from the penn-is-mightier-than-the-sword dept.
On Saturday, Rolling Stone published an interview with Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzmán, a day after he was recaptured by Mexican authorities following his escape from Altiplano prison in July and a months long manhunt. The interview was conducted by actor and filmmaker Sean Penn in October, two weeks before El Chapo narrowly avoided authorities and sustained injuries in Sinaloa state. In Sean Penn's own words:
As an American citizen, I'm drawn to explore what may be inconsistent with the portrayals our government and media brand upon their declared enemies. Not since Osama bin Laden has the pursuit of a fugitive so occupied the public imagination. But unlike bin Laden, who had posed the ludicrous premise that a country's entire population is defined by – and therefore complicit in – its leadership's policies, with the world's most wanted drug lord, are we, the American public, not indeed complicit in what we demonize? We are the consumers, and as such, we are complicit in every murder, and in every corruption of an institution's ability to protect the quality of life for citizens of Mexico and the United States that comes as a result of our insatiable appetite for illicit narcotics.
Now, USA Today reports that El Chapo's desire for film fame may have led to his downfall:
The hard work of Mexican law enforcement, the lure of Hollywood glitz and the fame of iconic actor Sean Penn helped drive the triumphant end to a six-month manhunt for the notorious Mexican drug lord dubbed "El Chapo," Mexican officials said.
[...] The first break in the manhunt came when Guzmán sought out producers and actors for a biographical film about his life, Mexico Attorney General Arely Gomez said. It actually was Guzmán's contacts with Penn that led authorities to a Guzmán hiding place in October, Reuters and other media outlets reported. Guzmán fled, but ultimately was nabbed Friday in Los Mochis, a Mexican coastal city of 250,000 in Guzmán's home state of Sinaloa.
Journalists, the White House, and others have savaged Penn for the interview and his sympathetic portrayal of El Chapo:
White House chief of staff Denis McDonough told CNN: "One thing I will tell you is that this braggadocious action about how much heroin he sends around the world, including the United States, is maddening. We see a heroin epidemic, an opioid addiction epidemic, in this country... But El Chapo's behind bars - that's where he should stay."
The Mexican authorities would not say whether they would investigate Penn and a Mexican actress, Kate del Castillo, who apparently arranged the interview. Mr McDonough declined to answer a question about whether the US would hand Penn over to Mexico for questioning.
Related Stories
El Chapo Trial: How a Colombian I.T. Guy Helped U.S. Authorities Take Down the Kingpin
In February 2010, an undercover F.B.I. agent met in a Manhattan hotel with a Colombian info-tech expert who had been the target of a sensitive investigation. The I.T. specialist, Cristian Rodriguez, had recently developed an extraordinary product: an encrypted communications system for Joaquín Guzmán Loera, the Mexican drug lord known as El Chapo.
Posing as a Russian mobster, the undercover agent told Mr. Rodriguez he was interested in acquiring a similar system. He wanted a way — or so he said — to talk with his associates without law enforcement listening in.
So began a remarkable clandestine operation that in a little more than a year allowed the F.B.I. to crack Mr. Guzmán's covert network and ultimately capture as many as 200 digital phone calls of him chatting with his underlings, planning ton-sized drug deals and even discussing illicit payoffs to Mexican officials. The hours of Mr. Guzmán speaking openly about the innermost details of his empire not only represented the most damaging evidence introduced so far at his drug trial in New York, but were also one of the most extensive wiretaps of a criminal defendant since the Mafia boss John Gotti was secretly recorded in the Ravenite Social Club.
[...] In a daring move that placed his life in danger, the I.T. consultant eventually gave the F.B.I. his system's secret encryption keys in 2011 after he had moved the network's servers from Canada to the Netherlands during what he told the cartel's leaders was a routine upgrade.
Previously: Sean Penn Interview Reportedly Led to Capture of Mexican Drug Lord
(Score: 4, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Monday January 11 2016, @01:31PM
are we, the American public, not indeed complicit in what we demonize? We are the consumers, and as such, we are complicit in every murder, and in every corruption of an institution's ability to protect the quality of life for citizens of Mexico and the United States that comes as a result of our insatiable appetite for illicit narcotics.
Well, you might be, Sean...
...but I only smoke home-grown American illicit narcotics. U-S-A!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 4, Insightful) by massa on Monday January 11 2016, @02:41PM
They empower killers like Escobar and El Chapo (and Al Capone back in the day).
There will be no drug lords when stupid people stop trying to tell adults which substances the can use or abuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @03:07PM
That's more than a little utopian. In case you haven't heard, a bunch of people have been dying of prescription opiate overdoses. [cnn.com] So even legal drugs lead to a large number of deaths.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 11 2016, @03:40PM
That's more than a little utopian. In case you haven't heard, a bunch of people have been dying of prescription opiate overdoses. So even legal drugs lead to a large number of deaths.
GP had it exactly right, IMHO:
There will be no drug lords when stupid people stop trying to tell adults which substances the can use or abuse.
And those "drug lords" include Big Pharma [wikipedia.org]. Is that dystopian enough for you, friend?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @03:48PM
And those "drug lords" include Big Pharma.
They also include thousands of 'not a drugdealers'. I have dealt with a fair share of these folks. They are fucking scumbags. I would rather walgreens/CVS or 'big pharma' to make money and cut out the douchbag 'not a dealer'. I have seen a 70 year old women say 'I will get my boys to kill you' over 20 bucks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday January 11 2016, @03:57PM
And those "drug lords" include Big Pharma.
They also include thousands of 'not a drugdealers'. I have dealt with a fair share of these folks. They are fucking scumbags. I would rather walgreens/CVS or 'big pharma' to make money and cut out the douchbag 'not a dealer'. I have seen a 70 year old women say 'I will get my boys to kill you' over 20 bucks.
You (unsurprisingly) missed the important part:
If/when we end the idiocy of prohibition, the "fucking scumbags" you dislike won't have a market any more and will need to either get real jobs or start dumpster diving.
Apparently, you're one of those "stupid people," since you don't recognize that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @04:30PM
Big Pharma is vastly more legal and yet there are tens of thousands of people dying each year anyway.
It must be nice to live in a black and white world. Mission accomplished!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 11 2016, @04:43PM
Big Pharma is vastly more legal and yet there are tens of thousands of people dying each year anyway.
It must be nice to live in a black and white world. Mission accomplished!
And when it's all legal, we can use some of the tens of billions spent on "enforcement" for education and treatment. Who'd of thunk it?
Yes, you are a moron.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @05:06PM
> And when it's all legal, we can use some of the tens of billions spent on "enforcement" for education and treatment. Who'd of thunk it?
Because we don't have the money to do that now?
> Yes, you are a moron.
If your definition of "moron" is someone who grew out of juvenile oversimplifications of complex issues, then yeah, I am a fucking moron!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday January 11 2016, @05:56PM
And when it's all legal, we can use some of the tens of billions spent on "enforcement" for education and treatment. Who'd of thunk it?
Because we don't have the money to do that now?
Yes, you are a moron.
If your definition of "moron" is someone who grew out of juvenile oversimplifications of complex issues, then yeah, I am a fucking moron!
Oversimplification? How about some facts?
Since you chose to use CNN as a source, how about this [cnn.com]:
Replace "liquor" with "drugs" and you'll see that we've put ourselves in the same disastrous situation we did with the 18th Amendment [wikipedia.org].
More from the CNN article:
If weakening the rule of law and making ordinary citizens criminals isn't a good enough reason for you, how about the ~US$40 Billion/year savings on enforcement costs, plus another US$46 Billion in tax revenue from regulating and taxing drugs [wikipedia.org]?
What's more, the "hidden" costs (incarceration -- ~US$32,000/inmate, lost economic productivity from those inmates, not just while they are incarcerated, but after they are released their earning potential remains severely limited, economic impacts on communities with a high rate of resident incarceration, etc., etc., etc.) which, while very difficult to be exact, could be upwards of US$500 Million/year. That leaves out the further costs of greater use of government assistance and poorer education outcomes reducing the earnings potential of new generations. I'm sure there are other negative impacts I've left out as well.
Using just a 10-20% of the savings, we could provide treatment on demand and education resources for every *addict* (and 90% of users aren't addicts) in the country. Through treatment and education, rather than criminalization and incarceration, we can significantly reduce the number of people with drug dependencies and enhance our economy, society and the nation's "General Welfare."
Drug prohibition benefits the drug lords and "fucking scumbags" you despise more than anyone else.
What's more, scarce resources are being used for drug enforcement that could be better used to curb murder, rape, robbery and other violent crimes.
<sarcasm>But yes, you're right. I completely oversimplify the problem. I have no nuance or knowledge of the real issues involved.</sarcasm>
If you don't want to be called a moron, educate yourself about what's *really* going on. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass and is smells that way too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @07:59PM
Your entire post is a non-sequitur. Its funny you put so much effort into justifying your decision to completely miss the point. Seems like you've got a lot emotional attachment to a simplistic world-view. Religious much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @05:31PM
So, because legalized drugs can have bad consequences, there's no possible net gain in ending prohibition on the others? I guess this AC is still in Kansas, Toto.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @05:36PM
Another black and white thinker.
You've flipped it. Legalization is insufficient. Just like "liberating" Iraq with barely a thought to what comes afterwards caused all kinds of problems. Internet libertopians don't like to think about what comes after because that's hard. So much easier to say "legalize it!" and trust in the invisible friend in the sky to make it all ok.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @07:37PM
Nope, just someone who can't read your mind. Nowhere in you reply did you make it clear what you were complaining about. Oh, BTW, I'm an atheistic radical leftist, not a libertarian nor do I have any invisible friends in the sky or otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @08:04PM
Nope, you are someone who chose to project your opinion of people you disagree with on my posts rather than read them. The hand-waving absolutism of the people I was responding to was pretty damn clear and has continued to be rationalized. Even picking up new simpleton cheer-leaders like callow.
PS, just because people don't call it "god" doesn't mean they don't have faith in it. The invisible hand of the market is a god to lots of athiests.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday January 12 2016, @01:23AM
No invisible sky daddies or hands for me either.
You claim that those who disagree with you are "oversimplifying" and "black and white thinkers."
You claim that there are some unspecified dangers and issues which make ending prohibition a disaster waiting to happen, and more importantly (apparently to you) makes you right and others wrong.
However, you have yet to make a single argument (other than complaining about the current state of affairs) as to why ending drug prohibition is wrong. I can only assume you are a moron and/or a troll.
So. Make some specific arguments and back them up with data and logic (as I did) or go back under your bridge.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 11 2016, @07:40PM
Legalization is insufficient. Just like "liberating" Iraq with barely a thought to what comes afterwards caused all kinds of problems. Internet libertopians don't like to think about what comes after because that's hard.
So what? We can cross that bridge when we come to it. We already have several examples of legal regulated markets to guide our thinking.
(Score: 2) by CortoMaltese on Monday January 11 2016, @03:10PM
Also It would help if the American government stopped helping them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Alliance [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair [wikipedia.org]
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/is-the-us-government-facilitating-the-sinaloa-cartels-activities [insightcrime.org]
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1?op=1 [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:50PM
Marijuana is Technically and Technically Not an Illicit Narcotic in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Alaska. The State Place Won't do a thing to you, but the Feds might bust down your door. In truth, I think the Federal Government is overreaching as Drugs (Legal or Illegal) weren't mentioned in the constitution or any of it's amendments. So, this should strictly be a State issue.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:52PM
State Police . . . (I should use that preview button more often.)
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @01:34PM
I would not like to be Sean Penn. Either about to be arrested for "aiding and abetting a fugitive", "obstructing justice", etc. OR, about to be taken out on the orders of the leader of one of Mexico's biggest drug cartels. Or both.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Monday January 11 2016, @02:25PM
Considering El Chapo's style, I wouldn't put it past him to wait until Sean goes to jail and then get him inside...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @03:10PM
> Either about to be arrested for "aiding and abetting a fugitive", "obstructing justice", etc.
That is not even on the table. If interviewing a wanted criminal was a crime, everybody who has interviewed Snowden or Assange would be in prison.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 11 2016, @05:23PM
That was my first reaction, however it should be noted that El Chapo reached out to Penn, through a Mexican actress, and that was apparently what compromised his location. Penn's interview may not have compromised El Chapo's position.
If El Chapo does end up in Mexican or American prison forever, he may want to give more interviews in order to get a screenplay written about his life. It wouldn't be outlandish for the two to meet again.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @02:33PM
Penn got the interview by agreeing to submit his piece for el Chapo's review. Rolling Stone published the piece only after getting okayed by el Chapo. It's a funny Hollywood business.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday January 11 2016, @04:05PM
That sort of thing is not unusual. For example, the New York Times made a bit of a splash when it introduced a new policy banning quote approval [politico.com], a practice in which the sources for the article could approve and even edit the quotes of what they said when they spoke to the reporter.
One of the moments that got me paying close attention: I was listening to my local NPR station, and the NPR news broadcast had a quote by the US president (I think it was George W Bush, something about why we needed to invade Iraq). Half an hour later, they switched to using the BBC's news broadcast, which included precisely the same quote, except that there were a bunch of "uhhs" and "umms" and other extras that made him sound stupid which had been edited out of NPR's version and I would never have known about had I not happened to hear the BBC's version. That's one reason I consider at least one foreign news source (e.g. The Guardian, Haaretz, or Al Jazeera) to be essential to understanding what's really going on in the US.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 11 2016, @05:19PM
I wonder what's worse, that he submitted it for El Chapo's review, or that El Chapo or his lawyers decided to make no changes.
If that was for security reasons, clearly it was a waste of time!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @03:22PM
Sean Penn has been selling cocaine for thirty years now [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday January 11 2016, @04:45PM
It's so cheap that the dealers panhandle for spare change.
I see lots of people that sleep right out in the sidewalk in the driving rain. Someday I'll find a dead body.
A while back I had the dubious pleasure of watching up-close and personal while three young men shot up with a shared needle. The stuff they shot was not a white powder but black, gooey tar. They didn't so much dissolve it but mixed it with water from a garden hose that they held in an old fast food soda cup.
At least I'm only mentally ill.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday January 12 2016, @05:54AM
A while back I had the dubious pleasure of watching up-close and personal while three young men shot up with a shared needle. The stuff they shot was not a white powder but black, gooey tar. They didn't so much dissolve it but mixed it with water from a garden hose that they held in an old fast food soda cup.
I won't comment on the hygiene issue, but it's most likely that what you saw was black tar heroin [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @05:14PM
dead man walking?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday January 11 2016, @07:41PM
The comments so far have been utterly predictable and boring. 90% pointless drivel beating the drug legalization horse.
So lemme pee in the punchbowl and try to stir things up.
So to summarize, Sean Penn has been a douchenozzle for a very long time but beloved by the Progs. Cozy up to Fidel Castro and they love you, hug Hugo Chavez too and they want to erect statues or at least revive an otherwise dead acting career. But do a puff piece interview with a drug dealer for Rolling (we lie and are proud of it) Stone and suddenly this White House (and by extension all of the clapping seals in the media) are baying for his head on a pointy stick? Yellow journalism it is, (duh, Rolling Stone) but since when does the United States even "decline to answer" a question about whether we will would hand over a journalist to a third world shithole for something they reported?
Holy. Fucking. Shit! You guys were serious when you switched and went all in on opposition to the 1st Amendment. I hate Sean Penn with the fury of an exploding sun for his past sins but will defend his right to be a douch and say douchy borderline treasonous things unto death because that is what inalienable rights are all about, they are for all or none.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @06:05AM
I don't see a problem with what Sean Penn did. Can someone explain why they do?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:29PM
El Chapo is going to be the new city manager for Yakima, WA.