Hello! Hello, is anyone guarding the border? Think McFly, think!
Posted on 06/21/2005 12:41:10 PM PDT by robowombat
Mexican drug commandos expand ops in 6 U.S. states Feds say violent, elite paramilitary units establish narcotics routes north of border
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 21, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – The ultra-violent, U.S.-trained elite, Mexican paramilitary commandos known as the "Zetas," responsible for hundreds of murders along the border this year, have expanded their enforcement efforts on behalf of a drug cartel by setting up trafficking routes in six U.S. states.
A U.S. Justice Department memo says the U.S.-trained units have recently moved operations into Houston, San Antonio and the states of California, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. They have been operating in Dallas for at least two years, according to the feds.
The original Zetas are former Mexican army commandos, some apparently trained in the U.S. by Army special forces to combat drug gangs. Members of a broader Zetas organization have worked for the Gulf cartel since 2001. They provide firepower, security and the force needed to oversee shipments of narcotics and smuggled aliens along the border and up Interstate 35, which runs through Texas and Oklahoma.
According to FBI officials, the Zetas are attempting to consolidate their grip on the smuggling route along I-35. Anyone caught not paying the 10 percent commission they charge on all cargo – drugs or humans – is killed, according to U.S. and Mexican law enforcement sources.
The Zetas have also brought their cold-blooded killing tactics to the U.S., say federal law enforcement authorities – murdering rival drug dealers and sometimes innocent bystanders.
"Texas law enforcement officials report that the Zetas have been active in the Dallas area since 2003," said the Justice Department intelligence bulletin circulated among U.S. law enforcement officials. "Eight to ten members of the Zetas have been involved in multiple assaults and are believed to have hired criminal gangs in the area ... for contract killings."
The feds say the group has begun establishing its own trafficking routes into the United States and will protect them at any cost.
"U.S. law enforcement have reported bounties offered by Los Zetas of between $30,000 and $50,000 for the killing of Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement officers," the bulletin said. "If a Zeta kills an American law enforcement officer and can successfully make it back to Mexico, his stature within the organization will be increased dramatically."
The Zetas take their name from a radio code once used by its members. While originally there were 68, the Zetas have trained a second generation of commandos – many of them sons and nephews of those trained by U.S. military forces to combat drug trafficking in Mexico. U.S. law enforcement officials say they now number more than 700. Their numbers also include some Mexican army deserters and former federal police officers.
U.S. and Mexican law enforcement authorities say the Zetas operate special training camps in the Mexican states of Tamaulipas and Michoacán, where newly recruited Zetas take intensive six-week training courses in weapons, tactics and intelligence gathering.
The Zetas conducting a bloody war for control of the entire southern border in an effort to secure a monopoly on drug-smuggling and people-smuggling routes, according to law enforcement officials.
At least 600 have been killed this year in a wave of violence waged by the Zetas gang, headed by reputed drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, said Mexico's Attorney General Daniel Cabeza de Vaca.
Among the victims of the U.S-trained Zetas have been other suspected smugglers, hit men, police, soldiers and civilians on both sides of the 2,000-mile border.
There are widespread reports of the commandos making cross-border runs into U.S. territory in military-style vehicles, armed with automatic weapons.
The U.S. government spent millions of dollars training Los Zetas to intercept drugs, some of them coming from Mexico's southern border, before they could reach the U.S. The U.S. government has also sent U.S. Border Patrol agents to Mexico's southern border with Guatemala to train law enforcement and military forces to intercept human smugglers destined to reach the U.S.
Guzman, whose nickname means "Shorty," bribed guards to escape from prison in 2001. He is one of Mexico's most-wanted fugitives. U.S. authorities have offered a $5 million reward for his capture.
The spike in killings and kidnappings in northern Mexico in recent months has made headlines and prompted federal agents and soldiers to patrol the streets of Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas. Recently, a new police chief in Nuevo Laredo was assassinated nine hours after taking office.
Among the 600 people murdered in gang shootings across the Mexican border this year, many were slain execution-style, with their hands tied behind their backs.
The violence along the border has reached a point where some are questioning President Vicente Fox's ability to govern the country.
A senior U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration official, Anthony Placido, told Congress last week that Mexico's corrupt police forces were "all too often part of the problem rather than part of the solution" in fighting the drug cartels.
Fox won office in 2000, ending 71 years of one-party rule and promising to clamp down on the multibillion-dollar cross-border trade in cocaine, marijuana and heroin.
While initially winning praise for putting bosses like Benjamin Arellano Felix and Osiel Cardenas behind bars, his crime-busting reputation has been undermined by the alarming rise in violence, along with evidence Fox has failed to clean up Mexico's police forces.
Faced with the fallout on its southern frontier, the State Department has twice issued travel warnings for the Mexican border, where more than 30 U.S. citizens have been kidnapped.
Mexico's apparent inability to curb the bloodshed on the 2,000-mile border is affecting the financial markets. Banking group HSBC said "staggering" levels of violence could raise questions about Mexico's stability in the run-up to next year's presidential election. Fox is constitutionally barred from running for re-election.
His approval rating has taken a hit, dropping 3 points to 56 percent in a poll in May, with many Mexicans complaining of safety fears, particularly in the north.
Fox has pledged a "mother of all battles" against the drug traffickers he says are openly challenging the government.
"We have taken on the challenge and we will do battle against all the cartels' criminals and against organized crime," Fox said in a speech Friday.
He sent hundreds of troops and federal agents to the states of Tamaulipas, Sinaloa and Baja California last week after suspected drug hit men killed the police chief of Nuevo Laredo.
Despite the move, drug gangs shot and killed at least 11 people across the three states during the week, prompting observers to declare the operation, dubbed "Mexico Secure," a failure.
I'm not comparing illegal drugs to anything. I'm comparing one law to another law. You are the one stated "bash the [lawbreakers] not the law." I am seeing how far you are willing to support that statement. The answer appears to be: not very far at all.
Oh, I see.. You're trolling. Amusing.
Yes, I strongly agree the laws should be changed. I've reasons for my position.
Our present national policy was lunched as a "War on Drugs". I've never seen it as a war because our national leadership, over a span of thirty years has never fought it as a war. If they did, and being most of the "illegal" drugs originate from outside our nation, they would have issued ultimatums to the nations involved that flatly stated stop the flow or suffer a dire consequence. Voters of both political parties continue to elect people that represent them, and I'm convinced by their selections that the voters do not want a "War on Drugs".
Since our leaders, due to the voters, lack the necessary backbone to fight the "war", we need to change national policy to something they might have enough courage to enforce. The laws governing the distribution and sale of alcohol are a good indicator of what our leadership is willing to enforce.
>>I strongly doubt that there are many people who are not deterred by the threat of addiction and fatal overdose but are deterred by legal penalty.<<
Then you would be seriously wrong. I know for a fact this is true, as I have asked people. Most beginning drug users do not think they will become addicted nor do they worry about an overdoes. "That happens to junkies, not to me."
>>How does continuation of use become an increase?<<
Um, if they are in jail, they aren't using it, right? I'm sure there is some drug abuse in prisons, but not to the extent there would be if the prisoners were not prisoners.
>>is their use of alcohol not legitimate<<
Whether it is or not isn't an issue. Alcohol servers other purposes. Cooking. Even to some extent, medicinal, but not due to the intoxication aspect of it.
>>Which makes them a minority<<
I wouldn't bet on that.
And of what is the most a free people should stand for.
Beginning users of what drug? If you mean ANY drug, most users begin with alcohol, and I don't know anyone who as they began to drink alcohol trivialized the risks of heroin. (Ditto for beginning users of marijuana.) If you mean beginning users of heroin, they weren't deterred by illegality so they don't support your claim.
Um, if they are in jail, they aren't using it, right?
So better we pay their room and board than they use drugs? Sounds liberal to me.
Alcohol servers other purposes. Cooking. Even to some extent, medicinal
So despite the extensive damage done to buzz-seeking drinkers and those in their path, the legality of alcohol is justified by these other trivial uses? That's a very weak argument.
All too true.
>>most users begin with alcohol<<
Try marijuana.
>>I don't know anyone who as they began to drink alcohol trivialized the risks of heroin.<<
Whether they trivialized it or not isn't the issue. They didn't plan on becoming addicted to anything. They planned on a high, and that was it. Pretty soon, they have a habit.
>>better we pay their room and board than they use drugs? Sounds liberal to me.<<
Again, this isn't the issue. You suggested there was no link between decriminalization and increased use. That's absurd, and you damn well know it.
>>despite the extensive damage done to buzz-seeking drinkers<<
This is an assumption. And again, you are missing the point: alcohol can be kept entirely non-illicit. Sure it can be abused, but paint, markers, hair spray, and the like can be abused. There's only one use for heroin, LSD, etc.
>>the legality of alcohol is justified by these other trivial uses? That's a very weak argument.<<
To you, anything logical is going to sound weak because you are making little sense. When a particular use of a product is the majority use, how can that use be trivial?
Don't respond unless you can stay on issue and make more sense. Your post is mostly silly.
Very few marijuana users go on to use heroin. You have yet to support your claim that many people are undeterred from heroin use by its inherent risks but are deterred by legal penalties.
You suggested there was no link between decriminalization and increased use. That's absurd
No, it's only 99% true. I'll grant you that while in prison a drug user is less likely to use ... but the increased use due to not imprisoning them would be minor and well worth the savings in tax dollars and/or prison space.
alcohol can be kept entirely non-illicit. Sure it can be abused,
What's the difference between "illicit use" and "abuse"? I don't see your point here.
but paint, markers, hair spray, and the like can be abused.
I'm sure the abuse-to-use ratio is much higher for alcohol than for those products. If hair spray abuse was as great a problem as alcohol abuse is, arguing that abuse-only substances should be banned but hair spray should not would be as feeble as your alcohol argument is.
When a particular use of a product is the majority use
I'd love to see evidence that intoxicating use of alcohol is a minority use; my observation is the opposite.
Nope, debating. You, on the other hand, use straw man arguments, misstate my position, and sidestep my (and other's) questions, so actually you're the one who is trolling. "Whine whine whine" can not be considered part of a rational discussion, yet it was one of your (non)responses, in full.
"Very few marijuana users go on to use heroin"
No, but very many become psychologically addicted to pot.
>>Very few marijuana users go on to use heroin. <<
Guess again. http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/511376.html
>>You have yet to support your claim that many people are undeterred from heroin use by its inherent risks but are deterred by legal penalties.<<
That's not part of my argument. I don't know why you are singling out heroin, but my point doesn't require users to go straigth to smack.
>>but the increased use due to not imprisoning them would be minor and well worth the savings in tax dollars and/or prison space.<<
You want to try and support this with some authority? Are you telling me that if drug users are not jailed, their continued drug use will be "minor?"
>>What's the difference between "illicit use" and "abuse"? I don't see your point here.<<
My point is that while one can abuse alcohol, another person can utilize the product without abuse. Illicit drug use, by definition, is abuse. I can drink a beer because I'm thirsty, or drink a glass of wine with dinner because I like the taste. If I snort up, I'm doing it strictly for a high.
>>the abuse-to-use ratio is much higher for alcohol<<
It doesn't matter whether it is much higher; it is nowhere near 100%, as it is for drugs.
>>I'd love to see evidence that intoxicating use of alcohol is a minority use; my observation is the opposite.<<
I've never been drunk in my life. Hell, never had a "beer buzz." Never had a hangover, nothing. I have a 6 pack of beer at the bottom of my fridge, a bottle of Jack Daniels in my pantry, and a bottle of Vermouth on my cabinet. I know a lot of people that have the same, and I know a hell of a lot more people that drink but have rarely, if ever, been intoxicated.
And anyway, it doesn't matter. Its not 100%. Its nowhere near, even if it is a majority. Drug use, by definition, can never be less than 100%.
How is that relevant to heroin, which we were discussing?
And about a quarter of those who try heroin get hooked; 13.5%/4 = 3.4%, so my statement was correct.
I don't know why you are singling out heroin,
Because the more dangerous the drug, the less deterrence illegality poses relative to inherent risks, so the less likely it is that legalization will lead to increased use.
but my point doesn't require users to go straigth to smack.
What is your point?
Are you telling me that if drug users are not jailed, their continued drug use will be "minor?"
A year or two taken out of their drug-using lifespan is indeed proportionally minor.
Illicit drug use, by definition, is abuse.
Only under the bizarre definition that any mental alteration means "abuse" ... that the guy who drinks two beers and feels more relaxed has "abused" alcohol.
It doesn't matter whether it is much higher
Sure it does: as I said, if hair spray abuse was as great a problem as alcohol abuse is, arguing that abuse-only substances should be banned but hair spray should not would be as feeble as your alcohol argument is.
Its not 100%. Its nowhere near, even if it is a majority. Drug use, by definition, can never be less than 100%.
The difference between 100% and (say) 60% abuse is far to thin a reed on which to hang legality versus illegality.
--http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/098.html
[Malaysia]"The National Drug Agency (ADK) has, through its efforts, registered more than 300,000 addicts in its drug fight. However, just like the iceberg, the numbers are only what is seen above the surface. Some local studies have suggested there are an estimated three to four addicts who are not registered with the ADK for every one that is."
--thestar.com.my/health/story.asp?file=/2005/4/17/health/10678978&sec=health
"Iran has executed more than 10,000 narcotics traffickers in the last decade;"
--www.payvand.com/news/04/mar/1012.htm
"Iran has the highest proportion of heroin addicts in the world and a growing Aids problem."
--news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm
"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992." [980,000 is about 0.33% of the population]
--www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm
"The number of addicts in the Netherlands has been stable - at 25,000 - for many years." [That's about 0.17% of the population, figures from 1999]
--http://www.minjust.nl:8080/a_beleid/fact/cfact7.htm.
Is it fair to say that there is a positive correlation between harsher drug laws and higher rates of heroin addiction?
Current drug users weren't deterred by legal penalty, so they are not evidence against my statement, "I strongly doubt that there are many people who are not deterred by the threat of addiction and fatal overdose but are deterred by legal penalty."
OK, so you are saying that ONLY difference between the US and these countries is the drug laws, AND all these addicts are basically the same race and in the same socio-economic group?
Go toke a little more then come back and try and explain that.
I presented several examples, across various races and societies, which demonstrate a positive correlation between harsh drug laws and higher rates of heroin addiction. We can debate the reasons for such, but the correlation is there.
Note the nearly 50% increase in heroin addiction in the US from 1992 to 1999. In the meantime, heroin has become purer and cheaper since the WOD was made a cabinet level priority about 15 years ago.
1. Is it fair to say that the WOD has failed to reduce supply and demand for heroin?
2. Is it also fair to say that the Dutch have a better handle on their heroin problem than the US or Singapore?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.