Drug War Violence in Mexico
[Guest post by DRJ]
Drug cartel violence has escalated in Mexico for the past 1-2 years with the victims ranging from government officials including military and law enforcement officers (police deaths in Mexico were up 50% in 2007), civilians, and even popular musicians.
Now an especially horrific tactic has emerged — Decapitation:
“Two human heads have been found in Mexico with threatening messages, police reported Friday.
A Mexico state police official in Cuautitlan, just outside the capital, said one head turned up in a box left in the parking lot of the station.
It was accompanied by a message warning that federal police and members of the drug gang La Familia will be beheaded, said the official, who was not authorized to give his name.
State prosecutors in Michoacan, where La Familia is based, said another head was discovered Friday in an ice chest in the port city of Lazaro Cardenas. Tape covered the eyes and an attached message read: “From the Gulf Cartel.”
Border cities like Tijuana and Juarez are seeing staggering levels of violence.
In Juarez:
“More than 1,100 people have been killed this year in Juarez, population 1.5 million. *** Juarez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso, has had more murders this year than New York and Chicago together had in all of 2007 — and those two cities have seven times the population of Juarez. Last weekend alone, Juarez had 37 killings.
Juarez has always been a rough town, but one where many Americans felt safe enough to play, shop and work. Violence began to mount early this year after Mexico’s president launched a national offensive against druglords.
Initially, the bloodshed involved drug cartels fighting one another. Then, military troops, law enforcement officers and government officials became major targets. Armed robberies, carjackings and kidnappings for ransom also are rampant.”
Juarez’s neighboring city, El Paso, is also impacted by Mexican violence:
“The bloodshed has not yet spilled over to the American side, but the violence is financially affecting El Paso, a city of about 600,000 that had only 17 reported homicides in 2007.
Dozens of shooting victims, several of them U.S. citizens or legal residents, have been treated at Thomason General Hospital — the only hospital for 250 miles that is equipped to handle such patients — at a cost to local taxpayers of more than $1 million.”
Across the border from San Diego in Tijuana:
“As Tijuana’s latest flare-up in the drug war rages into its fifth week, with the death toll approaching 150, violence is permeating everyday life here, causing widespread fear, altering people’s habits and exposing the city’s youngest to carnage. *** Grisly public displays of death have been the hallmark of the killings since the latest violence between rival drug cartels started Sept. 26.
Bodies have been hung from overpasses. Twelve corpses, some with their tongues cut out, were tossed into a vacant lot across from an elementary school. Several men have been beheaded, and killers have left behind acid-filled barrels containing dissolved human remains.
The toll of innocent victims has also been rising. Gunmen burst into the El Negro Durazo seafood restaurant and killed two rivals and a photographer who tried to run away. A 24-year-old teacher was kidnapped outside her school. Gunmen wielding AK-47s killed two teenagers sitting outside their home after they witnessed a drug-related killing. A toddler died this week when his mother crashed her car trying to avoid a shootout between state police and suspected cartel hit men.”
And the violence may be spilling over into the U.S. as evidenced by the recent kidnapping of a Las Vegas boy, reportedly by a Mexican drug cartel, whose grandfather is alleged to have drug ties.
UPDATE: Many thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the Instapundit link.
— DRJ
Would legalization of marijuana in the USA reduce some of this violence? Or is this mostly about cocaine, heroin, meth?
gp (4db77f) — 10/25/2008 @ 9:12 pmWe did not sail in the Ensenada Race this year because of concerns about drug violence in Baja. The Mexican government needs to do something or tourism will end.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/25/2008 @ 10:35 pm_______________________________________
The politics and government of Mexico are worth analyzing, if only because they’re a lesson Americans should keep in mind–certainly the ones in love with Obama–that a society greatly biased in favor of liberal politicians and governance certainly doesn’t guarantee a damn thing that’s good, including stability and prosperity.
The following is a very condensed rundown of the way that Mexico’s answer to the US’s Democrat Party has ruled Mexico for decades on end. Only a limited flirtation with the country’s version of the US’s Republican Party has occurred in the past 10 years or so—mainly because Mexico’s liberal opponents (and voters) have split their vote.
So in spite of the mind-numbing, never-ending crime, poverty and corruption in Mexico, its far-left candidate for the presidency barely lost to the “conservative,” who–thanks in part to the pervasive liberalism of Mexicans–really is his country’s version of a “RINO.” Or someone who’s been influenced in a way that’s reminiscent of Arnold Schwarzenegger being pushed to the left by the brilliant voters of California.
http://www.csmonitor.com:
Throughout his campaign, Calderón touted himself as “the jobs president,” but in the wake of a contested election, the closest in the nation’s history, he quickly switched his message, saying he was going to “rebasar por la izquierda,” or overtake on the left, leaving many to anticipate that he would quickly move to adopt some of López Obrador’s social programs.
In many ways, he has no other choice. López Obrador supporters camped out for seven weeks along a major thoroughfare in Mexico City while the nation’s electoral court decided who would be the next president, and when it chose Calderón, tens of thousands of Mexicans declared López Obrador the real president.
“I think he’s very aware that the circumstances that allowed López Obrador to come within a whisker of winning are all still there,” says Gabriel Guerra Castellanos, a political analyst and former spokesperson for former presidents Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Ernesto Zedillo in the 1990s.
Mark (3bd532) — 10/25/2008 @ 11:00 pmImportant topic.
Thanks for the summary, Mark. Since just about every neighbor I have is from Mexico I have taken on a new interest in Mexican style politics.
I asked my son, the police officer, about the type of person who buys illegal drugs in the USA. He says that most of them really, truely believe that their drugs come from some cottage industry in the USA. None of them are willing to admit that their addiction supports murder. All of the “bad drugs” are used by “others”.
tyree (5c7d89) — 10/26/2008 @ 1:32 amThis violence has been going on far longer than we like to admit, or that the Mexican Gov’t cares to acknowledge.
Juarez is a cess-pool, with young women in the hundreds, if not a thousand or more, disappearing over the last decade; the bodies of some being stumbled upon in the desert outside of the city.
IIRC, in a cartel raid against a prosecutor’s office in, or near, Acapulco several years ago, about a dozen prosecutors and police were gunned down, and some heads were cut-off. Decapitation in the battle between the Gov’t and the cartels is not a new developement.
This battle even takes in the media. If a journo does a report on the cartels that is even slightly critical, they will be hunted down and killed along with any family members in the vicinity, just to make a point.
Anyone in the U.S. who participates in recreational pharmaceuticals is an accessory-after-the-fact in the murder of thousands in the warfare going on in Mexico between society and the narco-trafficantes. I hope you can get high enough to erase that complicity in your mind, though I don’t think the families of the dead in Mexico will forgive you.
Who was it who said following the 1911 Revolution:
Another Drew (2ba239) — 10/26/2008 @ 6:12 amPoor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States!
Insanity–we are treating criminals on our dime to send them back to Mexico and kill others in their drug war!!
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 10/26/2008 @ 10:39 amThey have 150 murders in a month and little backlash in Mexico. This one boy is taken in Las Vegas and there’s 24/7 nationwide coverage in the US. That must have been quite a culture shock to these thugs.
Wesson (f6c982) — 10/26/2008 @ 12:26 pmanyone in the U.S. who participates in recreational pharmaceuticals is an accessory-after-the-fact in the murder of thousands in the warfare going on in Mexico between society and the narco-trafficantes.
And of course the prohibition movement is the most complicit of all, since it gives drug users no choice of product — you can’t make your own, or buy local.
The prohibition movement supports these criminals by giving them a monopoly, so the only competition they have left is between each other.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/26/2008 @ 2:10 pmWell, Phil, I suppose that what you need to do is to stop complaining about the “prohibitionists”, run for Congress, and change the law.
Another Drew (77fad0) — 10/26/2008 @ 2:30 pmCan you do that Phil?
Probably not.
Most Libertarians feel it is beneath them to actually get their hands dirty by associating with politicians.
So, they stand along the sidelines and carp.
Really productive.
But, Hey!
You’ve got Ron Paul to inspire you, along with his Nazi-skinhead friends.
AD, you are active on a political blog and express your opinion about what should be done frequently. More frequently than Phil, in fact.
So, what office do you hold again?
What difference have you made?
i like america (d2f951) — 10/26/2008 @ 4:23 pmI have run for office, but have been unsuccesful as a vote getter.
Another Drew (77fad0) — 10/26/2008 @ 4:29 pmI do have some influence in the circle I orbit in, and have worked quite hard, and successfully, to get certain office holders, who would be considered mainstream, elected/re-elected.
Your turn.
So you hold no office. That’s what I thought.
It’s one thing to disagree with someone, but I’ll make fun of you if you go on a political blog and “stand along the sidelines and carp” while telling someone not to “stand along the sidelines and carp” because he was posting on a political blog instead of single-handedly changing the drug policy in America.
i like america (d2f951) — 10/26/2008 @ 4:45 pmYes, but I don’t just sit hear in my PJ’s ranting. I avail myself of the opportunity to assemble for redress of grievences with my elected representatives.
Another Drew (77fad0) — 10/26/2008 @ 4:56 pmMy point about sideline carping was directed at Libertarians (particularly party members) who, in my experience with them, think it is beneath their dignity to actually get down in the trenches of a political campaign. They stand aside, and take shots. They offer no practical alternatives to what exists, just the magic saying of “legalization”, regardless of what that cost will be to the society at large.
I, personally, find the de-criminalization policy advanced by the late William Buckley of interest. I don’t know if it can be done, but it is interesting. I think we can all agree that the current policy which dates back, in one form or another, approximately 95-years is not working. Particularly eggregious is the fact that while Congress knew that to prohibit the manufacture, sale and use of alcohol would require an amendment to the Constitution, they have never recognized a similar requirement for the restrictions on pharmaceuticals.
But, setting all that aside, what should be done about the violent war that is on-going in Mexico?
Point taken re: not even trying.
As for what should be done about the violent war in Mexico, I don’t know. I see only two viable alternatives: the mess we’re in now, or decriminalizing everything.
The latter is just too extreme for me. But someone argued once that you can find a prosecutor and you can find cops and intimidate them. But there’s noone to intimidate at Pfizer. Sooner or later, the cartels will fail and violence may be reduced ultimately.
But I don’t have enough confidence in that actually panning out to really support it.
i like america (d2f951) — 10/26/2008 @ 5:01 pmIf you had crime in your neighborhood, you would lock your doors and windows and do more to secure your property. You would also work with the police to increase patrols and community policing.
There’s no reason we can’t do the same here. At home, we could secure the border, bulk up border patrol and policing in a 60/100-mile border zone, and increase efforts to identify and deport criminal aliens. Internationally, we can support Mexico’s efforts to combat the drug trade — just as we helped Columbia. It won’t be easy but it’s smart. Decriminalizing is easy, but that doesn’t make it smart.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/26/2008 @ 5:05 pmMexico is a festering sore that the Mexicans themselves have created, and only they can fix it.
Another Drew (77fad0) — 10/26/2008 @ 5:09 pmThe oligarchy enshrined in the PRI revolution sucks the life-blood of the country, and the peasantry hopes to go to El Norte to survive.
The institutions of the country long since went way past corrupt. It is a country ripe for some form of revolution, but its’ history is filled with these moments, and each change seems to have made the country worse.
But, we here have to do something, or we will end up with a Zimbabwe on our southern border, where the only rule is the rule of the gun.
Obama won’t have to renegotiate NAFTA, the system will collapse from the violence and corruption.
One problem is the xenophobia of Mexican institutions towards the U.S.
They just don’t want to accept any advice/help from the evil Yankee.
I have acquaintances in the “Minuteman” element that patrols the border here in CA. They have a very good relationship with the BP, and are working on formalizing their status as a “Border Patrol Auxiliary” (like the Coast Guard Aux/Civil Air Patrol – a civilian, volunteer component to assist the BP).
They tell me that 90+% of what they observe in their 15-mile segment of border is drug-related traffic: well equipped, well-armed, and sometimes with visible Mexican Army/Police support up to the border itself (and sometimes over the border).
Another Drew (fd3d4b) — 10/26/2008 @ 5:50 pmIt is a very serious problem, and the wonder is, that more people on this side have not been hurt.
It would be nice if the debacle that is Mexico could be fixed by doing something as simple as legalizing its drug laws. But the idea that making the Mexican court and law-enforcement system more permissive (if not also less riddled with corruption) will lower rates of murder and mayhem to reasonable levels is akin to the notion — quite common over 25 years ago — that the inner-city slums of America would be made less poor and crime-ridden if our social-safety net were strengthened, civil-rights laws were enacted, police departments were made more accountable, and public schools were given bigger budgets–and definitely were no longer guilty of segregating students.
But guess what?
We did all those things, and then some, and yet how many people would consider most of the inner-city swamps of the 1960s or 1970s to be much better places to call home today? A handful of such communities, at best, but not many.
I’d say Mexico would have a better chance of being turned around if more of its people didn’t keep buying into the simpleminded belief that liberalism makes a society nicer, happier and wealthier (and safer too). So if a majority of Mexicans stopped falling for the proponents of that philosophy — the south-of-the-border versions of Barack Obama — throughout the political, cultural (including the media) and academic classes, their country might have a fighting chance, or least not go from bad to worse.
Mark (90b8c9) — 10/26/2008 @ 6:51 pmand sometimes with visible Mexican Army/Police support up to the border itself (and sometimes over the border).
So much for the idea that the fanatical, radical acts of crime and violence plaguing Mexico can be traced to government policies, namely to strict anti-drug laws. If anything, parts of the Mexican government, including law-enforcement agencies, are in bed with the narco-terrorists and their trade.
Mark (90b8c9) — 10/26/2008 @ 6:55 pmI do think it’s hilarious that Republicans think they’re conservative by supporting anti-drug-laws. Somehow, it’s “liberal” to simply treat addicts; it’s “conservative” to be killing and jailing the people who are simply responding to the natural laws of supply and demand.
This is Republican conservatism today: condemn big government when it treats and heals, support big government when it imprisons and kills. That perverse militant-authoritarian populism is why I hope you lose this election.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/26/2008 @ 8:21 pm“I, personally, find the de-criminalization policy advanced by the late William Buckley of interest. I don’t know if it can be done, but it is interesting. I think we can all agree that the current policy which dates back, in one form or another, approximately 95-years is not working. Particularly egregious is the fact that while Congress knew that to prohibit the manufacture, sale and use of alcohol would require an amendment to the Constitution, they have never recognized a similar requirement for the restrictions on pharmaceuticals.”
AD, you are so very spot on in defining the very core of the problem, but can’t seem to figure out a way of removing that very core from a drug argument.
I’m sure to get hammered, but WTH. How much do we spend on the “War On Drugs” annually? How much would we spend on treatment programs for those that are already weak and can’t figure out what recreational usage is? How much revenue could be generated with taxation?
Though I really do not know, I’ve gotta a very strong feeling that much of the worlds drug laws have come about by Strong US influence.
The US proved to the world that prohibition does not work! Canada re-proved it a few years back with tobacco, though their method was excessive taxation, the result was the same! (Best thing outta that one is we have some VERY, like, Scary fast bass boats today)!
Today it appears the facts suggest that once again prohibition does not work. Alternate? Legalize, tax and control within reason, just like this nation did with booze!
Oh and please spare me all the total black/white arguments about total addicts or total clean our society would become. Remember that MOST folks will/would/do use their drug of choice responsibly, all?, no, but most.
Don’t know, just sayin.
Cheers to ya.
TC (0b9ca4) — 10/26/2008 @ 11:49 pm“This is Republican conservatism today: condemn big government when it treats and heals, support big government when it imprisons and kills. That perverse militant-authoritarian populism is why I hope you lose this election.”
Sorry Phil, last I heard any Dem commenting on the subject their words were the same. What we are is seemingly cemented to some dogma about drugs. On and if you think “the One” is going to change anything in that department, ask him!
Com on, if Teddy, aka; “Swimmer”, had any guts he would stand up and say something. Especially given that his entire position in life was handed to him by his bootlegging daddy! Purchased influence and position.
This particular problem can’t be handed off to one party or the other, but since the dems controlled congress during most of the years when criminalization became of it’s largess, I figure they have carried the banner very well.
TC (0b9ca4) — 10/26/2008 @ 11:59 pmPatrick – I think you remember me telling you about my adventure in Juarez hunting Ed Roth’s Orbitron – getting chased by the porn shop dude with a gun, hanging out with Los Centauros biker club, etc… here’s some of the film footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MvnRNNwtBw
All that happen almost exactly one year ago this week. Today I wouldn’t go more that 3 blocks into Juarez. A number of my friends in the Centauros have been killed by the Sinaloans (the club includes many Juarez cops), and the guy who came after me was reportedly shot dead this summer. There is an unofficial travel advisory that discourages any Americans going into Juarez, even (especially?) soldiers from Ft Bliss.
Sad, sad situation, but mostly affecting the border. My friend/co-blogger Coop is currently racing in the cross-Mexico Carrera Panamericana, no reported problems. I think he crosses in and out thru Laredo, which is much less of a war zone than Tijuana or Juarez.
iowahawk (9ea16d) — 10/27/2008 @ 5:30 amPhil: “I do think it’s hilarious that Republicans think they’re conservative by supporting anti-drug-laws…. killing and jailing the people who are simply responding to the natural laws of supply and demand…. That perverse militant-authoritarian populism is why I hope you lose this election.”
Janet Reno couldn’t even abide California allowing medical marijuana, and threatened the licenses of doctors who worked within that system. Where are these compassionate anti-authoritarian Democrats you write of?
DWPittelli (7c499f) — 10/27/2008 @ 5:35 amProblems in Mexico are only beginning. Oil revenues from PEMEX accounted (recent past tense) for about 40% of federal government revenue. Much of this money has been used in various projects intended to procure a certain degree of social peace.
With crude oil prices having fallen almost 60% in little over four months, Mexican federal revenues are collapsing, and with them, the ability to continue purchasing social peace.
What is worse, the Mexican oil fields have moved past their peak production, and it will never come back to what it was just four years ago. Even the Cantarell field’s production is dropping precipitously.
The chances of a successful Hugo Chavez revolution in Mexico are increasing quite rapidly.
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) (98bf90) — 10/27/2008 @ 6:41 amYay! Victory in the War on (Some) Drugs is at hand! I’m sure there will only be a few more decapitations before people begin to understand the progress we’re making.
CTD (7054d2) — 10/27/2008 @ 6:41 am“Would legalization of marijuana in the USA reduce some of this violence?”
Perhaps, but not using the useless shit would decrease the violence in more.
willis (dee9e7) — 10/27/2008 @ 8:20 am“…the dems controlled congress during most of the years…”
1930-1946;
1948-1952;
1954-1994;
2006- ?
“War On Drugs” implemented by Pres R.M.Nixon (1968-1974)…
Who controlled Congress in those years, Phil?
***all years noted are Election Years, actual entry into office is the following Jan***
Another Drew (cdf426) — 10/27/2008 @ 8:58 amAccording to Phil, all we want to do is kill, jail, torture and oppress minorities. It is astounding the sheer variety of topics that he can insert his narrative into.
JD (5b4781) — 10/27/2008 @ 9:07 amLeast we forget, in the good old days one could buy heroin and other so called hard drugs in the local drug store. The addiction and social problems became so horrendous it and the other hard drugs were outlawed; marijuana being one of the last of the 1900s drugs banned. And my experience with friends is that marijuana is a gateway drug for all too many.
Just recently in history we lowered the drinking age to 18 in most states. If I can die for my country why can’t I drink was the cry when I was in college. Well, we lowered it and many 18 year old kids did die; in car accidents. Since younger teenagers run with 18 year olds, guess who was drinking too.
I’m been 63 years on this earth and I have found that all to many of our citizens can not resist the temptation of acts and actions that hurt them and their families and those of us who do resist are called upon to pick up the pieces. I don’t want a nanny state, so just call me selfish when it comes to drugs and the problem they creat.
If you want to do drugs, go to Amsterdam or Mexico and spare those of us who prefer a rational, alert citizenry the price of your liberal/libertarian ideals. Drugs are cheaper there anyway with less hassle from the authorities. Just don’t smoke the evil drug tobacco in the coffee houses in Amsterdam since it is illegal, but pot is OK.
amr (695a1d) — 10/27/2008 @ 9:46 amThe violence has definitely spilled into Phoenix. We have had a couple of home-invasions with murder by paramilitary Mexican drug gangs (dressed as police, with fully automatic weapons and flack vests). In one case they set an ambush for pursuing Phoenix police officers. The only thing that prevented a military battle in the city was the cops detecting the ambush and not falling for it.
Meanwhile, we have had many murders as a result of illegal alien smuggling. In one case, a machine gun battle on the Interstate between Phoenix and Tucson.
John Moore (992b14) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:27 am#30
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 states that revenue will be withheld from states that allow the purchase of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21.
http://www.youthrights.org/dastatelist.php
Re the violence in Mexico, another good reason to secure the border.
Stan (7cfd24) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:31 pmI suspect that the experience the US military has gained in Iraqi cities in fighting against irregular troops, in winning over local civilians and in recreating civil order will soon be put to use south of the border. The only good thing is that Mexico is Christian, so it won’t have the drag of Islam on it.
LenS (3835f2) — 10/27/2008 @ 4:11 pmIf we had done what some elements of our political structure wanted in 1848, annexation of Mexico, we wouldn’t be having this problem now.
There’ll be snow-drifts in Mexico City before the U.S. sends troops south into Mexico again.
Another Drew (cdf426) — 10/27/2008 @ 4:42 pmBoth parties whole heartedly support drug criminalization. It is akin to political suicide to have any other stance in this day and age.
Drug war: you better love it or you’re a druggie, druggie.
i like america (d2f951) — 10/27/2008 @ 6:38 pm