Narco-Terrorism: American Style
by Rusty FlemingOn a hot summer evening, in a bar in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico just across the bridge from Laredo, Texas; a thirty year-old man, on his knees, surrounded by a dozen armed guards, can be heard begging for his life, he cries for one more chance to make it right with the boss, one more chance to see his family—one more chance at life.
His boss happens to be the man who dictates the life and death of every soul in the Laredo corridor, listens to the pleas but has already made up his mind. He stands as judge and jury in this court and it’s clear, he’s heard enough. So he pulls a diamond studded, pearl handled pistol from his belt and slowly hands it over to one of his newest recruits. He tells the recruit to put a bullet in the condemned mans head as he sobs uncontrollably—and so, without hesitation the young man pulls the trigger four times over.
This was the new recruit’s first kill and his first real test for initiation to become an assassin of the Gulf Cartel’s enforcement arm known as the Zetas. He had never killed anyone before that night and when his cartel boss handed him the pistol and he pulled that trigger— he knew he loved it. He told me later that it gave him a rush that he had never felt before, “to kill a man and know I was going to get a way with it gave me a feeling of power” —He spoke of that night as if he had found his true calling—“I knew right then I was born to be a sicario” (Spanish for “hit-man”) He was thirteen years old.
I’ve met and talked with numerous players in the drug war being waged on our border and beyond, that have often left me feeling more than a little disturbed. The utter disregard for human life that’s evidenced in the daily tortures and executions taking place down here, certainly wears on the most seasoned of us reporting on it. But when I looked into the eyes of this young man and saw how he lit up inside while speaking so nonchalantly yet eloquently about how he “lived to kill” ever since he pulled that trigger for the first time, it sent cold chills down my spine—and still does. “I’ve killed men while they were tied and bound but that there is no thrill, no excitement in that for me. I prefer to stalk my target, hunt them down and then, after I know his moves front to back, I sneak up on them, look’em in the eyes and pull the trigger—now that’s a rush.”
I interviewed him a year before the mainstream media ever heard his name, Rosalio Reta, was born and raised in Laredo, Texas and recruited by the Zetas when he was barely in the 7th grade.
The first time I met Reta he was barely 18 years old and awaiting his first murder trial in Webb County. We had to meet in private because to be seen talking with someone like me, would have been a death sentence for someone like him. Sheriff Rick Flores, one of the courageous men I ever known, had him moved into his personal office so I could meet with the most infamous prisoner in his jail at the time. Even though Reta was in leg irons and shackles he had an arrogant look about him, wearing a smirk on his face that made you think he thought all of this was funny.
If you don’t count the lightening bolts tattooed on his face, he looks like any ordinary kid until he opens his mouth to speak. Calculating and conniving, I’d call him street smart for sure. He ended up asking me as many questions that first day as I did him.
He took notes as we talked, he asked me all kinds of personal questions, in fact the more personal I got with my questions he did the same. At first I didn’t know what to think about this quid pro quo interview, but after a while I realized he was trying to intimidate me or back me off more than anything else. Knowing what I already knew about this kid, it almost worked.
He told me that he frequently went to Nuevo Laredo looking to work as a drug runner or whatever he could to make the kind of money that type of work pays. This part of his story is played out everyday all along the border, and recruitment of young teenagers into drug gangs is nothing new either, but giving them para-military training and state of the art weaponry is. Reta is part of a new wave of young recruits that are giving the drug cartels a bumper crop of highly trained and highly motivated soldiers and giving us our worst nightmare—domestic narco-terrorists.
Training for these kids starts as soon as they are deemed by their elder Zeta commander as being ready, usually after they have proven their ability to kill someone. Once that right of passage has been taken then the real training can begin.
The core group of men commanding los Zetas, were trained and outfitted here in the United States at the School of the Americas in the 1990’s. Trained to handle all types sophisticated weaponry: automatic assault rifles, heavy-caliber machine guns, bombs, and grenade launchers. They are experts in explosives, GPS technology, wiretapping, and counterintelligence. And even though many of the founding members have been captured or killed in the last few years—they have managed to duplicate themselves many times over with this new generation of better Zetas.
My interview with Reta and numerous other sources revealed that the Zetas have training camps all over northern Mexico, central America and have even been known to use property on the U.S. side of the border to conduct training.
And what exactly are they training these boys and girls to do? It starts out as any other military boot camp with physical training, running and obstacle course drills and then classes later in the day.
Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for six months; the same training that is given to the most elite special-forces anywhere is given to these teenagers, all in the consorted effort to build a generation of narco-terrorists better than their predecessors. They are indoctrinated to the ways of the Zetas. “Leave no man behind” is one of those creeds a Zetita is taught to live by, Reta told me “if you go out with ten other men and they get killed, you come home with ten corpses or not at all.” At a time in his life when Reta should have been learning geometry, basic biology and how to muster up the courage to ask a girl out on a date—he was learning how to calculate wind and distance to take out a target and the best ways to torture a man to extract information.
The ones signing up to be assassins aren’t just taught to kill with weapons, but they are given martial arts training and taught first how to kill with their hands. They are taught how to run the most sophisticated surveillance and weaponry available today. They are taught how to dis-assemble and re-assemble every weapon they are issued, and then they learn how to use it with deadly precision; they handle all forms of handguns, AK-47’s, AR-15’s, .50 caliber machine guns, fragment grenades and rocket launchers. They are taught how to properly form a sniper team and take out a target from distances of a thousand yards or more. To hone their urban assault training to a higher level, they encourage the teams here in the U.S., to enter into paintball tournaments and report their scores.
They have an extensive course in SERE, the acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. They are taught how to dispense torture to obtain information and how to take being tortured, in case they are ever captured. They are taught how to drive their vehicles in high speed chases and how to box in their intended targets at intersection as to create the best possible kill zone and at the same time limit the potential for collateral damage and injury to innocent bystanders.
As you would probably guess many of these kids “washout” of the program and for those recruits that can’t cut the rigors of para-military training, the option is given to go into a complete smuggling training program or sign up for an advanced school in electronics and even college.
Operating in the States is a necessity for every drug trafficking organization including the Zetas. These American recruits serve as great benefit to the DTO’s because these kids don’t stand out, they blend right into our society. They speak perfect English, they dress like every other teenager, they know the roads and they know the customs. They can guard a million dollar load of narcotics from Laredo to Dallas and pass right through a border checkpoint and never look suspicious. When the narcotics reach their destination they act as the cartel bankers, collect the money, and drive that cash back safely to Mexico and never miss a day of school to do it.
I just recently spoke at a law enforcement conference of gang investigators and the question that’s being asked by the law enforcement community, “How does a police force seeking to act within the law and respect human rights successfully combat an enemy, made up of teenagers armed with heavy weapons, all of whom will kill a police officer without thought and who, if arrested, can only be held in custody for a few hours?






Subscribe via RSS
75 Comments
It sounds like basically these guys are thugs with special forces training. Just like the police having to buy their own weapons to keep up with the artillary being used by the gangs there is no easy answer. I guess hire a bunch of Dirty Harry's is the real answer
Treat it as a terrorist invasion. Along with special forces who are trained in anti-terror tactics.
Won't happen with Barry in office.
“In normal times, evil should be fought by good, but in times like this, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil”.
Another problem that could be solved by the government asking itself, "What would Attila do?"
If it is a war on drugs, then treat it like a war. Civilian law should be replaced with military law. These guys are not teenages but unlawful combatants who do not wear a uniform and are not protected under traditional law. Francis Lieber, author of the Lieber Codes during the U.S. Civil War, realized that in wartime a new approach to law is required. Traditional law depends upon a contract between the people and the government that acknowledges some semblance of morality and order. Traditional law does not work in wartime with an enemy who does not hold to the same principles. Therefore, the good guys should not be bound by the same rules as in a traditional setting. We should not do away with the rule of law but we do need to consider some of the underlying principles in this setting.
Exactly, treat it like a terrorist invasion.
I think probably 1 of the biggest challenges in dealing with these gangs is, "how do you infiltrate their ranks"? You would have to recruit a force of highly motivated adults(barely 18-20 yrs. old?) who can pass as teenagers. As long as they can keep most of their ops out of the spotlight they will be able to enforce their will with impunity. What a daunting task. Local law enforcement, as well as state, and federal officials will have to work with the local general populace who care enough to help to fight this most deadly scourge.
Being that the left wants more GOVERNEMENT… why not more governement down there to solve this problem….I can even fault the Republicans for this…. it has never been dealt with and only has grown worse over the past few years…….. WE NEED TO SOLVE this problem before it gets any worse and festers into a MAJOR problem!
Another problem that could be solved instantly by legalizing drugs.
Actually, if they would bother to enforce the existing drug laws, this would stop fairly quickly. There would be more people in jail, but those same people are the ones doing most of the raping, murder, and robbing in this country. If there ain't no market for the illegal drugs, there won't be anyone looking to sell them. But that ain't gonna happen with what's running this country.
I honestly think that would make matters only worse…. there will be more so called ACCIDENTAL killings be it drug related or vehicular homicides….. there maybe a lull in the drug cartel stuff, but it will still be illegal in Mexico and there will be hardly a drop off in violence…..
Excellent point. If I may add to your comments, what about drug abuse and its very negative effects on the family, as well as the very fabric of society itself?
Or we coudl just take the handcuffs off our own Texas/Az/NM ranchers and let them defend their property.. (or better yet, take the handcuffs off our national guard troops… that'd really even things up!)
"WWAD", sweet, new bumper sticker!
Thanks and I Completely agree, look at California…… medical marijuana my bum….. it was passed for the medical use but as per usual… there are people that will take it to a extreme!!!
Fighting this kind of enemy seems like a great idea for a new movie or comic book. If only this were the 1980s and we still made movies where the objective was to wipe out the bad guys.
border security… we don't need no stinkin' border security.
Great article. More people need to know about the carnage taking place in Texas bordertowns. I first heard about the Zetas and this guy Reta on the History Channel's "Gangland" series, and it was freaking chilling…how do you solve this? who knows…predator drones over mexico?
A further problem is that so much money is flowing from drug lords to politicians on this side of the border. Don't ever doubt that there is tainted money funding campaigns at every level. And there are people who say it is racist to take a means of making money (drug dealing) away from brown people in the projects.
Good Post Mr.Kipling.I'm in accordance with everything your saying. We could crush this problem in no time flat But something is getting in the way .What could it be? 1. No Will to Do It 2.To Many Power Players Making To Much Money On Both Sides Of The Border. 3. Good Old B.S. Politics Neither Party Wants The Other To Look Good.or 4. My Personal Favorite All The Above. What Say You Brother.
That would be a great start!… : )
Perhaps Riddick is the answer.
Don't need no Predator drones. Just need to enforce the existing drug laws. Forget the dealers already! If nobody is buying, they won't be selling. Put the users in jail, and this all goes away very quickly! They don't FORCE anyone to buy their drugs. And if they can't make a buck selling them to the enthusiastic users, they won't be dealin'!
I am with your personal favorite.
When are people ever going to wake up? Your government does not care and allows all of this to happen! The Constitution and the rule of law is dead dead dead.
Force ain't gonna do it. We gotta get rid of all the junkies in America.
The government created this problem when it created a black market for illegal drugs. All black markets are prone to violence due to the high profit margins. Prohibition of alcohol should have proven this fact to everybody.
Capone would have been a third-rate crook without Prohibition.
Let's not confuse liberty – the ability to do right – with licentiousness – the ability to do whatever we want without moral consequence. The Founding Fathers understood the difference.
So, you advocate "jumping from the pan into the fire". This comment was not about the use of alcohol, which, the last time I checked, was still legal for all adults 21 and older. Your opinion here is based on faulty logic at best. We are talking about the legalization of drugs which are currently illegal. Not the CRIMINALIZATION of alcohol, which IS legal if you are over the age of 21. Yes, and this has been cited in court cases AD NASEUM, the community reserves the right to impose standards in the best interest of the community at large.So, it would appear that , at least in certain situations, the gov't. does have a role in "fixing families", as you put it.Sorry to burst your bubble, but alot of people, a vast majority, don't want the scourge of drugs on their streets.Illegal drugs do carry their own set of problems,which will not be "fixed" by making them legal.This only serves to make them even more AVAILABLE to people, especially children.I don't drink alcohol,by the way, so I have no interest in promoting alcohol.
Well in many ways it is.. The Taliban both in Afghanistan and Pakistan are more or less drug funded cartels and are not comprised of native Afghani's or Paki's for the most part. The ones we helped to defeat the Russians are mostly dead and a new and more virilant strain have replaced those who were once our allies.. Yes, it is a war and 12=18 year old kids are caught in the crossfire. Your kids and mine and just about everyone's.. I don't know a single family in the U.S. who has not been affected by drugs in one way or another and it's a shame so many people treat it as if it is some minor issue.
Have you noticed that when the Government appoints a Czar (as in Drug Czar) it means we've lost or are going to lose as in Energy Czar, Car Czar ect.
Excellent point!!
That's just it, unfortunately, many people cannot or will not take responsibility for their own lives, and then, yes, it becomes a drain on the rest of society. I see your point about not wanting the gov't. to control your life, but at the same time, society has the right at large to set standards that do not infringe upon our constitutional rights as individuals and drug abuse is not 1 of those rights.It would be great if we all could take control of our lives and live in the peace and great prosperity that this country has to offer, just ain't gonna' happen.
When we legalized alcohol consumption after Prohibition, the rampant crime associated with the black market for alcohol vanished completely. There is no fault in my logic at all.
Incidentally, most drug laws are currently handled AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. That's why DEA agents raid medicinal marijuana shops in California. States apparently have very little say when it comes to what's legal and what's not. Please tell me where in the Constitution the federal government gets authority to regulate drugs of any kind.
As to the argument that decriminalizing drugs somehow makes them "more available," here's a simple mental exercise: Is it easier to buy Oxycontin or cocaine from some guy on the corner in a bad neighborhood?
That works for me!
[...] here to see the original: Narco-Terrorism: American Style This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
In every country that has decriminalized or legalized drugs, their usage has gone way down. The same thing goes for drug-related crimes. The USA has 5% of the world's population and it consumes 95% of the world's production of cocaine.
This insane amount of cocaine doesn't just cross the border in the trunk of teenagers. It gets shipped via charter planes… like the one that got shot down in Mexico last year. It was a CIA charter plane and it carried 3.2 tons of cocaine.
The "war on drugs" is a load of BS. The government wants people to be on drugs… "it" wants them to care only about their next hit. That's why our kids went from being the smartest at math in the world to being some of the dumbest. We have to bring doctors and engineers from other countries because our own kids can't pass their high school proficiency tests.
Our country is going to the sh*ts and our apathy is to blame.
There's plenty of stuff that's not spelled out as a "constitutional right," though–stuff like going to the movie theater, eating Twinkies, listening to loud music, etc.
Do you want the government meddling in those areas, too? Why not? An argument can always be put forward that certain movies encourage teenage pregnancy or smoking, eating Twinkies makes you fat, and listening to loud music harms your ears and (depending on the music) is morally questionable. Where do we draw the line?
At some point, we simply need to acknowledge that the pursuit of happiness also includes the opportunity to fail at life. That failure needs to be owned by the individual, not divided up by the government and placed upon all of us. The sad fact is that the drain on our society is most often caused by the government not allowing people to face the consequences of bad decisions.
That said, I don't believe in the government making the decisions for us.
I agree about alcohol 100%….. plus I am a member of AA, could care less what people think of me.. sober over 20 years…..Prohibition was one thing and that was over turned, however I do not think that there will be a prohibition for MARIJUANA…. I honestly say that DRUGS SHOULD NEVER be legal…. But if your saying destructive… then what about guns? they kill just like drugs and alcohol…. I want less government intrusion and Obama is looking for MORE.
If there is a stronger argument for the legalization of drugs than the huge amount of wasted life and resources expended to fight the "war on drugs" that this article is an example of, I can't think of one.
How can it possibly be worse than the situation as it is now?
In regards to your first point, of course the rampant crime vanishes after something is legalized, that's because it's now legal.But what about drunken driving, vehicular homicide when drunk, crimes of "passion" committed when drunk, people stealing or committing other crimes in order to buy booze(or their next "fix", legal or not)? That is very faulty logic, or lack thereof. Please tell me where in the constitution your right to use ILLEGAL drugs is guaranteed?What kind of sense does your next point make? "Is it easier to buy Oxycontin or cocaine from some guy on the corner?" It dosen't matter, cocaine and Oxycontin are both illegal to use or possess unless prescribed by a doctor. Now you tell me ,how could they not be easier to obtain if they were legal?Believe me, as I said before, I understand and I empathize with your fears of the gov't. ruling our lives. The Founding Fathers also stressed the role of "common sense" in running our individual lives.
I am not saying, as I stated before, that I totally dis-agree with you on the role of the gov't. (especially @ fed. level) running or not running our lives, as a matter of fact I think we would agree on most issues a vast majority of the time. However, as you would probably concur, the ramifications of illegal drugs are so great that the adverse affects of legalization greatly outnumber the positives. I know that keeping drugs illegal is an enormous profit maker(re-hab centers, criminal justice system), as I stated before, its more of a commentary on the state of society today. We have to keep drugs off the streets and out of our children's hands.Yes, we do all have the right to fail, success is never guaranteed.So why stack the deck against someone?All of the debate we can have on this site will never change reality.We have all probably all seen first or second hand the ravages of drug usage(illegal or legal), making them legal, I believe, will only exacerbate the problem.You stated where do we draw the line, then I, for 1,say here.Thanks for the debate, even if we do have to agree to dis-agree this time, I welcome any other comments from you
I think it has to go both ways, though.If there are drugs out there, someone will take them.
By legalizing drugs, making more drugs available to more people and removing the stigma as well as any deterrent at all to drugs."You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater".
The core group of men commanding los Zetas, were trained and outfitted here in the United States at the School of the Americas in the 1990’s.
You are laying this at the feet of the U.S.? These filthy animals were also trained by foreign governments and have actively recruited former special ops/intel operatives from all over the globe.
Please…the School of the Americas is probably the only thing that kept Latin America from turning into a series of Soviet police states.
It is not the fault of the U.S. that these people CHOSE a life of murder and criminality.
Excellent comments, Kip!
We have Delta-Force, Seals, Green Berets,Army Rangers, Marine Recon, All Kinds of Snipers a Navy a Coast Guard a Marine Corps an Army a National Guard and a Air-Force not to mention Marshals Sheriffs Border Patrol ATF DEA FBI and the rest of the alphabet and we can't stop these Parasitic Vermin. Somethings Very Wrong .Great Chunks of That MONEY Must Be Going Very High Up. Nahhh. That can't be it. I know our Officials and Politicians are above all that ……Oh Well Just a wild crazy thought….Sorry
Hasn't even happen when the Gipper was there! All of those politicians are money grubbing bastards. Our last president relented for -I think- three months and had army reserves guarding the border and much if not all trafficking stopped.. than it stopped and business as usual.
The bantered about "War on Drugs" has been beaten over Americas' head for decades now and I find it in itself disingenuous. "WAR" intels destruction of the opposing force in total by any means necessary. Not to be straddled by laws created by One government to follow while the opposing fully ignoring it. President Bush proved that it is completely possible to stop this junk from happening by his posting of the National Guard along the border. He cowardly -no doubt by our civilian laws- stopped it after three months (I recall) and that crap just poured right back in.
–If our neighboring country doesn't have the fortitude to crush this blemish while pocketing the cash from it, I say do the extreme and clear out the land on our side of Every building for a 1,000 meter back. We've flooded whole cities for dams so this shouldn't be a tactical or logistical problem. Put up notices ever 50 feet declaring the border with an even BIGGER notice that within that 1K area, lays millions of state of the art MINES and pop-up MACHINE GUNS that despises rounds that EXPLODE as so to not inflict long lasting suffering of the idiot who decided to try a crossing. At the end on our side will be a two story size wall with motion sensors linked to Gatling guns that discriminate the difference of animals and humans. PETA would be proud that we favor them over humans, eh?
Cowards.
Excuse me, but the government has no role in "fixing" families. Families fix families. Churches fix families. There is nothing remotely conservative about allowing the federal government to dictate what Americans can and cannot ingest.
Alcohol is every bit as destructive as illegal drugs. Shall we try outlawing alcohol again? It worked so well the first time we tried it.
Oh wait. Prohibition of alcohol created a black market fueled by massive profits and violence. Kind of like what's going on right now with drugs.
True. We're part of the problem. Hell, Obama was part of the problem back in tha day. I've done coke three times in my life, years apart, the last time was in the 80s. I don't remember wondering if anybody died getting this cocaine to me.
No, liberty is the ability to live one's life as he or she wishes so long as he or she does no harm to another person.
"Licentiousness" is something that varies dramatically from person to person. One person's licentiousness is another person's personal choice. Plenty of people object to alcohol consumption. In fact, there are still folks out there who want to make the whole country "dry."
Why shouldn't we listen to them, too? After all, alcohol consumption is "licentious" behavior.
It all comes down to who you want making the choices: us or the government. Seeing as I prefer liberty, like our Founders did, I want us to control our own lives.
Czars are not constitutional…so, why was Robert Byrd the only Democratic Senator to raise the issue when he said that the czar system "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances" because Czars are not approved by the Senate; and the oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.
"As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president," Byrd wrote. "They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."
Czars are not constitutional…so, why was Robert Byrd the only Democratic Senator to raise the issue when he said that the czar system "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances" because Czars are not approved by the Senate; and the oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate?
"As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president," Byrd wrote. "They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."
There's plenty of stuff that's not spelled out as a "constitutional right," though–stuff like going to the movie theater, eating Twinkies, listening to loud music, etc.
Do you want the government meddling in those areas, too? Why not? An argument can always be put forward that certain movies encourage teenage pregnancy or smoking, eating Twinkies makes you fat, and listening to loud music harms your ears and (depending on the music) is morally questionable. Where do we draw the line?
At some point, we simply need to acknowledge that the pursuit of happiness also includes the opportunity to fail at life. That failure needs to be owned by the individual, not divided up by the government and placed upon all of us. The sad fact is that the drain on our society is most often caused by the government not allowing people to face the consequences of bad decisions (look no further than the bank and automotive bail-outs for huge examples of this).
That said, I don't believe in the government making the decisions for us. We cease to be free if we proceed down that path.
I don't say legalize it so much as control it.
People who are addicted should be able to go in, admit their problem, turn in their drug dealer and get an adequate low cost prescription for their drug of choice. This makes dealing more and more dangerous while sucking the profit out of the business.
Give the junkie just enough blow for personal use and threaten them with cold turkey if they pass any of it to a kid.
People who aren't addicted would soon find illegal drugs very hard to find, as once you legally supply all of the junkies you automatically control the spread of the problem. Junkies are the ones that bring in the next fish to be boned in exchange for a free hit.
Use the vast savings in prisons, courts, lawyers, cops and social workers to run an all pervasive anti drug media campaign. I'd like to see a show that introduces kids to the fate of a junkie.
I'd have to go with your personal favorite as well.
It is apparent to me, and I know I am not alone, that communities of illegal aliens across America did not just happen. The argument for amnesty is that this will bring these unfortunate souls into the open, to help the police and their community rid itself of the scourge of drug running and gang violence. I reject this argument. I think the drug cartels now in pitched battle with the Mexican army have been directly responsible for facilitating this massive influx of unemployed people from Central and South America. What we see now is a pre positioning of millions of people who now offer cover, comfort, and direct assistance to Drug Cartels. Wake up America. This is not a drill.
legalize the drugs – eliminate the profitability – It sounds bad but it's the only way to stop the problem at its root. Otherwise it will be a never-ending cycle of death and new kids replacing those who died. If there's no money in it anymore, there won't be a narco-war to fight anymore either and these kids will stay kids. I also find it hard to believe their training is as good as our special forces or our regular army/marines. The author states "sources" without naming any of those sources, just the kid in jail. I don't doubt they're good at what they do, but as good as our guys, I doubt it. BTW, I'm an iraq war vet who DOES NOT use drugs.
"Won't happen with Barry in office."
I am certainly no fan of Barry, but this is not a party issue. Reagan didn't do it. Clinton didn't do it. Neither Bush did it.
This is a people vs. Washington issue. In poll after poll, the people want the border dealt with. But in Washington, the only thing they are worried about is making citizens out of illegals. Why we put up with it, I do not know.
But if you legalize it…won't an illegal market just spring up that sells the drugs even cheaper than the legal version? And how would you even regulate the legal cocaine heroin market? Create more gov't bureaucracy?
AllAmerican is right, we have the resources to stop this garbage BUT we also have a very powerful liberal lobby (im middle-of-the-road myself but Im in a position with my job where I kind of see this alot) and liberal politicians who will not let the borders be secured. Oh sure..half-ass attempts are made which yield no results.
Get rid of the US Border "Patrol"….turn them into the US Border Defense Forces, get rid of the silly green uniforms from 1955 with outdated leather gear (gunbelts etc). Outfit them with BDU's and let them do their job WITHOUT PROSECUTING THEM FOR SHOOTING DRUG DEALERS.
It comes down to this: the wave of illegal immigration across the Mexico U.S. border would not and could not happen without the Narco Cartels permission and or direct support and involvement. They control what happens in Mexico. In fact, this phenomona is conspicuously part of a larger strategy now played out every day in America: communities of mostly decent, hard working people who are used as human shields for a massive import of drugs and violence into our society. The LA Times has a series titled "Mexico Under Siege". Actually, it America Under Siege, with the horrific consequences simply spread out over a larger geographic area.
This pushes right up to (if not over) the line between trying to get Washington to listen and saying we have to deal with it ourselves. I'm not suggesting anyone goes outside of the law here – to be clear – just wondering when does the threat from groups like these become so bad that people will consider it worse than whatever penalty our own government might impose on us should we defend our country despite the law saying we can't?
The drug cartels have no fear / respect for our law enforcement or military so they just do as they please. They know just like we know that nothing much will happen to them. People are being killed and it's as if nobody cares… I don't understand. I hate fighting but when you have to – you have to. When will we fight back?
If people could just go to the drug store and buy drugs, all these problems would go away. Who profits by keeping drugs illegal?
They want SF action, give it to them. Intelligence first – who are the targets, what are their methods and areas of operation? Find them, track them, destroy them. Arrange "accidents" for the Zetas top dogs in NV too, if you can.
They want to "hardball it with the big boys", start with the brushback.
The point of legalizing these drugs is to cut off the flow of billions to criminal organizations which have become powerful enough to challenge states. I´m not sure that legalisation would deliver a net benefit – we can debate that forever – but it would achieve at least that much.
I definitely see your point. However, then do we build gov't. labs where they make crack, meth, snortable and injectable heroin, cocaine, so on and so on? It is a sticky wicket, indeed. I don't know where the answer lies, probably somewhere in between. thanks for your comments, El_Gordo, I welcome them anytime.
Absolutely! Think of the millions of dollars in enforcement and the lives saved. Government regulated, quality-controlled, sold to individuals over 21…there are myriad reasons to legalize numerous drugs.
Actually I produced that show for the History Channel–and yes it is chilling
Thanks. Well, we would not need government labs to make a legal product. That´s why we have the pharma industry. At least until Obama nationalizes them. Some very harmful or addictive products like crack would not be available (but since cocaine will be cheap, who will want crack?) The problem is nobody knows what legalization does to a society like ours. Chances are it will not be all pretty.
Yes, but with the advent of "Designer Drugs"(Xanax, Zoloft, Prozac, Welbutrin, etc, etc, do you think the gov't. wants us to be "mindless zombies"?) After all these new drugs actually change the chemical balance of the Brain and have the capacity of changing us to "mindless zombies", in clinical research these drugs have proven to be even more addictive than "street drugs", as they are more pure, uncut.
Mindless zombies? Isn´t that why tv was invented?
Such a drug would not be affected by legalization because like Prozac, it would be a regular, approved drug from the beginning. There´s a good movie idea. Whether to government wants it or not, too many people who are not truly ill are taking this stuff. Who said we have a right to be happy all the time?
Right on! The gov't. , or anyone else for that matter, can't guarantee our happiness( or anything else, even though campaign promises are made to assure us of our "continual happiness" forever, courtesy of "Big Brother") our right to be complete failures is assured. Yes, TV was invented to program the "mindless zombies", MTV anyone? Yes, El_Gordo, I agree that MD's are over prescribing these designer drugs on a large scale(Kickbacks anyone). Nowadays if you have any kind of problem, be it physical ,emotional or mental, the first mode of treatment is to take a pill. Truly sad commentary on the "State of the Union".
You must be logged in to post a comment.