Skip to comments.Former Mexican Mayor Maria Santos Gorrostieta Executed (My Title)
Posted on 11/26/2012 4:57:09 AM PST by Kukai
The body of a woman once called a 'heroine of the 21st century' for fearlessly standing up to Mexico's brutal drug cartels has been found beaten to death at the side of a road.
Maria Santos Gorrostieta, 36, was the former mayor of Tiquicheo, a rural district in Michoacan, west of Mexico City.
She famously survived two assassination attempts by narcotics gangs who have turned the country into a war zone.
Her brave defiance may have cost the mother-of-three her life. The official cause of death was a blow to the head but she had been stabbed, her legs and hands had been bound and her waist and chest were covered in burns, suggesting she had been tortured.
She was discovered by residents of the community of San Juan Tararameo, Cuitzeo Township, who were heading to work in the fields.
Her family had reported her missing on November 14, and the disappearance was being investigated by the Anti-Kidnapping and Extortion institution.
A murder investigation has now been launched.
The first assassination attempt was while in October 2009 when the car she was travelling in with her husband Jose Sanchez came under fire from gunmen in the town of El Limone.
The attack claimed his life but Gorrostieta, who had been elected in 2008, lived and bravely battled back in the face of overwhelming tragedy.
The next attempt on her life was just three months later, when an masked group carrying assault rifles ambushed her on the road between Michoacan and Guerreo state.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Good i feel better now
I bet the Spanish-Language media will spend much more time on Macho Camacho’s death, than hers’.
When booze was made legal there in the late 60s they simply quit and made adjustments to their spending habits and their boss a distant cousin plowed his profits into cotton farms and once had (his son) arguably the best vintage WWII aircraft collection in that part of the south...Corsairs, Mustangs, P-47 etc
Likewise...without too much detail I have kinfolks in the medical and not sanctioned pot growing business as we speak and I can assure you they are not moving on to heroin or prostitution...but they sure don't want pot legal because the price will collapse from 3-4K/pound for top shelf to less than a 1k/pound...like in Colorado and Washington...Kali already has a glut anyhow
if made legal, they will go back to their day jobs..farming mostly...they are just trying not to go bankrupt and lose multi generational assets and personally I could give a damn...I hope they succeed
so..to be honest..platitudes and cliches from both sides of the argument are not blanket accurate
I will make two further declarations:
I think alcohol is far more damaging than marijuana overall though pot is hardly benign...and I smoked for 12 years in the 70s and early 80s
I am not in favor of drug legalization and I do think hard drugs are a menace. I do favor giving junkies access to controlled prescriptions rather than stealing and whatnot..but then that opens up issues like what about how they neglect their kids and stuff...none of this is an easy fix short of executions and I doubt that would garner much support ...I mean many of the drugs were indeed legal not that long ago....laudanum abuse and so forth
it's a hard difficult issue and technology has made more goodies available
they actually think that if drugs were legal, the violence would all just magically disappear.
Funny, it worked for the prohibition of alcohol in this country.
No. It didn’t. See post 31.
I just watched part of a documentary about the Mexican drug cartels. Their power and control is astonishing. I couldn’t even watch it all after a segment about them sealing off a town at both ends while they spent three hours carrying out assassinations and the police authorities watched it all on surveillance cameras but did nothing because they were outnumbered and out gunned.
That was a retarded response. There were no more violent actions based on prohibition. You can’t argue that there was because prohibition was over. To try to claim criminals simply moved on to other things is a non sequitur. Those things existed before prohibition and were not connected to it in any way. You might as well argue murders still happen so prohibition must not have worked.
And YOU might as well argue that we lift the prohibition against murder. Since tens of thousands of Americans are murdered each year then (according to your logic) laws against murdering someone do not work.
I get it. I understand your liberal logic: There will be no more drug crimes if we pass pro-drug laws. And if murder rates are a problem? Then we just legalize murder too. Problem solved!
Orrrrrr, you could legalize drugs in the United States.
She was cute.
Rest in Peace.
sbj klinton was a coke addict.
bj klinton was a coke addict.
But I don't use illegal drugs, yet somehow the cartels still seem to be able to earn money from supplying drugs. Why is there still demand? Perhaps the law-abiding are not the problem? Gee, I wonder if the cartels have a vested interest in maintaining things as they are? To the degree of supporting the status quo ad infinitum?
I on the other hand have a vested interest in not supporting a police state hell-bent on making the life of a law-abiding person impossible. Frankly the so-called "war on drugs" seems to be run in the "liberal" style, ie milked forever as a source of power over the law-abiding with no end in sight, just continued pointless escalation somehow enabling both the prosecutor and the outlaw to prosper at the expense of freedom. Change the law now, that's what I say!
Probably the only thing that could help Mexico now is for the US to invade and create a frontier all the way to Veracruz. And that's a sad state of affairs for the Mexicans, especially for the people who won't be in the frontier zone.
“..latitudes and cliches from both sides of the argument are not blanket accurate”
I agree with that statement. I also would say that my point about gangs would not apply to the one off bootlegger of days gone by. Mexican drug gangs are not going to go into farming if drugs are legalized. I am agnostic on legalization, but I am certain it will not solve all problems as its supporters maintain.
You ask a lot of questions. Good questions too. But the answers are very simple.
Libertarians (foolishly) believe that if we legalize drugs, then all our problems will disappear. The billion dollar cartels will suddenly become legitimate US taxpaying enterprises and billions of dollars in tax revenues will solve our problems. All the while thinking that drug use will DECREASE!
Libertarians are stupid, but we know that.
Libertarians are pro-drug. And along the same lines - they are open border liberals. Illegal immigration (and the drugs these immigrants bring in) is not a problem to them as they think we can simply de-criminalize the millions of illegals who are taking American jobs.
Did I tell you Libertarians are stupid? But that's not all, There is so much more that these RoPaul Occu-tard types believe. Things like pro-abortion and pro-porn laws are good. Things like laws are amoral.
But the fundamental belief that pro-drug laws will benefit America? That is the key component of a true liberal.
Just de-criminalize it and tax it. That's the ticket.
Was she any relation to General Gorrostieta (of “For Greater Glory”)?
Interesting list, but nobody cares if one Sicilian kills another. But can you please cite when the American Mafia has walked into bars, drug rehab centers, restaurants, casinos, and killed as many inside as they could?
Can you please tell us where the American mafia has had military style ambushes and shootouts in the streets? Maybe where they chase down and shoot people out for a day on the lake riding wave runners? Oh, and where they kill christian missionaries?
Basically, the difference is very real. The Sicilian mafia does not rule and inspire very direct fear in large regions of the country.
And again, why would smuggling cigarettes be lucrative? It’s a fact of life, those that write very laudable and proper moral behaviors into criminal law, create instant business for organized crime.
Legalization is half the battle. But it is only half. People who were beheading groups of 20 people won’t suddenly become respectable. The Mexican narco insurgency will ultimately need a hard military response. While legalization will hit them very hard in the pocketbook, they will turn to kidnapping, extortion, and providing services to islamic nutballs.
Unlike the middle east where they all truly support Islam, the overwhelming majority of normal Mexicans would love to see a focused EFFECTIVE military effort. Talk to a Mexican here illegally, as much as economics, they have been coming here in recent years to escape the killing. They don’t support the insurgency philosophically, they live in utter terror and helplessness of it. America has far more national interest here than we do in Afghanistan.
I support legalization, and a full military war to attack this menace. (with a huge PR effort, and with huge efforts to make it clear that unlike our invasions from 100 years ago, this is a mission to rescue that country and protect both of us from this menace.)
But ultimately, the way to kill it is to discuss the forbidden topic. HSBC, Britains largest bank is sloshing with narco terror accounts. They have recently been caught laundering 7 billion. Wachovia was convicted 3 years ago for knowingly laundering narco money and was fined 0.3 cents on the dollar. Most of our giant banks are laundering for the cartels.
Why are those accounts not treated the way an Al Qeida account would be?
So while legalization is legitimate to argue about, a military attack is needed, and the ultimate front is against the TARP banks that compete for their business.
As long as the political-banks in London and Manhattan can freely gorge on narco-gang cash, does anyone believe they will allow any government to truly hurt them?
“I bet the Spanish-Language media will spend much more time on Macho Camachos death, than hers.”
As will ours. And also as neither will give us stories about the biggest of banks knowingly laundering money. I walk in with 11 thousand dollars from selling my car, and they stop the press, fill out forms, notify the feds, etc.
But come in with a boxcar full of hundreds and thats ok i guess.
But i don’t blame the spanish language media. If they write about the cartels that our establishment tolerates,, that reported gets found beheaded. Or beaten to death like this brave woman.
I think you’re targeting the wrong person here. My point is that violent groups don’t stop being violent because the source of their income is legalized. Isn’t that the same thought you’re expressing?
No matter where one stands on the legalization of drugs, the war on drugs was the single biggest attack on the freedoms we took for granted, growing up decades ago.
Now the war on drugs is exceeded by the war on terror in it’s assault on our freedom. Together, these wars to make us safe have destroyed the very freedoms they claim to protect.
My prediction is that we are about to be “protected” from cyber terror and child porn. Of course they will -only- need full control of the internet, and for everyone to have a unique user ID.
And in these troubled times that feels kind of nice, izznitzo?
Ha!...cheers to you...
In a sense, yes. But I don’t think a solid case can be made that ending prohibition had no positive effect on attacking organized crime.
And no, the Mexican cartels will not suddenly become the Kennedy’s and others and cease their violence. They are a menace that will have to be hunted down and killed like Escobar.
But huge amounts of their violence is goal oriented for control of the trade, and is used to terrorize the government and people into paralysis. Again, to protect their trade. So i do think legalization would help. But mostly, i think our government has damaged our civil rights so badly with the war on drugs that we would be better off with the pot smokers being legal.
Search and seizure law is in tatters. It bears no resemblance to the Bill of Rights. Most of that is from drug prohibition.
But the worst effect of alcohol prohibition wasn’t a few gang shootouts. It was the widespread corruption of police, politicians, banks, businesses, etc. Most people liked to drink. When it became illegal, huge swaths of our nation found themselves deeply corrupted in numerous ways.
Medicinal whiskey anyone? Sacremental wine? Speakeasies? Pillars of the community widely known as rum runners? Moonshiners?
Our society was harmed far more by prohibition than just creating a few shootouts.
I think there would be a reduction in violence, but it wouldn’t end. But there are many other ways the current prohibition badly damages our society.
I agree! If our leaders (especially men) had half the courage she had we would actually get some where. Instead we have cowards leading the masses.
I previously thought that this would case would make a good film, but I doubt that Hollywood would want to make any movie which disparages drug suppliers.
“Change the law, first, then use if you want to. Until then you are as much of the problem as the cartels.”
What was meant. . .
“Change the law, first, then PEOPLE CAN can use if THEY want to. Until then THEY are as much of the problem as the cartels.”
Who gives a damn? She’s Mexican.
Perfectly stated and I’m in perfect agreement!
“Not the first time in history drugs have almost ruined a country..
Read up on the Chinese Opium Wars”
How did the Chinese authorities finally deal with drug users and dealers there?
Perhaps the same methods need to be used in Meh-hee-co...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.