Join 3,413 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Carne Asada
December 3, 2006 7:43 AM   Subscribe

The House of Death A DHS/DEA/DoJ/US Media coverup. Another victory in the War on Drugs?
When 12 bodies were found buried in the garden of a Mexican house, it seemed like a case of drug-linked killings. But the trail led to Washington and a cover-up that went right to the top.
Other online coverage (1, 2, 3)
posted by i_am_a_Jedi (26 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
This is an excellent catch- since I'm in the U.S.! Thanks.
posted by wfc123 at 7:49 AM on December 3, 2006


COVERUP!
posted by smackfu at 7:50 AM on December 3, 2006


gosh. great post: thank you.
posted by Marquis at 8:06 AM on December 3, 2006


Once the drugs wars are part of our national security then the War on Drugs becomes aligned with the War on Terror - opening the door for much worse I reckon.

Great post. Makes me ill.
posted by ao4047 at 8:35 AM on December 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


Wow....thanks. Proper use of the 'batshitinsane' tag.
posted by vacapinta at 8:52 AM on December 3, 2006


Great post. It does make me sick that this stuff is happening.

I'm also saddened to realize it doesn't surprise me. Corruption on one side of the border, gross incompetence and ass-covering on the other.
posted by birdherder at 9:00 AM on December 3, 2006


No shock here. It was a no brainer for me that when they started enacting "patriot" acts, they would be careful not to prohibit their use in the WOD.
Another attempt to ignore facts and soldier on in another war that was long ago lost.
Meanwhile, further proof that Lehrer only seemed like he was kidding about the death of political irony.
posted by Fupped Duck at 9:12 AM on December 3, 2006


From the Observer article "The US media have virtually ignored this story".
posted by adamvasco at 10:23 AM on December 3, 2006


Wow, Bill Conroy's letter to the Observer (the "2" link) really takes them to task for minimizing his work on the story.
posted by mediareport at 10:47 AM on December 3, 2006


Wow. WOW. "War on Drugs" is bad enough. This is more like "War on Mexicans" or "War on Accountability".

Pretty soon there'll be a "War on Contentment" and a "War on Fun."
posted by tehloki at 11:04 AM on December 3, 2006


We must stop at nothing to cripple these narco-terrorists.

I'm going to go pick up some D.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 11:49 AM on December 3, 2006


Wow.

Is there any limit to how fucked-up the US government is? Seriously, people, shouldn't you be in a bit of a panic that this sort of shit is going down?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:58 AM on December 3, 2006


birdherder said:

I'm also saddened to realize it doesn't surprise me. Corruption on one side of the border, gross incompetence and ass-covering on the other.

I think one of the most important points one can glean from the articles linked here is that the corruption exists on both sides of the border. ICE agents looked the other way while their informant participated in murder after murder, in order to pursue a bigger, blown-up case. The Observer article goes so far as to state that:
But on 19 April Sutton announced a deal with Santillan - in return for his pleading guilty to trafficking and acceptance of a 25-year sentence the murder charges were dropped. 'All of the murders were committed in Juarez, by Mexican citizens, and all of the victims were citizens of Mexico,' Sutton said.
So not only did they allow these murders to occur in order to kill two birds with one stone, they have essentially declared them insignificant within the context of the case at hand.

Incompetence is not the issue here. The fact is, the war on drugs did not exist until drugs were criminalized, creating an absolute escalation of power and violence that could never possibly end without a clear surrender on part of those who declared "war" in the first place.

This case simply serves to show that in this war, collateral damage now acceptable, and even useful to the side that claims to have the moral high ground.
posted by lordaych at 11:59 AM on December 3, 2006


The War On Drugs, like the War On Terror, is unwinable.

It must cause incredible stress to be involved in a mission that is, by definition, impossible to complete. Ergo, we have FUBARs such as this debacle and Iraq. The parallels can't be ignored.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:14 PM on December 3, 2006


I'm reasonably well-convinced that the war on drugs is, in fact, a deliberate business decision: there's a lot of money to be made in the drug trade so long as it remains illegal.

Yes, I am saying that organized crime has taken significant control of the US government. It explains a lot about the decisions your government makes.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:28 PM on December 3, 2006


War is a racket, as they say.
posted by stammer at 12:34 PM on December 3, 2006


Great article, thanks.
posted by mkultra at 12:57 PM on December 3, 2006


It's all about war these days... War on Drugs, war on terror etc... Why does everything have to be labeled as war?
posted by vranghel at 2:25 PM on December 3, 2006


Because it's difficult to make money on it otherwise...?
posted by toma at 2:49 PM on December 3, 2006


Because human beings naturally gravitate toward military rule?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:13 PM on December 3, 2006


I got tired of reading. When are the Bush girls implicated?
posted by srboisvert at 3:28 PM on December 3, 2006


Contrary to the predominant cynicism here, I think the WoD persists simply because decades of uniform hyperbolic image building and framing of drugs (especially other than pot) by social and political institutions have lead to a scenario where prohibition is the natural policy. So many people seriously compare legalizing drugs to legalizing rape. Consider the suggestion by former Surgeon General Elders to study legalization and the response by then ONDCP director Lee Brown that such policy was tanatmount to genocide. Or the bias with which hearings on harm reduction were held by Mark Souder - outgoing chair of the subcommittee on drug policy. Given such an atmosphere, calling for legalization is political suicide and actual change - a pipe dream. Selling legalization in terms of cost-benefit ratio is the only pragmatic approach currently but completely misses the point. A good chunk of the US public - enough to block such change - can't fathom such an approach, because in their view drug use is inherently damaging and hence one is morally required to repress this activity. According to a survey reviewed in a 1998 look at public attitudes on drugs, 75% wouldn't support the legalization of hard drugs even if it could be shown that related crime would decrease. IOW, drugs are definitely and inherently damaging and evil and the only degree of freedom in policy is over how to enforce prohibition.
posted by daksya at 6:22 PM on December 3, 2006


Private prisons and the prison labor system are the Halliburtons of the war on drugs.
posted by stammer at 6:48 PM on December 3, 2006


That article was very poorly written, I'm still not sure I understand what they were accusing the government of doing.

If what I think they said is true it is pretty nasty. I'm sure as in any story this inflamitory, there is a lot more to this story.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:07 PM on December 3, 2006


But on 19 April Sutton announced a deal with Santillan - in return for his pleading guilty to trafficking and acceptance of a 25-year sentence the murder charges were dropped. 'All of the murders were committed in Juarez, by Mexican citizens, and all of the victims were citizens of Mexico,' Sutton said.

I don't understand why the Santillan indictment included the murders in the first place. Sutton didn't have jurisdiction over those murders, right?
posted by Hobbacocka at 6:48 AM on December 4, 2006


Vranghel said: It's all about war these days... War on Drugs, war on terror etc... Why does everything have to be labeled as war?

I'm beginning to suspect that the U.S. economy, like the society of Oceania in "1984", can only function properly if the country is at continuous war. That is, if by "properly", I mean "turning a ridiculous profit for the top 1% of the wealthy."
posted by tehloki at 2:33 PM on December 4, 2006


« Older 'Cause 2006 is butt naked....  |  Bare naked travel?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments