Skip to comments.3 Mexican brick makers who sought work in Malaysia now face hanging if convicted in drug trial
Posted on 04/24/2011 6:03:29 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch
CULIACAN, Mexico From age 6, each of the Gonzalez brothers learned to make bricks, trudging like nine little chicks behind their father every day before dawn to work in his dusty hilltop brickyard.
Three years ago, three of them in their 30s and 40s quit the backbreaking work, saying they had a better opportunity abroad.
Now, having escaped the Mexican drug war that leaves dead bodies on the streets of their city of Culiacan almost daily, the brothers face the gallows in Malaysia, standing trial on Wednesday for allegedly working in a factory where police found $15 million in methamphetamine. If convicted, they face Malaysias mandatory sentence of death by hanging for drug trafficking.
The case raises questions about a connection between their home state, Sinaloa, the cradle of Mexicos drug trade, and a country more than 15,000 kilometers (some 10,000 miles) away that is a regional production hub for meth. While authorities say there is no direct evidence to tie the Sinaloa cartel, Mexicos most powerful, to meth production in Asia, they wouldnt be surprised by such a link.
If you look at trends, then you see that these organizations are fanning out, said a U.S. law enforcement official in Mexico who couldnt be named for security reasons. They are popping up everywhere.
Only a month after leaving Mexico, the brothers Jose Regino, 33, Luis Alfonso, 43 and Simon Gonzalez, 36 called home during a family birthday party. Their relatives thought they were calling with congratulations. Instead the brothers told them they were under arrest.
The family hung up stunned, and searched for Malaysia on their globe.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It appears not every country is a total sucker for immigrants like the U.S.
But let's keep doing what we've been doing, since it's working so well.
Are these Mexicans working legally in Malaysia?
Nope. Not even a little bit.
Boy, did they pick the wrong country to invade!
Well, they went to another country for economic opportunity and found it.
And after they swing from ropes, three more brick makers will take their places. Even a swift and certain death penalty for drug offenses hasn't thwarted Malaysia's booming meth industry.
Border Patrol agents seized over 19,274 pounds of marijuana. Agents arrested eleven criminal aliens and eight gang members. There were eleven rocking incidents.
The Anchorage Police Department patrolman known as Rafael Espinoza is in truth a Mexican citizen named Rafael Mora-Lopez, said Karen Loeffler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Alaska.
These guys are idiots on the Plane your customs declaration slip in Red at the bottom “Death to drug traffickers” and They mean it!
Doesn’t look like it.
Maybe the recuiters told them they would have new economic opportunities and have a swingin' time!
The War on Drugs is indeed a failure.
But in the alternative, what would you suggest?
Decriminalizing/legalizing drugs is not a good plan. It will lead to more mayhem in the streets and absolute “no-go” zones. It will look like those silly “futureistic” movies like “Freejack”
If they’d come here, they could have had free legal representation and an interpreter with possibly free room and board for a few years before being sent back home.
There was a time when drugs were legal in the US, a hundred years ago. Didn’t lead to chaos at all.
Remember, its the Washington Post....
Were they working there or not?
That's what happened when alcohol prohibition ended.
Everything was peaceful when Prohibition was in effect. All Hell broke loose when it was repealed.
The real problem the WOD has created is that there is so much money in contraband that the cartels are better funded and better armed than the governments they are under.
And it won't be that much longer before that is true here as well.
What's your solution to that? More of the same stuff we've been doing since the Anslinger Narcotics Act of 1937? Only a lot more?
This is not the same country as it was at the end of prohibition.
To suggest that complete repeal of the controlled substances act is not without repercussions is not going to cut it.
It’s not the same. Crack is not a bottle of Jack Daniels. LSD is not Courvoisier. And Ecstasy is not a bottle of Dom Perignon.
The things that were available 100 years ago were not products of our modern chemistry.
Yeah but, 100 years ago there wasn’t speed and meth, which really makes one do real crazy shite.
I am not against leagalizing something a lightweight as pot. Smoke a little and your just cool with things, smoke a lot and you’re just numbed out, not wild ass crazy like meth or crack.
Amphetamine and methamphetamine have been around for more than 100 years. Cocaine (crack) as well. And the opiates.
Where’d you get that info?
Making the elite rich, growing government, growing the prison industry and contracts in exchange for political favors, making certain branches of government wash in off book income, sprouting fear everywhere in the Citizenry, getting the people used to control and obedience, growing violence and death, trapping people in misery and addiction and eroding the Constitution?
Yeah. Why change something when it's working as intended.
When it's not broke, don't fix it.
Crack is 100 years old?
I hear you.
I was going to Best Buy the other day, but realized that some beer bootleggers were hold up on Route 10. I had to go around the whole county to avoid them and their violence.
And don't let me get started on the Lettuce Cartel. They want to sell a plant that grows naturally, and have held my son in his apartment as a hostage for weeks. All because he wants to make a salad.
Will the violence NEVER end?????????
Crack is cocaine.
Cheer on the cartels, because unlike the other side, they won't bother you or take anything from you if you mind your own business?
Oh wait. Sorry. That's not what you meant. I'll just go over here and sit down quietly.
The government would lose its monopoly on health care for one thing.
That would be terrible.
Part of the problem. Part of why America is dying. And they don't know any better as the pull the voting lever that seals our Nation's fate. Being taught they are doing the right thing.
I've been talking about them for weeks now.
Some are the 'religious' who believe that they are doing 'good works' by controlling what a man eats, drinks, thinks, smokes, (or earlier where and when he shops or work, what color person he can hang out with, and what sexual positions are legal.)
Electing Palin will change NOTHING. Until people like this get a clue and the police state stops. They will wake up 2, 3 elections later and wonder why nothing is better, why the debt is still there, why there are cameras on every street corner.
Soon thoughtcrime will be a reality.
Sometimes the left is right. Just once in a century. But...
I really don't see much hope for us, as long as we're stuck with two sides of the same coin. Big Government for "Good" Reason #1, or Big Government for "Good" Reason #2.
Liberty or we all perish. And no one will speak to it.
Here's one source: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/meth/meth_timeline.php
Wikipedia has methamphetamine being synthized in 1893 by a different Japanese chemist.
Maybe I could use some speed.
synthized = synthesized
"The brothers Malaysian attorney, Kitson Foong, said they were arrested outside the factory and were not involved in what was going on inside."
"Foong said police have mishandled his clients case from the start. He charged they lost two-thirds of the drugs seized at the factory and that at one point they filed a report claiming the drugs had been stolen. He alleged that four police officers were arrested after being caught on camera stealing some of the drugs themselves."
We have those areas NOW in every major city.
I've made bricks. It's ahrdly "backbreaking" work, particularly if you are strong and robust, as they ought to have been, having done it since age 6. I think they got a break to make the BIG easy bucks from the cartel, and went for it. Clearly they failed to do an adequate cost-benefit analsysis. Malaysia is NOT the U.S. border, where smugglers are released if they have less than 50 lbs of pot.
Great research find!
Although the chemical compounds were discovered over 100 years ago and “blackbrush” existed long before, the assertion there was any “speed” abuse or addiction prior to 100 years ago is factually missing. Cocain was in use over 100 years ago, but not widely as “cocain” powder or freebase, rather as as minor ingredient in things like soft drinks and of course coca leaves and coca tea in the Andes. Crack cocain is very new, maybe within the last 30 years.
Well, cocaine was available over the counter at pharmacies as part of toothache cures and such. This is similar to how pure alcohol is rarely ingested today. “Freebase” only exists because of the War on Drugs.
Yeah, back then we at least had the decency to pass constitutional amendments to impose and repeal nationwide prohibition.
To suggest that complete repeal of the controlled substances act is not without repercussions is not going to cut it.
So do you think the CSA is justified by the Commerce Clause? Or, do you think states should have that authority under the Tenth Amendment?
I’m not presuming to have any answer.
It is obvious that the present plan is not working and in the alternative libertarian plan doesn’t sound very appealing either.
I say that because while I agree that one should have the liberty to make a mess of one’s life...the problem is the collateral damage of the lives others.
I don’t know how to reconcile the collateral damage to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Without some clear lines about self sovereignty and the rights of others, there really isn’t a good solution.
Whoa. Shouldn't your first priority as a citizen be to form an opinion as to whether the government is acting within its constitutional limits?
Fedgov uses the Commerce Clause under the Wickard precedent to control education and health care, and to impose a national drug prohibition. Do you really have no opinion on the Commerce Clause vs the Tenth Amendment on these issues?
I have opinions on such things, but my opinion is not an answer since I cannot know empirically whether or not it will work.
Like I said, I can see that the present policy has failed. I do not believe that the libertarian approach is necessarily a good idea because of the collateral damage to lives beyond the individual, and who will bear the burden of those costs.
It isn’t that I don’t harbor the libertarian mindset, in as much as if an individual wants to pickle his brain with Meth, and destroy his body with the myriad of of other substances available on the black market.... You want to do that, then have at it.
But who bears the responsibility for the destroyed lives, of that persons family? The individual? The family members themselves?
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the custodian of my nephew(13) and niece(10), who are the collateral damage mentioned above. I also have children of my own (4 1/2 and 2 1/2), who are significantly younger than nephew and niece. I love them, and they are my blood but I am not going to sacrifice my children either, and I find myself sacrificing time with my own children to deal with drug users who would be better off dead. Court dates in Family court, lawyer fees, and the general out of pocket expenses in raising children who are 13 & 10. Their parents are shit, and I don’t want them near my house or my children, or my nephew and niece.
The best outcome for me and those children would be for both of them to catch a shiv while in jail.
So how do I reconcile kill yourself if you like, with the destroyed lives of minor children now in my care.
Nephew and nice didn’t ask for what happened to them and I have spent countless hours in remedial reading and math to get them to grade level in the suburban schools they now attend as opposed to the holding centers they attended in their former city of residence.
So what is your opinion on the Commerce Clause vs Tenth Amendment with regard to prohibition? It's a very simple question that you are avoiding.
It sounds like you would support a government policy that, in your opinion, violates the Constitution.
Having given the matter some thought I am prepared to answer your question WRT the 10th amendment vs the commerce clause.
The assertion of the commerce clause was such that the states would set up border stations to collect tariffs on goods produced in other states and to prevent the entry of what the state deemed as undesirable persons from other states, and would use those checkpoints to prevent the transportation of illicit substances. The commerce clause was intended to prevent the erection of such checkpoints and allow the free passage of citizens, and goods produced within the united states.
As such, the commerce clause is properly used to outlaw nationally, such substances that would be contrary to the free conduct of commerce and inhibit free travel.
Where one state would say that such substances are legal and allow possession, sale and consumption, would infringe on the right of a neighboring state to restrict these illicit substances and prevent the distribution of these substances within its borders.
Freedom is universal up to the point of the free exercise of your rights infringes on the rights of others. In the case of what are now illicit drugs I believe that the national restriction on possession, and sale of these substances is not a violation of the 10th amendment.
This is not to say that all invocations of the commerce clause are proper, but the national interest is better served by the controlled substances act.
The plight of these three is as sorry as the dumb blonde from CBS who assumed she had a right to go to Egypt and lie like she does in America