Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
War on Drugs: Fast, Furious and Fueled by the U.S.
The violent deaths of Brian Terry and Juan Francisco Sicilia, separated by the span of just a few months and by the increasingly bloody U.S.-Mexico border, have sparked separate but overdue examinations of the so-called War on Drugs, and how the U.S. government is ultimately exacerbating the problem.
On the night of Dec. 14, 2010, Agent Brian Terry was in the Arizona desert as part of the highly trained and specially armed BORTAC unit, described as the elite paramilitary force within the U.S. Border Patrol. The group engaged in a firefight, and Terry was killed. While this death might have become just another violent act associated with drug trafficking along the border, one detail has propelled it into a high-stakes confrontation between the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress: Weapons found at the scene, AK-47s, were sold into likely Mexican criminal hands under the auspices of a covert operation of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Dubbed “Operation Fast and Furious,” the secret program aimed to trace arms sold in the U.S. to so-called straw buyers, people who buy arms on behalf of others. The ATF’s operation allowed gun shops to sell bulk weapons to straw buyers who the ATF suspected were buying on behalf of Mexican drug cartels. Instead of arresting the straw buyer, considered a relatively low-level criminal by the ATF, tracing the guns as they made their way into Mexico might allow the ATF to arrest more senior members of the criminal cartels. At least, that was the plan.
According to reporting by the Center for Public Integrity, 1,765 guns were knowingly sold as part of “Fast and Furious.” Another 300 or so were sold before the operation started. Of these more than 2,000 guns, fewer than 800 have been recovered. Two of the guns recovered were found at the site of Terry’s death, in a region known as Peck Canyon, on the U.S. side of the border between Nogales, Mexico, and Tucson, Ariz.
Special Agent John Dodson of the ATF was among many field agents who advised superiors that the covert operation was unwise. Their concerns were not acted on, and the operation continued. After Terry’s murder, Dodson blew the whistle, first to the Justice Department, then to Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Grassley has questioned Attorney General Eric Holder, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Republican Darrell Issa, is now engaged in hearings on the case.
South of the border, Sicilia and six other young men were brutally murdered in March, just seven more innocent victims in the raging violence in Mexico that has claimed more than 35,000 victims since December 2006, when President Felipe Calderon began his crackdown on the drug cartels. Sicilia’s father is Javier Sicilia, a renowned poet and intellectual in Mexico. Soon after his son’s murder, Sicilia wrote his final poem, dedicated to his son. He is now committed to the nonviolent struggle against the bloodshed in his country. He led a protest march in May from his hometown of Cuernavaca to Mexico City’s famous Zocalo, the central plaza, where 200,000 people rallied. Last weekend, he led another march, all the way to the border, and then into El Paso, Texas.
Sicilia is against the cartels, for sure. But he holds Calderon, and the United States, culpable as well. He is calling for an end to “the Merida Initiative,” in which the U.S. provides arms and training for the Mexican military to fight the cartels. Sicilia also is calling for the legalization of drugs, a call in which he is joined, surprisingly, by the conservative former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, and increasingly by Calderon himself.
Calderon is traveling in the U.S. this week, and has spoken out about the U.S. arms industry that is profiting from the sales of weapons that end up in Mexico. He also has criticized the repeal of the U.S. assault-weapons ban, which has led to a massive increase in gun violence in Mexico.
A new report released by three Democratic U.S. senators finds some 70 percent of guns seized in Mexico from 2009 to 2010 came from the United States. Of the nearly 30,000 guns seized in Mexico during that period, more than 20,000 came from the U.S.
If anything should be fast and furious in the United States, it should be the push for sane and sensible gun control and drug policies. Perhaps then, Javier Sicilia will start writing poetry again.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
45 Comments so far
Show AllSelling weapons to all sides of a conflict is how malevolent profiteers make money.
And utterly typical of US foreign policy.
(Having said that, I know I just added another page to my growing State surveillance file...)
or how utterly malignant all the agencies of the US are. The CIA runs drugs and launders the money thru the banks. We pay the Taliban to protect our convoys that are on the way to murder them, they buy guns and turn around and murder the murders.
The FBI finds a patsy, sets him up with toys, then arrests or murders him when he follows thru with the threat that originated with the FBI.
Or you can just say how 'utterly typical of the US.
You're in good company here.
worked for the rothschilds
its the low end of the eugenics/population control issues
It'll be the day when the government makes sensible choices/policies, but until then hands off my assault weapons.
I'm just curious: Why a civilian would >need< an assault weapon?
I keep asking this question, and the answer is always some paranoid, chicken hawk bullshit about 'defending what's mine!' from de eeebil gub'mint.
"de eeebil gub'mint"
__________
Artfully phrased; thanks for making me laugh. I approach comments threads on gun-related topics as one approaches a beach barefoot on a burning-hot summer day: take a deep breath, then plunge ahead and jog heavily to one's destination crying "Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!..." in sync with one's steps.
My late father, a World War II Army draftee who eventually became a Master Sergeant, used to aggravate me no end when I was a kid asking if he "fought" in the war. He would usually just smile and say, "I wasn't a fighter; I was a lover." It was the last thing I wanted to hear, and a major bummer.
But he did tell an anecdote of some mortally wounded French Army officer who was taken to a field hospital where my father happened to be. The point of the story was that the officer insisted with his dying breaths that his boots not be removed, because he wanted to die with his boots on.
The officer got his wish. My dad, the lover, found it quite moving.
Thus, I was familiar with the expression long before I knew that "die with one's boots on" was a universal idiomatic expression or sentiment.
All THAT to suggest that, like the unfortunate French officer, some civilians feel a comparable sacred obligation to die with their assault weapons in hand.
O.S. Inasmuch as the acorn seldom falls far from the tree, you might be amused to learn that Jean Shinoda Bolen, whose books on Jungian psychology led me to a major work (Moon Dance), explained the archetype of Aries in terms both of lover and warrior. Mars happened to be Venus' favorite romantic consort, and the lady, or should I say Goddess, certainly had her pick among the Olympian "pool."
My first script was a spoof on Venus begetting a son by Zeus (due to a late night party on Olympus, a little tipsy, you know, things happen. And besides, Hera/Juno knew her husband Zeus/Jupiter for the philanderer that he always was). In order that he NOT be socialized along "Mars rules" constructs, Venus/Aphrodite hides this birth from Zeus by maintaining a mist of roses (like an atmosphere) so thick around the little boy, that he's taken for another girl and ignored by his biological father. That leaves her free to raise him as she intends... to be a LOVER of women. Then, when the time is ripe, and so many making supplications to the heavens... she releases her only begotten son (By Zeus) to earth to minister to the sexually challenged and romantically dispossessed... who are many! And as a god, he comes equipped with immortal parts. (The script is entitled "Immortally Yours.") Sometimes I have to write comedy to deal with the tragedies so evident to the mortal plane.
Athena, who, in contrast, denies birth by a mother and alleges to have been born direct from her Father Zeus' head, is very protective of her father. One day he asks her how she thinks he's doing, what with managing the world, Olympus, etc. And she answers, rather gingerly that he's mostly been concerned with stock averages and sports scores, and that a lot of women don't think he's doing that great of a job as a result of these priorities.
The story line indeed holds a plot of something in the way of coup... ultimately, "As above, so below," the time has come for a different balance of powers.
Michael Jackson once said he was a lover, not a fighter... as a Virgo, he was more of a messenger and moved to the nimble beat of Mercury. If any CD posters ever walk down Broadway (in NYC) they're apt to see a very good Michael Jackson impersonator in one of his street performances.
A year ago I was in Old San Juan, Puerto Rico and a young man was dressed up as Michael Jackson going up and down the streets on a very old scooter. It was such a hilarious scene, and I did my best to convey why it was funny to me... to my 3 year old grandson. He laughed contagiously, just because I did. Cute moment.
Need? No, I used to own one and it was a fun thing to shoot at targets with... But need??? no, there was no 'need' for me to have one.
Course I've never bought into the argument that you could have a chance in hell of succeeding at keeping your stuff from the grubmint or any other well armed thief even if you were armed, ready and waiting for them. You'd be dead, and the thief/grubmint would have your stuff. If it was the grubmint you'd also be vilified for forcing them to take your guns...
Galenwainwright,
You wrote:
"I'm just curious: Why a civilian would >need< an assault weapon?
I keep asking this question, and the answer is always some paranoid, chicken hawk bullshit about 'defending what's mine!' from de eeebil gub'mint."
I have an associate who is a civilian licensed firearms dealer, and a collector of firearms who owns not only semi-automatic firearms but also fully automatic firearms. We regularly go to a legal gun range and legally fire both varieties of firearms. We also fire antique collectible firearms.
The legal use of semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons for some individuals has the same recreational value as archery, shooting skeet, hunting, and other activities that may involve the legal use a weapon that could also be used as a weapon of war.
In another thread in this forum on the issue of guns from the US contributing to the drug related violence in Mexico, a thread participant suggested that the implementation of stricter gun control laws in the US, such as those that are in place in Canada, would decrease Mexican drug gangs access to guns. Such stricter gun control laws in the US would thus decrease the incidence of drug related gun violence in Mexico and decrease the incidence of overall gun related violence in the US. I disagreed with both of these assertions.
In response to the above assertions, I pointed out that I live in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. In this sprawling metropolis we have a high incidence of drug related crime that does not involve the use of firearms. We also have a high incidence of non-drug related crime that does not involve the use of firearms. When you examine the murder rate in my community, as many individuals are murdered with instruments other than firearms as those who are murdered by use of a firearm. In my community, citizens are regularly strangled to death, beaten to death, stabbed to death, and intentionally drowned. We have even had murders by lynching.
When we examine the link between crime and guns, I believe that we also have to examine the factors of intentionality and gun availability. I contend that even with more stringent gun control, criminal elements of our society who have an intent to commit crimes using a firearm will obtain a firearm. More stringent control of firearms will result in the creation of a black market for firearms and lead to the creation a criminal enterprise to control the production and distribution of black market firearms just as we saw the creation of a criminal enterprise to control the production and distribution of alcohol during prohibition.
Ghandi opposed to gun control? Could you please show us where you got that note from, links or books because that's news to me? Thanks.
Look, I heard or read it somewhere. I don't know if it was on my computer or on TV. I'll check. You might consider that I would have no stake in making up such a story, and I was surprised as well when it came to my attention. You may want to think that I sit around conjuring up this story, I can't change that. I don't like the NRA or the 2nd Bill of Right to bare arms the original wording changed for commercial purposes to bear arms.
I'm not calling you a liar or anything but I know that in India gun control is very strict to where you can't even use a stick to attack and defend yourself. The Indian people all the way up to 1948 hardly imagined owning their own personal firearms at a time when they needed money just to put food on their own tables. I can't imagine that a guy like him who advocated nonviolence all the way would go out of his way to call for opposing gun control. If there was one single quote of his that could easily be interpreted as him opposing gun control, you could bet all the money in the world that the NRA would take it and use it against the gun control advocates. The NRA doesn't care about who's owning firearms. All they care about is maximizing profits at all costs.
I heard that rumor too. It was a derringer and he hid it in his bowels whenever the English came a-searchin' -- which was also why he favored fasting because otherwise he might've gotten scared and pooped it out in the middle of a search. Makes as much sense as U.S. policy on drugs and guns.
I did not claim nor did I say that Ghandi was armed.What I said was that he was opposed to gun control mainly because it was implemented by the British for the purpose of disarming any possible opposition to their rule.Please do not put your words into my writing. Thank you
The reason that the Constitution specifically defends citizen's rights to own arms is to allow a civilian society to defend itself from their government. There is no restriction on how well the citizens can do this, no limit on the technology that the citizen may use to insure that the civilian society will be successful against a military dictatorship. There are always hazards in any armed society, especially with very powerful weapons, but it is best to err on the side of civilian defense than to keep them at a disadvantage and thus likely to lose in a conflict with their government.
So you and all the other "hands off my guns", "my gun stands between me and the evil government", etc. etc. people really imagine that you are going to stand up to missiles, drones, tanks, fighter jets and all the other toys of war that the government has at its disposal? How has that worked out for the populace of Iraq or Afghanistan, where each household had a gun, usually of the automatic, AK-47 type?
Those armed Afghanis seem to me to be putting up a spirited defense against the more well equipped imperial ISAF. Historically, those Afghanis have prevented the conquest of their land by Alexander the Great, Chandragupta Maurya, and Genghis Khan. The Afghanis defeated Great Britain and the former Soviet Union. The Afghanis are going to defeat the US and it's NATO partners.
The Iraqis mounted stiff opposition to the coalition led by the United States in it's occupation of Iraq. They survived the US led coalition invasion and occupation. The political fate of Iraq has not yet been settled, but it will ultimately be determined internally by the Iraqi people themselves.
In the former Indochina, despite France's and the United States' overwhelming firepower, the North Vietnamese defeated both France and the United States. Overwhelming firepower may win battles, but it does not always win wars.
At the current time in many nations throughout the world we see people who are fighting and dying for liberty who lack arms to provide for their defense. The situation would be different in Syria, Iran, and Bahrain if their citizens had a constitutional right to bear arms. The people of Yemen damn sure seem to be making progress in their attempts to overthrow authoritarian rule. They are using a combination of both arms and peaceful protests.
"According to reporting by the Center for Public Integrity, 1,765 guns were knowingly sold as part of “Fast and Furious.” Another 300 or so were sold before the operation started. Of these more than 2,000 guns, fewer than 800 have been recovered. Two of the guns recovered were found at the site of Terry’s death, in a region known as Peck Canyon, on the U.S. side of the border between Nogales, Mexico, and Tucson, Ariz."
How was this ever considered a justified use of taxpayer dollars? Sounds to me like someone made a lot of money and armed the opposition on our tax dollars. Is this program still in existence? What oversight and accountability is there on it? Who exactly approved it? Is this department audited?
Oversight? No, this is how the US operates. It is called laundering the US taxpayer's money thru corrupt government. It has always operated this way
Only puritanical fools and war profiteers believe in this insane war on drugs. Mexico should cut their losses and announce the legalization of all drugs and tell the United States to go to hell.
That is the way I'd like it...But, there is too much money made on both sides of the border; Mexico has a ton of billionaires. Politically it would be interesting because I think that Mexico and the US of A are in cahoots about the immigrant thingy. The"war" on drugs goes on making money; the folks with money in Mexico keep taking (stealing) the land from the farmers and outsourcing their jobs and what you have is what is happening in the US and other parts of the world.. when these folks cross the border to take any job, ANY JOB, it is an act of desperation. And so the war on drugs will continue; for the money. Tony
As HUMANO mentions below, personal possession of heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and pot are legal in Mexico. It's made things worse. Mexico has a significant internal drug use problem especially with cocaine. I guess the next wave of illegals will be addicts instead of "farmers".
You guys never get tired of the "displaced farmer" routine. The imagery is comfortable in your mind and it prevents one from confronting the realities on the street. Latin America keeps pumping out people; their excess population has to go somewhere.
One could also consider the activities of the Mexican drug dealers an "act of desperation". After all, they're doing what it takes to survive.
FWIW, I don't know what the hell ATF was thinking; there should be an investigation and prosecutions -like so many other US activities.
Gee Wizz Amy, arms are the only thing we export. Unemployment will go up at least another 2%. (My tongue is making a bulge in my cheek)
LEGALIZE this shit or watch this war expand into our Southwest and eventually into our cities. The Drug cartels are the most vicious people this hemisphere has ever seen, since the Slavers.
Mexico should take the route of Amsterdam and open up a drug tourist business.
The cartels that provided illegal booze quickley folded after prohibition was repealed.
The business is open, still on the black market but wide open... I live in Mexico and can assure you drugs are EVERYWHERE, there havent been so much drugs available for as long as I remember, quality is up price is down, corruption at all levels is way up and trust in the government or political parties is way down.
Take Playa del Carmen (hottest tourist destination in the Mayan Riviera), drugs are openly offered in the main tourist street... ALL police are on the take and the ruling cartel (the Z´s) are absolute kings of this town, they are the law, everyone knows it and nobody can do anything but keep their mouth shot and take the gold or receive the lead.
Nothing short of legalization of all drugs will change this. But the government isnt interested in changing nothing, its a really good business after all... the true organized crime is legit and gets voted in.
So what is it left to do?
WORLDWIDE REVOLUTION!
Conservative's War on poor People of color, Fast, Furious and Fueled by war profiteers
[Special Agent John Dodson of the ATF was among many field agents who advised superiors that the covert operation was unwise. Their concerns were not acted on, and the operation continued. After Terry’s murder, Dodson blew the whistle,]
So, when is this Dodson fellow going to be sent to the same jail that the other 'whistle' blower was sent to?
Until we make the connection between the war on drugs and our failed industrial state that came from it, it'll never end. Nearly drug that is being waged a war against has several if not thousands of industrial uses. Figure it out and spread the word.
If Mexico legalized drugs, probably a third of its foreign currency reserves (dollars) would disappear virtually overnight. No small problem.
And what other employment is there in Mexico for all those involved now in the illegal drug trade? Growing GM corn? (Same question for the U.S. side if, for example, we legalized pot...)
-30-
Growing pot more than corn would go a long ways towards nourishing our soil.
I think it is worth reminding all here that the US Government, FBI, CIA, LAPD, the Canadian Government, the UN Banking Commission, and EVERY SINGLE BANK IN THE WORLD openly admits that if drug money was not being laundered BY EVERY BANK IN THE WORLD, the entire world economy would collapse.
Without this single remaining source of liquidity (drug profits) banks would have no money to loan. Period. Every dollar of drug money is loaned out eight times.
Covertly providing guns to Mexican drug gangs is no different than the US supporting known drug lord ally and CIA puppet Manuel Noriega of Panama.
The US led 'War on Drugs' ensure high prices, constant demand, and protected supply lines.
This is just another example of business as ususal.
Nonetheless, I think we need to legalize drugs. The money that people are willing to spend could then be taxed and one portion of our criminal class would be out of work. In the long run lives would be saved. Next would be medical treatment for users combined with giving people a future that does not involve taking or dealing in drugs.
If you look at the list of so-called ‘US diplomatic envoys’ to Guatemala, you`ll understand easily that the number of officials who deal with purely diplomatic matters hardly more than several people, while those described as consuls and representatives for departments of culture and economy are actually unspoken members of a ‘special center’ for Guatemala rule. The DEA agents also have plenty of delicate issues to deal with. They are responsible for recruiting Guatemalan officers. Volunteers of the Peace Corps (a CIA branch) as well as the US Agency for International Development (USAID) are looking for young people who could join pro-American non-governmental organizations. The US Geological Survey agency (USGS) is also involved in the operation, which is supervised by U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala Stephen McFarland, an experience intelligence officer himself, and his deputy- Todd Robinson, also a long-time CIA agent who had previously worked in Colombia, Salvador, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic and Albania. More analysis: http://orientalreview.org/2011/05/26/the-drug-wars-in-central-america-no-mercy/