The "death of newspapers" has drawn powerful political interest.
Troubled by the possible shuttering of his hometown paper, Sen. John Kerry reached out to the Boston Globe on Tuesday, then called for Senate hearings to address the woes of the nation's print media.
Doing what Jawhn does best -- natter ...
"To the Boston Globe family," the Massachusetts Democrat wrote to employees of the 132-year-old publication, which faces closure unless it can come up with $20 million in union concessions to parent company the New York Times by May 1. The Globe is losing $1 million a week.
"America's newspapers are struggling to survive, and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount," Mr. Kerry said.
Where do we have 'diversity of opinion' in the MSM? I seem to have missed that ...
Most newspapers are in similar circumstances as the industry struggles with the worst job losses on record and plummeting revenues. Faced with competition from online and broadcast sources, all papers now seek multimedia ways to deliver their news and monetize their content.
"I am committed to your fight, committed to your industry and committed to ensuring that the vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear," Mr. Kerry told the Globe employees.
Lawmakers are witnessing the crisis firsthand. Press watchdogs who once prowled Capitol Hill are disappearing, replaced by special-interest publications and foreign news organizations.
In February, a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in the past two decades, the number of American news organizations accredited to cover Congress fell by two-thirds - from 564 in 1985 to 160 in early 2007. More cutbacks have been made since then.
Washington once hosted 71 newspaper bureaus; now there are 25. Policy-influencing, special-interest publications and foreign newspapers, however, have multiplied. For example, in 1968, there were 160 foreign journalists in Washington. Now there are nearly 800.
Mr. Kerry, who has called for Senate hearings on "the future of journalism" to begin May 6, also cited the negative influence of "agenda-driven reporting" and media conglomerates.
The new complexities of the marketplace have drawn other interest. Seeking to parse some potential policy solutions, the House Judiciary courts and competition policy subcommittee held a hearing Tuesday addressing fair competition, new business models and other alternatives for the troubled industry.
"The decline of print newspapers doesn't mean the decline of journalism. What we need to have for journalism is journalists, and lots of them," testified Ben Scott of the Free Press, a nonpartisan group for media reform.
"Hire me! Me! Me-e-e-e-e!!"
"But we should avoid the temptation to turn to policies that resemble bailouts. We should not relax the antitrust standards to permit further consolidation. The most consolidated newspaper companies are among those in the worst financial shape today," he said.
Last month, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland Democrat, introduced the Newspaper Revitalization Act" that would allow papers to operate as nonprofits, prompting many analysts to examine the political implications of the tactic.
#6
The only diversity of opinion is on Fox News - which is why they are kicking ass of MSNBC and CNN combined. Just about everyone else is as diverse as Pravda.
For those that think Fox leans towards the Republicans, examine where the political contributions went. Though it does look like Fox News discourages political donations, I think in the 2004 election Fox News went 60-40% in favor of Dems. Also posted to the wrong, but related thread.
Posted by: ed ||
04/22/2009 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"America's buggy whip manufacturers are struggling to survive, and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at Globe Buggy Whips, Inc., there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of whip selection and whip styles are paramount," Mr. Kerry said.
#9
It will be fun to watch the First Amendment challenges to whatever the Congress vomits up/upchucks/hurls enacts.
The Supremes should have fun deciding the meaning of "no law" and "abridging" and "the press", and maybe even take another whack at the anti-trust conflicts with all of the above.
President Barack Obama has in the last few days, accelerated a process of dismantling the American security apparatus designed to protect American citizens at home and abroad. The administrations disclosure of the techniques used to gather critical intelligence in order to stop terrorist attacks has been made to the world, our enemies and the terrorists. Dismantling of Guantanamo has begun. The president has condemned the entire security process that was put into place after 9/11 as being not in accord with the principles of our nation. Have we forgotten already? Has the President forgotten?
What was the historical basis for Guantanamo and the interrogation techniques used there?
On Aug. 6, 2008, a military jury in Guantanamo convicted Osama bin Ladens driver of supporting terrorism but acquitted him on charges of conspiring with al-Qaida to wage murderous attacks in the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War II.
The American Civil Liberties Union called the tribunal at Guantanamo a betrayal of American values from start to finish and a monumental debacle of American justice. Human rights groups and civil liberties groups condemned the process. The New York Times condemned not only the process but the imprisonment of the terrorist suspects as enemy combatants. In his campaign, candidate Obama used similar language.
In the face of an unbroken history of attacks on U.S. diplomatic, military and civilian personnel marking the years prior to 9/11, Guantanamo was established as an intelligence gathering detention facility. What triggered that decision?
Seventeen American citizens were killed by a truck bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. Individuals identified as members of Hezbollah al-Hejaz exploded a fuel truck adjacent to an eight story building (Khobar Towers) on June 25, 1996. The building housed United States Air Force personnel from the 440th Wing), a deployed rescue squadron. In all, 19 U.S. servicemen were killed and 372 were wounded in that attack.
The first World Trade Center bombing occurred Feb. 26, 1993, when a car bomb was detonated below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City killing six people and injuring 1,042. The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed of al-Qaida.
Marine Corps Lt. Colonel William Huggins was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah while serving with a U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon in 1988. United States diplomats George Moore and Cleo Noel were murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum on March 1, 1973. Richard Welch, CIA station chief in Athens, was assassinated by the November Group in 1975. Rodger Davies, U.S. ambassador to Cyprus, was assassinated in Nicosia in1974. Adolph Dubs, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan was kidnapped and killed by Islamic terrorists in 1979. Francis E. Meloy Jr., U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon was assassinated in 1978.
William Buckley, CIA station chief in Beirut, Lebanon was kidnapped and murdered by the Islamic Jihad in 1984. Capt. William Nordeen, defense attaché in Athens, was gunned down in cold blood in1988. Navy Capt. George Santos was assassinated by the November terrorist group in Greece in 1983. American Consulate employees Gary Durell and Jacqueline Van Landingham were gunned down in Karachi, Pakistan in 1995. Twelve Americans were killed in the US embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya in 1988. The attack responsibility was claimed by al-Qaida.
The USS Cole suffered a suicide bombing attack against it on Oct. 12, 2000 while it was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden. Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 others were injured in the blast. The attack was organized and directed by Osama bin Ladens al-Qaida terrorist organization and carried out by suicide bombers Ibrahim al-Thawr and Abdullah al-Misawa.
On Sept. 11, 2001, a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaida hit the United States. Terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the building, causing both buildings to collapse within two hours, destroying at least two nearby buildings and damaging others.
The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Somerset County, after passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft attempted to retake control of their plane, which was said to have been heading for The White House. There were no known survivors from any of the flights. More than 2,900 people died in the attacks. Another 24 were missing and presumed dead.
The U.S. government responded to these repeated acts of murder with a new vigor and determination. We declared a War on Terrorism and launched an invasion of Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaida terrorists. Many other nations also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers.
The NATO council declared that the attacks on the United States were considered an attack on all NATO nations and, as such, satisfied Article 5 of the NATO charter. Within the United States, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, creating the Department of Homeland Security, representing the largest restructuring of the U.S. government in contemporary history.
Congress also passed the Patriot Act, stating it would help detect and prosecute terrorism and other crimes. Numerous countries, including the United Kingdom, India, Australia, France, Germany, Indonesia, China, Canada, Russia, Pakistan, Jordan, Mauritius, Uganda and Zimbabwe introduced anti-terrorism legislation and froze the bank accounts of businesses and individuals they suspected of having al-Qaida ties.
Thousand of Americans have been killed in this declared war against us. NATO declared it an attack on all nations. The President didnt act alone. Congress passed the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act. The United Kingdom, India, Australia, France, Germany, Indonesia, China, Canada, Russia, Pakistan, Jordan, Mauritius, Uganda and Zimbabwe introduced anti-terrorism legislation. The United States responded to the attacks by declaring a War on Terrorism.
Guantanamo was set-up to detain, interrogate and process known terrorists and enemy combatants. The Department of Defense and the CIA, acting with presidential and congressional authority under the Homeland Security and Patriot Acts directed and authorized interrogation techniques which had a historical basis in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.
Since the passage of these laws and the implementation of authorized interrogation techniques, dozens of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, diplomats and civilians have been thwarted. There have been no successful attacks in the U.S. or on U.S. personnel serving overseas.
President Obama is now dismantling this security system and in the process, apologizing to the world for the measures the U.S. implemented to protect itself. His characterization of the process sounds as if it was written by the terrorists themselves. Additionally, Congress continues to threaten criminal prosecution of Justice department lawyers and CIA personnel who participated in this successful program to protect the U.S.
During the entire period of years that this dis-honor roll of murder and horror took place, during this entire chain of evil events, during all the funerals and grieving by Americans for Americans during this on-going declared war against America, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and The New York Times remained silent. There were no cries of shame directed at the terrorists for killing babies , women and children. There were no calls for justice against these murderers and assassins. There was no cry that these behaviors were a betrayal of human values.
Nothing.
A shameful silence enveloped this organization with the oxymoronic name, American Civil Liberties Union. But they did rush to the defense of Muslims in the U.S. being investigated by the FBI and they now scream of the inhumanity of waterboarding They have sued to disclose the internal policy memos of the U.S. intelligence efforts. The real shame of Guantanamo is that President Obama has taken a position condemning and apologizing to the world for our self-protective efforts. Will we now be safer? Will the terrorists be moved by the presidents mea culpas and cease all murderous operations against us? If that isnt the audacity of hope, what is?
#1
I think the Dems are playing with fire. This was done solely to embarrass GWB.
I shudder to think what the backlash will be if, and I hope not, we ever have another 9/11 type terrorist attack on the US.
While I hope it never occurs again, these actions almost guarantee that we will be attacked again in a horrific manner.
I wonder what kind of grand rhetoric this moron will have to explain away these actions after one of our cities either disappears or is rendered uninhabitable for centuries?
The CIA might as well bring all of their field agents home and let them play crossword puzzles if this action is indicative of how the Obama administration wants to protect us from the Islamofascist nut jobs that are out there plotting every day to destroy us.
Thank you NYT, Boston Globe and LATimes for all of your sabotage and leftist twisted journalism. You were so invested in trying to make GWB look bad that you forgot our national security should be more important than cheap partisan politics.
Posted by: James Carville ||
04/22/2009 10:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
All of this make me feel conflicted.
part of me says 'We're fighting animals! We gotta do what we gotta do to protect Americans'
the other part of me says 'We accused and convicted Japanese of warcrimes.. one of the damning accusations was waterboarding.'
I guess the conflict merges with an old saying 'Honor is for those who can afford it.'
this one also hits me pretty hard
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benj Franklin
So.. Can we afford to uphold American values with all of the horror our enemies will inflict. Or do we dive into the muck?
What do you guys think? Muck or Honor?
What America do you want to live in? If you choose Muck, is the American dream dead?
Life is not that black and white. We kill in wartime, we burn people alive with sticky stuff that creates great pain and suffering, we blast white phos onto targets creating severe pain, suffering and death. Nearby women and children get caught up in it too. This is real life, no nice, not pretty, but very real and not a crime.
The "muck" your talking about is whosale torture that the Japanese soldiers performed unchecked and on a daily basis to most every captive in their control. What we are talking about here with waterboarding is select individuals questioned in a way that is only frightening and in no way compares to the mass torture, maiming, and executions the Japanese did to their captives for the sake of inflicting pain for pains sake only. This holier than though crap calling every technique torture is just plain amateur hour, study it, learn and then watch how our local police question Americans. If our country allowed troops to torture captives as standard protocol then our nation deserves to fall. But this was not the case. It was very selective to a relative few that held actionable information. It was monitored at the highest levels and authorized on a case by case basis by the president. Hell, a US State judge can sentence someone to death by electrocution, another torture by definition, and our President is not even informed.
Please get the facts straight here on this before you go lumping isolated events with the true war crimes and real human suffering. Otherwise your just another stooge for a political game.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
04/22/2009 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If you knew that a terrorist group had a nuclear weapon and were deploying it in the US AND you apprehended one of the group, what would you be willing to do to that person to prevent the nuclear weapon from being detonated?
Since every terrorist group is actively trying to get a nuke and deliver a nuke to our back yard, every terrorist we question is a potential "ticking bomb" scenario.
Obama is a simple minded and mean spirited moron who will get a lot of people killed.
I wonder how the MSM and all of the Dems in congress will spin this if a terrorist attack occurs that could have been thwarted by "aggressive interrogation"?
Posted by: James Carville ||
04/22/2009 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
49 Pan
I didn't base any of my statements on scale.. so I'm not sure where my facts need to be straightened out.
You'd have to be pretty dumb to think our anti terror efforts match the numbers produced by WWII Japan. Please don't call me dumb. It lowers me and you.
Your other argument was based on combat. Combat is brutal, it's a fight to the death. There is no changing that.
Torturing a helpless prisoner is something else entirely. (apples / oranges.. etc)
James,
Thanks for your response. It's a fair argument.
My crude paraphrase of it would be "Muck, because the risk is too high"
(I'd rather not quibble on their ability to access nukes, so I'll just run with it as is)
I wonder tho, if the most powerful nation in the world, the great experiment, the leader of the free world, the best of the best.. can't afford or no longer believes in American idealism.
How can anyone believe in our 'ideals' when we are so quick to throw them aside?
perhaps we should re-label ourselves as 'the experiment', 'leader of the not-as-free-as-our-founding-fathers', and 'best of the least worst'
#6
when the ineveitable attack occurs, and it will, I hope it is on a blue city. Consequences, and all that. Not trying to be a bastard (for once), just hoping for a learning moment that your vote matters, policies count, national will to defend is important, and your f*cking feelings - as much as they matter in this Obama/Oprah age - can get hurt too
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/22/2009 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
How can anyone believe in our 'ideals' when we are so quick to throw them aside?
You have ideals when you can afford them.
At the time of the 9/11 attacks, American intelligence capabilites were stunted. Perhaps a better term would be 'damaged'. That was acceptable, given the then-conditions and attitudes of the population and the government.
I'll stop here. I was going to go into more detail, but I sense given your posts, that it'd be like explaining pastel hues to a blind man.
#8
there is no muck to dive into. There are no helpless prisoners being waterboarded, 90% of them didn't just end up in custody while herding their goats. If mistakes happen we are still the only country on earth that does its best to fix them.
American idealism & "honor" is given to those who are captured in uniform. Barbarians committing acts of savagery out of uniform get no such luck. Waterboard the shit out of them. It doesn't diminish us one bit to do it, it would make us fucking idiots no to.
We ran a version of this yesterday, and we're running it today just to make sure everyone sees it.
US President Barack Obama has left open the possibility of prosecuting officials who wrote CIA memos allowing harsh interrogation techniques. It would be up to the attorney general whether to prosecute, Mr Obama said.
That could truly sunder the body politic ...
The memos detailed a range of methods the CIA could use on terrorism suspects under the Bush administration.
The methods were not torture, though they came hard up against the line. What the memos show, and what the media and Democrats (but I repeat myelf) don't say, is that the Bush administration people did a fair bit of hand-wringing and soul-searching about what was and wasn't permissible.
Mr Obama had said he would not use anti-torture laws to prosecute CIA personnel who relied in good faith on legal opinions issued after 9/11.
He's just going to ruin their reputations in a 'Truth Commission' hearing and their finances by forcing them to 'lawyer-up'.
The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says the president's comments marked a change of tone amid growing pressure from the Democratic Party not to rule out potential prosecutions.
Just remember, what goes around comes around. If the Dhimmis want to criminalize policy decisions, there will be people in 2013 who will be urging President Palin to do the same ...
"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws," Mr Obama said.
So the 'progressive' Dhimmis have brought the heat, and as usual Bambi is folding like a lawn chair ...
He also said he could support a congressional investigation of the issue if it was conducted in a bipartisan way.
Which is political speak for having it all done by and for Democrats. Don't expect anyone to grill Nancy Pelosi on her role.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had previously said in a television interview that the administration did not want to pursue those who "devised policy".
Understanding, as he does, that he himself could be forced to lawyer-up someday ...
Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has said the techniques produced results. He has called for the release of additional documents that he said would show what the techniques yielded.
To which the Dhimmis demanded that Dick shut up, rather than release the additional documents. Tells you something right there.
On Thursday, when the memos were released, Mr Obama said CIA personnel working from Bush administration legal opinions would not be prosecuted. His comments drew criticism from human rights organisations and UN officials, who say charges are necessary to prevent future abuses and in order to hold people accountable.
All the usual suspects chimed in right on cue ...
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Mr Obama said the episode involved a "host of very complicated issues".
Meaning, he doesn't understand them and the Teleprompter wasn't loaded with a canned answer ...
An investigation would be acceptable, he said, "outside of the typical hearing process" and with "independent participants who are above reproach".
Glenn Greenwald, Markos Moulitsas, and Oliver 'Smirky' Willis come to mind ...
He added: "As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back.
"I do worry about this getting so politicised that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."
So then tell your people to shut up and get on with business ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Please do this, Obamnation.
Please set your own administration up for prosecutions when Obama's term ends.
#2
Absolutely outstanding annotations, Steve. Especially the bit about not understanding the issues. This is a guy who allegedly focused on con law at HLS, and yet talks about "positive rights" lacking in the Constitution. He was totally unimpressive the first time I met him, and my take was sound, it appears. No there there.
Badanov, I share some of your "Bring.It.On" views.
But only if such a catastrophically ill-advised (and still unlikely) move FINALLY motivated members of Dubya's administration to remove the duct-tape and defend/refute/educate? Or others? Are there any career officers sufficiently outraged and shamed by the illegality and analytical buffoonery of select players in the "intelligence community" in their jihad to defend the genocidal despotism of Iraq and its satanic orphans to, uh, actually speak up?
As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back
As a general matter, it's hard to pick which failing of this obviously unfit and inexperienced mediocrity has been most spectacular. But there's little doubt about which stunts have been the most unAmerican and un-presidential: the bizarre, relentless, class-less (and, of course, substantively baseless) bashing of his predecessor. We're so far past "orwellian" and the inability of our current vocabulary to capture the nature of the unfolding spectacle, I don't know how to describe that quote above. Just savor it, remind yourself that THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING, and marvel and the wonders and mysteries of human existence.
#5
The Rubicon moves ever closer. The fools doing this need to ask one fundamental question about the 'consent of the governed' - who is willing to [literally] die [give the last full measure of devotion] for your retention of power? However, they're beyond the concept in their own little fantasy world. Keep pushing.
#6
Yes Gladys, it certainly looks that way, or was there ever any sadness about 9/11 to begin with? With all of the worldwide apolgies being issued of late, could it be as many suspect? Has Jeremiah Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" been the administration's foreign policy theme all along.
Aside from the legal aspects, "lawyering up", potential court battles, etc, of the US Intelligence participants, former administration officials, USDOJ, and others, there is an even more troubling second order effect to all of this madness. We have lost forever, an intelligence collection capability that probably saved many American lives.
#10
Hmm.... The President isn't leaving himself an exit plan. Maybe that's because he doesn't plan to leave.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
04/22/2009 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#11
We are getting closer and closer to a banana republic every day (and I ain't talking about the overpriced retail outlet).
If any of the clowns who voted in this disaster are reading this, thank you so very much. Now please go celebrate Earth Day by rendering yourself carbon neutral.
#12
I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively
Translation: Ok Democrat leaders youve got the green light for your dog and pony shows as long as you budget enough time and resources to pass my boondoggles through congress.
Bottom line: No matter the stakes, its highly doubtful that the DoJ is prepared to take on a constitutionally questionable prosecution of officials who were merely asked to offer their legal opinions. Its even less likely that AG Holder is willing to risk a dustup at Uncle Leons house. However, the O-Team recognizes that with each passing day they retain more ownership of policies both domestic and foreign. So why risk appearing indecisive and weak by changing a policy 180 degrees in less then 48 hours? Call it Risk/Benefit Chicago style. They placate the Left and continue their distractions by flying the specter of the evil Bush era. Cant you just hear Rham now? Its a Twofer...Bayybee!
#13
Is there a bad idea Obama doesn't endorse? The government embezzled the Social Security funds and spent the money, spent years loaning out trillions of dollars to people who could never have paid the loans, bankrupted the country, and now wants to run a politically correct intelligence service. If Obama is not really careful, voters will decide the government is no better than criminals.
#14
- When captured, you are not allowed to go to the rest room, you must pee in your pants.
- When you arrive at our facilities and must go to the restroom, you will do so in a room that has a window where everyone can watch you go to the rest room.
- By the way, we WILL take your blood. And if you do not cooperate, we WILL take your blood by force to determine if you are a bad guy.
CIA? No, various police departments in Texas, DWI task forces.
#16
Mr Obama had said he would not use anti-torture laws to prosecute
He did'nt say he would not have hearings and smear the Bush admin in public. A kangaroo court is much more valuable leftie PR than a real trial. He also did not rule out human rights violations, civil rights violations, etc...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
04/22/2009 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Is prosecution not a bit Ex Post Facto?
Posted by: Mike N. ||
04/22/2009 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
#18
For better or worse Bush's fundamental decision on policy after 9/11 was in favor of liberation and therapy for the arab-islamic world, not war, punishment and retribution. He even declined to clearly name the enemy in order to protect the feelings of Muslims.
Bush got away with this decision because, as a Republican, he enjoyed a high level of trust on matters of defense. However, had there been a series of additional attacks on the continental US, even Bush would have been forced to swiftly crush and punish Afghanistan (and not only Afghanistan) even at the cost of horrific casualties among the enemy's civilian population.
Whether Bush's decision was wise or not, preventing new attacks at all costs (even using "torture") was the price to be paid for largely sparing the enemy.
Posted by: Andy Gravirt4836 ||
04/22/2009 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#19
What a bunch of damn preening, politiking, and peacocking for the sake of politics going on in the administration. I wish our elected officials would get real and do some useful friggin work in Washington.
#20
If he does this, and I think he will (with a wink and a nod to the DOJ, whom he'll try to pin the decision's responsibility upon) and we are hit again in a meaningful way, then he is going to have his feet in fire. The Tea Parties will look like a neighborhood social.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The "death of newspapers" has drawn powerful political interest. 
