U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and two fellow senators left El Paso today after a three-hour hearing having heard from six witnesses that violence has dropped off in Juarez and National Guard troops aren’t needed on the border.
And any notions that the violence has spilled over the border in El Paso or anywhere in Texas, that the cartel forces in Mexico may number 50,000 and that al-Qaeda cells in Mexico making their way to this country were were dispelled.
Still, Kerry said if he were a cartel leader involved in moving drugs north or guns south, “I would be laughing at our efforts” to stop them.
He made that comment after William McMahon, deputy assistant director for field operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives said his agency had the same number of officers 10 years ago that it has today.
"What federal action would make you say they're serious about getting it right," Wicker asked.
More resources, McMahon said, noting that he has asked for 1,000 more agents.
He and others noted that smuggling weapons into Mexico is relatively easy because south-bound vehicles are not subject to inspection on the U.S. side and only erratically on the Mexican side.
The panelists for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee' field hearing were Kerry, the committee chairman, and Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Roger Wicker of Mississippi. U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D- El Paso, joined the panel.
Barrasso said the short term solutions to drug and weapons smuggling are beefing up the border with law enforcement, the mid-term solution is allowing the Merida Initiative funding and efforts to take hold and the long-term
answers are reforming the Mexican judicial system and curtailing drug addiction and use in the U.S.
But, he said, he would draw the line at any effort to ban the manufacture or private sale of assault weapons in the United Sates.
"More gun control in the U.S. will not solve the cartel drug problems," he said.
The most dramatic testimony of the day came from the former police chief of Ciudad Juarez, Ricardo Garcia Carriles, and UTEP Professor Howard Campbell.
Garcia said with the additional 5,000 troops that the Mexican government has sent to Juarez, “the violence has been reduced dramatically.”
“The fear has almost disappeared, but there is fear of what will happen when they go,” Garcia said.
Until Operation Clean Sweep resulted in the dismissal of 700 corrupt city police officers in Juarez, he said, the police force served as the army for the Juarez cartel.
The clean up is not finished yet, said Garcia, who served only one year as the police chief.
Asked by Kerry why he left, Garcia said, “That’s a very difficult question to discuss in public.”
Drug trafficking has been so deeply embedded in the city that “We have lost two generations in Juarez.”
“They ask, ‘Why should I become a doctor? I’d rather be a drug dealer with impunity,’ ” Garcia said, referring to the 3 percent chance of being caught by law enforcement.
Campbell went as far as to say that the warring “cartels have pulled out of Juarez.”
“They’re waiting to see what happens next,” he said. “The temporary solution of more soldiers has worked. but we need to be thinking about the long term solution.”
He then asked, “Is it possible to change the laws and decriminalize or legalize marijuana and take the criminal element out of the trade?”
That comment drew strong applause from the audience.
Kerry noted that that was one of the topics that the committee could spend the day discussing, but it was a topic they did not return to in testimony or questions.
Sticking to law enforcement issues, he asked El Paso County District Attorney Jaime Esparza what it would take to show that the federal government was committed to solving border drug and weapons problems.
Esparza recommended devoting of more resources to the El Paso Intelligence Center, the West Texas High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program, cooperative drug prosecutions between the federal and state courts and to addressing addition and drug-use issues through an existing and effective court program in El Paso.
"I do not believe we have reached a point where the National Guard is necessary," Esparza said.
Asked about spillover violence, he said, media accounts have exaggerated the story and that there has been little spillover in any Texas city.
But, Esparza said, "If you go to Juarez, you have to be careful."
"I do not hear you advocating additional gun control laws on the people of the United States," Wicker said.
"You do not," Esparza replied.
Ratification of CIFTA treaty on arms tracking
In her testimony, Harriet Babbitt, a former ambassador to the Organization of American States, addressed a treaty that the United States signed but has not ratified intended to help trace weapons.
“I am here today to urge ratification by the Senate of what can be an important tool in our common fight, the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials,” she said, adding the treaty is known by its Spanish initials, CIFTA.
The U.S. was one of the original signers in 1997 when she was ambassador to the OAS. In the Americas Hemisphere, 33 nations have signed the treaty and 29 have ratified it.
The treaty required marking all weapons when they are made or manufactured so they can be traced, ensuring that weapons are legally exported to other nations and that the signing nations cooperate in investigating violations for firearms laws.
The U.S. already effectively complies with the treaty provisions but not to the extent called for in the treaty.
Ratification of the treaty would give the U.S. added standing to push other countries to enforce the treaty’s provisions, including extradition.
* * *
To reach David Crowder, write to dcrowder@epmediagroup.com or call (915) 351-0605, ext. 30
Opening statements and witness testimony at the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee field hearing that took place this morning at UTEP.
"We stand beside them in this fight": U.S. Sen. John Kerry's opening statement
by NPT Staff
Our response should be made in partnership with the Mexicans. The idea of dispatching the National Guard to the border is premature and possibly counterproductive. read more »
***
Need for more "more manpower, more resources, and better infrastructure to keep America’s border secure": U.S. Rep. Reyes' opening statement
by NPT Staff
Over the course of the last few months, there has been a lot of media coverage about Mexico’s violence. Unfortunately, some have generalized the violence as occurring on the border, when in actuality the violence is occurring in Mexico. read more »
***
Witness testimony to the Drug War hearing at UTEP
compiled by NPT Staff
Prepared testimony from scheduled panelists to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, meeting today at UTEP. read more »

















Rey
March 30, 2009
Only TWO members of EP city council attended the hearing.
The Mayor was no where to be seen. A shame a lot of good information was provided, he and the others might have learn something. Perhaps even learned that the problem is a lot more complicated than "let's legalize" as a solution. The problem was correctly identified as a Nacro-Terrorist WAR with gang against gang, gang against the government with the vast majority of those killed being involved in the "BUSINESS". The tragedy is the innocent victims.
They also stated the problem, that legalization of drugs would simply cause the criminals to switch to another activity to make money. So the solution is for the Mexcan government with US help to tackle the problem and regain control.
Armando Salas Jr. OSAR Region 10 Program Manager
March 30, 2009
The Field hearing was able to shad a great deal of light on the current situation and was I am sure enlightening to the Senators. I was able to get the Law enforcement and judicial views which I do not on a regular basis. Th e remaining question is, How do we deal withthe aftermath of this situautions? We conitnue to look at this very Human issues-Addiction from a leagl point of view without much consideration into the need for treatment resouces. I understand that U. S. Senate Committee On Foreign Relations is not involved in Domestic Relations but the was a great deal of dicussion on the need to collaborate and organize resources and not once was it mention that we need to do this with National Agencies in charge of providing Prevention, Intervention and Treatment Resouces. Without this level of collaboration we will never be able to put an ewnd to the demand for drugs in this community. District ayyorney Jaime Esparza did mention that we have one drug court with a great deal of success and this is true. I wonder, though, which one of the four Drug court was he referring to to. El Paso County has four Adult Drug Courts and one Juevenile Drug Court and they are all doing a tremendous job in addrsss their respective particiapnts drug treatment needs.
What we have a tremendous need for in this community is treatment services in which and individual can access services without having been arested and convicted of a drug related offense. Why do we have to wait until an idividual has committed a crime related to their illness before we offer them the much needed treatment.
We have one Licensed and Funded Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) provider for Region 10, which encompasses El Paso, Cullberson, Hudspect, Presidio and Brewster counties. There is currently one DSHS detox facility to provide detoxification services for the same Region. One has to wonder why are there no more providers in the Region and the simple truth is due to the reimburshement rate. The Treatment provider is reimburshed at $74.00 per day. That rate is to cover al the needs a client may have during their stay in treatment. Untill we are able to bring this situation into a much more realistic reimburshment levewl we will continue to have a shortage of providers in Region 10. This si an area which needs serious discussion and at a level in which we can assure ourselves that the needs of this community and Region will be met.
Colleen McCool
March 30, 2009
Take away the main tool servants of tyranny, gun control freaks and racists use these days to extend their agenda, the new prohibition.
Users have been around for eons with out this violent bloodletting except during the first "Noble" experiment. Not learning from past mistakes is a serious flaw in reasoning, unwanted in leaders. It is really misleading to call it a drug war or drug fueled violence. The horrific carnage is triggered by the new prohibition and fueled by official lawlessness.
Across America paramilitary drug raids trigger violence rather than lessen the risk. It is called, "Overkill" to use such force on a nonviolent health issue. This unconscionable bloodshed is on the hands of leadership as much as those who pulled the trigger or did the actual butchering and torturing. It is a policy created problem.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/109
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is having hearings on the violence in Mexico. Please send them a REPEAL the new prohibition message. Please contact your Legislators. http://oversight.house.gov/contact/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/Members.htm
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/welcome.php
Rey
March 30, 2009
Well, let's see. six EXPERTS witnesses testifying, 3 US Senators, one Congressman and as Senator Kerry, he had several investigators for at least a month on both sides of border. The MAJORITY elected President states NO to legalization.
The facts provided by ALL the EXPERTS are, it IS a NACRO-TERRORIST WAR with gang vs gang vs government and legalization IS NOT the solution. But you know better because of your ability to parrot. It's obvious you not only did not attend the hearings but totally ignored the written testimony.
Thousands Dead and you want more
March 31, 2009
Rey--The vested interests you call "experts" need (they say) more manpower, more resources--all newspeak for OUR money to HYPER-POLICE US.
for what? More violence? More kids in jail?? Thousands more killed? KILLED, my man/woman????
You're blind and brainless both.
Show me in history when prohibition actually worked.
Not without a police state.
I guess that's what you want.
Rey
April 1, 2009
The blindness is your ability to see the FACTS and the brainless is your inability to COMPREHEND what was stated or what the real issues are.
The Mexican official, that testified, was directly involved in the drug war and knows ! The violence is down because the government cracked down. The vast majority killed were involved in the drug trade, that's not to say there weren't any innocent lives lost. He and the others stated very clearly that legalization would not work because the criminals would shift to a new enterprise and new problems would surface. Don't people usually go to jail for something that they WILLFULLY committed?
Perhaps, if you you put down the joint long enough you would be able to see straight and understand what was said.
sucio
April 2, 2009
Rey, Anthropologist Prof. Howard Campbell, the expert on Mexico and the drug war, testified that the Mexican government use of the military has slowed the violence in Juarez for now. But Campbell pointed out that the military effort was not sustainable and that the cartels were watching and waiting for they military to leave. The cartels will be back. The military is not the end-all solution for all problems that strike fear (and this is irrational fear) into the minds of Mexicans and Americans. This is not a military matter. We are not being invaded by a foreign military. Criminal drug cartels are fighting each other in Mexico for access to U.S. drug consumers. The cartels should be dealt with by law enforcement for now, but the real solution to this problem is to end drug prohibition. Drugs should be a health, education and economic matter, and NOT a criminal law enforcement or military matter. Check out LEAP - LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Rey
April 2, 2009
Sucio, we are just going in circles here and dominating the thread.
I would say, we both want the problems to end and disagree with the method.
sucio
April 2, 2009
Rey, you might be right. Maybe someday we can meet and have a friendly talk about this stuff. I feel if I could get you high you might see things my way.
sucio
April 2, 2009
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marijuana-chemical-may-fight-brain-cancer Marijuana Chemical May Fight Brain Cancer
Active Component In Marijuana Targets Aggressive Brain Cancer Cells, Study Says
By Kelli Miller Stacy
WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MDApril 1, 2009 -- The active chemical in marijuana promotes the death of brain cancer cells by essentially helping them feed upon themselves, researchers in Spain report.
Guillermo Velasco and colleagues at Complutense University in Spain have found that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, causes brain cancer cells to undergo a process called autophagy. Autophagy is the breakdown of a cell that occurs when the cell essentially self-digests.
The team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in mice with human brain cancer cells and people with brain tumors. When mice with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor growth shrank.
Two patients enrolled in a clinical trial received THC directly to the brain as an experimental treatment for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, a highly aggressive brain tumor. Biopsies taken before and after treatment helped track their progress. After receiving the THC, there was evidence of increased autophagy activity.
The findings appear in the April 1 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
The patients did not have any toxic effects from the treatment. Previous studies of THC for the treatment of cancer have also found the therapy to be well tolerated, according to background information in journal article.
Study authors say their findings could lead to new strategies for preventing tumor growth.
sucio
April 3, 2009
As long as there is prohibition there will be criminals that make lots and lots of money, corrupt law enforcement and government - And will be the ones that regulate drug use in America. The only way to get control away from the criminals is to do what we did with alcohol. Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. I don't see any teenage bootleggers running around. But we have 900,000 teenage drug dealers spread all over the country. We can live free and legalize. Or we can take freedom away and kill all the dealers and users like the communists in China did. I choose to live free or DIE! Marijuana was legal for thousands of years, only the last 70 years did we go insane and make it a crime. Get real and get educated at: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php LEAP - LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION