Jump to content

WATCH CLOSELY - In Mexico, Obama to offer solidarity in drug war


GarandFan

Recommended Posts

Mexico is going to push us very hard to enact gun control measures. The Obama administration very much wants to, but are facing some serious realities regarding political pressure. We simply MUST keep up that pressure.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_...wh/obama_mexico

 

In Mexico, Obama to offer solidarity in drug war

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON – Confronting a security threat on America's doorstep, President Barack Obama is venturing into the heart of Mexico. His swift diplomatic mission is meant to show solidarity with a neighbor — and to prove that the U.S. is serious about halting the deadly flow of drugs and weapons.

 

During his stop in Mexico City on Thursday, Obama will emphasize cross-border cooperation and probably put a focus on clean energy, but the economic crisis and the bloody drug trade have set the tone.

 

Among the other touchy points are disagreement over a lapsed U.S. assault weapons ban, a standoff over cross-border trucking and immigration.

 

The escalating drug war in Mexico is spilling into the United States and onto Obama's lap as a foreign crisis much closer than North Korea or Afghanistan. Mexico is the main hub for cocaine and other drugs entering the U.S.; the United States is the primary source of guns used in Mexico's drug-related killings.

 

Mexican President Felipe Calderon's aggressive stand against drug cartels has won him the aid of the United States and the prominent political backing of Obama — never as evident as on Thursday, when the popular U.S. president is sure to stand with Calderon on his own turf and note his courage.

 

In an interview Wednesday with CNN en Espanol, Obama, indeed, contended that Calderon is doing "an outstanding and heroic job in dealing with what is a big problem right now along the borders with the drug cartels."

 

As for the U.S. role, Obama said, "We are going to be dealing not only with drug interdiction coming north, but also working on helping to curb the flow of cash and guns going south."

 

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, meantime, said that consultations with Mexico on the drug problem are "not about pointing fingers, it's about solving a problem. What can we do to prevent the flow of guns and cash south that fuel these cartels."

 

Obama's overnight visit, said senior foreign policy aide Denis McDonough, "is meant to send a signal of respect."

 

Mexico is the only place Obama is visiting on his way to the two-island Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago for the Summit of the Americas, a gathering of Western Hemisphere nations.

 

"It will do a great deal in terms of symbolism to raise the profile of the relationship in both cases," said Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

 

More than 10,000 people have been killed in Mexico in drug-related violence since Calderon's stepped-up effort against the cartels began in 2006. The State Department says contract killings and kidnappings on U.S. soil, carried out by Mexican drug cartels, are on the rise too.

 

A U.S. military report just five months ago raised the specter of Mexico collapsing into a failed state with its government under siege by gangs and drug cartels. It named only one other country in such a worst-case scenario: Pakistan. The assertion incensed Mexican officials; Obama's team disavowed it.

 

Indeed, the Obama administration has gone the other direction, showering attention on Mexico.

 

In words that resounded loudly in both countries, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Mexico City that the U.S. shared responsibility for the drug war. She said America's "insatiable demand" for illegal drugs fueled the trade and that the U.S. had an "inability" to stop weapons from being smuggled south.

 

Obama has dispatched hundreds of federal agents, along with high-tech surveillance gear and drug-sniffing dogs, to the Southwest to help Mexico fight drug cartels. He sent Congress a war-spending request that made room for $350 million for security along the U.S.-Mexico border. He added three Mexican organizations to a list of suspected international drug kingpins. He dispatched three Cabinet secretaries to Mexico. And he just named a "border czar."

 

"This is something that we take very seriously, and we're going to continue to work on diligently," Obama said of the drug violence at a news conference last month. The Justice Department says such Mexican drug trafficking organizations represent the greatest organized crime threat to the United States.

 

The White House is vowing more enforcement of gun laws. But it is not pursuing a promise Obama made as a candidate: a ban on assault-style weapons.

 

That ban on military-style guns became law during the Clinton administration in 1994 but expired under the Bush administration in 2004. When Attorney General Eric Holder raised the idea of reinstituting the ban this year, opposition from Democrats and Republicans emerged quickly.

 

Reopening the debate on gun rights is apparently a fight the White House does not want to take on right now.

 

"I think that there are other priorities that the president has," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said this week.

 

Mexican leaders, though, say the ban saved lives. "I think it was very good legislation," Calderon told ABC News the day before Obama's arrival.

 

The swooning economy, blamed largely on failures inside the United States, has taken a huge toll on Mexico. About 80 percent of Mexico's exports — now in decline — go to the United States.

 

Obama and Calderon are likely to tout the value of that trade, but a spat between their countries remains unresolved. Mexico has raised tariffs on nearly 90 American products, a retaliation for a U.S. decision to cancel access to Mexican truckers on U.S. highways despite the terms of a free trade agreement.

 

On immigration, Obama is expected to make clear he is committed to reforms. The effort is likely to start this year but won't move to the top of his agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The escalating drug war in Mexico is spilling into the United States and onto Obama's lap as a foreign crisis much closer than North Korea or Afghanistan. Mexico is the main hub for cocaine and other drugs entering the U.S.; the United States is the primary source of guns used in Mexico's drug-related killings.

 

Really?

 

Obama's overnight visit, said senior foreign policy aide Denis McDonough, "is meant to send a signal of respect."

 

You mean by bowing? Or is he going to kneel this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on this here. Remember that Obama is in Mexico TODAY.

 

USA Today - Mexico focused on guns, guns, guns

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-04...xicoobama_N.htm

 

Seems like the Mexicans are getting demanding ... they demand

 

1) That the US send them more money faster (to fight the "drug war")

 

2) That the US allow Mexican truckers to freely operate in the US

 

3) That the US enact strict gun control measures

 

 

Just who the **** do Calderón and Medina-Mora think they are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Presidents Calderon and Obama,

I suggest an agreement with the best interests of both countries at its core.

The US will make every effort to stop the flow of guns into Mexico if the Mexican government agrees to make every effort to stop drugs and illegal aliens from crossing into the US.

Should either country fall short in this endeavor, we will agree to meet at the border and exchange one gun for each and every illegal mexican immigrant or kilo of contraband drug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking ...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

[partial quotes from article] Isn't unautorized manufacture and export of arms already illegal? Aren't manufacturers and exporters now required to be licensed? What is this ... does this "convention" have any teeth?

 

 

President Obama Backs Inter-American Arms Treaty

 

MEXICO CITY, April 16--President Obama will announce in a visit here today that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms trafficking treaty designed to curb the flow of guns and ammunition to drug cartels and other armed groups in the hemisphere.

 

Many of the guns used by the drug cartels travel south from the United States. Some assault rifles recovered by Mexican authorities have been traced back to U.S. military bases.

 

In addition to making illegal the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms, the treaty calls for countries to adopt strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a cooperative process for sharing information between national law-enforcement agencies investigating arms smuggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking ...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

[partial quotes from article] Isn't unautorized manufacture and export of arms already illegal? Aren't manufacturers and exporters now required to be licensed? What is this ... does this "convention" have any teeth?

 

 

President Obama Backs Inter-American Arms Treaty

 

MEXICO CITY, April 16--President Obama will announce in a visit here today that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms trafficking treaty designed to curb the flow of guns and ammunition to drug cartels and other armed groups in the hemisphere.

 

Many of the guns used by the drug cartels travel south from the United States. Some assault rifles recovered by Mexican authorities have been traced back to U.S. military bases.

 

In addition to making illegal the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms, the treaty calls for countries to adopt strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a cooperative process for sharing information between national law-enforcement agencies investigating arms smuggling.

 

So this will be a treaty among Mexico and the U.S. (maybe Canada and a few other countries too) which states all countries who sign it are in agreement to behave in like manner for a common goal and purpose. All countries who sign it, including the U.S., will be expected to do what I have highlighted in red above. I have a feeling their interpretation of "licensing" is not going to be about importers and exporters, but something required of all firearm owners too. This goes hand-in-hand with what Pelosi called for recently: a national gun registration scheme. I could be wrong, but you know they will take this as far as they can to accomplish their goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this will be a treaty among Mexico and the U.S. (maybe Canada and a few other countries too) which states all countries who sign it are in agreement to behave in like manner for a common goal and purpose. All countries who sign it, including the U.S., will be expected to do what I have highlighted in red above. I have a feeling their interpretation of "licensing" is not going to be about importers and exporters, but something required of all firearm owners too. This goes hand-in-hand with what Pelosi called for recently: a national gun registration scheme. I could be wrong, but you know they will take this as far as they can to accomplish their goals.

 

Maybe. But I still suspect this has to do with manufacture and export. Nonetheless, we know that folks have been dying for some "crisis" via which to pass gun control.

 

But anyway, when I think about registration and licenses, I think about these clips ...

 

Treasure of the Sierra Madre

 

Blazing Saddles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Obama wants to pressure Congress to ratify:

 

http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

 

I presume the use of the word "State" in this document refers to "countries". Is it just coincidence Pelosi also recently said she wanted restrictions on the transportation of firearms across state lines? Maybe I'm reading too much into this. It sounds to me like this treaty doesn't add to anything we haven't already created a law against, such as illegal manufacturing, etc. As such, I'm not sure why we need this treaty except to make Mexico feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Obama wants to pressure Congress to ratify:

 

http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

 

I presume the use of the word "State" in this document refers to "countries". Is it just coincidence Pelosi also recently said she wanted restrictions on the transportation of firearms across state lines? Maybe I'm reading too much into this. It sounds to me like this treaty doesn't add to anything we haven't already created a law against, such as illegal manufacturing, etc. As such, I'm not sure why we need this treaty except to make Mexico feel better.

 

Yes, I think you're reading too much into this.

 

My brief perusal of this thing really doesn't uncover anything that's not already regulated. And my understanding is by "state" or "parties" they mean signators, or countries. And to manufacture, you already need a license. Honestly, I am not sure what the heck things convention targets. But ... I am certainly wary all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Obama wants to pressure Congress to ratify:

 

http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

 

I presume the use of the word "State" in this document refers to "countries". Is it just coincidence Pelosi also recently said she wanted restrictions on the transportation of firearms across state lines? Maybe I'm reading too much into this. It sounds to me like this treaty doesn't add to anything we haven't already created a law against, such as illegal manufacturing, etc. As such, I'm not sure why we need this treaty except to make Mexico feel better.

 

Yes, I think you're reading too much into this.

 

My brief perusal of this thing really doesn't uncover anything that's not already regulated. And my understanding is by "state" or "parties" they mean signators, or countries. And to manufacture, you already need a license. Honestly, I am not sure what the heck things convention targets. But ... I am certainly wary all the same.

 

What about the part about regulating explosives, including materials that are not in and of themselves explosives? There are many commonly available materials that in the correct combinations and proportions can produce explosives. How do you control that?

 

Maybe they are referring to diet coke and mentos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides everything else that has been talked about above , There is one more thing that is gnawing on my backbone .

 

What is with this BORDER CZAR crap ??? Czar = despot = tyrant or an absolute irresponsible ruler . I have never been muich of a tin foil hat wearer , but the more I see the less I like !!!! :Angry!: :frantics:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Obama wants to pressure Congress to ratify:

 

http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

 

I presume the use of the word "State" in this document refers to "countries". Is it just coincidence Pelosi also recently said she wanted restrictions on the transportation of firearms across state lines? Maybe I'm reading too much into this. It sounds to me like this treaty doesn't add to anything we haven't already created a law against, such as illegal manufacturing, etc. As such, I'm not sure why we need this treaty except to make Mexico feel better.

 

Yes, I think you're reading too much into this.

 

My brief perusal of this thing really doesn't uncover anything that's not already regulated. And my understanding is by "state" or "parties" they mean signators, or countries. And to manufacture, you already need a license. Honestly, I am not sure what the heck things convention targets. But ... I am certainly wary all the same.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if this bans currently legal personal manufacturing of firearms:

 

1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

 

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

 

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

 

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That passed my mind as well.

 

Currently legal manufacturing of personal firearms isn't "manufacturing" as so-defined via the ATF nor subject to licensing.

 

This treaty thing isn't going to change US code ... though it might be used as a lever by those who wish to change it.

 

I'm sure it's just a "loophole" that they'll be looking to close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just was watching President Obama on CNN with Calderon and Obama said that, among other things, the guns being used in Mexico are coming from the US, and that while he can't get a new assault weapons ban through now, there are other things he can do until he does.

He made it very clear that he intends to get another ban later on.

Sorry, no link- I just saw it live.

Calderon is indeed demanding new US gun laws as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other question about this treaty. I read a comment elsewhere that it is worded in such a way to mean it could restrict self-loading (reloading) of ammunition without a license. Personally, I didn't make that connection when I read the document, but do you think it's a valid concern?

 

1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

 

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

 

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

 

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other question about this treaty. I read a comment elsewhere that it is worded in such a way to mean it could restrict self-loading (reloading) of ammunition without a license. Personally, I didn't make that connection when I read the document, but do you think it's a valid concern?

 

1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

 

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

 

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

 

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.

 

Not sure how I could have failed to make that association?! We'll probably have to show the license to acquire the parts too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anybody notice this in post #6:

 

Some assault rifles recovered by Mexican authorities have been traced back to U.S. military bases.

Is the MSM, or more specifically, the Washington Post telling us that assault rifles are full-auto M16 military weapons?

What about all those semi-auto rifles the public has been buying up? What are they then? Just regular sporting rifles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anybody notice this in post #6:

 

Some assault rifles recovered by Mexican authorities have been traced back to U.S. military bases.

Is the MSM, or more specifically, the Washington Post telling us that assault rifles are full-auto M16 military weapons?

What about all those semi-auto rifles the public has been buying up? What are they then? Just regular sporting rifles?

Ya, you beat me to it. How does re-enacting the assault weapons ban stop US military weapons from being sold to drug cartels? And furthermore, WHY THE heck are US military weapons being sold to drug cartels? I'm assuming they were provided to a foreign country and "disappeared" from the arsenal. At least I hope that is how it went down, if not that sounds like a VERY interesting story.

 

Fact is often stranger than fiction. I wonder how strange this fiction will get before it is seen as a sham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, you beat me to it. How does re-enacting the assault weapons ban stop US military weapons from being sold to drug cartels? And furthermore, WHY THE heck are US military weapons being sold to drug cartels? I'm assuming they were provided to a foreign country and "disappeared" from the arsenal. At least I hope that is how it went down, if not that sounds like a VERY interesting story.

 

It is an interesting story indeed ...

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-...Mexican-cartels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, you beat me to it. How does re-enacting the assault weapons ban stop US military weapons from being sold to drug cartels? And furthermore, WHY THE heck are US military weapons being sold to drug cartels? I'm assuming they were provided to a foreign country and "disappeared" from the arsenal. At least I hope that is how it went down, if not that sounds like a VERY interesting story.

 

It is an interesting story indeed ...

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-...Mexican-cartels

 

The name in that article...I've heard that name before....hmmmm....

 

Seriously, what I don't get is the fact our government is almost eager to send new and surplus full-auto firearms, handguns, rifles and ammo to other countries (but not always to the military regimes of those countries). I highly doubt they insist these weapons only be given to people who would pass the same gun ownership requirements imposed upon Americans. These are firearms paid for by you and I, yet the same government won't allow the people who paid for them to own them. Well, that's not entirely true, but they would rather give most of them to Israel FOR FREE than to let you and I have them.

 

How would you like to own a surplus 7.62mm M14 rifle ammo for 14 cents per round?

How about a 5.56mm rifle for $22?

 

---

 

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/p...full_report.pdf

(Relating section starting on page 17)

 

Initially, the US Armed Forces destroyed large quantities of these newly surplus weapons, including 479,367 MI4 rifles in 1993–94 and roughly 350,000 M16A1 rifles in 1996. But under increasing pressure from gun advocates in Congress, an amendment was passed to the ‘Defence Authorisation Act’ in 1996 to prohibit the Army from destroying further ‘collectable’ guns. The amendment has been passed every year since, creating a growing stockpile of surplus weapons that gun advocates hoped would be made available for sale at a later date. (A 1994 Presidential order prohibits the sale of

new automatic rifles to the American public, but not second-hand weapons).5

 

In a change of tack in 1995, the Army began to transfer its surplus stocks to foreign governments. Between 1995 and early 1998, 321,905 surplus small arms were exported to foreign militaries under the Excess Defence Articles programme.6

The main recipients were the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Israel (which received the arms free of charge) and the Philippines and Taiwan (which paid for them).7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a change of tack in 1995, the Army began to transfer its surplus stocks to foreign governments. Between 1995 and early 1998, 321,905 surplus small arms were exported to foreign militaries under the Excess Defence Articles programme.6

The main recipients were the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Israel (which received the arms free of charge) and the Philippines and Taiwan (which paid for them).7

 

what about CMP????.....just thought it was worth a shot :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...