Official Website of James Landrith

Main Menu

Best Blog Posts

An Honest Marine Responds to "A True Marine"

Admitting It: When a Woman is the Rapist

Again - with the Starbucks Hates The Troops Lie

The Enemy of My Enemy...

DS-Syndicate

Follow this blog

PositiveSingles.com - the best, most trusted and largest anonymous STD dating site!

InterracialMatch.com - the best interracial dating site!

Welcome to the Official Website of James Landrith

Todd Akin and the False Equivalency of the Enraged

Blog, Commentary and Articles - Rape, Sexual Assault and Abuse
Written by James Landrith
Tuesday, 21 August 2012
Mom-Blog on Todd Akin and Rape: What did you say?? I’m not at all happy what’s going on with politics lately. I’m supposed to keep quiet and say things like, “There’s no war on women,” “Chik-Fil-A is allowed to do what they want,” and “Oh, stop being so picky about what politician say, it doesn’t matter, and look at what they do.” The thing is, it DOES matter. Word always matter, and when we live in a day and age when Spin rules our decisions, they matter even more. Todd Akin is utter wingnuttery. He has been for a long, long time. This level of stupidity on his part is not new. He needs to be turned into Citizen Akin once and for all. I am encouraged that there is still some humanity left in the human race by the outpouring of disgust for his comments. First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” As a male rape survivor, I have to disagree with Mom-Blog on the following statement though: Specifically, it demeans women, because we don’t hear these words in describing male rape, that’s always honest, forcible, and legitimate. It definitely degardes women, there is absolutely no question about that. However, it is utter nonsense to claim that the experiences of male rape survivors are "always" considered "honest, forcible, and legitimate." Does she actually know any male rape survivors and what we endure on a regular basis? When we aren't outright mocked, we are being told we "wanted it", "should have fought it off" and that our erections during rape meant that we were really homosexuals and enjoyed it so it wasn't rape-rape. If our predators where female, we are told we were lucky or that we couldn't possibly be straight for refusing sex from a woman - like - EVER. Oh yeah, and then we are told that men can't be raped. Then they laugh in our faces. Again. It is completely untrue and quite harmful to male rape survivors to claim we are treated otherwise. People, please make your point about Todd Akin and I agree completely that he has it coming, but don't do it at the expense of other survivors and the truth. That is not necessary - AT ALL! Recently, I've written about male rape and victim blaming here: http://jameslandrith.com/content/view/3868/79/ http://goodmenproject.com/on-rape-and-sexual-violence/male-rape-survivors-and-victim-blaming/ Some people really need to read it and stop contributing to rape culture mythology by making false claims about male survivors. I lived this, not the fantasy that our experiences and stories are always treated as "honest, forcible, and legitimate." Catholic survivors of clergy abuse were often portrayed as "in it for the money", men and boys raped by women are repeatedly portrayed as "lucky" and the ever present "he must be gay" undertones are often lurking in media coverage of male survivors Then, our experiences are often referred to as "having sex", "an affair", or even - "a relationship." It simply IS NOT true, nor is it necessary to lie about male survivors or minimize our experiences in order to fight victim-blaming against female survivors. I am quite tired of the false equivalency promoted by some people everytime an asshat opens their mouth and says something stupid about women and rape. The idea that since female survivors are mistreated by some, then male survivors must have it easier is played out, tired and patently untrue. If you have to hurt millions of male rape survivors in order to help female rape survivors then you are clearly doing it wrong. Stop it. Stop it NOW. UPDATE: Mom-Blog has apologized for her initial statements regarding male survivors and victim-blaming and admitted she was in error for those comments. I don't believe she intended to be offensive or that she is a bad person at heart, but this pervasive assumption that mistreatment of female survivors = better treatment of male survivors is really getting old as of late. We need to be working together, not hurting each other. Danny's Corner has also weighed in on this issue: http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/2012/08/so-only-female-victims-are-demeaned.html About James A. Landrith James Landrith is a healing rape survivor, public speaker (RAINN and VSDVAA) on sexual violence and civil liberties, internationally syndicated blogger, civil liberties activist and the notorious editor and publisher of The Multiracial Activist (ISSN: 1552-3446) and The Abolitionist Examiner (ISSN: 1552-2881). Landrith can be reached by email at: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or at his personal website/blog.
Last Updated ( Saturday, 25 August 2012 )

Coalition Letter to Congress Regarding Whistelblower Reforms

Advocacy and Letters - Advocacy and Comment Letters
Written by Coalition
Friday, 17 August 2012
141 Diverse Groups Support Swift Action to Restore Strong, Comprehensive Whistleblower Rights An Open Letter to Members of Congress August 17, 2012 The undersigned organizations and businesses write to urge completion of the landmark, decades-long legislative effort to restore credible whistleblower rights for federal employees. We support legislation providing genuine protection for public employees who serve the American public by risking their careers to protect taxpayers. Whistleblower protection is a foundation for any change the public can trust, whether the issue relates to economic recovery, civil rights and civil liberties, prescription drug safety, environmental protection, infrastructure spending, national health insurance, or foreign policy. In May 2012, the Senate unanimously passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) for the fourth time since 2006. It is well past time to finish the job. Unfortunately, every month that passes means the public is deprived the benefit of disclosures from federal government whistleblowers about fraud, waste or abuses that could remain ongoing. On average, more than 15 whistleblowers a month lose initial decisions from administrative hearings at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and less than one prevails. The Whistleblower Protection Act was last restored in 1994, and has since fallen victim to judicial activism. The MSPB found that federal whistleblowers were nine times more likely to be fired in 2010 compared to 1992. This culture of vulnerability maximizes government secrecy, which in turn breeds corruption. Under current law, federal employees are not eligible for whistleblower protections if they: are not the first person who discloses given misconduct make a disclosure to a co-worker; make a disclosure to a supervisor; disclose the consequences of a policy decision; blow the whistle while carrying out job duties. The inadequate protections afforded by current law remains a would-be whistleblower’s best reason to turn a blind eye to government waste, fraud, abuse, as well as threats to public health and safety. We all want the same thing: that the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act become law this year. However, we urge you to send a final bill to the President’s desk that includes the best of both H.R. 3289 and S. 743—not a watered-down version. In the interest of serving that purpose, we write to clarify the most essential elements to any legislation that we can credibly support. These elements, listed below, are crucial to ensure that federal whistleblowers who protect taxpayer dollars and the public’s trust are given adequate access to court, and provide meaningful protections for employees with access to classified information and those working in the intelligence community. Those landmark reforms have been the subject of extremely thoughtful deliberation and consensus for many months. Absent any one of the elements listed below, we feel that we will be left with a bill that fails to adequately advance whistleblower and taxpayer protections. * Appellate review: The Federal Circuit cannot retain its monopoly on appellate review of the Whistleblower Protection Act. This court has a long history of frustrating the congressional mandate, evidenced by a consistent track record of ruling against whistleblowers for decisions on the merits. Since 1994, when Congress last reaffirmed and strengthened those rights, the court has rejected 226 claims and sustained only 3 (as of June 2012). * Access to district court: Government whistleblowers deserve a right to a jury trial, similar to what Congress has already granted to private-sector whistleblowers ten times since 2002. Further, whistleblowers should have the same burdens of proof afforded by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. Reducing agency employers’ burden of proof would be unprecedented and would roll back a cornerstone of the Act that Congress has reaffirmed in every whistleblower law for corporate employees since 1989. * Administrative due process: The summary judgment provision granting new powers for the MSPB to dismiss cases before a hearing is widely perceived as permission to deprive whistleblowers of the opportunity for any due process administrative day in court. At a minimum, summary judgment would force unemployed whistleblowers to spend thousands of dollars for depositions before they even know if a hearing will occur. That is too high a price for the legislation. This poison pill should be removed. * Security clearance due process reform: Revocation of security clearance is the harassment of choice against national security whistleblowers who challenge security breakdowns, fraud, waste, or abuse. Since losing security clearance can frequently lead to permanent blacklisting, the denial of due process has much further consequences than simply depriving whistleblowers of fair play. As a consequence, national security whistleblowers are unlikely to come forward unless they are willing to end their careers.This has deprived our country of the most effective source of information about national security breakdowns, as well as evidence of waste, fraud and abuse. We appreciate your bipartisan consensus support for significant reforms, including closure of judicially created loopholes; restoration of a functional, “reasonable belief” standard, codification of the anti-gag statute, extension of whistleblower rights to the intelligence community through administration regulations, establishment of due process standards to prevent retaliation through security clearances, and expansion of contractor whistleblower rights in HR 3289. It is essential that the law clarify that the WPEA provisions add to, rather than substitute for, current rights. A strong federal whistleblower statute is needed to close existing loopholes, and provide comparable rights and remedies to the dozen gold standard whistleblower rights that Congress has passed for private sector employees since 2000. We know you share our commitment to more transparency and accountability in government. Passing a strong, bipartisan whistleblower reform law would do much to restore the public’s faith in Congress, ensure efficient and accountable government, and save taxpayer dollars. Major studies confirm that whistleblowers have been and will continue to be our best defense against waste, fraud and abuse. Inexcusably, they have been waiting over 12 years for rights that give them a fair chance to defend themselves when they defend the public by exposing government misconduct. Enough is enough. Sincerely, Robert A. Cole Staff Attorney Advocates for Basis Legal Equality, Inc., Tiffiniy Cheng Campaign Coordinator A New Way Forward Ruth Caplan Campaign Co-Chair Alliance for Democracy Susan Gordon Director Alliance for Nuclear Accountability Linda Lipsen Chief Executive Officer American Association for Justice Emily Feltren Director of Government Relations American Association of Law Libraries Patricia Callahan President/Founder American Association of Small Property Owners Rudy Fichtenbaum President American Association of University Professors Christopher Finan President American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression John Gage National President American Federation of Government Employees Stephen A. Sanders Director Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center, Inc. Prudence Adler Associate Executive Director Association of Research Libraries Heather Cantino Representative Athens County Fracking Action Network Samuel Sage President Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. Jay Feldman Executive Director Beyond Pesticides Shahid Buttar Executive Director Bill of Rights Defense Committee Linda Langess, Ph.D. Co-Chair Boundary County Concerned Citizens Jane Williams Executive Director California Communities Against Toxics Terry Francke General Counsel/Founder Californians Aware Nelson Carrasquillo General Coordinator CATA - El Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas/The Farmworkers Support Committee William Snape Senior Counsel Center for Biological Diversity Bradley Jansen Director Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights Colin O’Neil Regulatory Policy Analyst Center for Food Safety Lisa Graves Executive Director Center for Media and Democracy Michael Jacobson Executive Director Center for Science in the Public Interest Deb Katz Executive Director Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) Barbara Warren Executive Director Citizens Environmental Coalition James Turner Chairman of the Board Citizens for Health Anne Weismann Chief Counsel Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Laura Olah Executive Director Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger (CSWAB) Daniel E. Manville Director Civil Rights Clinic - Michigan State University Law College David Deal Chief Executive Officer Community IT Innovators Greg Smith Co-Founder Community Research Joni Arends Executive Director Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety Lokesh Vuyyuru, MD Founder Concerned Citizens of Petersburg Sofia Martinez President Concerned Citizens of Wagon Mound & Mora County Dave Werntz Science and Conservation Director Conservation Northwest Ruth Susswein Deputy Director, National Priorities Consumer Action Bob Shavelson Director Cook Inlet Keeper Pratap Chatterjee Executive Director CorpWatch Donald B. Clark Cumberland Countians for Peace and Justice Barbra Kavanaugh Executive Director DC Employment Justice Center Sue Udry Director Defending Dissent Foundation David Cohen Executive Director Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO Ben Smilowitz Director Disaster Accountability Project Stephen Brittle President Don’t Waste Arizona Zena Crenshaw Co-Administrator Drum Majors for Truth Mike Ewall Founder/Director Energy Justice Network Chuck Broscious President of the Board Environmental Defense Institute Antoinette Stein Deputy Director EPP-LCA.org Gabe Bruno Executive Director FAA Whistleblowers Alliance Janet Kopenhaver FEW Washington Representative Federally Employed Women (FEW) David B. Nolan Legal Director Federal Ethics Center Steve Aftergood Government Secrecy Expert Federation of American Scientists Marilyn Fitterman Vice President Feminists for Free Expression Joy Towles Ezell President Florida League of Conservation Voters Susie Caplowe Coordinator Florida League of Conservation Voters Education Fund Patricia T. Birnie Chair GE Stockholders’ Alliance Don Kraus Chief Executive Director GlobalSolutions.org Tom Devine Legal Director Government Accountability Project Alan Muller Executive Director Green Delaware Carl Romanelli Chair Green Party of Pennsylvania Kit Wood Owner/Founder Green Plate Catering Kirk Davies Research Director Greenpeace Larry Pratt Executive Director Gun Owners of America Angela Smith Coordinator HEAL-ONLINE.ORG Representative Gerry Pollet Executive Director Heart of America Northwest Scott Armstrong Executive Director Information Trust J.H. Snider. Ph.D. President iSolon.org John Metz Executive Director/Board Chairman JustHealth Tom FitzGerald Director Kentucky Resources Council, Inc Joseph B. Uehlein Board President, Founding President and Executive Director Labor Network for Sustainability Michael Ostrolenk Director Liberty Coalition Greg Mello Executive Director Los Alamos Study Group Richard Moore Coordinator Los Jardines Institute (The Gardens Institute) Mike Smith Founder Market Air Quality Campaign Janette Parker Director Medical Whistleblower Lewis Patrie Representative Move to Amend of Buncombe County Salem Al-Marayati Executive Director Muslim Public Affairs Council Nancy Hone, Director Jan Greenfield, Webmaster NAB (Neighbors Against the Burner) in Minnesota Larry Fisher Founder National Accountant Whistleblower Coalition Gail Dunham Executive Director National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation Joan E. Bertin, Esq. Executive Director National Coalition Against Censorship Eileen Dannemann Director National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) Russell Hemenway President National Committee for an Effective Congress Andrew Jackson National Forum on Judicial Accountability Kenneth F. Bunting Executive Director National Freedom of Information Coalition Rodney Logal Co-Founder/Executive Board Member National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. Terry O’Neill President National Organization for Women Peter Sepp Executive Vice President National Taxpayers Union Colleen Kelley National President National Treasury Employees Union Stephen M. Kohn Executive Director National Whistleblowers Center Amy Allina Program and Policy Director National Women’s Health Network Lewis Maltby President National Workrights Institute James E. Warren Executive Director NC WARN Donald B. Clark Network for Environmental and Economic Responsibility - United Church of Christ Douglas Meiklejohn Executive Director New Mexico Environmental Law Center Miriam German No Nukes Northwest David A. Kraft Director Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) Tim Wheeler Co-Administrator OAK (Organizations Associating for the Kind of Change America Really Needs) Patrice McDermott Director OpenTheGovernment.org Paul Loney President Oregon Wildlife Federation Yanna Lambrinidou, PhD President Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives Paul Martin Organizing, Political and PAC Director Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund Jenny Lisak Co-Director Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air Margaret Reeves Pesticide Action Network North America George Stokes, Jr. National Program Chairman POPULAR (Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored) Evan Hendricks Editor Privacy Times Matt Prindiville Associate Director Product Policy Institute Tim Carpenter National Director Progressive Democrats of America Angela Canterbury Director of Public Policy Project On Government Oversight Keith Wrightson Worker Safety and Health Advocate Public Citizen Jeff Ruch Executive Director Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Dr. Diana Post, Executive Director Munro Meyersburg, Secretary Rachel Carson Council, Inc. Molly Johnson Area Coordinator San Luis Obispo County Grandmothers for Peace Debbie Sease National Campaign Director Sierra Club Linda Petersen Freedom of Information Committee Chair Society of Professional Journalists Edward T. Hart President 2012-13 Southeastern Chapter of the American Association of Law Libraries Don Hancock Administrator Southwest Research and Information Center Deirdre Schlunegger Chief Executive Officer STOP Foodborne Illness Daphne Wysham Co-Director Sustainable Energy and Economy Project Thad Guyer Partner T.M. Guyer & Ayers & Friends Ken Paff National Organizer Teamsters for a Democratic Union Diane Wilson Board Member Texas Injured Workers Evelynn Brown, J.D., LL.M Chief Executive Officer The Brown Center for Public Policy aka Whistlewatch.org James Landrith Founder/Editor/Publisher The Multiracial Activist John Whitehead President The Rutherford Institute Mindy Spatt Communications Director The Utility Reform Network Susan Nevelow Mart Director The William A. Wise Law Library - University of Colorado at Boulder Roy Gutterman Director Tully Center for Free Speech - Syracuse University Celia Viggo Wexler Senior Washington Representative Union of Concerned Scientists Linda Petersen President Utah Foundation for Open Government John Blair President Valley Watch, Inc. Brad Friedman Co-Founder VelvetRevolution.us David Swanson Co-Founder Warisacrime.org Nada Khader Executive Director WESPAC Foundation Janine Blaeloch Director Western Lands Project Donald Soeken, Ph.D. President Whistleblower Support Center and Archive Tracy Davids Executive Director Wild South Kim Witczak Woody Matters Paula Brantner Executive Director Workplace Fairness
Last Updated ( Friday, 17 August 2012 )

On Healing and Forgiveness (or You Probably Think This Blog Is About You, Don't You?)

Blog, Commentary and Articles - Rape, Sexual Assault and Abuse
Written by James Landrith
Monday, 23 July 2012
DISCLAIMER: I am not advocating forgiveness, nor advocating against it. How you proceed in your life is entirely your choice and not subject to my judgment. As you read this, please remember that this was MY PERSONAL CHOICE and is not a criticism or endorsement of any particular path for another. Thank you. This is for her. She knows who she is and exactly what she did. I don't hate you. I need you to know that. Really, it is true. I don't hate you. I never really did. I hate what you did. I hate how it feels even now - over 20 years later. I hate that you used your delicate condition as a weapon. I hate that you asked for help and then used it against me. I hate that you made it difficult for me to trust women now. I hate that I feel guilty for feeling anything at all. I hate that you turned a fetus into a tool to rape another human being. I hate that something so beautiful was used for something so ugly and twisted. I hate that I can see more than a new life in other women. I hate that you made that beautiful thing so ugly. I hate that you thought you had that right. I hate that you probably still don't understand it was wrong. I hate that so many people don't understand why. I don't hate you. I thought I did once. I thought I needed that. I was sure I needed that. Please understand this and don't take it the wrong way. I forgive you now. I forgive you for what you did. I forgive you for what you said. I forgive you for the assumption that you had the right. I am not forgiving you for you. You haven't earned that. You don't deserve that. I'm giving my forgiveness to you freely even after you took so much. My forgiveness really isn't about you. I forgive you because it is too draining to be angry at you anymore. I forgive you because I need relief. I forgive you because I am ready. Please do not be deceived, I am by no means "over it", but I am as always trying to transcend it. The last few months have been extremely difficult. Jerry Sandusky. Clergy coverups. Military Sexual Trauma. Hearings. Court battles. Juries. Riots over fucking football. There are reminders everywhere. I am doing this because I need it. I will live with the aftereffects of your choices for the rest of my life. However, I choose from this point forward to live without you. You are forgiven. Now please - just go away. About James A. Landrith James Landrith is a healing rape survivor, public speaker on sexual violence and civil liberties, internationally syndicated blogger, civil liberties activist and the notorious editor and publisher of The Multiracial Activist (ISSN: 1552-3446) and The Abolitionist Examiner (ISSN: 1552-2881). Landrith can be reached by email at: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or at his personal website/blog.
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 27 February 2013 )

Wars Have Unpredictable and Dangerous Collateral Effects

Blog, Commentary and Articles - Foreign Policy, Military and War

Written by Ivan Eland

Thursday, 12 July 2012

Wars Have Unpredictable and Dangerous Collateral Effects
July 12, 2012
Ivan Eland

The recent bloodless (referring to American blood—the most important to U.S. policymakers) overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya has been touted as a low-cost model for future U.S. military interventions. The recent Libyan election is said to have vindicated America’s “leadership from the rear” strategy—supporting indigenous armies on the ground and allied air forces with key items such as air-defense suppression, intelligence, and logistics. Yet U.S. military assistance to the rebellion in Libya is having unintended ill effects, much as have past U.S. interventions.

In 1953, the United States and Britain overthrew the democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh, who threatened Western oil interests, and replaced him with the autocratic shah. Instead of worrying about Iran’s economic development, the shah used his oil profits to buy huge quantities of American weapons. Such neglect of his people got him overthrown by radical Islamists in the late 1970s. Iraq’s Sunni ruler, Saddam Hussein, was threatened by Iran’s new Shi’ite revolutionary government and believed it to be weak. Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 and was helped by the United States and other Western powers, who were also threatened by the Islamist Iran. With such Western assistance, Iraq won the war in 1988 and became the dominant power in the region. Saddam then invaded neighboring Kuwait, leading to two wars with the United States, including a U.S. invasion and costly war against recalcitrant guerrillas. In the process, the United States shattered the Iraqi government and army, thereby severely weakening the only force balancing Iran in the region. Thus, U.S. policy over a 60-year period built up a future foe, made it hostile, and then inadvertently strengthened it. In addition, in the absence of a strong leader, Iraq, an artificial country containing three major quarreling ethno-sectarian groups, may yet fall back into civil war.

In Afghanistan, in what seemed like a great way to “give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam,” the United States, during the Cold War in the 1980s, provided many weapons to the Sunni Islamist Afghan mujahedeen, who eventually kicked out Soviet invasion forces. This seeming success then backfired as a subsequent Afghan civil war resulted in victory by a brutal radical Islamic movement called the Taliban. The former mujahedeen also morphed into al-Qaeda, which was sheltered by the Taliban and became the most severe threat to the U.S. homeland since the British invasion during the War of 1812. Thus, after al-Qaeda attacked the United States on 9/11, the United States not only decided to take out al-Qaeda, but also opted—ignoring three British failed invasions of Afghanistan and the aforementioned Soviet debacle—to once again invade, occupy, and try to remodel that country. It failed miserably and is now trying to extricate itself gracefully from the quagmire. In addition, the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan has destabilized Pakistan by fueling rising Islamist militancy and creating a new insurgency—the Pakistani Taliban—that now threatens the nuclear-armed government of Pakistan.

As these past examples indicate, when the dogs of American intervention are unleashed, we don’t know where they’ll end up. In Libya, after Gadhafi’s fall, there are armed militias galore, tribal friction, and tensions between the oil-rich east and more populous west. Gadhafi had many weapons caches and many of those arms, along with fighters from Libya, have ended up in more populous neighboring Mali. Islamist militants, including al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, have taken over the cities of northern Mali. Thus, a “humanitarian” intervention in Libya to save lives may indirectly result in more lives being lost in an escalating civil war in Mali.

And the perceived success of the Libyan episode has emboldened breakaway factions in other countries and encouraged them to attempt to attract Western military interventions. In the end, this could lead to even more deaths. For example, in Syria, peaceful protests have morphed into a violent rebellion, which is trying to put pressure on the United States to intervene.

President Barack Obama, in an election year, is now trying to avoid a much riskier military intervention in Syria. But in this effort, the ghosts of Libya are haunting his efforts. Russia, Syria’s principal ally, was burned by the United States in the U.N. Security Council during the Libyan intervention. The Russians and Chinese acquiesced to a Security Council resolution to create and enforce a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians. Under this cover, the United States and its Western allies expanded the mission to include overthrowing Gadhafi. As a result, Russia has been reluctant to support any resolution or behind-the scenes agreement that demands that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad should leave power. Russia has supported Assad and has not pressured him to leave, not so much because it sells him weapons or because it has a pathetically small naval station in Syria, but does so as a pushback to U.S. meddling in conflicts around the world.

In conclusion, those who advocate using the Libyan episode as a future model for U.S. intervention, especially in Syria, have overlooked its harmful unintended consequences.

Ivan Eland
Send email

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.

Full Biography and Recent Publications

New from Ivan Eland!
NO WAR FOR OIL: U.S. Dependency and the Middle East
The grab for oil resources has been a major factor behind many conflicts and military deployments because of its perception as a strategic commodity. This book debunks the notion that oil is strategic and argues that war for oil is not necessary to secure the flow of petroleum. Learn More »»

The Drug War in Mexico: Corruption Is Better Than Slaughter

Blog, Commentary and Articles - Civil Liberties: Drug Prohibition

Written by Ivan Eland

Monday, 09 July 2012

The Drug War in Mexico: Corruption Is Better Than Slaughter
July 9, 2012
Ivan Eland

Will Enrique Peña Nieto, the new president of Mexico from the corrupt and authoritarian Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), go easy on drug traffickers? Let’s hope so.

During his campaign, Mr. Peña Nieto vowed to battle murder, extortion, kidnapping, and other violent crimes but said little about going after drug traffickers. During its unrivaled 70-year reign that ended in 2000, the PRI was accused of cutting deals with crime syndicates to keep the peace. Although such agreements were corrupt, perhaps corruption is better than the militarized U.S.-backed anti-drug war of Felipe Calderón, the current Mexican president. Fatigue with that costly war, which has killed more than 50,000 Mexican civilians in recent years, played a significant role in Mexicans bringing back a venal and autocratic PRI that they had thrown out of office 12 years before.

But any president of Mexico must pay heed to the wishes of the colossus of the north, and Washington is already suspicious that Peña Nieto will ease the pressure on drug traffickers and stop taking down cartel chieftains.

Of course, most Mexicans would be happy if Peña Nieto did exactly that. At the behest of the United States, Calderón’s use of the Mexican military and its harsh tactics against the drug lords has merely led to the slaughter of Mexican civilians without putting much of a dent in the long-term flow of drugs into the United States.

This militarized bloodbath is causing some in the United States—even a few government officials—to privately reassess the failed U.S. war on drugs. As during alcohol prohibition from 1919 to 1933 in the United States, organized crime has been given a big boost; continued demand for the illegal product exists and so do huge profits to be made off excessively high prices that could be charged for the dangers of smuggling it to customers past government authorities.

Mexicans correctly believe that the root of the problem lies in the continued demand for illegal drugs in the United States. If the U.S. government did away with a victimless crime and allowed adults the right to put into their bodies what they wanted, demand for drugs would go up somewhat but the violence would plummet. No one would pay elevated prices to gangsters—Mexican, Colombian, American, or otherwise—to traffic legal substances. Society could then treat drug addiction as a medical problem instead of a crime, with education campaigns and treatment programs reducing the long-term demand for drugs. Finally, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, but that’s because many of the people in prison are being held unnecessarily for drug-related crimes—that is, jailed for consuming or trafficking substances that shouldn’t be illegal in the first place. Legalizing drugs would eventually lower the U.S. prison population by getting rid of those faux crimes and also by reducing the robberies and violence associated with stealing money to pay inflated prices for what is now illegal contraband.

So until the United States adopts the enlightened policy of drug legalization—don’t hold your breath—the Mexican government is faced with the unpalatable options of knuckling under to U.S. pressure to continue the rising slaughter and instability of a militarized drug war or cutting a deal with cartel leaders to ensure peace. As bad as it seems, the latter alternative is better for Mexico and the United States. More drugs may get through into the United States, but the killing and instability just south of the U.S. border, which is coming north, would be reduced.

In short, corruption is better than slaughter. The U.S. government took this route in Iraq by paying off its enemies, the Sunni Awakening guerrillas, to stop attacking American forces and turn on their even more violent al-Qaeda brethren. Violence was reduced, and the U.S. military was able to extricate itself with honor from a bloody quagmire. Similarly, Peña Nieto may adopt the traditional way the PRI has dealt with drug lords in Mexico, reaching agreements with them to ensure the peace and extracting the Mexican military from an equally bloody and fruitless fight. If Peña Nieto pursues this course, the U.S. government will likely unfairly and hypocritically criticize him for doing so.

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 36 - 40 of 3363

[ Back ]

Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left

Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com