Mexican drug commandos expand ops in 6 U.S. states

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

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.

>>demonstrate a positive correlation <<

There's not necessarily a correlation. You said "addictions" for one thing. That doesn't take into account all drug users. You also limited it to one drug.

Are all drugs available in all countries?

Are all drugs roughly the same price in all countries?

(Or) do all drugs cost relatively the same (price/income)?

Are all drug laws enforced exactly the same across the board, and is the use to arrest/conviction percentage the same?

Unless you answer yes to ALL these questions, there isn't a correlation since there are virtually infinite factors that come into play that you didn't deal with. Though its pushing the envelope on my side, if all else fails, I can always bring up the differences in genetics that may explain at least some of the difference.

If you really think the Clinton administration fought the war on drugs, you are smoking the product you are advocating. Look at the time period you mentioned and look at who was in office.

There's not necessarily a correlation.

Of course there is. I think what you mean is that there is not necessarily a causal relationship, but there is a correlation.

You said "addictions" for one thing. That doesn't take into account all drug users. You also limited it to one drug.

That was my point; to compare the heroin addiction rate to the harshness of drug laws:

"I presented several examples, across various races and societies, which demonstrate a positive correlation between harsh drug laws and higher rates of heroin addiction."

Are all drugs available in all countries?

Heroin certainly is in the countries I cited. AFAIK, mj and other drugs are as well, but what has that got to do with the correlation I demonstrated?

Are all drugs roughly the same price in all countries? (Or) do all drugs cost relatively the same (price/income)?

The heroin traffickers are in the business to make money, and the price is set by supply and demand. It is clearly affordable and profitable in Iran, Singapore, and Malaysia, otherwise the demand numbers wouldn't be so high, and the traffickers wouldn't risk the rather stiff penalties.

Are all drug laws enforced exactly the same across the board, and is the use to arrest/conviction percentage the same?

I think we can assume that Iran, Singapore, and Malaysia enforce the laws rather strictly.

Unless you answer yes to ALL these questions, there isn't a correlation since there are virtually infinite factors that come into play that you didn't deal with.

Once again, I think you are confusing correlation with causation. You do understand I'm not claiming that harsh drug laws necessarily cause higher rates of heroin addiction, right?

If you really think the Clinton administration fought the war on drugs, you are smoking the product you are advocating. Look at the time period you mentioned and look at who was in office.

The number of arrests for cocaine/heroin offenses during the Clinton years remained at about the same levels as during the Bush I and Bush II years. And the amounts seized during the Clinton years did not decline:

http://www.briancbennett.com/quick-look.htm

A little off topic, but interesting nevertheless, is that rape and sexual assault declined substantially during the Clinton and early Bush II years as well:

"Since 1993, rape/sexual assault has fallen by over 65%." [2003 figures] -- http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html

__________________________________

I think I addressed your points, so how about my two previous questions:

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, at least in the mid-late 90's (latest figures I could find)?

>>Of course there is. I think what you mean is that there is not necessarily a causal relationship<<

No, I said what I mean, and what's true: there is not necessarily a correlation. There's not necessarily a correlation between the laws and the number addicted to ONE drug since there are literally hundreds of factors at play.

>>That was my point; to compare the heroin addiction rate<<

But you misunderstood my point: you used one drug as an example to correlate "drug use" in general. There *might* be a situation with heroin that fits under your point without there being the same situation for marijuana, cocaine, crack, LSD, etc., not to mention designer drugs. Give me the same type of statistics for the exact same countries you previously mentioned for Ecstasy.

>>Heroin certainly is in the countries I cited. AFAIK, mj and other drugs are as well, but what has that got to do with the correlation I demonstrated?<<

Again, you didn't understand my point, and this relates to the correlation deal above: you have to take into account supply, demand, ease of access, and type of use, among other things. What if, for example, I can shoot up with a friend that has an unlimited supply the cops, for whatever reason, will never find? My friend is either wealthy, or gets the smack for free -- or gives something he has a lot of in return for it. Anyway, there is little to no chance of getting caught using it. You can't relate that specific scenario to the purchase of crack openly on the streets of either LA or even somewhere in Singapore. Undercover police officers, raids, etc., make certain areas riskier than others to purchase and/or use. Hell, some people grow or produce marijuana (and, I'd venture to say, other drugs) without anyone ever finding out about it. Virtually unlimited supply and very little risk of capture. Would these people do that if they had to go into South Central to get their fix? Probably not.

Further, my point also includes the availability of other drugs relative to the abuser's desires, not just heroin. Let's say someone is content with using Marijuana and it alone. That's fine, but what if the particular availability of grass is different in one locale than the other. Thus, to get high, they have to use something else or quit using. If smack is available, perhaps they use that, or they go with coke, or whatever. The point is that there are so many different situations and different reasons for use and/or sale, that you can't limit your equation to one or two factors and call that complete. Your statistics could be flawed because they don't include all drug use, and comparing the use of one drug across totally different supply and demand lines is misleading. If a crackhead is content with that, can get it easily, but would do heroin if they had to, your stats don't take that person into account, and if they did, the numbers might be different. We just don't know.

>>and the price is set by supply and demand. It is clearly affordable and profitable in Iran, Singapore, and Malaysia, otherwise the demand numbers wouldn't be so high, and the traffickers wouldn't risk the rather stiff penalties.<<

Maybe, but this all but admits they are dealing with totally different supply and demand curves in those countries than they are in the US. You've got to admit it has to be easier to get drugs into Malaysia than into Singapore or Iran. When it becomes easier, then the numbers are meaningless as there are people out there doing grass because they can't get or can't afford something else.

>> I think we can assume that Iran, Singapore, and Malaysia enforce the laws rather strictly.<<

This is (one of) the problem(s): we CAN'T assume this. The state can enforce all the laws they want, but that assumes arrest, conviction (which varies by country's legal system), evidence, etc. Have you always been ticketed when you drove above the speed limit?

>> Once again, I think you are confusing correlation with causation. <<

Give me a break. I have about 18 semester hours of statistics/econometrics, including 6 graduate hours. I'm still in therapy due to it!

>>The number of arrests for cocaine/heroin offenses during the Clinton years remained at about the same levels as during the Bush I and Bush II years.<<

This proves my point: if the number of arrests was static, given the increased use (which you admit), enforcement was terribly lacking.

I've already addressed your first question with the above Clinton reference. As far as the Dutch, I don't know enough about their situation to comment.

I don't think the US drug war has been fought effectively at all. I think it is just a bunch of rhetoric in Washington. We've been half-assing a bunch of different strategies. One minute we focus on supply, then on demand. In my opinion, we've done little but talk. If I had my way, the military would play a large part in decreasing drug traffic to the US, and would keep playing that part until successful. I wouldn't mind obliterating the ability of several South American countries to grow the product. If that means war, fine with me.

There's not necessarily a correlation between the laws and the number addicted to ONE drug since there are literally hundreds of factors at play.

A correlation is a statistical relationship between two variables, right? From Wordnet: "a statistic representing how closely two variables co-vary; it can vary from -1 (perfect negative correlation) through 0 (no correlation) to +1 (perfect positive correlation)"

Here are examples of correlations from the government, which use the term "correlation" the same way:

The correlation at the State level between SMI [Serious Mental Illness] and past month use of cigarettes was slightly higher (0.36). This finding is consistent with literature that shows a high correlation at the individual level between smoking cigarettes and SMI.

The State-level correlations between SMI and dependence on or abuse of drugs or need for treatment were generally quite low. The correlation at the State level between SMI and the 2000 per capita income was negative and quite high (-0.51); the lower the income, the higher the percentage with SMI.

--http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k2State/html/ch6.htm

But you misunderstood my point: you used one drug as an example to correlate "drug use" in general.

I did no such thing. I said from the very first post to you that my point was that there is a correlation between harsh drug laws and heroin addiction (two variables). Period. Please cite where I tried to extrapolate that correlation to other drugs.

Again, you didn't understand my point, and this relates to the correlation deal above: you have to take into account supply, demand, ease of access, and type of use, among other things.

Not so. A correlation need only show a statistical relationship. Things such as you mention are possible explanations of why the observed correlation exists.

Further, my point also includes the availability of other drugs relative to the abuser's desires, not just heroin.

You were discussing jailing addicts (I know you didn't limit it to heroin); I narrowed the discussion to heroin in my first post to you, and have stayed with it. (save for the cocaine/heroin arrests, which the government lumped together)

You've got to admit it has to be easier to get drugs into Malaysia than into Singapore or Iran.

Yet Iran and Singapore still have a worse heroin problem than the US, and especially the Netherlands, according to the latest government sourced figures I could find. `

I wrote: I think we can assume that Iran, Singapore, and Malaysia enforce the laws rather strictly.

This is (one of) the problem(s): we CAN'T assume this.

They execute traffickers in Iran (10,000 in the last decade), Singapore, and Malaysia. Be honest now, do you really doubt that those three countries have stronger police/judicial efforts against heroin than the Netherlands, or are you just grasping at straws?

I've already addressed your first question with the above Clinton reference.

I asked you a yes/no question. Is there some reason I can't get a straight yes/no answer, along with your explanation? Has the WOD failed to reduce supply and demand for heroin in the US; yes or no?

As far as the Dutch, I don't know enough about their situation to comment.

I gave you government sourced figures with which you could answer. According to those figures, the Dutch for whatever reasons, have a much better handle on their heroin problem than the other countries cited. Agreed?

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.