So assuming worst case scenario that the DEA actually was able to make a whole bunch of arrests based on this historical data, would we really want to pay to jail that many more inmates? What could be the point of this?
Pressure against individuals:
To put pressure on people to get them to do your bidding. To compel people to turn up evidence on bigger fish or your family members. To compel someone to be a patsy for a different crime. To compel celebrities to come out in support of the security state.
Nationally (or bragging rights):
To look good to other countries when we ask for loans ("we're a secure nation- we could arrest all of these people if we wanted to."). To negotiate with prison-building companies (untapped arrests are potential prisons). To compel additional budgeting for high-tech crime-fighting research and equipment. To inflate one party's credibility pre-election ("we turned up all these bad guys."). As bargaining tokens in international deals ("we'll turn in this bad guy of yours if you buy our $million radar"). To bolster Big Pharma's stance that mass-narcotics are necessary ("look how many people self-medicate with dangerous cannabis, they should be taking prozac instead.").
Yikes. I prefer to think that the government would not be that evil, but then again, that's just me choosing ignorance/optimism over thinking about how bad things could actually be.
> would we really want to pay to jail that many more inmates?
I would much rather have some of these people in prison than in society. Bomb makers, drug lords, and other violent types absolutely deserve to be put in prison (regardless of the internet's incessant whining about the drug war).
edit: As an observation, whenever any sort of political thread comes on HN, the comments overwhelmingly tend to be paranoid horseshit. This is not a judgment about the parent comment, just the entire thread in general.
