Obama "Brushes Asides" Reports of Human Rights Violations in Mexican Drug War

President Obama today defended U.S. funding of the war on drugs in Mexico. He "brushed aside" reports by human rights organizations of widespread torture and abuse, echoing the refrain by Mexico's President that the drug traffickers bigger human rights violators.

[H]uman rights advocates and Mexico’s human rights commission have documented numerous complaints of torture, rape, beatings and arbitrary detentions since Mr. Calderón dispatched more than 45,000 soldiers to take on traffickers.

...Repeating a line used often by President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, Mr. Obama labeled the drug traffickers causing so much violence in both Mexico and the United States as the biggest violators of human rights.

Whatever happened to "two wrongs don't make a right?"

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Pentagon Creates "Kill or Capture" List for Afghan Drug Traffickers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    Obama really doesnt seem to have a problem with torure in other areas so why should this be any different?

    Well . . . (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    seeing as we seem to be doing this also:

    torture, rape, beatings and arbitrary detentions

    what can one expect him to say?

    Did he accompany his remarks with (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:15:35 PM EST
    the "brushing off" of his shoulders?  Sorry, it's just the first image that phrase brought to mind.

    Obama has no credibility to complain about human rights abuses, given that we have been engaging in similar activities, so what choice does he have other than to ignore them?  Well, aside from taking the lead in holding accountable those in this country who are responsible for a policy of torture?  A policy soon to be officially legitimized by AG Holder, who will bring to justice only those who went beyond the techniques that were authorized.  Things sure are changing at the DOJ, huh?

    It's hard to imagine that we could have less credibility on human rights issues now than we did when Bush was president, but I think that's where we are.

    kdog's right... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by desertswine on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    the prohibition should be ended.

    Mexico is virtually out of control and the drug enterprises are just expanding into other businesses as well. Of course, American greed doesn't help matters.

    MEXICO CITY - U.S. refineries bought millions of dollars worth of oil siphoned from Mexican government pipelines and smuggled across the border -- in some cases by drug cartels expanding their reach.

    Wait a sec (none / 0) (#13)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 07:17:57 AM EST
    Isn't Mexico's oil industry nationalized?

    I think that's right.  So the drug lords are literally stealing from the government?


    Help me understand (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    So, we shouldn't try to do anything about these drug traffickers? Is that what you;re saying?  Leave them alone and their abuses will stop?

    Speaking for me... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    we should do something about violent gangsters...put them outta the drug business once and for all by ending prohibition..

    Their abuses would not stop totally, they'll probably turn to kidnapping or the coyote racket or some other criminal enterprise full-time...but the violence and their revenues would be greatly reduced...ain't no criminal enterprise to rival the money-making potential of the drug trade.


    To borrow a quote (none / 0) (#4)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:29:16 PM EST
    from Grits For Breakfast main page, attributed there to "Corrections Sentencing", kdog, you are just "too sensible to make much headway"

    "Too sensible..." (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:35:05 PM EST
    Well I must say I don't hear that one too often:)

    Too sensible and, to borrow a phrase from "American Gangster"...

    "Judges, lawyers, cops, politicians. They stop bringing dope into this country, about a hundred thousand people are gonna be out of a job."

    And there you have it James...though that was the 70's, probably up to several hundred thousand today, maybe a million.  


    There's a wide ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    swath of options between "doing nothing" and "raping and torturing."

    I get that (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    and maybe it's just the way I read the post - quickly, and while working - but it sounded like Jeralyn was positing that we should not be funding activities against drug traffickers.

    I'll go back and re-read...


    The cartel-driven violence has really (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    ramped up in TJ, on the Baja toll road, and elsewhere in Mexico.  Not sure the U.S. should get involved in Mexico, w/or w/o human rights violations by Mexicans.

    And who couldn't use that money right here? (none / 0) (#12)
    by SeeEmDee on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 06:06:07 AM EST
    How can we be so 'generous' with money that's needed here for people whose unemployment bennies are running out? It's just going down a rat-hole, like all the anti-drug money has for the past 40 years. Like we can afford to keep doing that?

    hmmmmm... (none / 0) (#14)
    by wilco on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:02:26 AM EST
    Obama sounds just like Bush when it comes to justifying torture if it meets an end.  The arguement is that the drug traffickers are worse, therefore, whatever is done to them is ok.  Hmmmm, shades of Al Quada/Taliban arguements.