do what they do to get them.

I mean, and I am, again, a very defender of the FBI, as you know.

Now, that's not a good thing.

The FBI at age level, but it's not going to follow them.

The idea here would be for Miles to go to somebody like John Alexander and say, I want one of your best young trial men for a year.

That's exactly the way the plan works out.

Take your head in Chicago and Los Angeles.

I'll give you a call.

The debris going on that is garment germs.

You know, we've had it in the trial department.

And it's a great trial.

But I'd just like to see you get a pick out of every garment.

But the difficulty is, though, if you take them out of one of the standards terms,

Well, good luck.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

There we go, thank you.

Nixon, Ambrose & Ehrlichman on Narcotics program and Jurisdictional disputes

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on December 6, 1971

Cite this conversation