Slashdot Mirror


Mexican Gov't Shuts Down Zetas' Secret Cell Network

Miniaturized stealth submarines purpose-built for smuggling are an impressive example of how much technological ingenuity is poured into evading the edicts of contemporary drug prohibition. Even more impressive to me, though, is news of the communications network that was just shut down by Mexican authorities, which covered much of northern Mexico. The system is attributed to the Zetas drug cartel, and consisted of equipment in four Mexican border states. "The military confiscated more than 1,400 radios, 2,600 cell phones and computer equipment during the operation, as well as power supplies including solar panels, according the Defense Department," says the article. Too bad — a solar-powered, visually unobtrusive, encrypted cell network sounds like something I'd like to sign up for. NPR also has a story.

20 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. There wouldn't be any of this by CmdrPony · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If US would just let its citizen get high.

    1. Re:There wouldn't be any of this by Bob+The+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmm. Seems to me the smugglers exist because there's a demand for their goods on the US side of the border. If those goods were legal here, the violence wouldn't be as much of an issue, and the smuggling business would become a more normal business. If there was no demand for narcotics on the US side, you'd be right about it not being our fault that smugglers exist. But there is, and they do, and so we are partially to blame.

      Legalizing marijuana would be a pretty big blow to the drug cartels. The human trafficking comparison is just a logical fallacy, as narcotics and human trafficking are (as you note) different things.

    2. Re:There wouldn't be any of this by iroll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, yes?

      We can't control demand or the demanders. But demanders are pathetic; at worst, demanders run out of money and become petty criminals. We have built a huge infrastructure to jail people for spending money. Money that goes to... ...the other side, the Mexican government is dealing with the suppliers. There are huge profits in supply--the flip side of our problem. Supply is so profitable that the cartels rival the government in their ability to wage war.

      So, yes. A foreign country's problem with militant cartels IS based on a US decision, because that the US has made breaking the law so fabulously profitable that the cartels are fighting a hot war with the Mexican government using money from the US.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    3. Re:There wouldn't be any of this by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As has been demonstrated by countless, moronic drunk drivers, what is meant to be kept behind the closed doors of one's home doesn't always stay there.

      That's no justification for continued prohibition.

      Some people (who are quite sober) commit murder. Clearly, we should lock everyone up in solitary confinement shortly after birth, immediately after being weaned. For their own good. No, we can't give them a cellmate because they might shank them. Of course that's ridiculous but we've got a War On Murder to fight!

      What is it about people altering their consciousness so many are really so afraid of? I mean ... if prohibition was working and actually prevented anyone from obtaining drugs then we could discuss its merits. But it doesn't even accomplish any of its stated goals. It's a completely invalid idea. To talk about it as though it were worth considering is either dishonest or foolish, take your pick.

      They cannot even keep drugs out of maximum-security prisons. Are the implications of this really so hard to understand, or is this more like a religious belief that is impervious to evidence? Prohibition: it hasn't worked, it isn't working, and it can't work. Not even in the most ideal conditions for it (prisons). Normally when something has been falsified (by both history and logic) even half as thoroughly as Prohibition has been, intelligent people drop the invalid idea, you never hear it from them again, and they move on to other ideas that might work.

      What kind of insanity causes people to continue advocating such obviously failed ideas? Do they think they can divide by zero if they just keep trying hard enough?

      Like I said, I think this is a religious or other faith-based belief because it has absolutely no contact with reality.

      This really sums up what Prohibition is all about:

      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
      -- C.S. Lewis

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:There wouldn't be any of this by steppedleader · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, your point about drunk drivers is a big reason to support legalizing marijuana: People substitute marijuana for alcohol and end up causing less problems because of it. This has recently been shown in a study of traffic deaths in states where medical marijuana is legal (see http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/).

      I'm curious if the effect would be even larger with full legalization, although as the article notes, part of the reason marijuana use causes less issues with driving may be that people are more likely to use it at home and thus have no need to drive. That might not be the case if weed was legalized completely, but then again it would be entirely possible to legalize it without allowing the sort of public use and consumption at businesses that we allow with alcohol.

    5. Re:There wouldn't be any of this by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's because a lot of people don't like drugs.

      That's the part I have observed often enough to understand but I cannot relate to it.

      I certainly have my likes and dislikes. They are opinions, tastes, and preferences. I am entitled to them as anyone else is. But I never thought that my feelings about something override the facts of the matter. That's a kind of childish make-believe world I am thankful not to live in. The fact I don't like something doesn't make it less true.

      I call that adulthood. By my standards, lots of chronological adults are just overgrown children. The problem is that they vote (at the polls and with their feet and wallets) and think their opinions are equivalent to facts and logic.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:There wouldn't be any of this by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every organised religion in the world would like a word with you on how human mind works and just how exceptional (or deluded about yourself) you are.

      It's really simple. If you invade the sanctity of my life by forcibly trying to make something my problem (such as driving drunk and endangering me) then yes, I do have the right to stop you, most likely by calling the police.

      But if you are an adult person who acts like one, and can confine the consequences of your decisions to yourself, then I have no cause and no right to interfere. If I really don't like what you do with that freedom then my best option is to provide a counter-example by not doing that with my own life.

      Let's say you use drugs but you do it at home, you don't drive impaired, you don't steal or commit other crimes to obtain the money to buy them, you stay home, you sober up, you go about your business the next day without imposing on anyone or endangering anyone ... on what grounds would I hassle you over that? For what? What right would I have to tell you that you may not do something just because I wouldn't?

      A real love for freedom is simply not compatible with a Puritannical busybody mentality that tries to enforce its morality on others without their consent. That kind of mentality would be more at home with some kind of autocracy or other absolute dictatorship. If I don't like the books you read and strongly disapprove of them, then I don't have to read them. If I think the religion you practice is total bullshit, that's okay because I don't have to practice it. If I think the music you listen to is garbage, I don't have to listen to it myself. If I think the substances you ingest are useless and pointless and have no merit, that's alright because I don't have to ingest them simply because you do.

      Unless you are posing a threat to me, I have no right and no reason to bother you over what you choose to do with your life. I don't share the insecurity and the desire to control that the moral busybodies base their lives around. That isn't how I get my jollies. All I want is to live and let live while enjoying the same freedom I want others to have. This is really so exceptional? How far we have fallen.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:There wouldn't be any of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      it's admitting their wrong.

      Fascinating. This is floating between "they're wrong" and "their wrongs". And it's awesome because of it.

  2. Wow by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Stealth submarines, solar powered call communications networks, encrypted communications. They are equipped like a damn government.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:Wow by gedankenhoren · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They are equipped like a damn government."

      (see Mancur Olson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson
      "In his final book, Power and Prosperity, Olson distinguished between the economic effects of different types of government, in particular, tyranny, anarchy and democracy. Olson argued that a "roving bandit" (under anarchy) has an incentive only to steal and destroy, whilst a "stationary bandit" (a tyrant) has an incentive to encourage a degree of economic success, since he will expect to be in power long enough to take a share of it. The stationary bandit thereby takes on the primordial function of government - protection of his citizens and property against roving bandits.")

    2. Re:Wow by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's because their obscene profit is protected by the government.

      Exactly.
      You can't put up such a system on this scale without the acquiescence of the powers that be.

      Even posing as TelMex workers, someone had to know what was going on, and that there was
      spectrum being used that wasn't supposed to be there. And phones had to have been confiscated
      from the few arrested cartel members over the years.

      I suspect the cartel was being protected by some corrupt officials, or this network had
      already been compromised by the Mexican Army and the cartel decided it had outlived
      its usefulness.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. Re:Next up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are plenty of non-potheads who want to lift prohibition, for very sound reasons, not the least of which is halting the flow of money to the coffers of ruthless criminal organizations.

    It would also create jobs, increase tax revenue, and increase safety to drug users (regulated businesses produce higher quality non-laced drugs).

    Oh, this would also reduce the overcrowding of our prisons, thus reducing taxpayer expenditures thereupon, while freeing up law enforcement to focus on protecting us from more harmful crimes.

    There is also that silly notion that freedom is a core American value. There must still be a few patriots who remember this.

    It is a win all around, and many people are intelligent enough to see this.

    But, as you rightly point out, it is an uphill battle because many powerful organizations have a vested interest in keeping many drugs illegal.

  4. Murders and drug trafficking aside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least a couple of guys in this zeta thing is far from being a thug.

    I mean.. entire fucking cell networks... submarines and shit. You gotta give some credit to them for that.

    Yes, hanging severed heads from traffic signs ain't cool, but they have a pretty nice amount of technology.

    They should tell this guys there's great climate for planting coca on mars and we'll be there next month.

  5. Maybe. Maybe not. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Therefore, for cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, the costs of prohibition may seem high, but the costs of higher levels of destroyed lives due to addiction to substances which render you unable to function are higher yet.

    So making cocaine legal (and regulated) would result in the worse violence that we see with it being illegal?

    That's a bit difficult to believe.

    Particularly since it was legal to purchase over-the-counter until 1914.

    The "war on drugs" is ugly. Addiction to substances which render you unable to function in life is uglier.

    If that were correct then Prohibition would be preferable to the massive distribution of alcohol we have today.

    Some determined people will always be able to get these substances, but by making it difficulty and costly, you save lives by preventing exposure for some in the first place.

    I don't think so. I think it costs MORE lives. Again, as demonstrated with alcohol and Prohibition.

    No modern society can or will allow unchecked addiction to highly inebriating substances that rot at society and destroy human dignity, and, as I said before, personal free will.

    Look around the world. There are other nations that have different laws. And they are not exhibiting the behaviours that you claim they would.

  6. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by socialleech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your argument is invalid. You fail to take into account the large amount of legal 'drugs' (prescriptions) that are widely available, and endorsed by the US government(not to mention many others).

    So, tell me circletimessquare, how do you feel about a large amount of K-12 students being put on drugs like Ritalin or Adderall to control their 'attention span'? I'll remind you, that both of these drugs are amphetamines, and in the same class as Meth(logically, not necessarily by government standards).

    I hate to inform you of this, but you do live in that totalitarian government that gives mind control drugs to its population. They just guise it as helping you through the 'wonders of modern medicine'.

  7. Re:Next up. by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

    Alcohol prohibition was never about money. It was about the moral uptight getting their way.

    Perhaps, but it did serve a purpose.

    Ken Burns recent documentary on Prohibition, and the reasons for the movement that eventually got the amendment passed.

    The amount of Alcohol consumed in the US was utterly staggering prior to prohibition.

    By 1830, the average American over 15 years old consumed nearly seven gallons of pure alcohol a year – three times as much as we drink today

    Public drunkenness was rampant. We can't comprehend the amount of alcohol that flowed in that era, because people simply don't believe you can drink that much and get anything done, which, of course, was precisely the problem.

    There was very little medical science and even less education available at that time to control this epidemic, and moral indignation was just about the only tool available. After the civil war, things got much worse, and the anti slavery movement turned its sights on alcohol.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  8. What's your evidence? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would you support prohibition if it caused more problems than legalization?

    You're misunderstanding the difference between evidence based policy and rationale based policy.

    You can make a rationale for almost anything. Most issues are not 100% black-and-white, so simply emphasizing the negatives can be used as a rationale when you want to push your own agenda.

    The evidence indicates that when prescription-grade cocaine is used, the negative effects are minimal. Most of the corporeal damage comes from the substances used to dilute (ie - cut) the drug, and the true expense of maintaining a habit comes to pennies a day. The rough equivalent of drinking a 2-liter soda per day.

    The evidence also indicates that people can keep a family and a job and a cocaine habit. Again, most of the social damage comes from the high expense and low quality of the illicit product.

    On the other hand, making illegal something that much of the population wants gives authoritarians the perfect excuse to curtail our freedoms. The police enjoy the ability to root around in our cars, houses, and personal effects looking for drugs. The government gets to regulate how much cash we carry, where our money comes from, and how we travel because we "might" be smuggling drugs.

    Don't buy into the "we need to do this because it might lead to that" mentality; don't submit to the fear.

    Go where the evidence takes you.

  9. Re:Next up. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That history repeats itself. Baptists and Bootleggers opposed the repeal of Prohibition too.

  10. Re:Nice thought, however not close to reality. by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If General Mills made cocaine, a 10-pound bag would be $5 at the supermarket, and the Zetas wouldn't have money for tech toys or automatic weapons.

    Moonshine still exists because stills are still illegal! What, did you think it was legal to make your own brandy and drink it yourself? That's crazy talk.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  11. Re:Next up. by lgw · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can see right where the problem was: sanitation. Through most of the past couple thousand years, almost everything you drank had to have some alcohol in it, or it would kill you. Strangely, we started to drink a lot less alcohol once the tap water became safe.

    Oh, and any decent beer has just under an ounce of alcohol in it, so we are talking 3 beers here. A bit high by today's standards, but then we have other forms of entertainment and pain relief now (and safe drinking water).

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.