Tweet Email Trump to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist groups

FGB

Literotica Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Posts
7,363
https://abc7news.com/trump-to-designate-mexican-drug-cartels-as-terrorist-groups/5722880/

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump put the Mexican government on the defensive when he said he "absolutely" will move ahead with plans to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations.

Trump said in a radio interview this week that tens of thousands of Americans are killed every year because of drug trafficking and other activity by the cartels. But Mexico is pushing back, worried that such a step would allow its neighbor to the north to violate its sovereignty by operating unilaterally inside Mexico.
****************************************


Drug Cartel
The basic structure of a drug cartel is as follows:

Falcons (Spanish: Halcones): Considered as the "eyes and ears" of the streets, the "falcons" are the lowest rank in any drug cartel. They are responsible for supervising and reporting the activities of the police, the military, and rival groups.[1]

Hitmen (Spanish: Sicarios): The armed group within the drug cartel, responsible for carrying out assassinations, kidnappings, thefts, and extortions, operating protection rackets, and defending their plaza (turf) from rival groups and the military.[2][3]

Lieutenants (Spanish: Tenientes): The second highest position in the drug cartel organization, responsible for supervising the hitmen and falcons within their own territory. They are allowed to carry out low-profile murders without permission from their bosses.[4]

Drug lords (Spanish: Capos): The highest position in any drug cartel, responsible for supervising the entire drug industry, appointing territorial leaders, making alliances, and planning high-profile murders.[5]

There are other operating groups within the drug cartels. For example, the drug producers and suppliers,[6]
although not considered in the basic structure, are critical operators of any drug cartel, along with the financiers and money launderers.[7][8][9]

In addition, the arms suppliers operate in a completely different circle,[10] and are technically not considered part of the cartel's logistics.
*************************
Definition of terrorism

the use of violence or of the threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological or social objectives and
acts committed by non-state actors (or by undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments)
acts reaching more than the immediate target victims and also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society
both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong)

The following criteria of violence or threat of violence fall outside of the definition of terrorism:[5][6]

wartime (including a declared war) or peacetime acts of violence committed by a nation state against another nation state regardless of legality or illegality that are carried out by properly uniformed forces or legal combatants of such nation states
reasonable acts of self-defense, such as the use of force to kill, apprehend, or punish criminals who pose a threat to the lives of humans or property
legitimate targets in war, such as enemy combatants and strategic infrastructure that form an integral part of the enemy's war effort
collateral damage, including the infliction of incidental damage to non-combatant targets during an attack on or attempting to attack legitimate targets in war
*****************************
Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended

It must be a foreign organization.
The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

Legal Ramifications of Designation

It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. (The term “material support or resources” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as ” any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’
Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).
Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Other Effects of Designation

Supports our efforts to curb terrorism financing and to encourage other nations to do the same.
Stigmatizes and isolates designated terrorist organizations internationally.
Deters donations or contributions to and economic transactions with named organizations.
Heightens public awareness and knowledge of terrorist organizations.
Signals to other governments our concern about named organizations.
 
A good thing or a bad thing?

Will Trump haters think this is a good thing or a bad thing?
 
IMHO

1. we are already in a non-conventional war with them. They will have won when the eastern hemisphere is just like Mexico. They just about rule Mexico NOW.

2. It will have to be a shooting war for the most part with other countries helping out. Mexico doesn't have the capability to supply people that can effectively do what has to be done. Bribes threats and retaliation renders them impotent.

3. I do not know if the USA can get enough support for this action. We don't want to occupy Mexico nor annex it. but the problem is at our back door and has a world wide affect.

4. The odds of Mexico staying fixed afterwards is not good considering their political and social system.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I see no reason not to engage in some covert raids and assassinations. Mexico is a failed narco-state.

We tried to go down there as advisors and clean it up and all we did was create smarter better trained criminals. We created the Zetas. Sone of ttem, I am sure, are good people.

There's no point in working with them there's no point in training them. Either we ignore them and get to working on the wall or we make cross-border raids on a regular basis and decapitate them.
 
Because Trump does it, it will be bad.

Exactly...it doesn't matter what he does the TDS afflicted will melt down over it.
067.jpg


IMHO

1. we are already in a non-conventional war with them. They will have won when the eastern hemisphere is just like Mexico. They just about rule Mexico NOW.

2. It will have to be a shooting war for the most part with other countries helping out. Mexico doesn't have the capability to supply people that can effectively do what has to be done. Bribes threats and retaliation renders them impotent.

3. I do not know if the USA can get enough support for this action. We don't want to occupy Mexico nor annex it. but the problem is at our back door and has a world wide affect.

4. The odds of Mexico staying fixed afterwards is not good considering their political and social system.

Thoughts?

1) They do rule Mexico now.

2)100%....they got BILLIONS at stake here and no other options. To do what you're talking about is going to be a very bloody affair.

3) The people can't stomach it...not even the usually OK with if not pro war right wing has much of an appetite for war. The left would lose their fucking minds. I think the reality is most would rather deal with the cartels than watch a war go down in our own back yard. We don't need to occupy/annex it.

4)Agreed, so help them out and encourage them to fix some of that.

5) We also need to consider the markets here, much like Capone they only get to exist because prohibition here. Time to change some of our own failed policies.

My personal view is we just get our border under control. Park our military on that fucker and just take violators the fuck out. Make the only 2 options available going through a legal port of entry or death. Simply cut Mexico off AND attack the markets by changing our policies which created the black markets that feed their organizations.

Eventually Mexico will have to sort itself out.
 
Last edited:
Will Trump haters think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

An incorrect thing. Drug cartels are as bad as terrorists and should be fought as hard as terrorists but that doesn't mean they're terrorists. It's a specific definition that they don't seem to fit.

A is not B just because A is like B.
 
An incorrect thing. Drug cartels are as bad as terrorists and should be fought as hard as terrorists but that doesn't mean they're terrorists. It's a specific definition that they don't seem to fit.

A is not B just because A is like B.

No they do not.

That is why I posted what I could find.

They are in a class by themselves when they get so big and international to the point that they are a threat to whole countries foreign and as well as their own.

Maybe that should be the measuring stick.
 
Tell ya what SONY.

Get yourself a real User Name grow a pair and put your Picture up as an AV.

Then I might give give you some minuscule amount of worthiness of listening to.

You don't even make a patch on a real Trolls ass.

Stop embarrassing yourself an slink away...:rolleyes:
 
Tell ya what SONY.

Get yourself a real User Name grow a pair and put your Picture up as an AV.

Then I might give give you some minuscule amount of worthiness of listening to.

You don't even make a patch on a real Trolls ass.

Stop embarrassing yourself an slink away...:rolleyes:

Sony? aren't you the guy who was too dumb to hit the "password reset" button :confused:
 
An incorrect thing. Drug cartels are as bad as terrorists and should be fought as hard as terrorists but that doesn't mean they're terrorists. It's a specific definition that they don't seem to fit.

A is not B just because A is like B.

How is it incorrect???

Just because they are criminal business oriented instead of loony toonz/sky daddy oriented doesn't mean they aren't terrorist.

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

The cartels absolutely fit the definition of terrorist, both legally and generically.
 
How is it incorrect???

Just because they are criminal business oriented instead of loony toonz/sky daddy oriented doesn't mean they aren't terrorist.
No but they have to have political purpose. Lots of separatist terrorists for instance. ETA et al.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

The cartels absolutely fit the definition of terrorist, both legally and generically.
What is the political and social goal of a drug cartel?
 
Last edited:
No but they have to have political purpose. Lots of separatist terrorists for instance. ETA et al.


What is the political and social goal of a drug cartel?



I'm going with money and power, same as any political group.
 
I'm going with money and power, same as any political group.

Power is a means.
For the political: to change society in some way.
For the crook: to get the money.
Many politcians claims to be political, but are crooks.
Yet more are both.
 
No but they have to have political purpose. Lots of separatist terrorists for instance. ETA et al.


What is the political and social goal of a drug cartel?

They have political purpose to their violence, to protect their business interest.

Which yes changes things a bit and is different from religious terrorism, no doubt.

But when you're hanging whole families off of highway overpasses with their tongues cut out to send a public message to keep your mouth shut? Threatening to kidnap and traffic someones wife and kids, or just burn them alive to force them to do your errands for you?? Or push the policies you want because it will benefit your criminal enterprise?? That's still terrorism.

There is even a specific term for it, "narcoterrorism" .

Narcoterrorism is a term coined by former President Fernando Belaúnde Terry of Peru in 1983 when describing terrorist-type attacks against his nation's anti-narcotics police. In its original context, narcoterrorism is understood to mean the attempts of narcotics traffickers to influence the policies of a government or a society through violence and intimidation, and to hinder the enforcement of anti-drug laws by the systematic threat or use of such violence. Pablo Escobar's violence in his dealings with the Colombian government is probably one of the best known and best documented examples of narcoterrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcoterrorism
 
Last edited:
They have political purpose to their violence, to protect their business interest.

Which yes changes things a bit and is different from religious terrorism, no doubt.

But when you're hanging whole families off of highway overpasses with their tongues cut out to send a public message to keep your mouth shut? Threatening to kidnap and traffic someones wife and kids, or just burn them alive to force them to do your errands for you?? Or push the policies you want because it will benefit your criminal enterprise?? That's still terrorism.

There is even a specific term for it, "narcoterrorism" .



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcoterrorism
Hmm. Yeah maybe. I still maintain changing society is not the goal. It's the means - control society to enrich yourself. So it's not a political goal, it's a crookery goal.

For the distintion, see my previous post.
 
What if Obama had done it?

Because Trump does it, it will be bad.

I asked if Liberals would say this was a good thing or a bag thing. The correct answer is that they would say it is a bad thing BECAUSE Trump did it.

What would they say if Obama had done it?
 
Skunks don't stink because...

Skunks don't stink because someone declares that they stink. They stink because they generate a chemical that many species detect with olfactory nerves and their brains interpret the chemical signature as a horrible smell.

The same thing is true with the drug gangs. They are terrorists because they terrorize. The only think happening here is that Trump is calling them what they are and dealing with them accordingly.

If any want to be critical of this move rather than applaud it then they need to spend some time with drug dealers or rove their neighborhoods and be terrorized a bit.

They may want to spend some time in an elevator with a angry skunk too and then they will understand why sane people say that skunks stink.
 
If one asserts that Mexican sovereignty is in the hands of the Capos rather than the so called government Liar's view is of no consequence.

Trump is used to dealing with organized crime in New York, Florida, Moscow etc, so it might be interesting to see what he could do. At one extreme he could organize the mass assassination of Capos using the military, but mebbe he would think cutting a deal for a piece of the action might be more profitable.:rolleyes:
 
Hmm. Yeah maybe. I still maintain changing society is not the goal. It's the means - control society to enrich yourself. So it's not a political goal, it's a crookery goal.

For the distintion, see my previous post.

To change society one must control it....control of or governing society (for whatever means) is the core of politics.

This is why I say I think it's political, that's what makes organized crime so bad, it's the marriage of politics and crime. Just like all the other organized crime outfits they could NOT be who they are without having deep connections in high places and a lot of them.

I think the primary difference is that it is strictly political/economic and not at all ideological.

Skunks don't stink because someone declares that they stink. They stink because they generate a chemical that many species detect with olfactory nerves and their brains interpret the chemical signature as a horrible smell.

I think skunks smell good. :D
 
Hmm. Yeah maybe. I still maintain changing society is not the goal. It's the means - control society to enrich yourself. So it's not a political goal, it's a crookery goal.

For the distintion, see my previous post.

"The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize." -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov
 
Back
Top