Slashdot Mirror
Narco-Blogger Beats Mexico Drug War News Blackout
An anonymous reader writes "An anonymous, twentysomething blogger is giving Mexicans what they can't get elsewhere — an inside view of their country's raging drug war. Operating from behind a thick curtain of computer security, Blog del Narco in less than six months has become Mexico's go-to Internet site at a time when mainstream media are feeling pressure and threats to stay away from the story. Many postings, including warnings and a beheading, appear to come directly from drug traffickers. Others depict crime scenes accessible only to military or police."
http://www.blogdelnarco.com/
I'm a mexican living in Mexico. I won't go as far as saying that it is hell on earth, but it is getting pretty gruesome. And that's just from what you hear on the news!
Then I started diggin in alternate sources, such as blog del narco, and damn, was I missing out on all the news!
Just recently I bumped into this story about Ciudad Juarez. The story both gives hope and scares the crap out of you. No sign of that story on the two most widely spread newspapers in Mexico, though. They're just sweeping it under the rug.
I wonder if blog del narco featured it...
I'll stop buying drugs as soon as everyone else stops buying diamonds.
I'm not a really pro-gun person, but really, considering they're selling something that's illegal to make, traffic and sell... I can't see them having a hard time making, trafficking or selling guns either if they were illegal.
Especially with the news of numerous corrupt police and government officials in the whole drug war, I can't see it being too hard for them to 'somehow' get a bunch of military weapons if they needed to.
Which is why you only buy locally grown.
I'll stop buying drugs as soon as everyone else stops buying diamonds.
Not gonna work. Buying her diamonds makes you more attractive, using drugs makes her more attractive.
Don't rock the boat.
You should be very careful to distinguish how the guns come from the US...
The US is, in fact, a pretty decent place for civilians to buy moderately zesty firearms without too much hassle. However, the US government also has a habit of handing out all sorts of military-grade goodies to governments it considers to be friends and allies.
Mexican security forces, for reasons that aren't all that hard to understand, has had some trouble stemming corruption and even the flow of former personnel into cartel forces. "Los Zetas" for instance, are largely ex-security forces, now working for the cartels.
Obviously, there is no point in arguing that none of the guns being used in Mexico are of US origin. That is almost certainly wrong, I suspect a reasonable percentage of them are. The question, though, is are they diverted hardware from the American civilian market or are they American military aid being lost because of Mexican government corruption? Both types are "American Guns"; but they have very different policy implications...
Legalize it all damn ready. Seriously, executive order, make it happen.
I debated on whether to use my mod points to mod this comment down as a troll, or to forgo the ego trip and answer the question.
The answer, as it turns out, is "not from the U.S."
Although the Mexican gov't has repeatedly asserted that U.S. is to blame for the flow of guns into Mexico, some forget that the U.S. has sent millions of firearms to various Central and South American factions, firearms that are readily available in Mexico (and not as a result of any 2nd Amendment rights bestowed on U.S. citizens). Or for your consideration: The blatant distortion of facts by which Mexican officials who, while claiming that 80-90% of the arms in Mexico come from the U.S. fail to mention that the number is extrapolated from a small sample of guns sent to the U.S. that could be traced. This fallacy is substantiated by numbers reported by the ATF in which Mexican authorities confiscated 29,000 firearms in 2008, of which only 5,000 were traceable to the U.S.
Drug abuse is a social problem and should be treated as such. Dope fiends don't care about lying to their friends and family to score more drugs, why do you think they would care about strangers in Mexico? The real people who are funding the network of gangs and cartels are those who vote for(or appoint) politicians who support drug prohibition. End of story. The cards are entirely in their hands, dope fiends will get drugs one way or the other.
It's really quite sad that the world learned nothing from the US' futile attempt to outlaw alcohol in the 1920's. No one is saying drugs are good. They are quite bad, but making them illegal makes them much, much worse. I wish politicians didn't care about looking "soft on crime" in dealing with the drug war, and they could actually push to try to overturn this quixotic war. Make them legal and undercut the illegal drug trade which is fueled by their artificially inflated illegal prices. We saw all the same stuff during alcohol prohibition. The extreme corruption, the gang wars, the bad moonshine that made people go permanently blind, people using/selling more potent forms because it's easier to transport. It's all avoidable, but no one will push the issue because they're instantly shot down for being "soft on drugs"
I die a little inside every time I hear a story about drug gangs basically taking over cities in Mexico and kidnapping people. Think of the people women whose husbands have been kidnapped and they receive pieces of them with ransom notes asking for money that they don't have. This is what could've happened if they kept up alcohol prohibition. Drug prohibition is just as ill-conceived. The better we do reducing supply, the higher the prices go, and the more vicious the drug gangs get in protecting their business.
It's a terrible cycle, and one that can only be broken by regulation. They need to make drugs legal through special outlets stocked with health care workers, where people can safely obtain their drugs and use the proceeds to pay for the addiction specialists and treatment centers. There's nothing we can do except address the problem of addiction, and treat such users as patients, not criminals. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it's a start.
1: Most guns in Mexico come from central america or from the mexican givernment/military. See those pictures of the drug lords with H&K G3 rifles or MP5 submachine guns? Yeah, those couldn't have come from America. We can't get those here. (Well, we can, but they're 30k or more)
2. Very few americans own M-16's. As in less than a thousand most likely. Why? Because the process of purchasing a fully automatic firearm is such a pain that most people don't go through with it. Do you want the ATF to have a sheet of paper where you signed a waiver allowing them to walk into your home at any point, on ant day, without notice to search your home? Neither do most of us, and that's EXACTLY what you have to do to own a fully automatic firearm in this country.
Those of us who do own full auto firearms fall into three categories:
A: Law abiding citizens who like firearms and enjoy shooting. We pay our taxes, don't dream of murdering people, and largely consider our autos to be investments much like classic cars or sports memorabillia.
B: Criminals and thugs who don't go through the proper, legal channels to purchase their weapons (I use the word weapon here intentionally, as it is these people who consider their firearms to be weapons, and intend on using them.) Outlawing firearms will not affect these people in the least as it is already illegal for them to own these firearms. When guns DO move across the border (not often as Mexico throws anyone entering their country with even a single round of ammo into jail for 20+ years) it is these outlaws and criminals who do the moving and selling.
C: Fringe elements made up of crazy mountain men and people who consider their friends to be a militia of some sort and are still out in the woods each weekend preparing for the Soviet Union to invade their small town. Really? Are you worried about these people taking over your country? They aren't a threat to anything except their local dentist's children getting the money for college... Sure, they're vocal and love making a spectacle, but they're on every watch list in the country and are largely law abiding citizens like group A. Those who fall into group B don't usually last more than a year or two before the ATF is at their door taking their toys to the furnace and hauling them off to federal prison for drug or firearms charges.
Being scared of an armed citizenry is about as sane as being scared of dogs. Sure, there are bad apples out there, but just because one in ten dogs have bitten someone doesn't mean that your neighbors lab is about to rip into your leg as you walk by...
I carry a pistol every day. You know how many people I've ever shot? none.
The other day I was at the grocery store and a woman saw my pistol. When she noticed that the hammer was back (the proper way to carry a 1911 is with a round in the chamber, the hammer back, and the safety on) she asked me "Isn't that dangerous."
My answer to her: "Yes, that's the point of owning a pistol. They're dangerous when you need them to be."
She smiled, got the point, and went about her day.
--Forest C. Adcock--
Look, it's very simple. I'm a Mexican living in Mexico, I also know more cities of the us than most us citizens. Drugs are consumed in Mexico (at a tenth of the price, btw), by some people and that ain't never going to go away neither here nor there in the us.
We cannot, because your government will not let us, decriminalize consumption in Mexico. And it wouldn't do as much good as it could because if they aren't legal up there then most of the Dough that comes here, that buys guns and officials and blood, will still be puouring in.
We need an international effort to legalize personal production of all personally produceable drugs. Not public consumption, not a blanket for junkies, but just a way for people to use their freedom in NOT helping the cartels.
As a side note, we could also start subsidizing legal drug prime matter, such as opium poppy and coca plant so that pfizer and all those Bauer fuckers would buy from the guys that now make the prime matter for illegal drugs. If you've ever seen a porter business analysis you will see that this two pronged strategy hits at both sides of the drug cartel business.
NO SIG
It's not about logic it's about social norms, in the US it's always been common for someone to have a handgun in the house, in Australia it's always been frowned on by society (even when it was perfectly legal to own a gun for self-defense). The gun laws in both countries are simply a reflection of the norms that each society had already imposed on itself.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Because he occupies an interesting space where both the police and the drug cartels are using him as a front for their media outreach campaign. As long as he's useful to both sides, and not too much of an annoyance, he'll be played by both.
Most of them are being shipped south across the border. They need something to haul back after they sell all the drugs up here, after all.
You would make a great truck broker (booking loads for the return trip), but the weapons that the cartels are using are not readily available in the US. They are far easier to acquire from the Mexican army deserters and the southern border.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
No, the GP is correct. It is prohibition and the resulting corruption of the authorities that is causing the bloodshed. We haven't learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition yet. So the war will continue until then. This is not an NRA issue at all. It should be a lesson of how power corrupts. Legalize now, and the gangs will be out of business before the week is out.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
How many alcohol cartels are out killing people right now? Only where there is prohibition do you have this problem. The demand will always be there. In fact it's possible the cartels are the ones who threaten politicians if they don't impose prohibition to begin with. Oh damn! I just made your point. Well, I suppose we could organize a boycott... Then again you could read up on the Opium Wars of the 1850s..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The California legislature has estimated that taxing the previously untaxed domestically grown $14 billion marijuana market would produce $1.4 billion a year,[4] Taxing marijuana, supporters say, could be a smart way to help alleviate pressure on the state budget.[5]
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
"100 years ago there was no way to internationally distribute drugs on a large scale."
Oh yes, there was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
And also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_cola#Coca_.E2.80.94_cocaine
And please don't tell me modern art, music and culture could have evolved the way they did without recreational drug use. I don't care about "the children" for that reason alone, because I can not and will not protect everyone's children from all dangers. This is not anyone's responsibility but their parent's and no one but them can ever hope to fulfill that but them.
The liquor store on the corner sells hard spirits. 40%, 80%, you name it. One small bottle would kill a child. We sell it to adults only. If anyone gives it to a kid that dies, they go to jail for the rest of their lives.
The gas station sells highly flammable, toxic liquids. A kid could easily burn or kill themselves with that stuff. We sell it to adults only, same deal. We also have cars, power tools, gas-fired stoves, sharp knives, open fireplaces, barbecue pits and lawn darts. And somehow we only outlawed the lawn darts because they looked like kid's toys, instead of entire generations of kids surviving them.
Anyhow, I will absolutely resist outlawing things that have a purpose for adults for the reason that they're dangerous to kids. I am not a kid, I will protect my own kids from danger and I cannot accept if people want to transform the world into a padded cell that is safe for kids.
If free men own guns and slaves don't, free men can definitely grow plants in their own backyards and eat them.
Shows how much you know: The Browning you're talking about is the Model 1919--probably chambered in .30-06. By all rights, they're antiques, and own-able examples are priced accordingly. And, you can't just go in, plunk down 25 grand and legally buy it off the shelf--even if you are a Federal Firearms Licensee, because even FFLs must APPLY with the BATF for Each and Every machine gun (and other title 2 firarms) they transfer to their inventories--which can take one to two months, depending on how busy the ATF is..
Sure, you can go reserve it and put down a deposit while they wait for the paperwork to go through, but you won't have it in your hands for some time after that. That has been the standard operating procedure for wanna-be machine gun owners for oh... For about 80 years now.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Hitler didn't rearm the GERMANS, he re-armed the German ARMY. That is the first major difference to consider.
Second: the Nazis in 1938
1) completely disarmed Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and anyone that was "untrustworthy" to the gun control authorities, which hit of course communists, intellectuals and people showing a faint idea of resistance.
2) disallowed innocent civilians from carrying a usable weapon
3) allowed Nazi Party officials and members of their organization to *freely* carry guns without any permit at all.
I think that can be called a three-pronged approach to the Nazis ultimate goals, can it?
Disarm Jews, disallow civilians from carrying guns, allow SS members to own and carry guns without any permit at all.
We know how well that worked out towards the Final Solution.
Sorry for not completely translating http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwaffnung_der_deutschen_Juden for everyone, maybe the Google translations can be read...
You should be ashamed of such a blatant misrepresentation of facts. There is an obvious difference between the re-arming of the German army and the dis-arming of the German citizenry. Sadly, most people that read your post will not have noticed and will now be able to spread your ignorance further.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Mq5wQIFJE2YJ:www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
(Not an unbiased article, to be sure, but it does have all the references necessary to disprove your claim in the footnotes.)
Legalising drugs is not what the drug lords want, it's what the drug consumers want. They could not compete with legal operations in terms of price. They would continue to do bad things, but they would not be able to keep large numbers of armed thugs on their staff without a source of income similar to the one that would evaporate with legalisation. They could switch to providing some other commodity, but what? It would take time to transition their production infrastructure over, and they would be faced with competition from established players. At least some of them would probably have underlings who realised that they could make money (although maybe not as much) as a legal supplier. A few at the top would probably be killed off, and some other sociopath would take their place, but that's not necessarily a bad thing: most CEOs of US companies are just as sociopathic as typical drug lords, but they exist in a system where their best interests are not served by killing people.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"All legalization would do in the US is increase consumption."
Bullshit. As with alcohol, consumption tops out at whatever level consumers prefer.
Back in the 1970s, when weed didn't have the absurd legal consequences attached to it (and head shops were extremely common) getting high was perfectly normal in many areas. It didn't cause any trouble,and if the cops found any on you they often poured it out (or, ahem, confiscated it) and told you to move on. Weed was easier to get than booze if you were young, and since it is vastly more pleasant than the nasty buzz of alcohol, most of a generation smoked it.
Paying millions of dollars to bust and incarcerate pot smokers isn't intelligent social policy. It is driven be religionist loathing of any pleasure they do not control. The fanatical pseudo-moralist streak in America drives policies that exist for their own sake, don't facilitate their professed goals, and waste billions of our tax dollars.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I wonder how traceable a gun with no serial number is.
Very. Acid can be used to recover a filed-off serial number. It is a basic forensics technique.
Oh wait, your sources are shills for the weapon manufacturers and the NRA. And you believe it cuz you like guns. Good for you.
And you dismiss his source "cuz you [hate] guns. Good for you." See? Other people can play at that too. Of course, you didn't do what he did; he actually made a point and backed it up. You're just sitting there whining because he doesn't agree with you.
almost every gun used to kill an American in the United States was purchased legally at some point
And every car and beer that leads to a DUI vehicular homicide were purchased legally. Only their owners' irresponsible and illegal use of them differentiates them from the perfectly legal ones safely used every day. So, naturally we should ban them all ...
American guns are causing an epic bloodbath in Mexico
No. People are pulling those triggers. Criminals motivated by lucrative drug trade and protected by a corrupt government are pulling those triggers, and you and I both know that they source their weapons from any number of sources, many of which are not American.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.