Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ex-troops aiding drug traffickers
The Washington Times ^ | February 24, 2005 | Jerry Seper

Posted on 02/24/2005 8:14:49 AM PST by tomball

Former Mexican soldiers, police and federal agents, originally trained as an elite force of anti-drug commandos, are working as mercenaries for Mexican narcotics traffickers, bringing a new wave of drug-related killings into the United States, authorities said.

Law-enforcement and intelligence officials said the well-armed gang, known as the "Zetas," is linked to hundreds of killings and dozens of kidnappings on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly over a wide area of southeastern Texas from Laredo to Brownsville and in cities throughout Mexico.

In protecting established drug corridors into the United States, gang leaders have targeted U.S. Border Patrol agents and state and local police, authorities said, along with Mexican military and law-enforcement personnel, even offering bounties of up to $50,000.

U.S. intelligence officials said the Zetas might have obtained Soviet-made SA-7 shoulder-mounted missile launchers off the black market, although information on the purchase is sketchy. The Bush administration has been concerned in recent weeks about the fate of Soviet-provided SA-7s in Nicaragua, about 80 of which have not been accounted for by the government and are thought to have been sold on the black market.

 


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: dhs; drugtrafficking; drugwars; gangs; immigration; jerryseper; leo; mexico; roguecops; texas; wodlist; zetas

1 posted on 02/24/2005 8:14:52 AM PST by tomball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tomball

It is time we brought in OUR military


2 posted on 02/24/2005 8:17:54 AM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomball

Free-trade, lack of action on our open border bump!


3 posted on 02/24/2005 8:21:06 AM PST by NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomball

Unfortunately, this and the fact that a few former U.S. and foreign soldiers are doing likewise, have been well known within law enforcement circles - especially the USBP - for quite some time.


4 posted on 02/24/2005 8:22:42 AM PST by ManHunter (You can run, but you'll only die tired...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961

Was in El Paso/Juarez two weeks ago. Noticed the Mexican motorcycle cops wear silver spurs on their boots.


5 posted on 02/24/2005 8:23:32 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tomball
Not to mention what the current troops are up to.
6 posted on 02/24/2005 8:23:49 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
It is time we brought in OUR military

It's time we legalized drugs.

7 posted on 02/24/2005 8:25:35 AM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tomball

When you legalize drugs be prepared to support user habits with your taxes.


8 posted on 02/24/2005 8:32:25 AM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomball

Those roaches perceive us as weak since we never do anything to retaliate!


9 posted on 02/24/2005 8:51:38 AM PST by Fast1 (Destroy America buy Chinese goods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ManHunter

You are right. Law enforcement has known this has been going on long since before I worked narcotics on the border in the 90's.

I think National Guard units should rotate in and out of the border states for summer duty. The rest of the year the Army should patrol it.

First we have to undo the treaty we signed with Mexico promising not to patrol our borders with troops. It scares them.


10 posted on 02/24/2005 9:04:08 AM PST by One Proud Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jec41

We have been supporting users' habits via taxation since prohibition. Weak people with bad habits should not be turned into criminals any more than cigarette smokers should be demonized.

We have been funding addicts via Social Security Disability, and providing shelter to drug dealers via welfare for many years. And for years we have been funding the "drug wars" industry under the guise that it will solve the "drug problems" that have existed with man since the beginning of time.

Our taxes go to funding "drug wars" that only erode innocent citizens constitutional rights, and places them in harm's way. So far, the "drug wars" have alienated non-violent taxpaying citizens via incarceration, and feeds a court system that cannot even begin to contain its most violent criminals. Supporting "drug wars" only exacerbates the problem, and further legitimizes the "police state" mentality that goes with it.

It's a no win situation. You legalize drugs, you support a user's habits. You support a drug war, you not only support a user's habits, you perpetuate the industry that feeds it.



11 posted on 02/24/2005 9:24:51 AM PST by tomball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: One Proud Dad

Good idea.


12 posted on 02/24/2005 9:26:37 AM PST by tomball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: One Proud Dad

Good idea.


13 posted on 02/24/2005 9:26:39 AM PST by tomball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: One Proud Dad
First we have to undo the treaty we signed with Mexico promising not to patrol our borders with troops. It scares them.

We Do? What room-temperature IQ idiot stuck us with that?

Darn straight we need to undo the treaty. Just scrap it unilaterally and let Mexico squirm. What are they going to do, invade us? Oh wait, aren't they doing that anyway?

14 posted on 02/24/2005 9:31:01 AM PST by Warhammer (I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tomball

I have seen too many junkies to want drugs legalised.IMO most people who want legalised drugs are already using them in some form. Now thats just an opinion. mind you and not an accusation.

I know when I worked an Ambulance the police would arrest a drunk on the street and he would go to jail at least until he sobered up. A drug overdose would be given Narcan get up and walk away. Something about that simply isnt right. How many drug overdose cases go to a hospital and walk away scot free after being examined, and we pick up the bill.?


15 posted on 02/24/2005 9:32:58 AM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer; One Proud Dad
Corrected post follows:

First we have to undo the treaty we signed with Mexico promising not to patrol our borders with troops. It scares them.

We have a treaty with them not to patrol the border? What room-temperature IQ idiot stuck us with that?

Darn straight we need to undo the treaty. Just scrap it unilaterally and let Mexico squirm. What are they going to do, invade us? Oh wait, aren't they doing that anyway?

16 posted on 02/24/2005 9:33:21 AM PST by Warhammer (I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: One Proud Dad
Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power...
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...

In days of yore, any *zeta* caught on this side of the border would have been fair game. Border area property owners, former US LE & Military, etc. should be granted LOM by Congress to nail these guys. Instead of throwing good money after bad with no results, Congress would only pay out once results have been achieved.

I'm not in favor of (drug) legalization, but I'm also against the WOD in the unconstitutional and ineffective manner it is presently being waged. The current tactics and strategy being employed are not only losing the war, but shredding the constitution. It is way past time to relook how this war is being conducted and make some significant changes.

17 posted on 02/24/2005 9:40:27 AM PST by Joe 6-pack ("It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer

A history buff will have to refresh my memory but we signed a treaty in the 19th century or early 20th that we would not use troops to patrol our southern border because they were scared we would invade them. I think it was an off-shoot of the Spanish-American War. They saw what we could do in Cuba and it made them nervous.

The Border Patrol was instantiated as result.


18 posted on 02/24/2005 9:48:58 AM PST by One Proud Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jec41
When you legalize drugs be prepared to support user habits with your taxes.

How many tobacco smokers are getting cigarettes at taxpayers'expense? And how many people am I buying drinks for? Please either post or tell me where to find the stats on this. I had not been aware of it.

19 posted on 02/24/2005 9:56:46 AM PST by Aarchaeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tomball

This program was begun by Madeline Albright and the State Department. The military had no input into whether this program was a smart idea. It also had no control over who was sent for training. Ms. Albright also required the military to train these individuals on tactics and techniques that are generally not taught to non-US personnel. These guys were trained in some very advance counter-terrorism tactics and then returned to Mexico. Many of them immediately went to work for the bad guys who pay better than the government. After crimes began to occur using tactics that could have only come from the US Military, Ms. Albright quietly killed the program. Not, however, before several hundred Mexican officers received some of the most advanced training the US has ever given to any other military.
If you read Spanish you can read about this at http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/milrev/Spanish/SepOct02/burton.htm


20 posted on 02/24/2005 11:33:09 AM PST by Liberdad (Training for Mexico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
I have seen too many junkies to want drugs legalised.

You haven't seen any alcoholics?

21 posted on 02/24/2005 2:23:27 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
The current tactics and strategy being employed are not only losing the war, but shredding the constitution. It is way past time to relook how this war is being conducted and make some significant changes.

I don't believe it's possible to have a federal war on drugs that's both effective and respectful of the Constitution.

22 posted on 02/24/2005 2:25:05 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"I don't believe it's possible to have a federal war on drugs that's both effective and respectful of the Constitution."

I largely agree...I think one of the fundamental operational changes that needs to be made is decentralization of the effort to the state and local levels.

23 posted on 02/24/2005 2:30:57 PM PST by Joe 6-pack ("It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
decentralization of the effort to the state and local levels.

And states or localities that wanted to legalize some or all drugs could do so?

24 posted on 02/24/2005 2:33:31 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
... not to mention that any federal war on drugs is in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
25 posted on 02/24/2005 2:35:07 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"And states or localities that wanted to legalize some or all drugs could do so?"

I don't see why not...I don't have, nor do I pretend tlo have all the answers. I do know the current WOD is a failure and we continue to invest exorbitant amounts of money in it, and receive compounded failure on our investment.

Drug usage is not a "victimless" crime, and a society / community has a right to protect itself (and by extension, the individual rights and liberties of its citizens) from the disruption it causes. What is the answer...It's got to be something different from what is being done now where it is hard to distinguish which is worse, the disease or the cure...

I do believe that an altered strategy should include limited legalization (and taxation) based on community / state standards, elimination of property / asset forfeiture laws enacted in the name of WOD, and harsher sentencing guidelines not for "drug crimes" per se, but for other crimes committed while under the influence or arising from other drug related activity.

I am a lover of history and there are many parallels between prohibition and the WOD, and some are just too blind to see history repeating itself in front of our eyes. There are also some fundamental differences between alcohol and *street* drugs and those differences need to be taken into consideration as well....

26 posted on 02/24/2005 3:11:03 PM PST by Joe 6-pack ("It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Oh yeah seen plenty of them , so now we are equating drugs with alcohol? Both are a crutch for the weak. But alcohol although it is addictive is nothing like the hold drugs get on you. I know many alcoholics , but I dont know too many of them who would steal from their family to get high. Not too many die from overdose either,although it has happened.
Also just because we have one bad drug 9alcohol)that is legal why compound it by legalising more.


27 posted on 02/24/2005 4:32:40 PM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tomball

Three words. MILITARIZE THE BORDER


28 posted on 02/24/2005 4:34:52 PM PST by Paul_Denton (The UN is UN-American! Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN! http://asiasec.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Drug usage is not a "victimless" crime, [...] harsher sentencing guidelines not for "drug crimes" per se, but for other crimes committed while under the influence or arising from other drug related activity.

Who are the "victims" of drug use itself, as opposed to those other crimes?

There are also some fundamental differences between alcohol and *street* drugs

Such as?

29 posted on 02/24/2005 4:56:35 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
alcohol although it is addictive is nothing like the hold drugs get on you.

Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana, or many if not all of the hallucinogens.

I know many alcoholics , but I dont know too many of them who would steal from their family to get high.

That has more to do with the low price of the legal drug than with inherent biochemical properties.

Also just because we have one bad drug 9alcohol)that is legal why compound it by legalising more.

Why not lessen the problem by banning alcohol? Because we learned that the cure of criminalization was worse than the disease.

30 posted on 02/24/2005 4:59:34 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"Who are the "victims" of drug use itself, as opposed to those other crimes?"

The family members and loved ones of those that become addicted.

"Such as?" Cultural acceptance and its role(s) as a unifying theme in the mythology of western civilization. Alcohol usage, in moderation for the non-alcoholic has many health benefits illicit drugs tend not to have (I'll conced the point on medical marijuana). Likewise, alcohol does have nutritional value and as such, plays a role in social bonding be it at the family dinner, wedding reception etc.

31 posted on 02/24/2005 5:07:01 PM PST by Joe 6-pack ("It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Man if you like drugs by all means use them. Dont try to convince me they should be made legal I see whats happened at Needle park

http://opioids.com/switzerland/needle-park.html


32 posted on 02/24/2005 5:24:04 PM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
The family members and loved ones of those that become addicted.

Ditto for alcohol.

Cultural acceptance and its role(s) as a unifying theme in the mythology of western civilization.

None of which does a lick of good for the many overindulgers.

Alcohol usage, in moderation for the non-alcoholic has many health benefits illicit drugs tend not to have (I'll conced the point on medical marijuana).

A minor distinction, given how little of the alcohol consumed each year is consumed for health reasons.

Likewise, alcohol does have nutritional value

Only in the sense that it has calories ... empty ones.

and as such, plays a role in social bonding be it at the family dinner, wedding reception etc.

I don't think alcohol's caloric content has much to do with its role in social bonding, nor do I agree that other drugs play no role in social bonding.

What do you conclude from these minor differences between alcohol and other drugs?

33 posted on 02/24/2005 7:38:39 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
No response to any of my points, so you turn to personal attacks.

Man if you like drugs by all means use them.

I don't like them and I don't use them; I just know that criminalizing them has done more harm than good.

Dont try to convince me they should be made legal I see whats happened at Needle park

I don't advocate legalizing them only in a small area, any more than I'd support alcohol being legal only in a small area.

34 posted on 02/24/2005 7:42:55 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Lets go back and look at your points.

Alcohol is more addictive than Marijuana. Who actually gives a damn about marijuana drugs that I refer to Cocaine, Heroin Crystal Meth , PCP, Ecstasy, Etc, Etc,these are the killers Marijuana is a recreational drug that may or may not be addictive, that at its best may have some medical value , at its worst causes cancer like cigarettes.
And here we are trying to make drugs legal and cigarettes illegal , the same argument you use in support of drugs Vs. alcohol.

Your argument that if we legalise drugs we lower the price, That would be fine , it would also increase the amount of people using them. Families now have a husband that comes home drunk once and a while maybe even gets abusive. You aint seen abusive till you have seen a person on PCP go off.Nothing like seeing dad get drunk at the kitchen table. How about watching Mom and Dad shoot up heroin at the table, Nice for the kids huh, ? and who caresfor these kids while they are floating.?


You say Needle park isa small area and indeed it is, why just have junkies in needle park . Lets have them spread all over the city.

I dont use alcohol but I know a lot of people who do and most of them control it just fine and drink socially, yes you may smoke a little pot socially, pot is the drug most often used in arguments about drugs.Personally if it was up to me pot would be legal , its just small potatoes, I have never seen heroin used socially except in crack houses , I have seen cocaine used socially by losers who use to get a piece of ass.Ecstasy the same. Although I hear the homo's use it mixed with Viagra and have what is for them some great orgies.

Yes legalising drugs would allow more police to work on other things , but you would offset that by needing more ambulances to deal with the overdoses and more social services agencies to deal with abandoned kids and broken homes. Legalising drugs would mean a lot more space in the jails, offset that by needing a lot more space in hospitals., and a lot less productivity on the job. Nothing like working with spaced out junkies.Especially spaced out police officer junkies. Yes if drugs were legal cops could use them too.


35 posted on 02/25/2005 4:49:42 AM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Aarchaeus
You are paying extra insurance for the smokers and drinkers due to health related costs for both, and for accidents caused by drinkers who drive under the influence as well.

For example, people who smoke tend to have more colds, that last longer forcing them to call in sick more. They also are costing us lost productivity by taking smoking breaks very often to feed their habits.

I am not an anti smoking nut, and think people should smoke if they want to, but let's not pretend that nicotine and alcohol don't cost a ton of money in health, insurance and productivity costs.

36 posted on 02/25/2005 4:54:43 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Especially spaced out police officer junkies. Yes if drugs were legal cops could use them too.

Bad argument. Alcohol is legal. Cops are not allowed to show up to work drunk. Drugs could be decriminalized, but not sanctified. For example, they wouldn't bust you for using drugs, but your employer could. You could snort all the coke you wanted, but to keep your job, your employer would still make you pee in a cup.

The effect of this would be lower crime. All the street gangs who finance themselves with drug sales would lose their major revenue source. The addicts who burglarize in order to finance their habits, would be in the same boat as cigarette addicts now, who can afford their drug without stealing my stereo.

Tax the product, and put the funds into treatment. Those who use finance their own treatment this way.

37 posted on 02/25/2005 4:58:56 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

Well enough of this we wont make any converts here Keep your pipe dream.


38 posted on 02/25/2005 6:06:50 AM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: One Proud Dad
First we have to undo the treaty we signed with Mexico promising not to patrol our borders with troops.

No wonder they think we're gutless pushovers. As a nation, we are. Scared s--tless for worrying about being called judgmental, xenophobic, etc.

I'd bet that even when there's a big shootout north of the border with these narco-terrorists with loss of lives, the Administration & HS Dept. will tell us it's OK, don't worry because it's not connected to ME terrorists. Pathetic.

39 posted on 02/25/2005 7:56:09 AM PST by citizen (Yo W! Read my lips: No Amnistia by any name!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Your argument that if we legalise drugs we lower the price, That would be fine , it would also increase the amount of people using them.

Pot, perhaps. But can you show me a person whose primary reason for not using heroin or crack is the cost? I know I wouldn't use either if I was paid to do so; would you?

and who caresfor these kids while they are floating.?

Who cares for them when mom and dad are drunk? It's a terrible situation, but we rightly see it as insufficient to justify banning alcohol.

You say Needle park isa small area and indeed it is, why just have junkies in needle park . Lets have them spread all over the city.

That's where they are now, and IMO it's better than concentrating such people in a small area.

Personally if it was up to me pot would be legal , its just small potatoes

I agree.

I have seen cocaine used socially by losers who use to get a piece of ass.Ecstasy the same.

Alcohol the same.

Yes legalising drugs would allow more police to work on other things , but you would offset that by needing more ambulances to deal with the overdoses and more social services agencies to deal with abandoned kids and broken homes. Legalising drugs would mean a lot more space in the jails, offset that by needing a lot more space in hospitals., and a lot less productivity on the job.

You seem to think that tens of millions of Americans are just itching to use hard drugs, with only the law standing in their way. I don't believe that for a second.

Nothing like working with spaced out junkies.Especially spaced out police officer junkies. Yes if drugs were legal cops could use them too.

But they can't come to work drunk, and couldn't stoned.

40 posted on 02/25/2005 9:49:51 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson