An agency or officer that's justifying their actions as "enforcing the law" had better be talking about the every bit as important and legitimate laws that limit their activities and powers, as well as the criminal statutes.
Otherwise, they're doing something else besides law enforcement.
It's called the "Rape Creation Agency" It's sole purpose is to rape people, not to make rape policy. Like other agencies, it was created to enforce the policies enacted by politicians (Congresscritters and Senators). Blame the politicians, not the agencies.
This is not comparable to a hypothetical Rape Creation Agency, which is problematic in and of itself because we do not approve of rape under any circumstances and there are no laws that could be changed to make such an agency acceptable. The analogy is not valid for making that particular point.
The DEA isn't staffed by people who were drafted, they all chose to involve themselves. Each individual member of the DEA is free to refuse to participate, but they instead choose to participate. We can and should judge them for that.
You said: "Because if it's just the current laws that are problematic, then it is indeed the laws that are the problem, not the agency."
But it isn't just the laws that are problematic. The agency itself is problematic (being a construct that exists only because of the problematic laws), and the people who voluntarily work for the agency deserve every ounce of criticism that they get. There is no sense in which the agency is not problematic, both it as an abstract concept and it as a collection of free individuals are part of the problem.
Neither the agency nor the people that comprise are blameless just because they did not write the laws.
In the U.S. people actively encourage rape in prison as a form of revenge, even an inherent part of incarceration. Especially if the person being incarcerated did something that fits the common definition of "wrong", like robbing someone at gunpoint, carjacking, murder, drug trafficking, or rape. How much sympathy do people usually have for a rapist being raped in prison? Or a child molester?
That's approval waiting for a chance to surface, because someone "deserved it", and it's not even close to being isolated to prisoners or criminals either, that attitude is horrifically common.
Drug War, on the contrary, is very practical evil existing right now in America. And no amount of theory would change that until the laws that create that evil would be removed and replaced with ones that are not evil.
Rape is illegal, hence, the legislative branch could not and would not create a "rape agency" to rape people without also making rape legal. Obviously, if they were to do that, the problem is the politicians would make rape legal.
Our duly elected representatives made laws prohibiting drugs, and an agency to enforce those laws. We've had many chances to replace those representatives in the decades since, and have chosen not to replace them with representatives who would remove those laws or water down the enforcement provisions.
If our "duly elected representatives" made laws that made rape legal, would that be moral?
If there are 100 people in a room and 51 people vote for the other 49 to become their lunch, is that ok?
What if they made laws that made killing certain ethic groups legal, would that be moral?
What if both of the candidates in a race are for the drug war and I don't have a choice?
Does voting really imply consent? If it does, what if the candidate was lying during the campaign? What if he/she changed their mind about an issue? Do I still imply consent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administratio...