Forums > General > Traveling Mexico

Brian

Apr 7, 2010, 7:35 AM

Post #1 of 25 (4503 views)

Shortcut

There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Reefhound

Apr 7, 2010, 8:24 AM

Post #2 of 25 (4468 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Brian] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

In the U.S., those soldiers would probably be facing charges.

gpkgto

Apr 7, 2010, 12:01 PM

Post #3 of 25 (4425 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Brian] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

The sad message is "stop" no matter how unclear the gesture.

Zorba

Apr 8, 2010, 3:57 AM

Post #4 of 25 (4327 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

"In the U.S., those soldiers would probably be facing charges."

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

Hmmm.

Brian

Apr 8, 2010, 6:00 AM

Post #5 of 25 (4307 views)

Shortcut

Re: [gpkgto] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Looks like it was the result of miscommunication between the soldiers. What a tragedy.

http://www.pro8news.com/.../local/90164222.html

(This post was edited by Rolly on Apr 8, 2010, 9:21 AM)

Hound Dog

Apr 8, 2010, 9:58 PM

Post #6 of 25 (4207 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Brian] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

The family was on a road trip to the beach and approached a military roadblock. They slowed down and the young soldier gave an unclear gesture. How often have we experienced that? As often as not in my experience. Anyway, the driver proceeded and immediately shots rang out followed by grenades being hurled at the family vehicle. The adults tried to signal the soldiers to cease fire, that there were children inside, but to no avail.

There is something wrong with this story. We live half the year in Southeastern Mexico where there are many and often redundant army, federal and immigration checkpoints where young guys give seemingly ambiguous signals regarding whether one should or should not stop. In all instances when we spot a checkpoint we always slow nearly to a stop before proceeding with some certainty that we have been waved through the checkpoint. When we have been stopped by the army or federales we have always been treated with the utmost respect and courtesy on all occasions. These checkpoints are clearly marked and easily discernable from a distance and we have never encountered trigger-happy authorities. . These guys are facing constant danger and, under the circumstances, they do a good job. There are countless crooked local and federal cops in Southeastern Mexico. Lay off the good ones.

Hound Dog

Apr 8, 2010, 10:09 PM

Post #7 of 25 (4200 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

In the U.S., those soldiers would probably be facing charges.

In the U.S., those soldiers would probably be facing charges.

Unless, of course, the victims were Iraqis or Afgans or Panamanians or Nicarauguans or Vietcong or Mexicans on their way to El Norte to pick grapes or Haitians fleeing desperate living conditions or Algerians or Yemenis or on and on and on ad nauseum. Get serious. Maybe the Mexicans should give a couple of sheep to the surviving family like the U.S. thugs did in Afganistan to earn forgiveness.

(This post was edited by Hound Dog on Apr 8, 2010, 10:10 PM)

Reefhound

Apr 9, 2010, 7:42 AM

Post #8 of 25 (4163 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Hound Dog] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Dawg, if you like I could give you dozens of links where U.S. soldiers have been tried for their crimes against Iraqis, Afghans, and others. Here's a few from Iraq for starters.

The US military in Iraq has charged two of its soldiers with the murder of three Iraqis between April and June in the Iskandariya area, south of Baghdad.

Eleven US soldiers have been charged with beating suspected Iraqi insurgents in custody, US officials say.

The Mahmudiyah killings and gang-rape of a 14 year old girl ... Five United States Army soldiers of the 502nd Infantry Regiment were charged with the crimes:

I'd like you to provide similar links showing any other countries that also charge their own soldiers for offenses in a foreign land during a time of war. Or pay compensation for accidental casualties. Surely the evil U.S. military can't be the only one that apologizes for it's bad actions, takes punitive action against the offenders, and offers compensation?

I also think doubting the credibility of the Mexican family's account of what happened at a border zone checkpoint because you have encountered much friendlier checkpoints in deep Mexico is ridiculous. There is no comparison. One is a war zone and soldiers and police are being killed regularly. The troops in Nvo Laredo and Juarez are essentially operating in a war zone in a foreign land.

Casa

Apr 9, 2010, 8:20 AM

Post #9 of 25 (4150 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

"US military suspects not charged in Colombia rape case"

"The immunity of U.S. military contractors and soldiers became the center of controversy again after the U.S. and Colombia announced a renewed military cooperation, again granting diplomatic immunity to U.S. soldiers."

http://colombiareports.com/...ill-not-charged.html

(This post was edited by Rolly on Apr 9, 2010, 8:56 AM)

Reefhound

Apr 9, 2010, 10:35 AM

Post #10 of 25 (4116 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Casa] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Try reading your own link. This case was about a prosecutorial decision to not charge someone based on lack of evidence (which happens every day in every jurisdiction at the civilian level), not a decision to let someone get away with something.

"According to the U.S. the case is closed, because there is not enough evidence to prosecute the two suspected rapists."

"According to a U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Command spokesman, investigators did return to Colombia to investigate the case. They re-established the now 14-year old girl was raped, but ruled the two Americans out as suspects. "

The diplomatic immunity doesn't mean U.S. soldiers won't be charged in U.S. military court with due process, it simply means we are not going to let our soldiers be used as pawns and be convicted in kangaroo courts by corrupt leaders in banana republics.

For example, how do the Colombian prosecutors issue arrest warrants when they admit they never interviewed either the victim or her mother?

Casa

Apr 9, 2010, 2:02 PM

Post #11 of 25 (4085 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

I find the idea of someone posting a link to an article they have not read rather amusing, and I for one would never do that.

I am not sure if you read the article completely because it does not state anywhere that “the Colombian prosecutors issue arrest warrants when they admit they never interviewed either the victim or her mother”.

It does however say “Based on witness testimony and other evidence, the prosecutors did then issue an arrest warrant for the two men.”

In addition I never said that the article was about “a decision to let someone get away with something.” In fact I never said anything about the article. I posted it to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.

I agree with you that “In the U.S., those soldiers would probably be facing charges”, due to the litigious nature of US society and culture. However in many less developed countries it is not uncommon for “problems to disappear “with some well placed green backs.

I am not saying these men are guilty or innocent but in my opinion to believe that no US Military crime overseas goes unpunished is simply naïve.

Reefhound

Apr 9, 2010, 3:09 PM

Post #12 of 25 (4066 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Casa] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

"I am not saying these men are guilty or innocent but in my opinion to believe that no US Military crime overseas goes unpunished is simply naïve."

Who said that? Crimes go unpunished all the time, in all countries, military or civilian. I made the point that U.S. soldiers would have been charged (with sufficient evidence), someone responded to imply that U.S. troops aren't held accountable for their actions, I provided links of examples where they were. You replied to my post with a link and a title that says U.S. troops "not charged" so it appeared to be as a rebuttal, else what relevance was your post except maybe to obfuscate?

BTW, no one has risen to my challenge to show where any other military holds it's troops as accountable as the evil U.S. military. Or pays it's accidental and collateral damage victims any compensation. Or documents and published incident reports, testifies in public hearings on major mistakes, or allows independent press observers on missions.

"I am not sure if you read the article completely because it does not state anywhere that “the Colombian prosecutors issue arrest warrants when they admit they never interviewed either the victim or her mother”."

I didn't say the phrase above was a quote in the article. I didn't use quotes around. They were my words. What I did was put 2 and 2 together to get 4.

2 "the prosecutors did then issue an arrest warrant for the two men." [direct quote in article]
+
2 "Colombia's Prosecutor General's Office said it never received a request to interrogate the victim or her mother." [direct quote in article]
=
4 prosecutors issued arrest warrants when they never interviewed either the victim or her mother [my conclusion]

Or should I say, since we're parsing words, that there is no evidence that they interviewed the victim or her mother. Presumably they would have stated if they had conducted the interviews on their own initiative else the second point above would be irrelevant, the bottom line is they were willing to issue an arrest warrant without the most important witness testimony of all.

I'm kinda curious as to what witnesses they supposedly interviewed.

(This post was edited by Reefhound on Apr 9, 2010, 3:13 PM)

Poncho32

Apr 9, 2010, 8:27 PM

Post #13 of 25 (4011 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Brian] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Brian I'll reply to this in the same manner I did in another forum on this web site.

The job of a guard weather it be a Custom agent who is accused of rough handling a couple because he or she did a full body search or went completely through everything they had, is part of that persons job.

The fact that these people did not come to a full stop to insure that the Soldier
got what he needed from them was being naive on their part.

The incident in question is certainly a sad one , but in todays world people better be aware of what is happening around them.

To ridicule, or to judge any one government of how they may or may not handle a given situation like the one in question is easy,for those who think the job is so, they might try on that persons shoes.
Bud Crest

Altahabana

Apr 10, 2010, 3:29 AM

Post #14 of 25 (3984 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Bud Crest] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

That portion of Highway 2, known locally as la Carretera Ribereña, is literally a war zone. There is a very heavy military presence in the area and the military's mission there is different than it is in other parts of the country. There are daily incidents between warring factions (Zeta and Gulf Cartel) and between the military and those factions and that naturally creates tension and anxiety.

Very few people drive the Ribereña now unless it is absolutely necessary. Before the beginning of Semana Santa there were stories that appeared in local papers advising people to detour around the area through Monterrey if they wanted to go Playa Bagdad. This family was in an SUV with dark tinted windows and failed to stop at an obvious military checkpoint. I suspect the troops were following standing orders. Obviously a sad tragic story but civilians are at risk as the fighting becomes more open.

Brian

Apr 10, 2010, 5:45 AM

Post #15 of 25 (3972 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Altahabana] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

This is a case of the use of "excessive force" which any responsible law enforcement agency trains its members to avoid. The mother stated that the family car actually stopped at the roadblock but that the soldier with the flag gave a half-hearted wave something I have personally witnessed several times. The family vehicle was a Tahoe or Yukon (I forget which) which is a preferred vehicle of the narcos. That is insufficient evidence to presume wrong doing. Absent a threat to the soldiers safety, they should have used strips to deflate the tires or, at most, shot at the tires instead of the people inside. It was shoddy work and inexcusable absent any fear of the soldiers for their own safety. There was a similar incident at the Monterrey TEC if you will remember. Soldiers initially reported that they had killed two sicarios in the area. Instead, it turned out, they responded to a report of narcos nearby and saw two men who fit the physical descriptions. In fact, they were unarmed graduate students of the college. The Mexican Human Rights commission has filed complaints in these cases. Despite, numerous instances of abuse of authority, I don't think that any member of the Mexican Army has been held accountable. As a former law enforcement officer, I can, in fact, walk in the soldiers' shoes. I was trained to avoid excessive force. Reefhound is correct that screwups like this would not go unpunished in the United States. This decision by Calderon to use the Army to perform law enforcement duties and to conduct a military style war on the narcos has been a complete desmadre. All so the Sinaloa Cartel can prevail and peace restored to the country. Some might describe this as a conspiracy theory. Time will tell. I predict that the government will make a big show by taking down Chapo to show the theory was wrong. But that only leaves Mayo the businessman to run the enterprise in a manner that serves both the cartel and the Mexican economy. What a waste of human lives. To it's credit, the Mexican Army has apologized for it's mistakes to the involved families, but that can't bring back the dead.....

(This post was edited by Brian on Apr 10, 2010, 6:01 AM)

Altahabana

Apr 10, 2010, 6:52 AM

Post #16 of 25 (3958 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Brian] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

The war in the Northeast underway now is to eliminate the Zetas whose racketeering enterprises were creating turmoil in local economies. The Sinaloa Cartel has never established itself in this part of the country and their attempts to do that is what sparked the first spate of violence that gained international recognition in Nuevo Laredo 6-7 years ago. The winners in this battle will be the Gulf Cartel. Perhaps the Calderon government is simply trying to reduce the number of players in the game and restore the old rules.

http://www.milenio.com/node/415711

The event was tragic and by definition excessive since it was a mistake. I am not condoning their actions or justifying their use of deadly force under the circumstances. But it is no mystery locally what is happening on the river road and the decision makers in this family unwisely chose to ignore well publicized warnings to avoid the area. There are many roving checkpoints along this section of Highway 2 and there are troop movements all along the route between Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros.

Since the Frontera is hardly an ex-pat retirement area and merely a transit point I wouldn't expect too many to be familiar with the situation on the ground here. For the last six weeks the area between Nuevo Guerrero and Reynosa is more like Kanduhar province than Tamaulipas. The niche crossings of Falcon Dam, Roma and Rio Grande City that I have seen mentioned on some boards by ex-pats as alternatives should be avoided for the time being.

(This post was edited by Altahabana on Apr 10, 2010, 7:30 AM)

Hound Dog

Apr 10, 2010, 10:42 AM

Post #17 of 25 (3906 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

BTW, no one has risen to my challenge to show where any other military holds it's troops as accountable as the evil U.S. military.

Dawg has not risen to your ethnocentric and jingoistic "challenge" because there is nothing to which to rise to only to lower oneself to to wallow about in the mud generated by the fog of war. The U.S. and like cynical manipulators of existing media are infamous for their righteous condemnations of others playing the same game but less well. There are so many instances of the raping of villagers in Viet Nam to the slaughter of "Camel Jockeys" and campesinos and innocent families from Iraq to Afganistan to Panama to El Salvador to Kent State to Nicaraugua to Colombia to Cambodia, which Nixon and the war criminal Kissinger ruthlessly destroyed thereby setting the stage for the Khmer Rouge killing fields, to Laos to the wanton firebombing and nuclear destruction of millions burned alive and chemical warfare carried out against Southeastern Asian peasants and the turning into cheap whores of young girls in Saigon and the deforestation and chemical poisoning of massive lands in the plains and mountains of Vietnam while later permitting profit from opium growers in Helmand who served the U. S. corrupt regime and the promise to firebomb Hanoi back into the stone age and the promising of vast amounts of filthy lucre to deliver the body of the fiends who slaughtered thousands on 9/11 and, anyway, at least we now know what the life of an Afghan peasant not involved in terrorist activities is worth versus some capitalist opportunist investment banker who innocently went to work in the towers that morning of 9/11 versus last month on the plains of rural Afganistan, The opportunistic capitalist´s ashes were worth millions of dollars and the Afghan peasant´s ashes were worth two sheep and an apology from some U.S. flag officer who, after the ceremony, returned to his tent for his well deserved brandy and cigar.

Let´s not forget the genuine hero, Corporal Tillman who gave up millions as a football star to shine in football stadia and died under friendly fire in the trenches in the Afghanistan wilderness only to have cowardly U.S. military officers try to cover up that episode - and that, not mistaken friendly fire - is the disgrace here. Who has paid for that spineless act? There was no draft compelling Tillman to endanger himself while giving up miilions in compensation. How can any American live with this disgrace?

How many were slaughtered and burned alive in that square by the criminals of Blackwater who were paid mercenary agents of the corrupt U.S. war machine and remain in business today under a new name but with the same war criminals in charge? Is it possible to become more cynical than that? How many died in U.S. sponsored deadly revolutions in places from Chile to El Salvador to Iraq to Honduras to Saigon and how many will die in Mexico supplying U.S. drug users with their drugs and U.S. gun suppliers with their profits?. How long will it take to wash the blood from the hands of the U.S. functionaries and their sponsors, the U.S. voters and tax payers?

Beats me.

Dawg was in the Marine Corps as an 0300 Rifleman Corporal in the 1960s and only avoided Vietnam because of timing and the grace of God. Don´t talk to me about the sterling conduct of the dishonorable U.S. imperialists sending young morons off to be killed while people like our recent president Bush was chasing Southern Belle tail at the Montgomery Country Club and shirking his duties as a National Guard fighter pilot so he could campaign for some southern segregationist troglodyte Dawg happens to have known personally . I am disgusted by this.

(This post was edited by Hound Dog on Apr 11, 2010, 11:05 AM)

Reefhound

Apr 11, 2010, 4:42 PM

Post #18 of 25 (3820 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Hound Dog] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Translation: "I can't show what I was specifically asked to show but if I blabber long enough people might think I said something relevant."

Hound Dog

Apr 11, 2010, 6:36 PM

Post #19 of 25 (3764 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Translation: "I can't show what I was specifically asked to show but if I blabber long enough people might think I said something relevant."

You defined your problem. Live with it.

(This post was edited by Hound Dog on Apr 11, 2010, 6:38 PM)

Camille

Apr 11, 2010, 9:08 PM

Post #20 of 25 (3731 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Hound Dog] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

What Dog said.......

smokesilver

Apr 11, 2010, 9:16 PM

Post #21 of 25 (3725 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Hound Dog] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Yep...and that's the way it is today and will continue to be tomorrow...$ONE TRILLION per year spent on "defense".

Poncho32

Apr 14, 2010, 7:46 PM

Post #22 of 25 (3591 views)

Shortcut

Re: [smokesilver] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Hound Dog

Apr 15, 2010, 10:21 AM

Post #23 of 25 (3507 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Bud Crest] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

From a Korean war veteran ,if we don't spend the adequate amount each year that the nation as a whole feels necessary to stem the spread of terrorism ?
What do you suggest, lay down and let whoever roll over us?
Bud Crest

Tel me something, Bud, just what spread of international trerrorism were you fighting in Korea in the 1950s or were you fighting to feed the poor in the Korean Peninsula or just fighting to fulfill your military obligations as a conscript? The spread of Western Imperialism as represented by the United States or the spread of Asian imperialism as once represented by the recently defeated Japanese Empire or the rising of the, eventually,far more important post-war Chinese Empire as originally represented by Mao with his People's Revolution inspired by Western intervention in the Far east or by his antagonist Ho Chi Mihn fighting to reclaim Indochinese independence from both French and Chinese and later American imperial forces.

This discourse is not about who defeats whom: it is about honor and there is one thing that is a given; if you are to criticize others for having exhibited dishonorable behavior, you had better have clean hands yourself. My poiint was that the U.S. has blood on its hands and should not criticize others who have followed the same path.

Since you are a Korean War Vet and I a Marine Corps 0300 Rifleman vet of the 1960s, let me ask you a question. If the U.S. military acquitted itself with such honor during the Korean conflct, why is it that a major part of my basic Marine training in 1960 was to teach me not to act as the U.S. military did in the 1950s during the Korean Conflict in the face of the Chinese campaign to brainwash successfully American soldiers and why, we were taught, that we must not engage in cowardly retreat before enemy troops as the American soldiers did at Inchon when the Chinese whipped ther asses?

We are all human and subject to human foibles. Holier-than-thou recounts of history are inappropriate at all times.

Dawg

(This post was edited by Hound Dog on Apr 15, 2010, 10:25 AM)

Brian

Apr 15, 2010, 11:19 AM

Post #24 of 25 (3485 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Hound Dog] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

I think I hear the closing of the padlock right about now.......

Brian

tonyburton

Apr 15, 2010, 11:46 AM

Post #25 of 25 (3477 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Brian] There but for fortune go you or I

| Private Reply

Yes, this thread has certainly wandered away from Mexico. Start another thread, but please focus on Mexico. Thanks.