TexasCHLforum.com

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul , an Austin Republican, introduced a bill that would designate Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations.

That would make it easier to freeze assets and deport gang members, and target anyone who gives material support to traffickers. (Like the ATF does?)

Sounds good to me...

A rose by any other name....

RPB wrote:U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul , an Austin Republican, introduced a bill that would designate Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations.

That would make it easier to freeze assets and deport gang members, and target anyone who gives material support to traffickers. (Like the ATF does?)

I am SO-NOT-A-LAWYER (IASNAL??) but don't the RICO statutes already do that? Granted, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) probably only matters to crimes that occur in the US but the Mexican drug wars have spilled over the border in a huge way. I've read that the south side of Phoenix has been bought by the Cartel bigs so as far as I'm concerned, that makes them fair game for RICO. I don't see them as "terrorists" but as plain old fashioned organized crime with military hardware.

Also, it reminds me of the line from the Untouchables movie where Sean Connery's character says "Everyone knows where the booze is. The question is, 'Who has the guts to cross Capone?'". I find it hard to believe that the authorities don't know where the leaders and the money is in this drug war. The problem to me seems that no entity has the guts to actually go after them in the way it needs to be handled.

REGARDLESS, something first needs to be done about the biggest criminal of all in this, and that is the casual user. It's not the hardcore addicts that fuel this mess. There really aren't enough of them to go around. If I may be blunt, when a person gets hooked, within a couple years, they either get clean or they die. End of customer. But the casual "weekend warrior" users should be dealt with as harshly as any dealer. If the market didn't exist, the criminal enterprise would go away. As long as the market and the money is there, no amount of going to war with the cartels is going to matter one little bit.

If it took 40 years to so demonize smoking to the point where it's now against the law to even smoke in some cities, casual drug use can also be demonized to the same point. It just needs to be done.

Hope I didn't hijack......

But hey! Whatta I know? I'm just some dude......

RPB wrote:U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul , an Austin Republican, introduced a bill that would designate Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations.

That would make it easier to freeze assets and deport gang members, and target anyone who gives material support to traffickers. (Like the ATF does?)

I haven't read the bill yet...I'll hold the majority of my comments until I do...

BUT why not? We obviously not enforcing the ones we have, so another law is exactly the solution. And I'm sure freezing assets and removing due process in cases where "support" is suspected will make all of us safer in the long run. After all, if you're not involved in the drug trade, you have nothing to worry about, right?

Can they designate the Obama administration as a terrorist organization? After all they have done more to destroy this country than any terrorist has.

Meh....

A terrorist organization differs from organized crime in that they use unlawful violence to affect political change. Organized crime could care less about politics, and are primarily concerned about profit. Without the political intent, IMO, the "terrorist" label is not appropriate.

RPB wrote:U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul , an Austin Republican, introduced a bill that would designate Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations.

--snip--

Rant On:

How about a bill to classify Nidal Malik Hasan as a terrorist? His victims and their families could then can get the benefits they so rightly deserve.

Rant Off!

There are some who feel compelled to project an image of "doing something". There are few who want to alienate the Hispanic vote.

Did y'all happen to see the census projection last week that Hispanics would comprise the majority ethnic group in the USA by 2025 or so? I don't expect to have to deal with that.

BTW, it is about the money.

I'm in McCaul's district.

While I support the principles of this, I'm tired of using "terrorist" for every little thing. That's a neo-con move, and it's been a blank check for government abuse of power. When I was up in Jersey, a local radio stationed changed formats. Some people organized a boycott of sponsors. In a forum, someone defending the station called that "economic terrorism." Good Lord.

As one who has worked and traveled through Northern Mexico, and seen how they work and how they work, Terrorist is a pretty darn accurate description. they overrun villages, They take over villages and rape kill and kidnap families. They destroy any resemblance of law and order. and kill anyone who present the tiniest of threats. One doesn't have to be a Moslem to be a terrorist. A terrorist is one who intimidates a population with fear of wholesale violence. What about them would disqualify them as terrorist?

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:Meh....

A terrorist organization differs from organized crime in that they use unlawful violence to affect political change. Organized crime could care less about politics, and are primarily concerned about profit. Without the political intent, IMO, the "terrorist" label is not appropriate.

They have taken over towns and even influenced the federales they run most of the cities and towns. and kill governers mayors and Police Chiefs who get in their way. A definition of Terrorist is one who terrorizes political goals have nothing to do it.