Even the most important witnesses get betrayed when the powerful are threatened

The New York Times front page story by Ginger Thompson reports on the saga of Luis Octavio López Vega. For years, Lopez has been living underground in the U.S. He is former chief of police of Zapopan, a city of more than 1,000,000 near Guadalajara, and top aide to former Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebolllo (praised by ONDCP Director Barry McCaffrey for his bullet-proof integrity before he was arrested for his ties to a cartel).  Lopez was a key DEA informant. As the investigation of Gutierrez commenced, Lopez realized that he was a target for execution and went underground. The U.S. helped his family escape to the U.S.

For a dozen years, top Mexican officials have been trying to get the U.S. to arrest Lopez to turn him over to them, where it is likely, the Times suggests, that he will be tortured and killed. Yet the U.S. Marshals Service raided him -- but he spotted the surveillance and fled. He has been hiding out ever since.

This extensive report confirms our worst suspicions that considerations of justice are abandoned when powerful politicians and powerful criminals feel threatened, and when the trade and political interests of the U.S. may be affected. In this account, the decisions of the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of State about protecting a man who was offered protection by the U.S. for his life-endangering cooperation are swayed by political considerations. When does a government betray someone it has offered to protect?

Drug enforcement is such a peculiar species of law enforcement. No matter how zealously anti-drug agents, prosecutors or officials might be, they all recognize at some level, because the drug trade is so large and perpetual, that any individual load of drugs or any individual defendant is ultimately insignificant. Considerations of national security, national economics, and national politics -- if pressing -- will always trump any investigation.

Is this a form of corruption? Or is it a necessary exercise of discretion? Is letting a cartel leader go for reasons of state legally or morally different than letting a juvenile street dealer go for reasons of compassion and retaining the human capital of a community?

DEA Fact #1

This is part one of a multi-part effort to examine the "facts" presented in the DEA guide to "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization."

Fact #1 states, "We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts."

The data and statistics supporting a fact like this should be accurate and credible. Yet a discrepancy quickly arises. Page four of the document states:

"To put things in perspective, less than 5 percent of the population uses illegal drugs of any kind. Think about that: More than 95 percent of Americans do not use drugs. How could anyone but the most hardened pessimist call this a losing struggle?"

On the next page, the following graph is presented:



Clearly, this leaves the reader confused as to whether 5% or 7% of Americans use drugs - a difference which would translate into millions of more drug users. This document is six years old, and it's been reviewed by many others, so if I am missing something obvious that makes both statistics valid then please correct me. Interestingly, Josh from AboveTheFlat.com further deconstructs the accuracy of the 95% number and suggests the actual drug use rate is much higher.

From LEAP's perspective, it is misleading to suggest that "now is not the time to abandon our efforts." A shift in drug policy would not mean the effort and energy put into reducing drug use would disappear. The effort from law enforcement would still be there. But it would be focused in a more humane, more productive and less harmful direction.