Skip to comments.Mexico attorney general: We don't need U.S. troops to intervene in drug war
Posted on 02/25/2009 9:19:03 AM PST by AuntB
Mexicos attorney general said Tuesday he sees no need for U.S. troops to intervene in his countrys war on drug cartels, nor to gear up for a spillover of violence across the border.
U.S. officials view the violence as a potential national security threat, and last month the Bush administrations homeland security chief, Michael Chertoff, said Washington has drawn up contingency plans for a surge of both civilian law enforcement and military assets along the border.
On Tuesday, Gov. Rick Perry demanded a tighter security net from Washington, saying hes asked the Obama administration for more aircraft and a thousand more troops to the border.
I dont care whether theyre military troops, or theyre National Guard troops or whether theyre customs agents, he said during a visit to El Paso with retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the former U.S. drug czar who warned two months ago that Mexico could soon become a narco state.
Im concerned, Perry said, calling the city across the border from El Paso, Ciudad Juárez, one of the deadliest cities on the North American continent. Darn tootin it concerns us.
The drug violence has cost more than 6,000 lives in the past 13 months, as drug gangs fight for territory and trafficking routes and battle a Mexican army crackdown. Juárez, a city of 1.3 million, has had almost a third of the killings.
Beheadings of rival gang members have grown more common, and police corruption is widespread.
Medina-Mora said Mexicans remain frustrated with the flow of cash and guns from the U.S. drug trade $10 billion a year and thousands of weapons, which are illegal in Mexico. He discussed that topic Monday with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and on Tuesday with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
“Mexico needs to execute all the criminals in federal, state and city governments working as employees as an example of all to come just for starters.”
It would help if they brought back the death penalty...which they are talking about....instead of sending all their criminals to us.
Translation: Mexico will soon need US troops to intervene in the its drug war.
I do remember there were a lot of Rudybots, then there were none, but what did Robinson do to get rid of them? I missed that.
The Liberaltarians would be great if they were really for liberty. They’re really just for taxing sin.
Uh Oh, I said the word “sin”. That’ll be taken out of context and I’ll be accused of being an Iranian Mullah.
I and millions of others believe it is time to get real and take a look at alternatives to prohibition's failure. if it hasn't worked in 40 years it ain't gonna work in 40 more so why waste the money and dilute our constitutional rights? Your fear and drug warrior greed that's why. Drug warriors are addicted to the money and thier supporters are fearmongered into into supporting the great failure.
You say get real I say let go of your fear.
If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.
One of my biggest fears is living under our current government while having the power to regulate and tax drugs. Then they’re not only our nannies, they’re our pushers.
I’m for the states deciding this for themselves and basically putting an end to the ALL the stuff the feds shouldn’t be doing.
This is real. 23 or more states have sovereignty legislation in their respective congresses. Let’s talk about doing this before we go legalizing meth. I don’t know why all you libertarians are fixated on legalization. Why do you think that’s the first step toward liberty?
That drugs should be legalized.
You'd have thought we would learn our lesson with Prohibition.
This is starting to remind me of the drug-war in Columbia in the 1980s. If you ever read the book “Killing Pablo” by the author of Blackhawk Down... narco-terrorists killed every major presidential & vice-presidential candidate in one election (the equivalent of killing McCain, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Hillary, Obama & Biden all during the 2008 campaigns), killed or kidnapped half their Supreme Court, took their Supreme Court hostage inside the SC building, blew up at least one passager airliner, had bombs exloding in major population centers daily, and purchased & blackmailed & extorted their way into control of local governments & police forces & national parliament.
If Mexico gets even 1/4 of that, we will have a major crisis on our southwestern states, and if the Feds don’t control it, citizen militias will definitely take extreme measures. The longer-term result will be major groups of heavily-armed and well-organized citizens distrustful & resentful of the govt, and accustomed to taking the law into their own hands and to resorting to armed violence to protect their lives & property.
I’m not advocating anything, just making an educatde prediction. The Feds need to do something, yesterday.
Competence? COMPETENCE? We doan need no feelthy, steenkin’ competence.
Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:42:25 PM · by Jim Robinson · 18,440 replies · 498,163+ views
Kidster: My remarks back in Post # 14? They apply to you. I agree with demshateGod. You should Get Real.
You Liberaltarians argue for a smaller government. Yet you are here advocating that we abandon the ideals that made America great. That we legalize dope. Which would create an enormous need for more prisons and more hospitals to house the millions of addicts that will appear overnight.
Then you call for the legalization of this dope? Do you listen to yourself? With higher taxes comes bigger govermnent. Maybe you want Obama to appoint a Drug Czar? Maybe the next stimulus package could earmark 100 billion dollars for the US drug industry?
Apart from Liberaltarians having no moral conscience towards illegal drugs, they also are hypocrites.
You fought in the WOD?
Yet now you are a surender-monkey?
Just because YOU lost the battle does not mean America should lose the war.
And... Prohibition and the WOD are two different issues.
The reason people want drugs legalized is for a number of reasons. Some for selfish reasons, they don't want to be criminals anymore. Others see the erosion of our constitutional rights for the sake of giving greater police power to the government to combat drug use and distribution. We want to stop it, the 4th amendment has been thrown out and it's time to reassert this GOD given right. Others see the waste of taxpayer money and the incredible abuse of power and corruption this money along with the profits from the drug trade creates. They want thier money back because interdiction hasn't done anything to stem the tide nor decrease consumption. Finally people see the violence created by the goverment's unintentional (maybe) propping up of a black market monopoly and are tired of it, knowing it's unnecessary.
Libertarians aren't fixated on drug use they are fixated on the problems caused by prohibition and see that some other options offer good solutions to solve the problems from drug abuse and other associated troubles.
“Yet you are here advocating that we abandon the ideals that made America great. That we legalize dope.”
I must have been sick the day they covered that in high school.
Thanks for a good laugh - we don't get enough of them.
Yes, I SINGLE HANDEDLY lost the battle. All by my lonesome. Just me. No one else. Yup.
Sure would like to know how Prohibition and the WOD are different issues.
Surrender has two r’s.
All this.. and still no border wall.
Thanks for the link.
The govt. taxes all commodities, they tax milk, they tax cars and they tax booze. You can't sell something retail without taxes being paid and collected. That isn't going to change. The argument that libertarians are hypocrites because they say to tax narcotics is also a straw man. It's just common sense that they'd be taxed if sold retail. Taxes suck and we have too many but in this case at least the money could be used for specific purposes to educate about addiction and help with treatment. If you don't want to contribute to that then don't buy any drugs. Drug users would be funding thier own support system.
You can't legislate morality, people must be given the freedom to do pursue happiness as long as they don't hurt or defruad others. By your argument we should be regulating TV more closely, outlawing many magazines and jailing those who sell sex toys. All these things have immorality surrounding them but I don't hear you arguing for any of this. Why not, because you know that we can't legislate morality outside of protecting people from fraud or assault. This is where drug warriors' hypocrisy is evident. They only want to legislate morality when it comes to some drugs and not much else (unless they are just a nanny stater). What about alcohol? It's consumption leads many to debauchery and is considered immoral do you want to bring back that prohibition as well?