Forums > General > General Forum

1 2 View All

chinagringo

Mar 3, 2011, 4:06 PM

Post #1 of 36 (2795 views)

Shortcut

What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

To the following stories:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2976/
http://www.cbsnews.com/...s/main20039031.shtml
Regards,
Neil
Albuquerque, NM

(This post was edited by chinagringo on Mar 3, 2011, 4:09 PM)

panama john

Mar 3, 2011, 4:37 PM

Post #2 of 36 (2758 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Incredible: Heads should roll on this one.

Rolly

Mar 3, 2011, 4:39 PM

Post #3 of 36 (2755 views)

Shortcut

Re: [panama john] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Yes, off with their heads!

Rolly Pirate

Reefhound

Mar 3, 2011, 4:54 PM

Post #4 of 36 (2745 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Dodson, Dodson, Dodson. It seems that all the stories and all the content comes down to one agent making claims. Let's investigate but let's hold off on drawing conclusions that ATF did everything they are accused of doing.

If the investigation supports the claims then a lot of high level people need to be prosecuted along with a restructuring of the entire agency. I don't see why alcohol and tobacco should be grouped with firearms and explosives anyway.

Vichil

Mar 3, 2011, 6:10 PM

Post #5 of 36 (2719 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

They are all lumped together as they are "controlled "substances in other word a major source of revenue for the States and Federal government. They are referred to as the "sin industry" all legal but barely. If you work in one of the 3 industries you are bound to break the laws as the laws are numerous and many time do not make a whole lot of sense from one State to another but they all make money and provide lots of jobs legal and other.

eyePad

Mar 3, 2011, 7:49 PM

Post #6 of 36 (2677 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Vichil] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Vichil, you are going way off topic from the OP thread
apáñatelas como puedas

chinagringo

Mar 3, 2011, 8:00 PM

Post #7 of 36 (2665 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

To my way of thinking, this report is one of the most damning and disgusting things that has come out on the US Government's activities in many years! Since at this point, it hasn't been proven, therefore I will withhold judgment but having watched the interview, I am somewhat inclined to believe same. The irony that this comes out on the day that Obama meets with Calderon and they both jointly announce some new agreements certainly doesn't escape me. Much the same as the sudden roundup of cartel connected members NOB. Seems to me that the US spends way too much time trying to set things up for the glamor and glory events while the lower worker bees continue with their damage and destruction resulting in additional deaths.
Regards,
Neil
Albuquerque, NM

turnabout

Mar 4, 2011, 5:27 AM

Post #8 of 36 (2618 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

I am not surprized at all since making war ( and arms) is a mainstay of the US economy. How else could you explain the "sudden" capture of nearly 700 cartel members plus the little bit of drugs ( less than 2 weeks worth in most cases ) .... seems they were trying to cover their butts since the story was leaked. Plus an agent, working undercover with out the knowledge of the host country, without the required escorts, out making trouble with the local bad guys is in most cases called a spy. He was killed, his partner called for help and now the whole mess is being exposed. The USA is to Mexico like the rich uncle you don´t want around your children.

Vichil

Mar 4, 2011, 5:32 AM

Post #9 of 36 (2618 views)

Shortcut

Re: [turnabout] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Big surprise, the US have spies!!! Get serious it is happening all over the world and the other countries have spies too another big surprise..

Reefhound

Mar 4, 2011, 5:53 AM

Post #10 of 36 (2613 views)

Shortcut

Re: [turnabout] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Wow, what a flurry of unfounded allegations. How were they "undercover" if they were in a U.S. diplomat plated vehicle and apparently willing to show ID to anyone who comes along? On what basis do you say they were there without the knowledge of Mexico, when ICE has 30 agents in D.F. all the time working with Mexican officials? Since when are escorts "required"? How were they "making trouble" by simply driving along a highway?

stevebrtx

Mar 4, 2011, 7:29 AM

Post #11 of 36 (2573 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Ok, this from the Obama/Calderon meeting as reported by Borderland Beat:

Mexican law bans foreign law enforcement agents working in the country from bearing arms, and Calderon vehemently expressed his opposition to making an exception for U.S. personnel. But he said Zapata's death showed a need to consider alternative methods for protecting agents.

Why? He isn't too proud to ask for help, or impose Mexico into the AZ law scuffle, but why is he so opposed to allowing this?
http://www.chapalaweather.net

chinagringo

Mar 4, 2011, 7:57 AM

Post #12 of 36 (2563 views)

Shortcut

Re: [stevebrtx] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

As per usual, we are getting off the original topic here. Then again, why would we want to talk about something that should be an embarrassment to the US?

Since I don't know the answer, here is a question for you: if the Mexican Police cross the border on "official business", are they allowed to carry firearms? Is it a state jurisdictional matter or are there federal standards?

Seems to me that the prohibition against outside authorities being armed may be restricted by the Mexican Constitution. If so, it would not be simply Calderon's decision but would require a change in the Constitution and we all recognize just how well political parties work together both NOB and SOB.
Regards,
Neil
Albuquerque, NM

turnabout

Mar 4, 2011, 8:51 AM

Post #13 of 36 (2535 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Vichil : I know that but some people need to be informed that the US has spies working here ( and with the cartels) It is that this time it did not turn out so well.
Chinagringo : Guns are restricted by the Constitution, you are right.
Reefhound ; Denile will get you no where. Take the time to connect the dots. More later for you my friend.

richmx2

Mar 4, 2011, 9:08 AM

Post #14 of 36 (2527 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Well, in a way, Rolly... heads have been rolling for several years here "thanks" to U.S. support. The fact that a U.S. agent got killed as a result of this "brilliant idea" of letting arms go through — just to see where they go (supposedly) — wouldn't have made much of a splash if the persons killed had been Mexican students gunned down because somebody had the wrong address, or some low-level flunky of a rival organization shot (and beheaded) for wandering on to the wrong turf.

I'm assuming that narcotics are allowed to go through and are "traced" (though more likely they are just going through with collusion on both sides of the border) under the presumption that the buyer can be "traced", but there's this feeling that narcotics buyers deserve what they get, and the innocents hurt are "collateral damage." If that's the thinking, well... then the U.S. agent is "collateral damage" too... If the U.S. wants a "war", this is the price it has to pay.

http://mexfiles.net
http://editorialmazatlan.com

stevebrtx

Mar 4, 2011, 9:22 AM

Post #15 of 36 (2523 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Sorry, can't buy into that one, if the MX Constitution says "no" then the simple answer would have been just that and hopefully we would be aware of that and not ask the question to begin with. But it was apparently a very aggressive "NO" as in hell no, no way in hell etc. which, of course, should have been the answer to allowing MX to intervene in a US judicial suit against AZ, but then I digress. I certainly don't agree with this administration - yes, THIS administration allowing arms into MX for any reason, but I'm also way tired of every problem in the world being the US fault. Some people need to take responsibility for their problems and actions.
http://www.chapalaweather.net

Reefhound

Mar 4, 2011, 10:08 AM

Post #16 of 36 (2500 views)

Shortcut

Re: [turnabout] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

turn, I didn't deny anything, I asked you to support your allegations. You failed to do so. Hopefully, you *will* have more for me later.

Reefhound

Mar 4, 2011, 10:17 AM

Post #17 of 36 (2488 views)

Shortcut

Re: [stevebrtx] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Why would Calderon oppose armed U.S. agents? Geez, I can think of a lot of reasons not to mention his political image back home. Does the U.S. offer reciprocity? Are these agents guests or diplomats? Do they have diplomatic immunity? What arms would be allowed, a 9mm handgun or a AR15 or a full automatic? Would they be trained in Mexican law? Think of the legal quagmire if these weapons are actually used and Mexicans are killed. Think of the outrage if the dead Mexicans turn out to be innocent bystanders. Or heaven forbid, a rogue agent decides to rape and kill a 14 yr old Mexican girl. (Yeah, all these things could potentially happen with a pocket knife but guns are the typical weapon used.)

stevebrtx

Mar 4, 2011, 10:43 AM

Post #18 of 36 (2472 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Guatemala allows some DEA agents to be armed and it seems to be having a very positive outcome.
http://www.chapalaweather.net

chinagringo

Mar 4, 2011, 12:50 PM

Post #19 of 36 (2434 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Because I was curious, I did some checking into my question. While I didn't find any definitive legal statements re: this question, I did find some other sources which seemed to indicate that foreign agents are allowed to be armed while on US soil. During my travels through this topic, I did find that Canada has similar restrictions as those imposed by Mexico. I also ran across some conversations that seemed to indicate that those carrying diplomatic credentials are allowed to be armed while in Mexico. If that is the case, then ICE, DEA, FBI agents would seem to be allowed to carry weapons IF they were granted diplomatic status. There were statements which came out of the Obama/Calderon meeting regarding the possibility of using this avenue to allow them to be armed.
Regards,
Neil
Albuquerque, NM

richmx2

Mar 4, 2011, 12:59 PM

Post #20 of 36 (2432 views)

Shortcut

Re: [stevebrtx] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

And Guatemala has about three times the murder rate Mexico does... AND Guatemala is another country, with a history of being a "client state" of the United States... something Mexico has resisted mightily throughout its history. Anyway, not having a copy of the Guatemalan legal code in front of me, what difference does it make what THAT country says about armed foreign agents, and what THIS country says about it?

http://mexfiles.net
http://editorialmazatlan.com

Reefhound

Mar 4, 2011, 1:27 PM

Post #21 of 36 (2420 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

One aspect to consider is whether the agents being armed is consistent with local law covering arms. Allowing a Mexican agent in Texas to be armed might simply be an extension of the law allowing any American in Texas to be armed (with proper permits and licenses). Whereas allowing an agent to be armed in Mexico might be inconsistent with laws prohibiting Mexicans from being similarly armed. Just a thought.

And then it may be that U.S. agents are often armed and with the knowledge of Mexican officials but this is one of those Don't Ask Don't Tell situations.

stevebrtx

Mar 4, 2011, 1:34 PM

Post #22 of 36 (2418 views)

Shortcut

Re: [richmx2] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Sorry, can't make your 3X Guatemala numbers work, looks like around 5,000 per year, MX was 6,500 last year. And, as for "client state" I'd have to say MX is much more a client than Guatemala when you consider the amount of latitude illegal aliens are given, the amount of money that is sent back to MX from the US (their second largest income I believe) and many other factors plus, as I mentioned before, allowing MX to intervene in a US law suit? What do you imagine would be the response if MX was suing Jalisco for something and the US wanted to join the suit because many gringos reside here? - I'd bet you hear the gafaws all the way here from the DF.
http://www.chapalaweather.net

tashby

Mar 4, 2011, 3:02 PM

Post #23 of 36 (2382 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

I have a message for the folks at ATF who orchestrated Operation Fast and Furious. It also starts with an F....and ends with a you.

(This post was edited by tashby on Mar 4, 2011, 3:04 PM)

richmx2

Mar 4, 2011, 9:59 PM

Post #24 of 36 (2305 views)

Shortcut

Re: [stevebrtx] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

Uh... Steve... what is the relative population of Guatemala compared to Mexico? Do you know what a client-state is? And what, in the U.S. legal system precludes any interested party from filing an amicus curiae brief, or a consular agent from filing court documents on behalf of a citizen of their country (as U.S. consular agents regularly do in Mexican courts)?

http://mexfiles.net
http://editorialmazatlan.com

stevebrtx

Mar 5, 2011, 6:21 AM

Post #25 of 36 (2259 views)

Shortcut

Re: [richmx2] What is Your Reaction?

Can't Post | Private Reply

I'll give you the population difference. And, while MX is not a pure "client" state, hence the reason for this discussion, they are in many ways a client state as the relevant meaning is "as a subordinate or follower of a patron" - and you have to recognize that Mexico is in large part dependent on the US. They exhibit fierce independence on many levels, often to their own determent, but as noted without the income etc. derived from the US Mexico would be poor indeed.

Your description of the amicus curiae brief is conveniently narrow. First of all, the suit against AZ by the Feds is driven by a need to preserve AZ sovereignty and 1070 wouldn't exist if the Feds were doing their job and enforcing existing Fed laws which are actually more strict than 1070, so the entire suit by the JD is just one of the current internal disasters being perpetrated on States by the Feds and is of questionable constitutionality - you will also note that something like 26 other States are looking at implementing similar laws.

You may have forgotten that the Fed was created by the States and powers were given to the Fed by the States. Of course there has been a gross misuse and assumption of power by the Feds and you are now seeing the tipping point where States are taking back some of those powers.

To file an amicus curiae brief on behalf of "a" citizen is understandable, but this is not on "a" citizen basis, you don't see them filing briefs for ever deportee, or do they? This is an attempted gate crashing by Mexico to justify their support of illegal aliens (whose income is vital to the MX economy) which is a sovereignty issue, not "a" citizen level issue. The definition of amicus curiae is "friend of the court" and I'd hardly, in this case, call MX a "friend" as in this scenario their citizens are the primary perpetrators of the illegal activities driving the need for 1070. Basically Mexico is asking the US to selectively nullify it's sovereignty, yet they insist on retaining theirs - why? To put it on a bumper sticker, "1070 is an internal US family fight, others are not invited until it's resolved".
http://www.chapalaweather.net

1 2 View All