Are they serious?

The U.S. government made a big show of FINALLY going after the source of the guns that gangsters here are using to scare off the tourists…

… but what they’re not saying is that they aren’t prosecuting the people.  While I’m all in favor of protecting the rights of the accused, I’ve yet to see any of these gun runners — or dealers — actually found guilty of more than minor state charges.

Milenio:

Phoenix, Arizona.- A judge yesterday threw out the penal charges against the reputed owner of a Phoenix armory, charged with providing arms to Mexican drug trafficking cartels.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, Robert Gottsfield, determined that the evidences presented by the prosecutor was insufficient to find  the defendant guilty, based on  a legal technicality.

For lack of evidence, Gottsfield declared George Iknadosian, who faced 21 counts, innocent*.

Iknadosian, 47 years old, was accused to selling more than 700 fire arms to “straw buyers”, knowing full well that the armament, including A-K 47,s were bought for narcotics traffickers in Mexico.

The “straw buyers” had plead guilty to  falsely signing declarations that the weapons were for their own use at the time of the purchase, and had cooperated with the prosecution.

* I’m aware that the American legal system presumes innocence, and the judge doesn’t declare one “innocent”, but only admits you are “not guilty,” but this is the way it’s reported in our newspapers.

Eduardo Medina Mora and Fernando Francisco Gómez-Mont Urueta (the Procuraduría General de la República and Secretaría de Gobernación) are scheduled to meet with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano next week in Cuernavaca to avoid discussing the problem.

According to a Reuters report by Randall Mikkelson (which spelled Gomez-Mont’s apellado paterno wrong, but then I tend to forget it’s one of those double-barreled names too), Napolitano and Holder will not consider any serious measures to control the U.S. arms trade:

This week, neither Holder nor Napolitano revealed any intention of offering an assault-weapons ban to their Mexican counterparts.

“I think what we’re going to do is try to enforce the laws that we have on the books,” Holder told reporters on Wednesday.

The purpose of this meeting, instead, seems to be simply justifying what the U.S. probably intends to do anyway… maintain military levels by moving resources from the unpopular intervention in Iraq, and transferring resources to the United States/Mexican border:

… officials in Washington are drawing up new contingency plans for sending military troops if needed to U.S. areas affected by drug violence.

“The only issue is at what level do we [invoke] in the worst-case scenarios, and we’re not at the worst-case scenarios yet,” she said.

The plans are expected soon, along with a more-immediate border security plan to be announced separately, Napolitano said. She said she did not expect regular military forces to be deployed to any violent scenario. Rather, she said, “the real issue is the National Guard right now.”

In other words, rather than deal with the drugs, guns and money problem the U.S. is going to inflict on border residents on the U.S. side the same “solution” that the Calderon administration has been using in Mexico. Whether on the same scale (the 4000 Mexican soldiers sent to Juarez, given the size of the Mexican army, is the equivalent to sending 41,000 soldiers to El Paso).

Whether U.S. citizens will enjoy the “security” in return for their continued support for the arms industry (and the money laundering and retail narcotics industry) and destroying legitimate business along and across the border remains to be seen.