It is no big secret that Mexican police officers moonlight for drug traffickers. As far back as 2010, a state commander nicknamed “El Tyson” admitted in a confession video on national television that he was not only a high-ranking cartel member, but that he made young narco recruits cut up bodies to lose their fear of blood. El Tyson was arrested by the federal police when it was controlled by Genaro García Luna, a square-jawed intelligence agent who was a key architect of the country’s war on cartels.
In a twist of fate, however, García Luna is now himself on trial in New York, accused of pocketing millions of dollars from those same kingpins after helping them traffic tons of cocaine to America. The trial, which began on 17 January in a federal court in Brooklyn and is expected to last eight weeks, breaks new ground in the drug war. Since Richard Nixon first declared a war on drugs in 1971, the US has taken down a vast array of Mexican traffickers — most famously Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, who was convicted in the same Brooklyn courthouse in 2019. But never before has such a high-ranking Mexican official faced a US jury on drug charges.
Journalists and activists have for years pointed out that it is no use targeting the mobsters if you don’t go after their political protection. This case therefore marks a serious turning point for US law enforcement. But it also rings alarm bells. The level of corruption alleged by the witnesses goes beyond anything I’ve seen in my two decades covering Mexico’s drug war. At the very least, the trial is deeply embarrassing for Washington’s drug agents and politicians who schmoozed with García Luna. (There are photos of him with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder.) More seriously, the far-reaching allegations also suggest that, unless the United States can reduce the amount that Americans spend on illegal drugs — estimated at close to $150 billion a year in one study — this narco corruption may just carry on with catastrophic consequences.
What’s more, it is by no means guaranteed that the jury will convict García Luna. In his opening argument, defence lawyer César de Castro claimed the prosecution does not have hard evidence that his client led a double life as law enforcer and crime boss. “No money. No photos. No videos. No texts. No emails. No records,” De Castro said. “No credible, believable, plausible evidence Mr García Luna helped the cartels.”
Prosecutors are, however, using the testimony of so-called cooperating witnesses, including scarred and grizzly cartel operatives who could have made deals with prosecutors to take the stand. Some have confessed to killing multiple victims and were major traffickers. Before the trial started, the judge even had to rule that the defence could not ask them about potential acts of cannibalism — a practice that various gangsters have been found to engage in — because it might be “distracting”.
As the jury was selected, prosecutors rigorously made sure the candidates agreed they could believe such witnesses and convict someone on their evidence, even if it were not backed up by physical proof. If the jury were to find García Luna not guilty, it would be, as Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said on Tuesday, “a fiasco — the agencies and government of the United States would look very bad”. There is a lot at stake.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere is a rather infamous Spanish saying that sums things up pretty well. “Plata O Plomo?” Do you want to be payed in silver or lead?
There is a rather infamous Spanish saying that sums things up pretty well. “Plata O Plomo?” Do you want to be payed in silver or lead?
The War on Drugs has gone on far too long.
We should start by legalising all drugs, with sin taxes sufficiently low that there’s no incentive for criminal trafficking.
Overdose risk would drop dramatically, with better quality control and a wider range of safer drugs available to those seeking altered states.
We should then ask why so many people regularly seek escape from reality. Drugs can be fun, but dependency is grim. People need dignity and purpose.
Personally, I don’t think legalising drugs would be at all helpful though I do think the war on drugs is pointless. I find it intriguing that people are arguing for both making smoking illegal and heroin legal. As to addressing demand and destroying the market, I agree: people need meaning, and purpose. Here is one theory as to how China escaped mass opium addiction: ‘The People’s Republic of China dealt with addiction as a political problem, offering the new society hope, food, shelter, work, and land instead of opium. Addiction no longer had its appeal. Opium producing poppies were replaced by food corps. Large opium distributors were imprisoned. Addicts were “clean”. A mass campaign against addiction mobilized the entire nation. Before Liberation in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party had kept opium out of their areas. However, it took until 1953 to rid China completely of opium. Twenty million Chinese outside the People’s Republic of China continue to have serious narcotic addiction problems.’
Just to clarify, I am not advocating for communism, only exploring the idea meaning and purpose are powerful weapons in the war against drugs.
I read at the time that the policy was less benign than described. Addicts were required to get clean cold turkey. Found addicted a second time, they were shot. Effective but not a policy where individuals, not the state, is primary.
I have no doubt the methods of the Chinese authorities were at times brutal though unlikely to have been more brutal than the methods of the cartels, I am not naive, but I do think there is some truth in the article.
I have no doubt the methods of the Chinese authorities were at times brutal though unlikely to have been more brutal than the methods of the cartels, I am not naive, but I do think there is some truth in the article.
I read at the time that the policy was less benign than described. Addicts were required to get clean cold turkey. Found addicted a second time, they were shot. Effective but not a policy where individuals, not the state, is primary.
Personally, I don’t think legalising drugs would be at all helpful though I do think the war on drugs is pointless. I find it intriguing that people are arguing for both making smoking illegal and heroin legal. As to addressing demand and destroying the market, I agree: people need meaning, and purpose. Here is one theory as to how China escaped mass opium addiction: ‘The People’s Republic of China dealt with addiction as a political problem, offering the new society hope, food, shelter, work, and land instead of opium. Addiction no longer had its appeal. Opium producing poppies were replaced by food corps. Large opium distributors were imprisoned. Addicts were “clean”. A mass campaign against addiction mobilized the entire nation. Before Liberation in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party had kept opium out of their areas. However, it took until 1953 to rid China completely of opium. Twenty million Chinese outside the People’s Republic of China continue to have serious narcotic addiction problems.’
Just to clarify, I am not advocating for communism, only exploring the idea meaning and purpose are powerful weapons in the war against drugs.
The War on Drugs has gone on far too long.
We should start by legalising all drugs, with sin taxes sufficiently low that there’s no incentive for criminal trafficking.
Overdose risk would drop dramatically, with better quality control and a wider range of safer drugs available to those seeking altered states.
We should then ask why so many people regularly seek escape from reality. Drugs can be fun, but dependency is grim. People need dignity and purpose.
Mexico is the original narco-state. The likes of El Chapo are just figureheads to distract the public. The real cartel bosses are in the Mexican government and military. There is little that AMLO can do about it. The US media don’t want to report the trial because they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that any official relationship with the Mexican government is a relationship with drug cartels.
Mexico is the original narco-state. The likes of El Chapo are just figureheads to distract the public. The real cartel bosses are in the Mexican government and military. There is little that AMLO can do about it. The US media don’t want to report the trial because they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that any official relationship with the Mexican government is a relationship with drug cartels.
The war on drugs can’t be lost. There is no alternative. History offers no example of a drug addicted society. It can’t because one never existed. The best that could happen is Appalachia or Chicago which only survive on the life support given by others. As the tide of drugs comes in, the others will be fewer and fewer and the Chicagos bigger and bigger.
Drug rehabilitation is a false prophet. It is like a bucket brigade against Niagara. The landscape is testimony to the efficacy of prevention.
All the structures that might have contained drug addiction have weakened, disappeared, or been replaced by ones that encourage it; partially out of fatigue, partially on purpose. America, at least, is facing something as unprecedented as the appearance of hostile aliens from another planet.
Yes, yes, yes! Just ‘Say No to Drug!” It really is that simple. Never start, and you never have to stop.
Yes, yes, yes! Just ‘Say No to Drug!” It really is that simple. Never start, and you never have to stop.
The war on drugs can’t be lost. There is no alternative. History offers no example of a drug addicted society. It can’t because one never existed. The best that could happen is Appalachia or Chicago which only survive on the life support given by others. As the tide of drugs comes in, the others will be fewer and fewer and the Chicagos bigger and bigger.
Drug rehabilitation is a false prophet. It is like a bucket brigade against Niagara. The landscape is testimony to the efficacy of prevention.
All the structures that might have contained drug addiction have weakened, disappeared, or been replaced by ones that encourage it; partially out of fatigue, partially on purpose. America, at least, is facing something as unprecedented as the appearance of hostile aliens from another planet.
This an unwindable war.
Legalise the lot, and let Darwinian self-selection run its course.
Why do we persist with this nonsense?
This an unwindable war.
Legalise the lot, and let Darwinian self-selection run its course.
Why do we persist with this nonsense?