A threat from south of the border: Gangs threaten to kill off duty US police for seizing drug shipment

In my opinion, there’s no bigger external threat to our nation than what’s occurring south of the border in Mexico with the drug gangs.  Of  course, I don’t want to overlook the internal threat either as there’s a variation of some of this occurring right in our some of cities now with home grown gangs.  The main difference between our home grown gangs and the Mexican drug lords is that an out and out war has broken out between the Mexican drug lords and the Mexican government and it’s uncertain whether the government can even win it.  Now, there have been threats made against United States policemen who have seized their goods while they were trying to smuggle them into the US.  Apparently, some off duty police seized a drug shipment and the gangs got angry because from their perspective, the police had no business doing this while they were off duty, so they’re threatening to kill them.

What I find interesting is that our military is half way around the world securing “freedom” for Iraqis and Afghans while our freedom is under threat right here.  Everyone has watched the drug lords killing people and police in Mexico and it doesn’t require a fanciful imagination to assume they might actually directly confront the police and local governments right here on US soil. 

These people even have spotters planted on US soil near the border to warn of US police movements.  It really wouldn’t take that much for the spotters to be used to direct fire onto police locations.  A lot this is occurring in Arizona.

We need to deploy troops at the border, plain and simple.  Small town police are no match for the well trained and armed drug gangs they’re facing.  If the drug lords can fight a entire nation like Mexico to the standstill, you can imagine what they can do to towns like Nogales, Arizona—they’ll simply overrun them.   As I write this, I forced to begin reconsidering my position on the recently passed Arizona law.  From where I sit here on the east coast, it appeared initially to be little more than jack booted xenophobia.  After reading this and knowing of the violence occurring in Mexico, I’m no longer so sure it can be dismissed as such for if most people lived in Nogales, AZ, they’d likely have a much different perspective on things.  This article is from CNN.

Mexican cartels added a new twist to the drug war this week by threatening to kill U.S. cops who seize their goods.

Nogales, Ariz., Police Chief Jeffrey Kirkham said his officers received threats a couple weeks ago after off-duty police busted a  pot smuggling ring.

“America is based on freedom. We’re not going to be intimidated by the threats, but we are taking them seriously,” Kirkham told CNN.

“I’ve told my officers if they venture into that area off-duty to be armed,” he said. Just which cartel made the threat remains unclear. Violent warnings toward American police are not new, but the Nogales incident marked the first time U.S. officials confirmed a threat.

Kirkham said the turf war between the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels have escalated tensions in the border region.

The police chief told the local newspaper his officers were threatened with sniper fire if they continued to seize drugs when off- duty.

The Santa Cruz County sheriff said there had not been threats against his department.

“They seem to respect an officer who’s doing his job,” Sheriff Antonio Estrada said of the drug gangs, “but when you do it as a civilian, they really take offense.”

Mexican law enforcement endured a deadly week last week as 12 officers were killed in a shootout after an ambush. Federal police also killed 15 gunmen during a shootout at a safe house.

Since the Mexican government declared war on drug gangs in 2006, more than 23,000 people have been killed.



4 Responses to “A threat from south of the border: Gangs threaten to kill off duty US police for seizing drug shipment”
  1. In many instances, I’m betting, the gangs are probably better armed that the Mexican police. Drug money can buy a great deal of sophisticated weaponry.

    I think it’s only a matter of time before we’re knee-deep in this violence, fighting a drug war in towns along the border. Clashes are occurring more frequently, and the gangs are becoming bolder.

    As for Afghanistan, I believe that that war is a waste of tax dollars, and human life. It’s not a war we can win, and I don’t think Afghans will step up, and take over the security of their own country. This is not a new belief: It’s been in the making for sometime.

    And the recent Rollingstone> article, Runaway General,, bolsters my position. I think that McChrystal wants out. He wants out, but he doesn’t want his legacy to be that of quitter, but of one relieved of duty because of a fundamental difference with his Commander-in-Chief.

    I disagree with Keith Olbermann: I believe McChrystal should step down. Bush fired generals for a great deal less. Bush’s notion of nation building was an ill-conceived idea. We don’t have enough troops, or enough national treasure with which to do the job.

    • Greg L says:


      In a way, the violence in Chester PA and that in Mexico are mirrors of the same thing. The economic situation is so desperate and the soclal controls are so non existent that the most viable option perceived by many is the drug trade. I believe that also extends to the poppy fields in Afghanistan and South America. What we have are a bunch of dispossessed people forming the gendarmes of a world wide drug army.

      At some point, we have to grapple with some very uncomfortable questions here. I’ll use an analogy to explain what I mean. Suppose the auto industry was declared illegal tomorrow, but major players like GM and Toyota continued to operate making cars secretly and shipping them everywhere. Could they really hide from aggressive law enforcement? You might not catch the small players, but the big players would have a difficult time covering their economic tracks mainly because the economic infrastruture they have to have in place is so massive that it leaves footprints everywhere. So, raw material inputs like steel and rubber could be traced to them, payments to suppliers could be traced to them, they really couldn’t keep a few billion sitting around in cash and as they move these massive amounts of money, that could be traced to them. The Federal Reserve, the US Government and various and sundry players have departments whose only job is to maintain statistics and measure economic activity. Are we to believe that the drug trade doesn’t result in some data “blips”? So are we really to believe that the major players can not be found? Are we really to believe that the “soldiers” in the streets of Juarez, Nogales or Chester are the only problems? Who put them there? How is it that we can have satellites arrayed around the globe and can see and hear everything, but somehow are blind and deaf when it comes to the drug trade’s major players?

      These are but a few of the questions that are never ever raised about the drug trade. The illegal drug industry has estimated sales about equal to the big three auto makers.

    • Greg L says:

      As for Afghanistan, I believe that that war is a waste of tax dollars, and human life. It’s not a war we can win, and I don’t think Afghans will step up, and take over the security of their own country. This is not a new belief: It’s been in the making for sometime

      For centuries, Afghanistan has been a place where empires go to die. The US trapped Russia into going there to meet their Waterloo and I’m afraid that there’s been a trap baited for us to go there as well. I agree, this is a complete waste of taxpayer money and at the end of the day, nothing will have been accomplished other than fueling the coffers of the military industrial complex and those who finance them. Here again, we seem to have these ubitquitous drug lords who are running around over there who will ultimately be the law. It’s my understanding that Karzai’s brother is one of them and our troops are in the position of actually protecting the drug trade so as to not disrupt the local economy. That’s just insanity.

      As to McChrystal, I think you may be spot on. He had to have known what the outcome of providing those comments to Rolling Stone would be and he probably made them as part of his plan to exit. Obama surged in Afghanistan while setting a firm date for exiting at the same time, which begs the question of why go in there to begin with. War is rarely a quick in and out proposition, particularly in a place like Afghanistan and McChrystal’s frustration is likely this “in and out” strategy set by the administration. It’s not working, but nothing was going to work over there anyway, which is why we needed to stay out at the outset.

  2. ” nothing was going to work over there anyway, which is why we needed to stay out at the outset.”

    Obama devoted a portion of his campaign promises to completing the war in Afghanistan, and pursuing bin Laden, and al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

    This is one promise he didn’t have to keep. If Obama wishes to send drones into Pakistan, he’s likely not to get too much flak from home folks, but some Pakistanis are fed up with it: they claim that many innocent Pakistanis are being killed, and the killings are taking place in their sovereign territory over which these Predator drones fly.

    The Pakistani people may not think so, but their government is complicit in these attacks. I wonder just how much money their government receives to permit our fly overs. I wouldn’t be surprised, either, to learn that the Pakistani military is doing some of the search and destroy missions themselves.

    For my part, there’s no justification for our continued stay in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda, we’re told, is mainly in Pakistan, and it’s very unlikely that they’re return to Afghanistan.

    Afghanistan will one day be ruled again by the Taliban. We won’t be able to train an army with sufficient nationalism to protect it.

    I always believed that Obama continued the war there so that he wouldn’t be seen as weak on defense, and, too, I wouldn’t rule out the other motivator–keeping the Military Industrial Complex happy and well-fed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: