The former governor of Mexican state of Colima was gunned down in his home on the past Sunday morning. Jesus Silverios Cavazos, who left office in November 2009, died of his wounds in a hospital after he was shot by gunmen. While the evidence is still unavailable pending on investigation, it is widely believed that the attack was related to drug cartels. His wife was injured in the attack. President Felipe Calderon condemned the killing as ‘cowardly assassination’. Mexican politicians have been targeted by assassins in states which are home to drug cartels and major smuggling routes because rival gangs battle control over the lucrative business. Cavazos’ assassination has been the latest attack on Mexican politicians wrecked by drug violence.
The murder of Cavazos was predicted in my last blog written in response to the Mexican marines killing the head of a drug cartel Tony Tormenta. But it was out of my expectation that it would come so quickly. I argued that killing the leader of a drug cartel would not be able to effectively resolve the issue of violence related to the Mexican drug cartels because it would do no big harm to the organization and unity of the cartel and revenge would follow targeting on the leaders of the groups responsible for combating drug cartel violence.
It may be interesting to notice that Cavazos was no longer the leader of the force against drug violence when he was assassinated. He left his office about one year ago. The people behind the murderers were very clever to target on a former governor instead of a current governor because it was much easier to do it, given the different security levels on each of the governors. Moreover, they could impose an equal, if not greater, deterrence on those who wish to commit in crushing the drug cartels. If their purpose was achieved, no people would want to take up the responsibility in fighting against drug cartels due to fear of post-office assassination and harm to their family members. Having said so, this tactic of post-office murder is not overwhelmingly discouraging to the potential governors because hopes still remain that the drug violence will be effectively tackled within their natural period of office. Just contrary to deterrence effect aimed by the drug cartels, this tactic might encourage potential governors to elevate their commitment and efforts in cracking down the drug violence.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AK1V320101121?
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Mexican drug lord killed
Rival gunmen blocked roads near the US border on 6 November after the marines killed one of Mexico’s top kingpins. Ezequiel Cardenas, also called ‘Tony Tormenta’, was shot dead by marines on 5 November. He was one the fourth top drug gang leaders (kingpins) killed or captured since December last year when President Calderon launched his army-led drug war. Quickly after Tony Tormenta’s death, gunmen used buses and trucks to block roads in Reynosa, a Mexico city near the US border where Tormenta was shot dead. Fightings also broke out between gunmen and soldiers in Reynosa, resulting in the death of two assailants and massive transportation chaos. More than 31,000 people have been killed across Mexico since the country launched his cartel crackdown in December 2006. At least 18 mayors have been killed since 2008.
Drug cartel violence is such a serious issue in Mexico that it is almost out of control by the law enforcement agencies. The violent response by gangsters to Tony Tormmenta’s death once again showed that military crackdown may not be an effective solution to the issue. Although killing the head of a drug cartel may bring a short-term impact on the cartel’s morale and leadership, it is not able to reduce the cartel’s power greatly or deter the cartel from continuing their violent acts. The fall of an evil leader of an evil group will not give rise to a good leader in the same group. Revenge will ensue, giving rise to a new evil leader and more attempt killings of the leaders of the good (police chiefs and mayors). That is why so many mayors have been killed or threatened away since 2008. Measures must be taken by the Mexican government to address the root causes of the drug cartel violence: high demand of drugs, high supply of firearms, economic and social problems. No wonder Mexico lawmakers have recently vetoed a bill of drug war reform to increase government expenses on combating drug cartel violence by force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A51JJ20101106
Drug cartel violence is such a serious issue in Mexico that it is almost out of control by the law enforcement agencies. The violent response by gangsters to Tony Tormmenta’s death once again showed that military crackdown may not be an effective solution to the issue. Although killing the head of a drug cartel may bring a short-term impact on the cartel’s morale and leadership, it is not able to reduce the cartel’s power greatly or deter the cartel from continuing their violent acts. The fall of an evil leader of an evil group will not give rise to a good leader in the same group. Revenge will ensue, giving rise to a new evil leader and more attempt killings of the leaders of the good (police chiefs and mayors). That is why so many mayors have been killed or threatened away since 2008. Measures must be taken by the Mexican government to address the root causes of the drug cartel violence: high demand of drugs, high supply of firearms, economic and social problems. No wonder Mexico lawmakers have recently vetoed a bill of drug war reform to increase government expenses on combating drug cartel violence by force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A51JJ20101106
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thoughts after visiting the International Civil Rights Centre and Museum in Greensboro
I visited the International Civil Rights Centre & Museum on Tuesday 16 November 2010. From the one-hour tour guided by a very experienced museum staff, I have learned many facts, both hidden and exposed.
I learned that people are selfish. They would take advantage of the weak by enslaving them, even though those they enslaved are no different than themselves other than the color of their skin. The slave market was a great pillar of the US economy when some people voiced out that slavery should be abolished. This selfish nature was so powerful and hard to change that people resisted by military force against their fellow citizens and even their President. The US Civil War would not have happened if people were not so selfish about their economic and social interests.
I learned that the supreme document of a state could fail to guide people's behaviour when they are overwhelmed by selfishness and emotions. The US Declaration of Independence explicitly states that 'all men are created equal' and 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. But at the time when slavery was still legal in the US, the Negros were definitely not equal with the Whites. The rights of the Negros to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were alienated (by other men). Even after the abolition of Slavery and the Negros were called African Americans, the country continued to witness segregation and discrimination against their black fellow citizens. The Constitution was there, but people acted their own way as if it did not exist.
I learned that making change to a society to suppress people’s selfishness and bring them back to their behavior-guiding document is not easy and is a lesson of blood and pain. Lots of anti-slavery activists were brutally, innocently and inhumanely treated. They were coerced and criminalized, beaten and burnt and murdered. These activists were not limited to the black activists but also included the white ones. I was startled when I saw the picture of which a white activist was murdered with his eyes cut out and limbs dismantled. I was even more upset and angry when the murderers were caught but not convicted guilty by a jury of the same kind. The legal system corrupted and the social order collapsed due to an ill-founded attitude—racism. When the day Martin Luther King was assassinated, I could not imagine how much blood had been lost to bring a stop to the society’s selfishness-driven slavery movement.
The U-turn, however, did not come until the presence of a few courageous leaders who used a very practical and sensible way of struggle to gain public support. I was surprised that it was four college students who initiated the U-turn. Their campaign of ‘sit-down and demand for service’ in lunch counters was practical because other black (and white) students could easily join them by spending their time studying there during the ‘sit-down’ period. It was also sensible because the loss of white customers and hence loss of revenue would eventually leave the owners of the restaurants no choice but to accept African Americans as their customers and provide services to them to avoid business closure. If you asked me why these few student leaders succeeded but their other predecessors failed, I would say it is the combination of courage, wisdom and the firm belief that small-potato individuals can make a difference to the society—lacking any of these factors would inevitably lead to failure.
The segregation and discrimination against African Americans were manifested from nearly every aspect of social life. For example, African Americans were only allowed to sit in the back of a bus, where the facilities were poorer and the location was less convenient for boarding and de-boarding. Also, black people were not allowed to vote and hence participate in administering public affairs. The most impressive example to me is the Coca-Cola vendor machine which sold a same drink to white people for 5 cents but to black people for 10 cents. Other examples include the lack of schools, restaurants, hotels and hospitals for the black community.
I learned that people are selfish. They would take advantage of the weak by enslaving them, even though those they enslaved are no different than themselves other than the color of their skin. The slave market was a great pillar of the US economy when some people voiced out that slavery should be abolished. This selfish nature was so powerful and hard to change that people resisted by military force against their fellow citizens and even their President. The US Civil War would not have happened if people were not so selfish about their economic and social interests.
I learned that the supreme document of a state could fail to guide people's behaviour when they are overwhelmed by selfishness and emotions. The US Declaration of Independence explicitly states that 'all men are created equal' and 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. But at the time when slavery was still legal in the US, the Negros were definitely not equal with the Whites. The rights of the Negros to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were alienated (by other men). Even after the abolition of Slavery and the Negros were called African Americans, the country continued to witness segregation and discrimination against their black fellow citizens. The Constitution was there, but people acted their own way as if it did not exist.
I learned that making change to a society to suppress people’s selfishness and bring them back to their behavior-guiding document is not easy and is a lesson of blood and pain. Lots of anti-slavery activists were brutally, innocently and inhumanely treated. They were coerced and criminalized, beaten and burnt and murdered. These activists were not limited to the black activists but also included the white ones. I was startled when I saw the picture of which a white activist was murdered with his eyes cut out and limbs dismantled. I was even more upset and angry when the murderers were caught but not convicted guilty by a jury of the same kind. The legal system corrupted and the social order collapsed due to an ill-founded attitude—racism. When the day Martin Luther King was assassinated, I could not imagine how much blood had been lost to bring a stop to the society’s selfishness-driven slavery movement.
The U-turn, however, did not come until the presence of a few courageous leaders who used a very practical and sensible way of struggle to gain public support. I was surprised that it was four college students who initiated the U-turn. Their campaign of ‘sit-down and demand for service’ in lunch counters was practical because other black (and white) students could easily join them by spending their time studying there during the ‘sit-down’ period. It was also sensible because the loss of white customers and hence loss of revenue would eventually leave the owners of the restaurants no choice but to accept African Americans as their customers and provide services to them to avoid business closure. If you asked me why these few student leaders succeeded but their other predecessors failed, I would say it is the combination of courage, wisdom and the firm belief that small-potato individuals can make a difference to the society—lacking any of these factors would inevitably lead to failure.
The segregation and discrimination against African Americans were manifested from nearly every aspect of social life. For example, African Americans were only allowed to sit in the back of a bus, where the facilities were poorer and the location was less convenient for boarding and de-boarding. Also, black people were not allowed to vote and hence participate in administering public affairs. The most impressive example to me is the Coca-Cola vendor machine which sold a same drink to white people for 5 cents but to black people for 10 cents. Other examples include the lack of schools, restaurants, hotels and hospitals for the black community.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Kenyan police officer shot dead 10 people in bars
A Kenyan provincial police officer shot 10 people dead at several bars in a small town of Nairobi. Peter Karanja, the officer gunman, went on the rampage after finishing his shift as a guard a district residence. The victims were killed indiscriminately and two of them were Karanja’s colleagues who were investigating the shootings. Karanja surrendered to the police after his attempt to shoot himself failed due to lack of bullets. The motivations behind the killings remain unclear, but the police have found two leads. One lead is that Karanja had discovered that he was infected with HIV and went to the bars in search of his girlfriend whom he suspected could have infected him with the virus. The other lead is that Karanja was angry over the news that his lover was having an affair with some person in one of those bars. Karanja had a poor disciplinary record, including a number of quarrels with his superiors.
This is another crime incident committed by somebody with a police background. The killer in the Philippines hijacking case was a former senior police officer while Karanja in the present case was a police officer (just off his daily duty). The two of them shared two things in common. The first thing is that both of them had easy access to guns and were well trained at using guns. The second thing is that they both had some bad disciplinary records. Although their intentions of killing innocents were different—one related to job and the other to personal reasons, the two cases clearly showed the great danger of police officers committing conventional crimes by abusing their power which is entrusted to them with the purpose of protecting the society.
Karanja’s case also illustrates the importance of assessing police officers’ mental health and self-control ability. Mere disciplinary actions are not enough to deal with a police officer’s misconducts. The fact that Karanja had been disciplined for offending his supervisor may well suggest that he had quick temper and low self-control capacity. In fact, his emotional problems have contributed to his act of shooting the 10 innocent people. If we look closer to the two leads suggested by police under investigation of the case, they were actually driven by revenge and jealousy respectively. A qualified police officer should never react to these emotions in the same way as Karanja did.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A60KO20101107
This is another crime incident committed by somebody with a police background. The killer in the Philippines hijacking case was a former senior police officer while Karanja in the present case was a police officer (just off his daily duty). The two of them shared two things in common. The first thing is that both of them had easy access to guns and were well trained at using guns. The second thing is that they both had some bad disciplinary records. Although their intentions of killing innocents were different—one related to job and the other to personal reasons, the two cases clearly showed the great danger of police officers committing conventional crimes by abusing their power which is entrusted to them with the purpose of protecting the society.
Karanja’s case also illustrates the importance of assessing police officers’ mental health and self-control ability. Mere disciplinary actions are not enough to deal with a police officer’s misconducts. The fact that Karanja had been disciplined for offending his supervisor may well suggest that he had quick temper and low self-control capacity. In fact, his emotional problems have contributed to his act of shooting the 10 innocent people. If we look closer to the two leads suggested by police under investigation of the case, they were actually driven by revenge and jealousy respectively. A qualified police officer should never react to these emotions in the same way as Karanja did.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A60KO20101107
Friday, November 5, 2010
Americans targeted in Mexico drug gang violence
Six US citizens have been killed by gunmen in separate attacks in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico since last Saturday. An American woman was killed by multiple gunshots inside a tortilla shop on Saturday. Two other victims were shot to death at their car on the same day. On Sunday, one victim was killed along with two Mexican men when gunmen opened fire on a group standing outside a house. The last two victims were students from the University of Texas, who were gunned down as they drove through the city on Tuesday. The attackers are believed to be linked to drug cartels in Mexico. It remains unclear why Americans were targeted. Ciudad Juarez is one of most violent border cities in Mexico. According to the US government data, at least 37 US citizens have been killed in that city since January, compared to 39 in 2008 and 2009 combined.
The article reported the increasing number of killings against US citizens in Ciudad Juarez, which inevitably makes people wonder why Americans were targeted in the attacks. But this may be a result of information asymmetry given by the reporter. Without statistics about all the killings and nationalities of the victims, it is too quick for one to conclude that US citizens are particularly targeted. The recent six killings may be just a co-incidence, as might have applied to the victim who was killed along with the two Mexican men.
However, if the killings against US citizens were not due to coincidence, what could be the reasons behind them? Very likely, it is related to the US ‘war on drugs’ policy in Mexico. As discussed in my last blog, the drug cartels mainly target violence on the police and other drug gangs as a response triggered by police crack-down on drug violence and intense competition over trafficking routes among different drug gangs respectively. But if American citizens and even civilians (students) were also targeted, then the drug cartels must have developed a high level of hatred toward the US as a whole country. This hatred most probably stems from the US intervention to combat drug violence in its ‘war on drugs’ policy.
Still, one may wonder why drug violence is so serious in Ciudad Juarez that even ‘7,500 troops and elite police have failed to end beheading and car bombings’ there. Apart from its unique geographic location which gives rise to higher supply and demand of both drugs and firearms, the high unemployment rate and poor education system in the city are also key factors. Many jobless youths and school fall-outs join the gangs, feeling no hope for their future due to the economic plight and the failure of social support system. It is the high demand and supply of the potential personel for criminal activities that render the social order and control particularly difficult there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A35AQ20101104
The article reported the increasing number of killings against US citizens in Ciudad Juarez, which inevitably makes people wonder why Americans were targeted in the attacks. But this may be a result of information asymmetry given by the reporter. Without statistics about all the killings and nationalities of the victims, it is too quick for one to conclude that US citizens are particularly targeted. The recent six killings may be just a co-incidence, as might have applied to the victim who was killed along with the two Mexican men.
However, if the killings against US citizens were not due to coincidence, what could be the reasons behind them? Very likely, it is related to the US ‘war on drugs’ policy in Mexico. As discussed in my last blog, the drug cartels mainly target violence on the police and other drug gangs as a response triggered by police crack-down on drug violence and intense competition over trafficking routes among different drug gangs respectively. But if American citizens and even civilians (students) were also targeted, then the drug cartels must have developed a high level of hatred toward the US as a whole country. This hatred most probably stems from the US intervention to combat drug violence in its ‘war on drugs’ policy.
Still, one may wonder why drug violence is so serious in Ciudad Juarez that even ‘7,500 troops and elite police have failed to end beheading and car bombings’ there. Apart from its unique geographic location which gives rise to higher supply and demand of both drugs and firearms, the high unemployment rate and poor education system in the city are also key factors. Many jobless youths and school fall-outs join the gangs, feeling no hope for their future due to the economic plight and the failure of social support system. It is the high demand and supply of the potential personel for criminal activities that render the social order and control particularly difficult there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A35AQ20101104
More hate crimes against homos in New Jersey
Three men have been accused of murder based on biased crimes in New Jersey. Victoria Carmen White, 28, was shot dead on September 12 at an apartment while having party with the suspected murders. The gunshot followed a quarrel suddenly occurred in the party, according to Prosecutor Robert D. Laurino. Another man Arthur Downey, 27, was also beaten to death in bed in his apartment. Downey, who was openly gay, met his suspected murderer in a telephone chat room. Laurino believed that the murders were associated with hate crimes against homosexuals. Two suspects who murdered White were still at large and a gay rights organization has announced rewards for information leading to the arrest of them.
This is another incident of hate crime against homosexuals, but it is different than previous similar hate crimes in three aspects. First, the outcome of this hate crime is more serious---murder, as compared to brutal beatings and robbery in the previous case. Second, the suspected murderers seemed to be hired to carry out the hate crime, while in the previous one the gang did the beating by its own. Third, it is a crime committed against people who openly declare themselves gay, as opposed to the emerging sexual identity in the gang case. It seems that disclosing one’s sexual orientation is a very dangerous act in the US, whether openly or accidentally.
One interesting fact revealed by the two hate crime incidents is that they both happened in New Jersey. What is so special about New Jersey that it has become a breeding ground for hate crime involving homosexuality?
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/21/new.jersey.transgender.killing/
This is another incident of hate crime against homosexuals, but it is different than previous similar hate crimes in three aspects. First, the outcome of this hate crime is more serious---murder, as compared to brutal beatings and robbery in the previous case. Second, the suspected murderers seemed to be hired to carry out the hate crime, while in the previous one the gang did the beating by its own. Third, it is a crime committed against people who openly declare themselves gay, as opposed to the emerging sexual identity in the gang case. It seems that disclosing one’s sexual orientation is a very dangerous act in the US, whether openly or accidentally.
One interesting fact revealed by the two hate crime incidents is that they both happened in New Jersey. What is so special about New Jersey that it has become a breeding ground for hate crime involving homosexuality?
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/21/new.jersey.transgender.killing/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)