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.
Again, let's discuss alcohol on your alcohol thread when you get it going, but alcohol must never be used as an excuse to allow vices into society, on that we all can agree.
Laws may not override the Constitution ... only amendments. All true American conservatives know and respect this.
This is a drug thread, and alcohol is a drug.
Well, the highest court in the land doesn't disagree with Federal drug laws to this point, so you have yourself a problem.
In any case, step away from the illegal drugs and join conservatism.
We are like an old galvanized water pipe. Just sitting there rotting.
Why would the largest, most powerful, most educated country on earth allow this to happen?
They also think abortion and sodomy are protected by the Constitution. No true American conservative cites the Supreme Court as reliable interpreters of the Constitution.
Sodomy, abortion and self medication seems things the libertarians would favor.
>>Both would be lessened if drugs were legal.<<
BS. Under what theory would either be lessened? They would be increased, as drug use would skyrocket.
>>DUI is no more an argument for a drug ban than it is for a car ban.<<
This is just stupid. Cars have a legitimate, legal purpose, and can be used for good. Illicit drugs have no such purpose.
>>problem solved<<
Great. Then all these smoking nazis who seem to think its their God-given right to smoke anywhere and everywhere come out and start demanding drug use rights. On top of that, if we get rid of drug laws, it is based, at least partly on, the idea that drug abuse is a right, is it not? That's a springboard for the same argument for drugs that exists for smoking, homosexuality, and every other made up "right."
>>Nobody HAS to.<<
You either have no experience with illicit drugs, or you have way too much experience with them.
Nonsense. I would be no likelier to use heroin if it were legal; would you?
Cars have a legitimate, legal purpose, and can be used for good. Illicit drugs have no such purpose.
They have the same legitimate use as alcohol: to enhance one's enjoyment of one's circumstances.
Then all these smoking nazis who seem to think its their God-given right to smoke anywhere and everywhere come out and start demanding drug use rights.
The right to do something in no way implies a right to do it on property not one's own.
Ideally, yes. Realistically, no. The best the government will ever accomplish is varying degrees of management. Nonetheless, we do have laws. If those laws are to be changed, it must not be by way of civil disobedience, but by getting involved in the processes outlined in the Constitution.
I'll take that further. Though I have opinions on what I think would work best, I would not break the present law in an effort to change the law from outside the Constitutional process. Likewise, if I ran for office, and were elected based on my desire to change existing laws, I would be duty bound to uphold the law on the books, even if my proposals were never accepted. This is where most of our elected run afoul of me. They do not accept the full responsibility of the offices they have sworn to uphold.
>>I would be no likelier to use heroin if it were legal; would you?<<
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that because you conducted a sample size of exactly two people, neither of who are between the ages of 12 and 25 (I'm guessing) and neither of whom (again, I'm guessing, but based on your comment here it seems safe) have ever even tried illicit drugs, not to mention one drug only, that this means drug use wouldn't increase? Aside from the obvious flaws in that, it defies logic to suggest drug use wouldn't increase. For one thing, people don't do some things strictly because it is illegal. For another, you have a guarantee of increased drug use because the people you would have arrested pre-legalization are not arrested and continue to use it. Are you assuming they quit post legalization?
>>They have the same legitimate use as alcohol: to enhance one's enjoyment of one's circumstances.<<
BS. Alcohol can be consumed for reasons having nothing to do with intoxication. I have never been "buzzed," much less drunk in my life. I enjoy a good quality glass of champagne every now and then as I like the taste. I used to even like to drink an occassional wine cooler, but I haven't had one in a long time. I could drink either as a substitute for soda.
There are no illicit drugs that are taken for non-intoxicating effects.
>>The right to do something in no way implies a right to do it on property not one's own.<<
I agree, but there are literally hundreds of people on here that disagree. Should I point you to the specific posts?
Stupidity comes off worse.
Pardon me, its about messican drug commando's operating on US soil. Red herrings are most in season.
Why would the largest, most powerful, most educated country on earth allow this to happen?<<<
Apathy. Created by the Nanny State, IMO.
What goes on in somebodies bedroom are things a totalitarian would favor.
And when the law says you sit in the back of the bus, you sit in the back of the bus. And when the law says you get on the trains, you get on the trains. At least that's what adults do.
Comparing using illegal drugs to that is one of the most absurd things ever.. Congrats.
Do you agree that they should be changed, as the law banning alcohol was changed?
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.
For another, you have a guarantee of increased drug use because the people you would have arrested pre-legalization are not arrested and continue to use it.
How does continuation of use become an increase?
Alcohol can be consumed for reasons having nothing to do with intoxication. I have never been "buzzed,"
Many people have; is their use of alcohol not legitimate?
I agree, but there are literally hundreds of people on here that disagree.
Which makes them a minority; I'm not concerned.
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.