Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona [Archive]

GratefulCitizen

06-22-2010, 21:09

As a therapist that has dealt with drug burdened and damaged patients for a little while ( 20 years), that's absolute nonsense IMPO. The addiction mechanism has nothing whatsoever to do in any way with the laws on the books. Removing the laws does nothing to cure the initial need of a self-esteem-damaged patient that seeks drugs to compensate in the first place.

Believe it or not, some people stay away from certain activities because of the possible penalties, but what do I know?

I think I smell the fumes of some Libertarian crack-pipe dreams here, but I certainly could be wrong.:D

Ooops. I'm hijacking my own thread.

This may sound heartless, but their addiction is their problem.

When we engage in a war on drugs, money is taken from people who don't use drugs and is used in a de facto bidding war against those who do use drugs.
That bidding war drives up the price to where it's worth the risk for some to invade the USA and commit any degree of violence in order to sell their product.

If someone wants to risk addiction, they should pay the consequences.
Why should my money be taken and used to drive up profits for criminals who invade my state?

Plenty of alcohol addicts out there.
Prohibition of alcohol didn't work.

Defender968

06-22-2010, 21:17

I find this story more than a little disconcerting.

Might be time to break out a Governor from yesteryear, one with enough sand to send troops into the area.

As do I especially when viewed in concert with the report that in the past month a plan by Los Zetas to destroy a dam in Texas was foiled, We have 2 reports that amount to acts of war IMO in less than a month....and what are we doing about it....best I can tell the Feds are too busy filing Law suits against Arizona to actually do anything. IMO we're beyond a LE matter at this point. Were I the Gov's of Arizona or TX I'd mobilize the guard, and send them to the border with live ammo, time to stop playing nice and recognize this for the threat that it is.

Roguish Lawyer

06-22-2010, 21:29

As a therapist that has dealt with drug burdened and damaged patients for a little while ( 20 years), that's absolute nonsense IMPO. The addiction mechanism has nothing whatsoever to do in any way with the laws on the books. Removing the laws does nothing to cure the initial need of a self-esteem-damaged patient that seeks drugs to compensate in the first place.

Believe it or not, some people stay away from certain activities because of the possible penalties, but what do I know?

I think I smell the fumes of some Libertarian crack-pipe dreams here, but I certainly could be wrong.:D

Ooops. I'm hijacking my own thread.

Drug users are going to use whether drugs are illegal or not. The reason to legalize is to take the production and distribution business away from criminals, thereby reducing associated violence etc. It also would facilitate some regulation and taxation of the trade.

There is no reason why you can't try to reduce demand in a legalized regime.

CombatMuffin

06-22-2010, 22:11

I felt compelled to contribute on this particular issue, as it also affects my country(Mexico):

Its an incredible shame that drug cartels are allowed to operate with such impunity on both sides of the border, and the main reason, in my humble opinion, is corruption on both sides.

It is absolutely clear to me that the government in Mexico is by far more tainted by corruption than it is in the United States, but as it is human nature to be corruptible, it would be nonsense to believe there is no corruption there either(whether it be a particular authority, or common citizens providing clandestine support).

That's where I wish to make my point: Legalizing drugs would damage the cartels' operations to some degree, since their real source of power can be considered to be their money, and not necessarily ideologies or other similar factors. I am still however, morally against the legalization of drugs, since it has social consequences I would not be willing to risk.

Here in Mexico, we see a lot of idleness from the government. Sure, they have increased the military's efforts to hamper their operations, and made some progress on some fronts, but they are very, very far away from controlling the situation. I don't think its from lack of resources, but anyone who has lived here for a certain period of years learns to distrust the authorities because they themselves, may be tied with the cartels.

SMP9168

06-22-2010, 22:13

ZonieDiver

06-22-2010, 22:37

I am not sure about Texas, but AZ is broke. But that we could afford to send the NG!

The police chief of Puerto Penasco, Sonora (Rocky Point) was ambushed in town on Sat. along with his bodyguard. Neither killed, despite numerous AK rounds. There have been several shootings between the border (Lukeville, AZ/ Sonoyta, Sonora) and Rocky Point. Mexican and Arizonan business interests want to - and do - downplay this. Thousands of Arizonans vacation in RP weekly.

My sister is there now with friends. I refused to go.

This is out of control. So far, the only ones doing anything about it are some overweight Neo-Nazis!

mojaveman

06-22-2010, 22:48

This is out of control. So far, the only ones doing anything about it are some overweight Neo-Nazis![/QUOTE]

That's some drama I'd like to see...:D

ZonieDiver

06-22-2010, 23:12

This is out of control. So far, the only ones doing anything about it are some overweight Neo-Nazis!

That's some drama I'd like to see...:D[/QUOTE]

Here you go:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/06/jt_readys_neo-nazi_patrol_in_v.php

GratefulCitizen

06-23-2010, 12:33

I have never heard of anyone getting drunk off a bottle of booze and cutting off their own babie's head, then shoving the body in a trash can because they thought the baby was possessed by a demon. The same cannot be said of other drugs (we're not talking weed, here).

Just saying

Did the fact that those drugs were illegal prevent the purchase, use, and subsequenct actions?

I have never heard of a pharmacist threatening law enforcement and killing whomever gets in their way in order to protect their legal trade.

The same cannot be said of illegal drugs.

Paslode

06-23-2010, 13:14

This is out of control. So far, the only ones doing anything about it are some overweight Neo-Nazis!

There are rumors that 'The King' is drafting a Executive Order that will make them all legal and put all the fears to rest. One extremely fringe outlet even states there are 10,000 patriots (or misguided individuals) ready to play Alamo.

It's a frigg'n mess anyway you look at it.

dr. mabuse

06-23-2010, 13:45

TOMAHAWK9521

06-23-2010, 14:44

I think it's about time for one of those accidental artillery barrages that was somehow plotted onto the wrong grid point. All the FSO could say is "Aw shucks, there were never supposed to be people out in that remote area. How could we have known?" "Unfortunately, the recovery teams couldn't find a single survivor. Gosh, we are sooo sorry."

SMP9168

06-23-2010, 22:55

[QUOTE=GratefulCitizen;336318]Did the fact that those drugs were illegal prevent the purchase, use, and subsequenct actions?QUOTE]

I have never tried any illegal drugs, nor have I ever been an alcoholic. However, I have dealt with countless drug addicts and alcoholics. Most people who drink alcohol do not become alcoholics. However, from the addicts I've spoken to, all say that the moment you smoke crack, pcp, meth, or heroin, you instantly become an addict. Many of these addicts become very violent against police officers and citizens (as do some who are drunk). Many drug addicts become so consumed by their addiction that they stop going to work, then need to commit crimes to get the money to buy their drug of choice. They commit robberies, burglaries, fraud, identity theft, etc. For some reason, it seems that nearly every tweaker I've dealt with (meth addict), is involved in identity theft and fraud.

So knowing this, why would we legalize something that instantly creates an addict? More addicts means more crime, more unemployed and homeless people, more people trying to milk the system, etc. There was just a story here in Phoenix about a couple being charged with numerous felonies when the mother brought her 2 month old to the hospital with broken bones, black eyes, numerous bruises, and evidence of sexual assault. Her and the father are both meth addicts.

Will there be less drug dealers? Yes. Will that decrease violence? Doubtful. The mules who transport drugs across the border will transport humans instead. Some day, they'll be smuggling human organs across the border. Something will always fill the void. I don't think you can compare the legalization of hard drugs to prohibition and the legalization of alcohol.

GratefulCitizen

06-23-2010, 23:04

I have never tried any illegal drugs, nor have I ever been an alcoholic. However, I have dealt with countless drug addicts and alcoholics. Most people who drink alcohol do not become alcoholics. However, from the addicts I've spoken to, all say that the moment you smoke crack, pcp, meth, or heroin, you instantly become an addict. Many of these addicts become very violent against police officers and citizens (as do some who are drunk). Many drug addicts become so consumed by their addiction that they stop going to work, then need to commit crimes to get the money to buy their drug of choice. They commit robberies, burglaries, fraud, identity theft, etc. For some reason, it seems that nearly every tweaker I've dealt with (meth addict), is involved in identity theft and fraud.

So knowing this, why would we legalize something that instantly creates an addict? More addicts means more crime, more unemployed and homeless people, more people trying to milk the system, etc. There was just a story here in Phoenix about a couple being charged with numerous felonies when the mother brought her 2 month old to the hospital with broken bones, black eyes, numerous bruises, and evidence of sexual assault. Her and the father are both meth addicts.

Will there be less drug dealers? Yes. Will that decrease violence? Doubtful. The mules who transport drugs across the border will transport humans instead. Some day, they'll be smuggling human organs across the border. Something will always fill the void. I don't think you can compare the legalization of hard drugs to prohibition and the legalization of alcohol.

Never done illegal drugs either, and have dealt with plenty of addicts/alcoholics as well.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Perhaps a solution would be to take the feds out of it, and leave the matter to the states.
The laboratories of democracy would demonstrate what works best.

sf11b_p

06-24-2010, 04:03

dr. mabuse

06-24-2010, 08:05

Animal8526

06-24-2010, 09:01

I'm a simple guy. I want free men to be able to do whatever the frack they want with their own bodies.

I also want free men to be responsible for all of their own actions.

When their actions infringe on the liberty of others, then the .gov can step in... not before.

craigepo

06-24-2010, 09:24

GratefulCitizen

06-24-2010, 12:01

Amsterdam found legalizing drugs and providing for use bad ideas.

Increased usage, overdosing, addiction, number of addicts and number of people (drugged slackers) dependent on government funds. It increased the costs of, provided medical care, welfare and crime. It did not decrease the use of illegal harder drugs.

Britain, Switzerland, Spain and Italy had similar results.

There used to be a number of articles available online but I remember the consensus was, regret.

Legalization was only a problem because of socialism.
When the state is your enabler, addiction becomes much easier to bear.

Addicts have a much greater motivation to get better when there is no enabler.
This is the unspoken, an perhaps most important, part of the drug problem.

Start requiring drug testing in order to receive any form of social benefit and watch what happens.
Want the EIC? Take a drug test.
Want subsidized health care? Take a drug test.

Fail a drug test?
-The doctor will not be seeing you now.
-The check will not be in the mail.
-You are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits.
-You are forever barred from receiving the EIC.

The problem isn't the users, it's the enablers.
Uncle Sam is the #1 enabler.

<edit>
Pay people not to work, they will find other things to do.
Idle hands are the devil's plaything.

Consider the following link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/graph_of_the_day_for_june_24_2.html
(To be fair, retirement benefits are part of this)

Quite an increase from 1965 to 1975, 5% of GDP to 10% of GDP.
When exactly did the drug problem grow?

Green Light

06-24-2010, 17:35

GratefulCitizen

06-24-2010, 18:00

I think you're on the right track. I say sure, legalize drugs. Take them if you want to. BUT . . . We as a society will first have to resolve that we will step over their bodies on the sidewalk, still living or not, and do nothing that will help them. They will be on their own.

Unfortunately and fortunately, we're not there. Until we are, then illicit drugs will have to remain illicit. BTW, Mexico has decriminalized nearly the entire constellation of dope. Seems to be working there.

Mexico's problems are rooted in corruption.
The effective takover of the banking system in 1982 led to incredible corruption.

Why would anyone risk money there now?
It'll just get nationalized. (like in Venezuela)

When productivity is punished and theft is rewarded, you will get less productivity and more theft.
Gonna be awhile before Mexico makes it out the the thirld world.

***********
***********
Unfortunately, drug tests for social benefits will probably never happen.
For all intents and purposes, through the mechanism of enabling, politicians are trading drugs for votes.

It is shameful and cruel.

CombatMuffin

06-24-2010, 19:37

BTW, Mexico has decriminalized nearly the entire constellation of dope. Seems to be working there.

This is true in a certain sense, sir. The only technicality missing is that drugs were decriminalized up to a quantity considered to be used for "personal consumption."

It has been one of the tools the government is trying to use to both combat drug trade, and make the enforcement of the law and judicial system more agile. Instead of treating the everyday drug addict as a drug dealer, you treat them as a sick person, which saves resources to strike at the big league guys.

The attached image is from the General Health Law here in Mexico, which is my source(its in Spanish, but the words are very similar to their English counter-parts and many of you, I've read, know the language).

Grateful citizen also brings some interesting points: Mexico is indeed very far away from ever reaching first world status. Drugs get by very easily here, because bribing the authorities is not only just possible, but very cheap. I'd assume that's one of the biggest "vehicles" that drug dealers are using to mobilize their operations across the border.

Although I consider initiative and self-reliance as valuable qualities in a citizen, what the neo nazis mentioned before are doing, I would conside rin part, to be vigilantism.

incarcerated

06-24-2010, 20:46

incommin

06-25-2010, 18:24

[QUOTE=dr. mabuse;336206]Pardon if this is in the wrong forum, feel free to move if needed.

Anyone in the Tucson/southern Arizona area have any update/insight on this as to accuracy?

It is true. The drug runners have "scouts" positioned on high points across the border and inside the US watching LE. They also have snipers that will take on LE if they get too close to a drug haul and they do H&I fire to keep LE out of some areas. They "own" or control over 3,000 acres in a park I used to go camping in. And they have armed escorts that protect the mules hauling drugs. My son is a special agent with the border patrol in Arizona......

GratefulCitizen

06-25-2010, 20:24

It is true. The drug runners have "scouts" positioned on high points across the border and inside the US watching LE. They also have snipers that will take on LE if they get too close to a drug haul and they do H&I fire to keep LE out of some areas. They "own" or control over 3,000 acres in a park I used to go camping in. And they have armed escorts that protect the mules hauling drugs. My son is a special agent with the border patrol in Arizona......

From Article I. Section 10 of the Constitution:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Seems pretty clear.
Don't think Arizona needs permission in the matter.

Sigaba

06-25-2010, 20:42

Seems pretty clear.Only if you're willing to throw out centuries of precedent and to redefine war.

Animal8526

06-25-2010, 21:47

I’m a simple guy, too. Freedom can not work for people who are incapable of regulating their own behavior.

No. Liberty is self regulating, for the most part. The issues come when people believe that some state entity needs to save people from themselves, or when people think they have the moral high ground in petitioning the state to regulate other people's behavior in regards to activities they want, or don't want, to happen.

ZonieDiver

06-26-2010, 11:22

Only if you're willing to throw out centuries of precedent and to redefine war.

1) We 'redefined war' a lonnnnnnnng time ago.

2) A 'precedent' is established when the 'old' is tossed in favor of the 'new' - maybe it is time for a new precedent in this regard.

3) Elsewhere, there was a remark about vigilantes, and how that would be bad. Committees of Vigilance sprang up in the burgeoning CA gold camps due to a near complete lack of order by the responsble governmental authorities. In most cases, from my reading, they worked fairly well. People will NOT indefinitely tolerate the intolerable.

Sigaba

06-26-2010, 11:40

1) We 'redefined war' a lonnnnnnnng time ago.

2) A 'precedent' is established when the 'old' is tossed in favor of the 'new' - maybe it is time for a new precedent in this regard.

3) Elsewhere, there was a remark about vigilantes, and how that would be bad. Committees of Vigilance sprang up in the burgeoning CA gold camps due to a near complete lack of order by the responsible governmental authorities. In most cases, from my reading, they worked fairly well. People will NOT indefinitely tolerate the intolerable.ZD--

IMO, one of the reasons America is in such dire straits is because the definition of "war" has been expanded to include too many forms of human activity ranging from various forms of violent conflict to sporting events. While I would like to see the drug gangs in the Southwest confronted with overwhelming, decisive force, the force should be applied as an act of law enforcement, not war.

And (FWIW), the California committees of vigilance had one unintended consequence that has shaped the army to the present day. As a private citizen, William T. Sherman sought to prevent a civilian's lynching by a mob of vigilantes. His efforts were compromised by some journalists in San Francisco and the civilian ultimately perished. That experience shaped Sherman's negative view of both journalists and also civilians. That view greatly inhibited Sherman's ability to modernize the army during the American Gilded Age and contributed to a sense of disconnect between (if not also mistrust for) professional soldiers and civilians.

My $0.02.

6.8SPC_DUMP

06-26-2010, 11:51

Predator Drones to Surveil Mexican Border (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/24/use-surveillance-drones-mexican-border/)
U.S. WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department will use unmanned surveillance aircraft and other technological upgrades in its ongoing effort to protect the southern border of the United States.

The department said Wednesday it has obtained Federal Aviation Administration permission to operate unmanned planes along the Texas border and throughout the Gulf Coast region. Customs and Border Protection will base a surveillance drone at the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station in Texas.

Homeland Security also said it is working with the Office of National Drug Control Policy on "Project Roadrunner," a license plate recognition system designed to seek out possible drug traffickers.

And the department is collaborating with the Justice Department to improve information sharing between state, local and federal law enforcement agencies.

In a speech at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, a Washington think tank, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also announced a new partnership with the Major Cities Chiefs Association. The agreement would allow non-border cities to provide more assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies that are on the border.

Paslode

06-26-2010, 12:00

Predator Drones to Surveil Mexican Border (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/24/use-surveillance-drones-mexican-border/)

From my layman perspective boots on the ground who are allowed to enforce the law, with minimal ROE would be more productive than lone unarmed drones which cannot provide arrest, deportation and eradication bad people.

Dozer523

06-26-2010, 14:26

From my layman perspective boots on the ground who are allowed to enforce the law, with minimal ROE would be more productive than lone unarmed drones which cannot provide arrest, deportation and eradication bad people. The last thing the Military needs is for the Active, Reserve or National Guard to have border defense thrown onto the plate.
And just how minimum is "minimum""

And the sign says, "Anybody caught trespassing will be shot on sight"
So I jumped the fence and I yelled at the house
Eh, what gives you the right?
To put up a fence and keep me out or to keep mother nature in
If God was here He'd tell it to your face, man you're some kind of sinner

Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs
Blocking up the scenery, breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

Is there a Border Patrol Auxiliary you could join?

GratefulCitizen

06-26-2010, 14:53

Only if you're willing to throw out centuries of precedent and to redefine war.

History is written by the victors.

Don't care what it's called.
Thugs who are not from this nation, who do not answer to/respect our laws, are occupying our soil and holding that soil with military force.

If that's not an invasion, I don't know what is.

Paslode

06-26-2010, 15:04

And just how minimum is "minimum""

Well, when Fish and Game have a species that is harming the ecological balance they issue tags or open a season. Like if you have too many coyotes in an area.
Coyotes, AQ, Drug Cartels, Smugglers, I don't see much difference, though DOJ, DHS, the Hague and Amnesty International surely would.

Is there a Border Patrol Auxiliary you could join?

In a manner of speaking, there is. But weapons safety and SA might be an concern.

Sigaba

06-26-2010, 15:52

Entire post.IMO, you are collapsing a number concepts to make an argument that is intellectually sustainable only if one willfully ignores a great deal of history.

Moreover, by embracing that state of mind by saying that you 'don't care' and that you 'don't know,' you contradict many of your own posts on this BB. (Not the least your frequent echoing of Christopher Lasch.)

GratefulCitizen

06-26-2010, 16:21

IMO, you are collapsing a number concepts to make an argument that is intellectually sustainable only if one willfully ignores a great deal of history.

There is a time for debate, and there is a time for action.
Timely and useful actions often ignore historical precedent (but not necessarily history...).

Moreover, by embracing that state of mind by saying that you 'don't care' and that you 'don't know,' you contradict many of your own posts on this BB. (Not the least your frequent echoing of Christopher Lasch.)

You are entitled to assess my state of mind from the limited context of this bulletin board and your own individual filters.
This does not guarantee an accurate assessment.

Furthermore, attempts at influence through the use of the social mirror or alleged cognitive dissonance (whether cogent or just a case of ad hominem tu quoque) will prove fruitless.
You should know that by now. :D

I concede that your knowledge of history far exceeds mine.
(understatement of the year)
However, we cannot look only backwards for the answers to the problems of today and tomorrow.

Clarity of vision going forward is more important than understanding the particular path.
This is the root of the political debate and conflict in this nation.

There is greater disagreement among the citizens of this nation about where the country should go than the methods of getting there.
The methods are just smoke and mirrors concealing the true objectives of some.

Decisive, confrontational action on the part of the governor of Arizona would force the hand of the current holders of power in Washington.
They would no longer be able to feign fence-sitting.

I know the exact reasons for my arguments.
Just been trying to save bandwith.

<edit>

Curious to know how this should be interpreted:
Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

ZonieDiver

06-26-2010, 17:36

entire post.

But, especially this:

There is a time for debate, and there is a time for action.
Timely and useful actions often ignore historical precedent (but not necessarily history...).

I have to admit, I have been radicalized by recent events in this arena. I have lived in Arizona since July, 1963. I have seen change. Change for the good, but mostly, change for the worse. I used to hunt a LOT down south. I love the border area... south of Sierra Vista, Douglas, Nogales. I have lots of friends who live there, many military people who retired there - some who are in their mid-70's now. This is NOT good. The U.S. government is failing in their responsibilities and something must be DONE. Now! No talk, no debate, no endless discusssion. Something must be done.

I have NEVER been one to advocate 'unilateral' action. However, as I said elsewhere, when the responsible authorities fail to act - over a long period of time - someone must step into the breach. We can argue historical precedents until the cows come home (and they are on their way), but there comes a time when action is the way to go. That time is NOW - not when someone is killed (again) due to this 'invasion' of our sovereign territory. The death of one person is a small thing in the media. When it touches someone you know, it is different.

My co-worker, in the 27th year of her educational employment, refused to go to graduation because one of our "illegal" students "blamed" the passage of SB 1070 on the death of her brother-in-law. Not directly to her...but information obtained 2nd hand from another student. It hurt her to her soul not to attend.

How many have to die before action is taken? It is that simple.

Sigaba

06-26-2010, 19:09

There is a time for debate, and there is a time for action.Our history tells the story of both happening simultaneously. To separate the two today would be to turn our backs on the hard won experiences of our past. For example, during the Second World War, America's focus on operations undermined its ability to debate cogently matters of grand strategy with its allies.
You are entitled to assess my state of mind from the limited context of this bulletin board and your own individual filters. This does not guarantee an accurate assessment.IMO, this statement does not serve you well for two reasons. The second reason is your comment that:There is greater disagreement among the citizens of this nation about where the country should go than the methods of getting there.
On the one hand, you're suggesting that one cannot fathom the mind of one person based on his postings on an internet BB. In the same breath, you claim to know the mind set of more than three hundred million people.

Yet, even if both of your statements were correct, in regards to the latter, I would say that is all the more reason for continued debate. To focus on the "what" more than the "how" (to say nothing of the "why") is to abandon any sustainable notion of strategy. Do you really want to unleash that sensibility in your own state?I know the exact reasons for my arguments.IMO, this statement is untenable. The self is unknowable--most especially to the self.

dr. mabuse

06-26-2010, 19:45

Sigaba

06-26-2010, 20:37

Entire post.Mabuse--

To answer your question (if not rise to the bait) I've witnessed first hand the destruction of two families by drugs--one of which was my own.

What is happening now in Arizona is what Richard Pryor riffed about to knowing audiences over three decades before. (Or what Tracy Morrow and Melvin Glover sang about twenty five years ago, or John Singleton wrote about twenty years ago, or what Stacy Peralta attempted to discuss last year....)

The answer now is as relevant (and as controversial) as it was then.

My $0.02.

ZonieDiver

06-26-2010, 21:06

FWIW, I care little about that which Richard Pryor 'riffed' 30 years ago. (Hell, I care very little about what I riffed about 30 years ago,).

I am very much into what is happening today. I don't like it. I don't like it one tiny little bit. Yet, here it is. We can sit and wait for the 'powers that be' to take action, or do what AZ has done, and pursue steps that FORCE action.

Gov. Brewer met with Pres. Obama in May. He promised 'action' but so far- NOTHING! When? What? Wbere? Tell me. This is NOT a debate exercise. People's lives and livings hang in the balance. Pray tell it is not just an exercise in rhetoric. Please...

GratefulCitizen

06-26-2010, 21:13

Our history tells the story of both happening simultaneously. To separate the two today would be to turn our backs on the hard won experiences of our past. For example, during the Second World War, America's focus on operations undermined its ability to debate cogently matters of grand strategy with its allies.

Historians have the luxury of being Monday morning quarterbacks.
It's always easy to point out the risks of any action, and be able to say "I toldya so!" if things don't work.

Making the hard decision and taking action when the outcome is unknowable is what leaders do.

On the one hand, you're suggesting that one cannot fathom the mind of one person based on his postings on an internet BB. In the same breath, you claim to know the mind set of more than three hundred million people.

Please.
Straw man argument.

I am suggesting that you are making an assessment (admittedly, not an unreasonable one) based on limited information.
When I tried to clarify with additional information, you stick to your guns and try to tell me what I really think.

Would it help if I just tipped over my king?

Yet, even if both of your statements were correct, in regards to the latter, I would say that is all the more reason for continued debate. To focus on the "what" more than the "how" (to say nothing of the "why") is to abandon any sustainable notion of strategy. Do you really want to unleash that sensibility in your own state?IMO, this statement is untenable. The self is unknowable--most especially to the self.

Well, if you want to psychoanalyze, here ya go:

There are people in this world who do not respond to reason or moral restraint.
They only understand force.

In my experience, having dealt with such people, your options are simple.

1: Yield to them what they want.
This is a temporary measure, as they will expand their ambitions (that whole lack of restraint thing).

2: Enforce your will.
They obviously don't respect the implied threat of force from our law enforcement.
It's time to up the ante.

This problem cannot be talked away.
Push will come to shove.

Perhaps I'm just projecting too much of my own personality onto the problem.

Paslode

06-26-2010, 21:30

FWIW, I care little about that which Richard Pryor 'riffed' 30 years ago. (Hell, I care very little about what I riffed about 30 years ago,).

I am very much into what is happening today. I don't like it. I don't like nt one tiny little bit. Yet, here it is. We can sit and wait for the 'powers that ve' to take action, or do what AZ has done, and pursue steps that FORCE action.

Gov. Brewer met with Pres. Obama in May. He promised 'action' but so far- NOTHING! When? What? Wbere? Tell me. This is NOT a debate exercise. People's lives and livings hang in the balance. Praytellit is noy just an exercise u
in rhetoric. Please...

I think the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller have substance with the mess in Arizona. "THEY CAME FIRST for Arizona,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't live in Arizona......you can fill in the rest

ZonieDiver

06-26-2010, 21:35

Would it help if I just tipped over
This problem cannot be talked away.
Push will come to shovel.

I like the way you think. Push HAS come to shove. We have beeh shoved. It is time to push... hard.

PSM

06-26-2010, 21:43

I love the border area... south of Sierra Vista, Douglas, Nogales. I have lots of friends who live there, many military people who retired there - some who are in their mid-70's now.

This is why we are moving there. There are soldiers there, the fort notwithstanding. I'm not sure that there are any GI weapons on Huachuca. I haven't been on base yet, but I'd bet the main gate has contractors posted.

Then again, those old retired guys still have trigger fingers and weapons to exercise them! ;)

Pat

dr. mabuse

06-26-2010, 21:59

CombatMuffin

06-27-2010, 05:19

I want be be extremely careful about what I am about to say right now, especially since I am a new guest in your house here. So whatever I write here, I do so with the utmost respect to each and every one and as an educated response...

Personally, and this is a key word, I would be against the opinion of using direct action by a private citizen when it comes to dealing with this problem. Of course, one could argue that my opinion is of less value considering I am not a citizen of Arizona, suffering the direct matter of this subject. However, I can safely say that I can relate in a similar, but yet distinct manner(seeing as the same problem affects me at my home area).

IMHO, Interpretations of the Law regarding Article 10 of the U.S. Constitution and the second article GratefulCitizen mentioned, should be left to the experts, which by law are constrained to the Judicial system(Arizona or Federal depending on subject matter). If private individuals take the law into their own hands, without support of a government, then there is no point in a government, and you fall into the same problem Mexico is falling into and is causing this controversy in the first place. The question being, what happens when the government doesn't respond? One hears a lot of crazy rumors(and only rumors) and I have personally heard such questionable hearsay's such as ex-Mossad agents involved in private security or the possibility of PMC's entering Mexico after the Monterrey shootings (which are heavily tied to the drug trade, and thus could be to the trade involved in Arizona). Again though, purely hearsay.

I am sure many of you can take into account the fact that speaking of invasion in a literal sense is valid, but in a legal sense it may not. Arizona is dealing right now with one or more private parties of rebels, and as such it is hard or questionable to declare War(and like it was mentioned before, one would have to see what the current legal definition of War or Invasion by the U.S. government is). Especially since the political consequences do not involve just Arizona, but the Federal Union the U.S. stands for.

I have to admit, one of the elements I envy from the U.S. political system is the fact that they have individual, sovereign States, united by a Federal System. I would be of the opinion that heavy(and I mean heavy) political pressure should be applied to ask the Federal branch(be it the military, or whatever other instrument) to provide aid in whatever form is necessary, since the problem involves not only the State of Arizona, but the consequences of ignoring such problem can lead to irreparable damage to many of the States (drugs enter Arizona, but they don't necessarily stay in Arizona).

I would share ZonieDiver's opinion that action is necessary, although not necessarily in the same way he proposes(which could be valid as well, he has more experience in this). Problem with my opinion though, is that politics are too slow when dealing with a current problem.

Like I said, this is a strong opinion, and one I do not take lightly, so it is very open to critique. As mentioned before in this thread, textbook answers are nice in writing, but not always practical.

GratefulCitizen

07-09-2010, 19:21

Gotta love them memes.
Maybe this one needs a little push.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/arizonas_constitutional_war_po.html

Given the levels of illegal migration and narco-trafficking across its southern border, the State of Arizona deserves America's commendation for the remarkable restraint it has exhibited in dealing with what has become a most serious international and domestic problem.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, signed into law by Governor Janice K. Brewer on April 23, 2010, is a tiptoe exercise through an immigration minefield. In its essence, however, the law demands roughly no more of an individual than is required to open an account at the local video store. Indeed, the law presumes that one is not an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if a valid Arizona driver license, non-operating identification license, tribal enrollment or identification card, or U.S. federal- or state- or local government-issued identification is presented, and if that issuing entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance of the identification card (Arizona Senate Bill 1070, Section 2). The bill appears intended to work hand in glove with federal immigration statutes and to "discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States" (Section 1).

The route taken by the State of Arizona, enactment of Senate Bill 1070, is far less severe than it could have been if the route taken had been war, as granted to the states by the U.S. Constitution.

Article 1, Section 10, Cl. 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America provides that "[n]o state shall, without the consent of Congress ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

This section of the U.S. Constitution gives to the State of Arizona (or any other State) the right to engage in war if "actually invaded" or if there is "such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." This right is reserved to the states to be exercised without the necessity of obtaining the consent of Congress in the described exigent circumstances. Without question, the debate, should Arizona have chosen this road not heretofore taken, would have centered on the meaning of the terms "invaded" and "imminent danger." Those are, in fact, arguable issues. But if drug lords are posting sentries with AK-47s on hilltops inside the State of Arizona to protect drug transport routes, and if "coyotes" are ravaging the fragile Arizona desert with their never-ending human chains, then the debate is settled.

Enactment of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 should not have been necessary, nor should the State of Arizona ever be put into the position of having to choose war because of a "guarantee" in, again, the U.S. Constitution. Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States of America provides that

[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and, on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This section of the U.S. Constitution clearly mandates that the United States government shall protect Arizona against invasion and, on application of the Arizona legislature (or the governor when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence! President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker Pelosi are not fulfilling their constitutional duty to protect Arizona from the long-enduring invasion of drug smugglers and illegal migrants.

In a well-documented article, Joe Griffith describes how progressive Democrat President Woodrow Wilson was faced with a violent border situation, in 1915, when Pancho Villa and his men conducted raids along the U.S.-Mexico border. Villa and his men launched a horrific raid against the people of Columbus, New Mexico, killing many of the residents and burning much of the town. President Wilson dispatched Brigadier General John J. Pershing and his troops to protect the border.

Our Constitution is not purely a charter of negative liberties. It places affirmative burdens of utmost importance squarely on the shoulders of the members of Congress and the president. The Constitution demands of our national leaders (and guarantees) that the United States shall protect every state in this union against invasion. There has been (and continues to be) a critical failure on the part of the president (the Commander in Chief) and the U.S. Congress when it comes to border enforcement and stopping the invasion. Pancho Villa's "invasion" and destruction were not the actions of a government, yet President Wilson exercised his authority under the Constitution to send federal troops to protect the border. The current "invasion" has not been shown to be an invasion by the government of Mexico, and the question arises why President Obama cannot do as president Wilson did and secure our southern border. The president did take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and that includes the Constitutional mandate that he shall protect Arizona and every other state from invasion.

TF Kilo

07-09-2010, 20:52

Stuff

It's pretty easy bro:

Don't hop our fence
Don't get shot.

That's what I think it should be, anyway.

5 generations ago my mom's family legally interfaced into American society through the immigration process that was in place.

Jump the hoops, do it legally.. I welcome you with open arms.

Hop the fence trying to cross illegally, You should be hit with belt fed freaking FURY. No exceptions.

SparseCandy

07-10-2010, 10:16

Professionally, I deal with the aftermath of that scenario too often and never got completely immune to the suffering of others dealing with it. The suffering can go on long after the person at the center of it all is dead and gone.

My question was of a direct action nature, if appropriate. As far as dealing with murderers in their mist, what are they to do legally right now?

Similar to having crack heads in your neighborhood, that have threatened to kill you, have already shot-up you car and the police (Dallas/Oak Cliff) basically say that without other witnesses, until something serious happens, nothing is going to happen.

This is happening to one of my students as we speak, and it's infuriating.

BTW, Stacy Peralta's film notwithstanding, some communities are as they are, because, as they say in East Texas, if you plant corn and corn grows in your field, don't blame someone else. Discussed this enough with people in the Watts area, and most simply don't get it. A book called "Suburban Gangs" by Dan Korem, explains the problem and solution thoroughly.

Pardon the simple analysis but it is the answer/problem. When kids don't have an effective protector/mentor, gang membership/ gang type behavior is very likely.

Back to my lane.

Dr. Mabuse,

The most viable drug legalization plan I've ever heard of was for heroine and LSD. It involved legalizing these two drugs but requiring it to be used on premises. (Basically for a place to become a licensed sales outlet they had to have small bedrooms that were sold at the same time as the drug. To purchase the drug you also signed an agreement to stay in the locked room for x numbers of hours (x dependent upon how much heroine is purchased.) Such outlets would be required to have a counselor and an EMT on premises as long as they were open.

This solution intrigued me for a few reasons. One, it takes a couple products out of the sales line-up for criminal organizations. The argument could be made that street heroine would still be around, but the lack of quality control and the violence associated with it should reduce the customer base for it to only the most desperate.

Two, this should reduce the heroine death rate to zero. Heroine is the one drug no one should be overdosing on, ever. We have the medicine to keep people from dying. Under the current setup with the drug being illegal though we often don't get to the users until it is to late. LSD is almost impossible to OD on in its pure form - so letting them have it won't kill them.

Three, this would give heroine users access to a counselor to help them with the underlying self-esteem issues. If you follow the line of thinking that stems from the rat park experiments, then at least certain types of drug addiction are a result of crappy lives and poverty and not the other way around. The counselors would also be there for LSD during the trip. I'm not sure LSD use comes from the same sad and desperate place that heroine use comes from though.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who actually looks around that our current method of handling drug dependency is not working. We can't just call drug users bad people and turn our backs, not only from a humanity standpoint but also because of the violence ignoring their pain brings. We know that we will never eliminate people feeling hopeless or people's desire for new experiences. It also should be obvious that we can't treat all drugs the same because they bring different sensations. I would love to hear what your solution would be. (I mean that sincerely.) Those I've talked to have either never heard of rat park and the alternate theories of addiction or they are so set in the idea of treating drug abuse as a physical illness that they refuse to look at the 79% recidivism rate and consider other ways to treat people.

Sorry if this is thread jacking, but how we deal with drugs (or don't deal with them, as the case may be) is directly relevant to issues with the mexican drug cartels. (Although to be fair, I have no idea how we would treat cocaine and its derivatives.)

The Reaper

07-10-2010, 12:02

Ah, to be a young student again and have all of the answers.

I would like to see this discussion continue on the OT, gangs and border security.

Not ways to legalize or legitimize narcotics in the US.

TR

Paslode

07-10-2010, 13:07

Green Light

07-10-2010, 14:07

Personally I don't believe legalizing drugs will have much effect, those wanting to illegally self medicate and those wishing to make illegal profits will find a way to bypass the system.

Do you think the cartels are going to peacefully accept government regulation?

Everyday we continue ignoring our borders and playing political games the closer we are to having our very own Emboscada (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/07/emboscada-what-civil-war-looks-like.html)

That is absolutely grisly.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21mexico.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=%22mexico%22%20%22drugs%22&st=cse)

Mexico Legalizes Drug Possession
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 21, 2009
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico enacted a controversial law on Thursday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs while encouraging government-financed treatment for drug dependency free of charge.

The law sets out maximum “personal use” amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities will no longer face criminal prosecution; the law goes into effect on Friday.

Anyone caught with drug amounts under the personal-use limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, and for those caught a third time treatment is mandatory — although no penalties for noncompliance are specified.

Mexican authorities said the change only recognized the longstanding practice here of not prosecuting people caught with small amounts of drugs.

The maximum amount of marijuana considered to be for “personal use” under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four marijuana cigarettes. Other limits are half a gram of cocaine, 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams of LSD.

President Felipe Calderón waited months before approving the law.

Seems to be working well. :rolleyes:

dr. mabuse

07-10-2010, 20:47

Paslode

07-10-2010, 22:21

Mexico enacted a controversial law on Thursday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs while encouraging government-financed treatment for drug dependency free of charge.

The law sets out maximum “personal use” amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities will no longer face criminal prosecution; the law goes into effect on Friday.

Anyone caught with drug amounts under the personal-use limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, and for those caught a third time treatment is mandatory — although no penalties for noncompliance are specified.

Mexican authorities said the change only recognized the longstanding practice here of not prosecuting people caught with small amounts of drugs.

The maximum amount of marijuana considered to be for “personal use” under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four marijuana cigarettes. Other limits are half a gram of cocaine, 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams of LSD.

Under those circumstances.....my cousins would have went for their prescribed oxycodene drug treatment and then returned home to the lab to indulged in cross pollinated herbs and/or other substances ground into some Good Shit.....actually that is exactly what they did.

If they were still around and there was legal personal limit, they would still want something just a bit more and a little different than the legal limit.

Seems to be working well. :rolleyes:

Your sarcasm is spot on.

I say this respectfully without any baiting, yet many assumptions are made here.

Just some random thoughts, MOO, YMMV.

1. You'll find many interesting (!?) opinions around here from people out-of-their field on mental health topics, but let's try to enjoy it anyway, YMMV.

2. As a psychology student, you may have run across traits that are common to criminals and addicts. I recall it was impulse control and/or poor situational awareness and/or low self esteem. IMO, this is what drives the problem on both sides of the equation.

3. Just because Uncle Sam and company get involved doesn't fix the problem. It often enough makes it worse I think. Far too many variables.

4. LSD-25 trips are affected by "set" and "setting". A pleasant person in the room wearing a white lab coat assures nothing during a trip. MOO, a counselor that thinks they can completely control set and setting should find something else to do for a living. A little more study on LSD may be helpful.

5. Taking drugs out of the line-up from the drug companies? I don't believe that given the substantial $$$ at stake here, they would simply walk away. How exactly would you "take" them out of their line-up? How is that done?

6. As far as carrying out a plan, logistically speaking only, if we would cut loose the people that know how to deal with criminals in an aggressive fashion, that may help. I thought the Phoenix program worked. That's what I was told. ;) Yes, I know, the yes-but monkeys out there will say that there are substantial legal/other issues with that type of action. I agree. I'm just sayin'. :D

The other side of the equation, how do you restore a healthy self esteem in people, especially those that don't want to get better.

That's the tough one. Feel free to PM me and let's take this discussion to the back of the house.

Take care.

Just some non-educated observation....

Most of the people I know or have known that have destroyed their lives with drugs have several things in common.

1. They rarely if ever received a spanking during childhood.
2. Their parents were either helicopters or non-participating
3. They spent most summers idly at the local pool, the shopping mall or the arcade
4. They were not required to work.
5. They had no hobbies besides the pool, the mall or the arcade

and when I look at the spoon fed f-ups my Oldest Daughter went to school with, they have those very same similarities.

dr. mabuse

07-11-2010, 13:00

CombatMuffin

07-11-2010, 18:47

Hop the fence trying to cross illegally, You should be hit with belt fed freaking FURY. No exceptions.

I also support the use of force to repel certain illegal activities entering one's country/state, but one has to be careful of excessive use of force which can lead to mistakes with heavy political consequences.

Has anyone been able to find more news on this subject? I've been looking for an update specifically on the cartel observation posts but have not been able to find anything more recent than mid-june.

Perhaps someone from Arizona has come across more recent news articles/broadcasts which I may have missed?

GratefulCitizen

08-06-2010, 12:03

Is Arizona actually being invaded?

Nudging the meme...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/if_not_now_when.html

In today's America, the federal government can choose to ignore a constitutional responsibility at its whim, even when it results in citizens and states being left vulnerable to foreign invasion. Adding insult to injury, the Feds impound taxes from the injured citizens for the express purpose of providing this contractual protection.

In the matter of securing our borders and dealing with illegal aliens, we have an interesting twist. Washington has long acted beyond the powers granted to it by merely assigning itself additional authority. In this instance, however, the officials in Washington are effectively waiving authority, refusing to do what they are obligated to do per the U.S. Constitution.

Yet inside "The Matrix," where the powers that be in Washington make it up as they go along, the elite ruling class and their media lackeys insist that securing our border is the strict responsibility of the federal government.

According to Eric Holder's Justice Department and U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, whether or not they do so adequately has no bearing on the matter. Regardless of the details within their respective lawsuit and rulings, the bottom line is that Washington maintains that states are powerless to take actions necessary to defend themselves, and so it is.

Someone needs to convince me that this is what the Constitution actually says.

Indeed, the U.S. government's mandate to "provide for the common defense" -- a phrase located in the Constitution's Preamble as well as Article I, Section 8 -- makes clear that the Feds bear a primary responsibility to protect us from foreign sources. Article IV, Section 4 dictates even more succinctly, "The United States ... shall protect each of them [the states] against Invasion[.]"

Obviously, the United States is not fulfilling this obligation. That is no secret. The question at hand is -- are states denied the right to defend themselves?

At least there are still a number of state attorneys general who believe so. In response to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his so-called Justice Department's suit against Arizona SB1070, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox filed a brief on behalf of nine states in support of Arizona's actions.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution specifies what individual states are prohibited from doing: making treaties, coining money, etc. In this section, we find the document's clause most directly pertaining to the issue: "No State shall, without the consent of Congress ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Though states are not at war in the classic or technical sense, they are clearly being invaded. Regardless of whether or not we consider them "at War," it would be difficult to reason that this clause prohibits a state from defending itself.

Note the use of the different forms of the word "invade" in these various passages. Surely, they must be interpreted in the same manner.

If the Feds, on one hand, maintain their authority to secure the border and prohibit illegal immigration is granted by Article IV's guarantee to "protect against invasion," then Article I makes clear that it is not their sole domain to do so. Here, states are granted the same power when "actually invaded."

Further, just how exactly shall we interpret being "invaded," or "in imminent danger" for that matter, and who shall make that determination? Most assuredly, citizens in states along our southern border (and in some states and cities, well beyond the border) have a far different opinion from Washington's.

In sum, it seems that Article I, Section 10 must explicitly provide states the right to act on their own behalf when they are being invaded, or else it does not prohibit them from doing so. The clause would be irrelevant in circumstances other than an official state of war, thus no prohibition otherwise.

This effectively leaves the federal government attempting to convince us that states are not to defend themselves while waiting indefinitely for Washington to determine if they are in "imminent danger."

If we are to accept the current federal government's interpretation on this matter, then federalism is indeed dead. If Washington is to routinely defy the contract which empowers it, where does that leave the states? If this is not a constitutional crises, then what shall we call it?

The federal government has been on a roll for decades, routinely usurping proper authority and effectively running roughshod over the entities (the states) that created it in the first place. However, there is one important component they lack. Now, more than ever, they do not have the people on their side. Poll after poll indicates that they are governing against our will.

Washington has drastically overreached, leaving itself vulnerable to a power shift, perhaps more so than at any other time in our nation's history.

Present circumstances facilitate the opportunity for states to boldly assert their powers. A substantial majority of citizens are solidly behind them on one issue after another, none more so than the issues of securing our borders and illegal immigration.

Just as Jan Brewer and the Arizona legislature have thrown down the gauntlet, so it is time for the next state to step forward and take the matter to the next level. We are living in times which demand bold action. The people are not only ready for it, but they thirst for it.

This is a unique point in history. The time to force the issue of states' rights is now. State leaders have an opportunity to move this debate onto the national stage unlike ever before. Forget all the wishy-washy political calculations and analysis. Such things have long since become secondary.

Besides, not only is a state protecting itself the right thing to do, not only is it constitutional, but right now, it is a winner electorally.

incarcerated

08-16-2010, 23:33

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/543965/201008161858/Media-Miss-Cartels-War-In-US.aspx

Media Miss Cartels' War In U.S.

OPINION
Posted 06:58 PM ET
Media: As Mexico's drug war and Arizona's bid to defend itself take center stage, the growth of cartels in Los Angeles is another leg of the story. But to know about it you need to read Spanish.

Los Angeles and its suburbs are in grave danger of becoming outposts for Mexican drug- and immigrant-smuggling cartels, according to local law enforcement officials.

"We have detected the Gulf cartel and Los Zetas," Alvin Jackson, head of the Narcotics Division of the L.A. Police Department, said in a recent interview. "They are operating on a middle and street level."

In Mexico, the Gulf and Zeta gangs are among the most violent, known for beheading opponents, setting off car bombs and shooting up border cities from Tijuana to Matamoros. In L.A., they've set up "distribution centers" not just in the slums, but also the San Fernando Valley and on the well-heeled Westside near Santa Monica.

Five other Mexican cartels — Sinaloa, Beltran-Levya, La Familia, Arellano Felix and Carillo Fuentes — also operate in L.A. They're busy recruiting gangs to carry on the same mayhem they're engaged in south of the border, Jackson said.

Steven Martinez, who heads the FBI in Los Angeles, agreed with Jackson's observations.

You'd think this would be news that merits front-page coverage in, say, the city's newspaper of record, the Los Angeles Times. But it's not. Jackson's and Martinez's assessments were reported in La Opinion, a Spanish-language daily that has no English translation.

It's not that the Times doesn't cover the cartel war in detail from Mexico. But when it comes to what's going on in Joe Friday's precincts, something that might have some relevance to its readers, the paper is derelict.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Times' near-monopoly on news in a one-newspaper town. Or maybe it's the paper's historically cozy relationship with the city's political machine, which panders to the Latino vote.

As illegal immigrants inundate the city and cartels come in behind them, the City Council declares L.A. a sanctuary city and wastes time boycotting Arizona for trying to beat back the same problems.

This is going to create serious problems down the road. L.A. District Attorney Steven Cooley told the Washington (not the L.A.) Times that gangs and drug traffickers may create gang- and cartel-controlled city governments.

It's already evident, he said, along the 710 Freeway towards the Port of Long Beach — a corridor that encompasses illegal-immigrant-majority towns such as Bell, the city whose officials were caught feathering their nests with million-dollar salary packages. The 710, by the way, has seen actual cartel shootings.

"If I was a drug dealer, and I didn't want to be interfered with, I'd move to a city where I could exploit dysfunctional city governments, corrupt the police or be left alone in a neighborhood where people are not as active in monitoring their communities," Cooley said.

Already in Cudahy, just south of Bell, Cooley says the FBI is investigating cartel-linked corruption as part of 30 ongoing corruption probes. No wonder even Mexico's president is complaining about U.S. official corruption going uninvestigated.

Meanwhile, even Hollywood is more aware of the cartel problem in Los Angeles. Locally produced TV shows such as "NCIS: Los Angeles" are incorporating cartel infiltration in city government into their L.A.-based story lines.

But at the Times, protecting the political establishment and its priorities means the growing power of the cartels will go unreported. It's a sad state of affairs when Angelenos have to rely on the ethnic press or newspapers based 3,000 miles away.

It's also ironic. Over the weekend, the Times reported that Mexican newspapers are not reporting drug-war news out of well-founded fear of retribution from cartels.

The Times seems to be practicing the same kind of self-censorship on its turf — not out of fear of gangs so much as a reluctance to cross a political establishment that is invested in unchecked illegal immigration.