Drug Raids Targeting Mexico Cartel Nab 300

(CBS/ AP)  Last updated 4:43 p.m. ET

In the largest single strike at Mexican drug operations in the U.S., federal officials on Thursday announced the arrests of more than 300 people in raids across the country aimed at the newest and most violent cartel.

La Familia has earned a reputation for dominating the methamphetamine trade and displaying graphic violence, including beheadings. U.S. officials said the cartel, based in the state of Michoacan, in southwestern Mexico, has a vast network pumping drugs throughout the United States, specializing in methamphetamine.

The arrests took place in 38 cities, from Boston to Seattle and Tampa, Fla., to St. Paul, Minn., in 19 states.

Exclusive CBS News Footage of Drug Raids

Watch the CBS Evening News tonight at 6:30 p.m. ET for Part 2 of Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Part 1: Exclusive: Mexican Drug Cartels in Atlanta

Attorney General Eric Holder pledged to keep hitting La Familia and the cartels responsible for a wave of bloodshed in Mexico. He said the U.S. would attack them at all levels, from the leadership to their supply chains reaching far into the United States.

"To the extent that they do grow back, we have to work with our Mexican counterparts to cut off the heads of these snakes, to get at the heads of the cartels, indict them, try them, if they're in Mexico, extradite them to the United States," Holder said at a news conference.

Michele Leonhart, who heads the Drug Enforcement Administration, said La Familia's power has grown quickly, in part due to its quasi-religious background. DEA officials say the cartel professes a "Robin Hood mentality" of aiding the poor by stealing from the rich. Some drug proceeds are used to give bibles and money to the poor, according to investigators.

The Obama administration has directed more agents, resources and money to fight the cartel's presence along the Mexico-U.S. border. But the arrests over the past two days occurred far beyond that region.

"The problem is not just along the southwest border, it is all over our country now," said Kenneth Melson, head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

In Dallas alone, 77 people were charged by a number of different federal and local law enforcement agencies.

Atlanta has also become a drug hub for Mexican cartels, CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann reported exclusively Wednesday.

Four rival Mexican drug cartels have dug in along Atlanta's interlocking highways, a shipping link to the rest of America.

"I classify Atlanta as a strategic operations center for Mexican organized crime," said Rodney G. Benson, Special Agent in Charge of the Atlanta DEA. "They were able to blend right in and establish metro Atlanta as that strategic trans-shipment point."

On Wednesday and Thursday, more than 3,000 federal agents and police officers carried out arrests in more than a dozen states, as part of a long-running effort that has netted nearly 1,200 arrests over almost four years.

The suspects face a combination of federal and state charges.

In the latest legal assault on La Familia, a New York grand jury has indicted an alleged cartel leader, Servando Gomez-Martinez. He is linked to one of the more brazen acts of cartel violence.

In July, after a dozen Mexican police officers were found murdered, officials say Gomez-Martinez publicly proclaimed his membership in La Familia and said the cartel was locked in a battle with Mexican police.

Many of the new charges are centered on the cartel's methamphetamine distribution, but other charges involve cocaine and marijuana, the officials said.

The officials said states where arrests were made or charges filed include Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington state.

For more information:

Drug Enforcement Administration
Justice Department
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

[Virgil-1]

Wonder how many were judges and police?

[Virgil-1]

Must be election time.An annual event!

[payback108]

No thay had to spend the 25.5 billion plus the 4.0 billion from the recovery act.

[stuart-johns2]

by lovenpeace1 October 22, 2009 5:50 PM EDT

An old adage comes to mind, loven. Life has no quarantees.

[lovenpeace1]

by stuart-johns2 October 22, 2009 6:21 PM EDT
by lovenpeace1 October 22, 2009 5:50 PM EDT

An old adage comes to mind, loven. Life has no quarantees.

**********************

Hey stuart-johns2,

I wish you could visit the little town were I was raised. Traditions are stronger than ever because they have seen what happens when Family Traditions go out the window. See how the Amish enjoy live in Pennsylvania.

[stuart-johns2]

by lovenpeace1 October 22, 2009 5:50 PM EDT

If you think the violence in America's streets over drugs is ANYTHING like the violence of these Mexican Drug Cartels than you must learn a little more about the Cartels modus operandi. Even our worst gangs can't measure up to the level of heinous violence these Cartels do.

Quick example. In Florida a couple of years ago a family was travelling to Oralndo. A husband, a wife and four young children were all brutally murdered on the side oh I-95. They had all been shot "execution style" in the back of the head, even the children and then they each had the Columbia necktie awarded them.

Drug dealers in the USA do drive by's and sometimes unintentionally shoot innocent children and others. But down in Mexico, they do it intentionally. They have absolutely no regard for any human life at all. In America, our gangs at least try to kill only the guilty, not their entire families. Not too often anyway.

[enwr77]

Thank you Federal Offical. More and more I feel we have a government that cares about the people. This is a protection the country needs.

[stuart-johns2]

I have this final statement to make on this subject. Wherein the Constitution of the United States affords it's citizens the right "to establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general Welfare" of its people and wherein our government fails to do that, I do believe the people have the right to get it done with or without the Federal government.

Securing our borders is one of those issues I can apply this to. Not closing our borders has been a sour note with Americans since I was 10 years old. For whatever reasons, our government does not seem to understand that Americans by and large want our borders secure.

The fence is a good start but alas, that too has become a political affair and is stalled. Blame politicians and lawyers.

[lovenpeace1]

by stuart-johns2 October 22, 2009 5:59 PM EDT
"... Securing our borders is one of those issues I can apply this to. Not closing our borders has been a sour note with Americans since I was 10 years old. For whatever reasons, our government does not seem to understand that Americans by and large want our borders secure...."

*******************

Hey stuart-johns2,

Let me give you a little history here. When USA decided to enter WWII, the U.S. President Truman gave an Executive Order that ALL Male Adults between the age of 17 and 36 must join the Military immediately. That is when Woman and Blacks were obligated to work in the factories because of the lack of men. That is when Blacks nolonger worked in the fields and farms. That is when Hispanics, mostly Mexicans, were flown from Latin America to America to work on the fields and farms. My father from explicitly taken from fields inside Mexico to Yuba city California to work on the fields there. This program (braceros) was terminated in 1966. However, that did not stop Mexicans from continuing to come work on the fields because of better pay.

Now, another new issue since then which almost nobody talks about.

Any Civilization which does not reproduce better than it mortality rate becomes extinct over time. This is what is happening right now with the White Population in America. American women favor a Success Career over a Success Family. For Hispanics, the opposite is true.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, LEGAL Hispanics have a very High Positive birth rate and Anglo-Saxon Whites have a High Negative birth rate. Assuming constant current birth rates, LEGAL Hispanics will become the Majority race in the entire USA by the year 2042. However, both Senator McCain and President Obama will legalize all 12 millions Undocumented Aliens (Amnesty). Therefore, the Hispanics Majority status will happened much sooner than 2042.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/13/national/main4349428.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/05/national/main4844040.shtml

[writer10]

hmmm...'very high positive vs very high negative' birthrate. OK...couple of things here lovenpeace...don't try to confuse the masses with myth of trying to justify the booming hispanic population by tossing in they 'favour family over success vs success over family' -Just because a race overpopulates a foreign country doesn't mean they're doing it for 'family values' especially if they don't care about success - that just makes them more needy on the foreign country's welfare system - and furthermore, when you tout the term "LEGAL" hispanics taking population control, how many of those 'legal' hispanics are born here by 'illegal' parents who don't even pay for the services rendered to birth the child...when a child is born in a country by illegal parents, that child should be an illegal immigrant as well - you wanna be legal? jump through the hoops as you would have to in any other country, legally get a job, pay your taxes and pay in to the system that's being robbed every minute of every day

[stuart-johns2]

by lovenpeace1 October 22, 2009 5:16 PM EDT
by stuart-johns2 October 22, 2009 5:11 PM EDT
Love....I believe that would violate the rights of the parents. After all, THEY did'nt break the law.

******************

Ooops, I thought parents were responsible for the behavior of their offsprings. Sorry, that is how I was raised.

by stuart-johns2 October 22, 2009 5:31 PM EDT
Well you are right, they are to an extent. We, as parents, have the moral duty to raise our kids a certain way. But even if they do or do not turn out that way, it is the offsprigs choice and not the parents fault.

And let me add that I agree with you about being responsible for your childrens actions. But in this case we are not talking about children.

Kids under the age of 12 are more likely to be abusing their parents liquor cabinets and medicine cabinets than they are going to the neighborhood Cartel drug dealer for a pound of weed.

[lovenpeace1]

by stuart-johns2 October 22, 2009 5:43 PM EDT
...
Kids under the age of 12 are more likely to be abusing their parents liquor cabinets and medicine cabinets than they are going to the neighborhood Cartel drug dealer for a pound of weed.

**********************

Hey stuart-johns2,

Let me explain further about the 'parenting'.

I remember clearly when I was little that its hurt me a lot to take action that hurt or instill pain to my parents. Where did that pain/hurt come from?

That pain came from my Love inside for my Parents. One of the old traditional saying, where I come from, is "you grow what you seeded".

I even hate to use the word 'Parent' because there is no such thing as parents today. As long as the offspring is feed and got a roof over his head, parents feel like they done their job. WRong!

With Love comes Respects. With Respects comes a sense of a real family. With family comes a great community. With a great Community comes a great state. With a great State comes a Great nation. Love is never that Video Game you just gave your offspring. Just ask your Great Grandparents.

There are real big Disadvantages with Freedom and Liberty when nobody is responsible for this or that because the kid is over 18 years of age.

In other words, if the family is broken, the nation is broken - period.

[responder47]

So the DEA got 300 today... other reports say using 3000 agents wow, after 44mths of detail, hmmm, those numbers add up fast... did it stop any drug usage today? How about drug usage in the future? Cmon we've seen this all before. Sounds like another bunch of Al Capone wannabe's might be off the street but have we addressed the real underlying issue here? Is the issue here that the DEA and the War on Drugs *look* like they are a success and winning? What they took off the street today will be happily replaced within hours by another set of criminals. Marijuana supplies more than 70% of the drug cartel's profits alone. To date, this year alone, we have spent 8.7 billion dollars on marijuana prohibition alone. If we legalized, taxed and regulated it alone it would create a huge reduction in criminal activity simply for lack of black market finances. Existing studies show the rate of addictions will not increase with legalization. If we redirect the resources we have currently investing in Marijuana prohibition and use the tax money from the sales of Marijuana we could use that to create health and education programs designed to reduce all substance abuses and addictions and we most likely would have money left over. Only when we start thinking differently will things change. I see nothing new in this report. We've been doing the same thing now for 70+ years with the same net result every time, more prisoners entering overcrowded prisons. We need to have the start of a sensible drug strategy going forward. NOW not later. Step up to the plate and address the underlying issue and stop spending my tax dollars on this waste of money.

[stuart-johns2]

I think the DEA's intent was not the drugs per se. They are worried about Mexico's extremely violent Cartels making home in the USA. Texas is a good example of why we need to nip this in the bud. They literally have towns - American towns - that have been overrun by these violent thugs. Innocent Americans are dying in their own streets.

Really, this is an invasion by another country, another war that America hears little about. You know, I don't agree with many of the republicans social issues at all but I agree with that posse they have in Texas that goes after illegal aliens. The posses patrols the border. They don't do raids and such. That I would disagree with.

[stuart-johns2]

Just a little side note to clarify things for the Dope Snorter. Take for example the Libertarians.

They have a couple of main beliefs taht are interesting, especially in lieu of today's social/political climate. The Libertarians object to (among other things, of course):

1 - Paternal Legislation. They don't want it. Paternal Legislation is basically when the government feels compelled to pass laws protecting people from themselves. Some Americans agree and some don't. It has it's pros and cons. But think about that in relation to your arguments.

2 - Moral Legislation. The Libertarians are opposed to the government's promotion of ethics and values. I agree with the Libertarians on this score completely. How can anyone, even a preacher, compel anyone to virtue or good maoral standing? They can't.

So the Libertarian stand is that as long as no one else's rights are violated, people have the liberty to do as they please without the threat or coersion of the Federal Government.

I just want to know where you stand on such important beliefs not because I am a Libertarian (I am not) but because I want to see how you can explain your position on the Feds actions against the drug cartels in lieu of certain social/political philosophies.

[stuart-johns2]

Excuse the mis-spellings or typos.

[lovenpeace1]

by stuart-johns2 October 22, 2009 5:29 PM EDT
Just a little side note to clarify things for the Dope Snorter. Take for example the Libertarians.

*****************

Hey stuart-Johns2,

I hate to label this Drug problem a Liberal (libertrians) or Conservative issue. I will not go into the millions of times Conservatives Deeds do not match their preaching.

Liberty and Freedom comes with Responsibilities. What good is Freedom and Liberty without Responsibilities? Without Reponsibilities, you got no freedom and liberty. How many times do we hear "do not drive thru that street because of gangster activities"?

Please! When you remove what Drives us to Try Narcotic Drugs, you lose automatically. Just look at all the Proposed Solutions, Costs and Efforts so far since the 'War on Drugs' by our 1st Bush President in 1989. I remember the political slogan of that time "Let's get Pablo Escobar, the leader of the Medellín Cartel at the time in Columbia, and all of our drug problems will be fixed". Today, we import 8 times more cocaine from Columbia than in 1993 when Pablo was killed.

Also, each year, we get some 300 to 600 in one day in the USA in these drug raids. What heppens? Like someone said in these blogs, you kill one cockroach and 10 cockroaches come out from hiding for the promotion to be the new leader.

Why do these expensive and fatal efforts fail? They fail because you are attacking the Symptons and not the root cause.

The root cause is what makes a person seek for drugs. The drug satisfies something he/she is hungry for. Again, back at the life we parents provide to our children.

[stuart-johns2]

by U_S_Dope_Snorter October 22, 2009 4:07 PM EDT

Here is something I posted some time ago on this very subject. It makes my views clear.


The First Amendment - and the rest of the Bill of Rights - was created to protect the people from having their rights taken away by the government. It doesn't say Americans, it doesn't say citizens, it doesn't say taxpayers or legal residents or law-abiding or God-fearing or any of the other qualifiers - it says The People.
Posted by willcad at 7:47 PM : Jun 8, 2009

I have real reservations if not outright fear of your interpretation of the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution. Your thinking is flawed on several fronts but I need only address one of your fallacies.

Your whole basis of support for your claim that our Constitution covers "all people" , even those who are not citizens is absurd. The preamble to Article 1 clearly states who this Constitution is for, to wit: "We the People of the United States,". No where in the Constitution are any other citizens of any other country addressed. The Constitution is for Americans, legal citizens, the United States not Mexico or El Salvador or Quatamala ect ect.

By your logic, any nations constitution may be imposed on foregn citizens, especially if their's contains the language "We the People". How insane are you????

If our Constitution covers all the people of the world than the entire world is under the government of the United States and needs to start abiding by American law. That is what you are saying. What a scary and pathetic interpretation. I am glad you do not sit on the Supreme Court. Are you really Dick Cheney pulling our leg here?

One more time. I hate to be redundant here but your sentiment is quite alarming. Let's read the last sentence , or part of it, of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It says thus: ....."secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Notice who the Constitution is for? It does not say the United States of Mexico does it? It says clearly that the Constitution and the rights it affords are for the United States, the people of the United States.

I have never heard such a poor and treasonous interpretation of our Constitution. Ray Charles could see how utterly wrong you are. This is absolutely unbelievable that another American (assuming you are) would so trash and mis-construe our most sacred trusts as the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Right's.

You should be begging CBS to remove your post. I would be so embarrassed if it were mine.
Posted by stuart2000 at 4:33 AM : Jun 9, 2009