Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Crime News

Anonymous Takes On a Mexican Drug Cartel 548

New submitter NarcoTraficante writes "After one of their members was kidnapped in Veracruz, Mexico by the Zetas drug cartel, Mexican Anonymous members have issued an ultimatum to the Zetas in a recently posted YouTube video. The video demands the release of the kidnapped member and threatens to publish information of cartel members and affiliates in Veracruz if the victim is not released by November 5. The Houston Chronicle article warns that there will be bloodshed if Anonymous publishes information on the Zeta's operations, either perpetrated by rival cartels or reprisal attacks by the Zetas themselves."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Takes On a Mexican Drug Cartel

Comments Filter:
  • already attacked (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There's already been one politician web page defaced denouncing him as a Zeta.


      I hope that Anonymous has read up on the cartels. They don't play minor league down there. Those sumbitches just cut you up into tiny pieces, and scatter those pieces around the countryside. The average ggek or nerd looking to "do good" in the world would do well to steer clear of this mess. Zeta, like all the other cartels, own police chiefs, mayors, and governors, on both sides of the US/Mexican border. They own representatives in both Mexico City and Washington. And, by "own", I m

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Sunday October 30, 2011 @02:21AM (#37884400) Homepage

        I really think you don't understand 'Anonymous' at all. There is no 'Anonymous', 'Anonymous' is anonymous to itself. You do not join 'Anonymous', you either carry out activities in the name of 'Anonymous' anonymously or you do not.

        In any case, when you comes to oppression, you either resist and work to end it or you live in fear and die when others choose to make you a random example anyhow.

        The drug war is an insane activity of a corrupted organisation, the US government, designed it seems to promote pharmaceutical profits, allow the CIA a ready source of income, a means by which to destabilise other countries by forcing them to participate in drug war (whilst surreptitiously supporting the drug dealers ie money laundering and of course keeping the drugs illegal), ensure inflated profits for privatised prisons, maintain a massive anti-drug operation to suppress challenges to the status quo, allow intelligence operations to enter foreign countries masquerading as drug enforcement agents or paradoxically as drug dealers and of course the number one to win votes with the 'we're tough on crime' bullshit (of course excluding muggings, house break ins, car thefts, purse snatching, home invasions, crimes that affect the majority because, they are to busy chasing and convicting drug users).

        The best war to declare war on violent criminals involved in the drug trade is to legalise drugs, quite simply bankrupt them.

        • by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Sunday October 30, 2011 @03:53AM (#37884700) Homepage Journal

          Yes - I understand who and what Anonymous is. You seem to miss an important point about Anonymous. While the rank and file of Anonymous is indeed very much anonymous, there are some core leaders who are very much less anonymous than the hangers on. The script kiddie who checks the forums now and then, and occasionally participates in an attack, is indeed quite anonymous. Not so with some of the higher profile people. While HBGary made complete asses of themselves, it is NOT an insurmountable task for a dedicated group of IT professionals to identify and locate some of the most active members of Anonymous. In fact, I'd be very surprised if the CIA and/or FBI haven't already done so.

          Now, back to my point. To date, Anonymous has mostly gone after corporations, governments, and individuals who are civilized. To attack any criminal organization with no government, church, or social oversight is dangerous. Take a look at what is happening in Mexico today. People are butchered. In fact, truckloads and busloads of people are butchered. Many mass graves have been discovered in Mexico, some holding hundreds of bodies, others only dozens. In other cases, pickup trucks loaded with bodies have been dumped on major thoroughfares. The cartels are as lawless, and as savage as any organization in the world.

          The most insane Muslim radicals have nothing on the cartels.

          If and when the cartels identify anyone who they think belongs to Anonymous, we will be reading about yet another dismembered body, whether that body be in Mexico or the United States.

          Oh yeah - Zeta doesn't have any special burden of proof to meet. If some foot soldier is only partly sure that he has identified an Anonymous member, that's good enough. No burden of proof, at all. In fact, if they are half sure that Anonymous has a member who lives in a subdivision, but can't determine who it is, they may well round up every living soul in that subdivision, slaughter them all, and leave one of their famous messages. Written in the victim's blood, of course.

  • Somehow I don't think the Mexican Cartels are too worried about people finding out their names.

    • by Daniel_is_Legnd ( 1447519 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @03:16PM (#37880920)
      They claim to have the identities of corrupt police officers and journalists. That could prove more useful.
      • by Xugumad ( 39311 )

        Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous? Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?

        This doesn't seem entirely flawless...

        • Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous? Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?

          This doesn't seem entirely flawless...

          This one looks pretty accurate [].

        • by Calibax ( 151875 ) * on Saturday October 29, 2011 @04:01PM (#37881232)

          This has nothing to do with the USA (assuming that's what you meant by "we"). The threat is that they will publish a list of police officers, politicians journalists, etc. aligned with the Zetas. The competing cartels then kill them in the hope of weakening the Zetas - I don't think they are strong on needing proof.

          Anonymous is threatening the Zetas with exposure to get their member released, they aren't threatening all the cartels.

          • by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @08:41PM (#37883002) Homepage Journal

            Uhh, actually, this has a LOT to do with the USA.

            The United States' "War on Drugs" is the root cause of all that violence in Mexico. And, NAFTA helped to deprive the common man in Mexico of his livelihood, mostly small farmers, thereby driving more recruits into the cartels. Add to that, the fact that there are now about 20 million lawbreaking illegal aliens in the United States. Some indeterminate number of those illegals are also members of Zeta and other cartels.

            Everything drug related has to do with the United States. Everything.

      • by 517714 ( 762276 )
        The list would be so much shorter if they listed the honest ones.
      • by Kyusaku Natsume ( 1098 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @04:19PM (#37881360)

        You can pic any issue of Proceso magazine to read about corruption in Mexico, the Anonymous list will be used or can be used to falsely flag people in the payroll of cartels. We have already big troubles with the anonymous report of innocent people as members of cartels or kidnappers, we don't need a list made by script kiddies. My grandmother was falsely accused of being a kidnapper and had her house stormed by the army, my uncle beaten and my cousin sent to the hospital. In the end, it appeared that the ones doing the tip were the actual kidnappers to make a big fuss in my grandmother's small town were she is a loved and respected citizen, the kidnappers got away. Due process exist for a very good reason, laws were not written by tree hugging hippies, they were wrote by victorious revolutionaries that put their life in the line to make a better society.

        • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @06:56PM (#37882326)

          "Due process exist for a very good reason, laws were not written by tree hugging hippies, they were wrote by victorious revolutionaries that put their life in the line to make a better society."

          That didn't happen in Mexico, which needs another revolution to liquidate organized crime.

          • It did happen in the early days of the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The Constitution that emerged from that war was very advanced in 1917, and the revolutionary regime worked really well from the 1930's to the late 1950's but a bunch of stupid authoritarians ruined the country. The last batch of mexican presidents from 1982 to date have been far more pro USA than pro Mexico.

        • Agree (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30, 2011 @12:23AM (#37883956)

          Petty rivalry like this will only keep the machine will not change anything.

          The most effective way to defeat the Mexican drug cartels is very, very simple.

          Take away their money.

          No money, no power base, and that's that.

          The most effective way to take away their money is equally simple:

          Legalize their product. Put it under proper federal quality regulation and have legitimate taxpaying law-abiding businesses sell it.

          In one action you simultaneously create millions of legitimate and sorely-needed jobs, and also instantly dis empower the strongest criminal segment of our society.

          The war on drugs has empowered the worst of humans, and has utterly failed to restrict the supply of drugs available to our children in their schools. This approach to keeping our kids safe is thoughtless and does far, far more harm than good (which is no good at all). This is always the *inescapable* consequence of making highly-desired commodities illegal. More money wasted on law enforcement will only add fuel to the flames.

          Keep kids off drugs by educating them about the dangers, not by ensuring that they must share a world full of extremely wealthy and powerful criminal drug lords who have no qualms about lacing food with drugs to get children addicted, or kidnapping and murdering them to get their own way.

          Of course, the two biggest opponents of the clear-and-obvious-right-thing-to-do are:

          1) conservative religious types who utterly lack the capacity for basic critical thinking
          2) The drug lords themselves, who profit greatly from the fact that drugs are illegal

          Honestly, I am not sure which is worse....the evil...or the stupid.

    • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @03:48PM (#37881146)

      So why are they getting their panties in a bunch over what a bunch of nerds publish about them? And kidnapping people that they believe to be part of Anon?

      Given the PR that they like to generate about themselves, I'd say they are very sensitive about both details concerning their operations and their public image. Perhaps Anon can hurt them in ways that the Mexican authorities cannot. Anon doesn't give a sh*t about which politicians get taken down with the cartels, so that's one factor in their favor. Anon isn't constrained by laws the same way the police are. There are no rules of evidence, court issued warrants, civil rights, etc. that they have to concern themselves about. As long as they can keep themselves physically secure, its game on for the cyber war. Keep in mind that Mexican Anon doesn't necessarily have to be located in Mexico. Its going to be tough for the Zetas to reach out and touch someone posting from Boise, Idaho. Unfortunately, the person they have kidnapped will probably have to be written off as dead.

      The other advantage that Anon has is that they can tailor their releases of info to instigate inter-cartel warfare. The Mexican police may be unwilling or unable to act. But the competition next door will be more than happy to take their enemies out.

      • by znerk ( 1162519 )

        Has anyone else noticed how CyberPunk [] the world has gotten in the past couple years?

        ... just checking, chummer.

      • And the disadvantage is that if Anonymous gets names of innocent people on the list by accident, they've given them a death sentence (also all the non-innocents as well). The Zetas' rival gangs will probably kill (or at least try to) everyone on the list. Anon better be damned certain about those names they release, or they're no better than the drug gangs themselves, and will have bloodshed of innocents directly attributable to their actions. (Which will make it easy for the US government, among others,

  • So why do the police not have this information? Or do they make up the majority of the people on the list?
    • So why do the police not have this information? Or do they make up the majority of the people on the list?

      And if they had the information, what would happen then? Heh. That's not how things work in Mexico.

    • Re:Police (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Truekaiser ( 724672 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @03:28PM (#37881012)

      because the police make a %^&*( ton of money off the drug trade. they don't want to stop it either. a lot of the police districts in the south near the Mexican border when they seize drugs going north they get money from the feds. when they seize cash going south to the cartel's they get to keep it and add it to their budget.
      if they solve the problem they will lose money, and they don't want that.

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        In mexico, the police are running scared. The gangs are better armed, better equipped, better trained, with people who want to make money at the cost of their lives. It also doesn't help when the cartels string people up from bridges, skinned alive. Generally makes people lose their nerve to fight.

        • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @04:05PM (#37881268)

          In mexico, the police are running scared.

          Only the honest cops. The rest are on the cartels payroll. And it also doesn't help that in many cases the Mexican army has also helped and protected the cartels as well. Of course, this comes more into play in protecting the cartels at the border from ICE.

  • It won't be difficult; we all know who they are and where they are located," says the man, who underlines the group's international ties by speaking Spanish with the accent of a Spaniard while using Mexican slang."

    LOL.. the guy its using a text to speech program.. !!!
  • Drug Cartels (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cosm ( 1072588 ) <> on Saturday October 29, 2011 @03:13PM (#37880892)
    Can I just say that I think it is fucking ridiculous that we send troops all over the world, even just lately to Uganda, but yet we let fucking Mexico turn into New Afghanistan before our eyes. Oh wait. I know. Keep the drug flow up, keep the police state up. More drugs more problems more need for daddy DoD to swell and swell and enforce and strip rights way.

    Nevermind Mexico. As you were. We'll come knocking when you actually threaten our financial interest. Until then, keep up the good show. We won't bother.
    • Re:Drug Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arthurpaliden ( 939626 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @03:16PM (#37880918)
      Politicians cannot stop the war on drugs. Too many votes, I mean jobs depend on it.
    • Re:Drug Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @03:33PM (#37881050)

      Mexico is a sovereign nation. Did you stop to think how condescending it sounds to say we "let" Mexico do anything? We've already flooded northern Mexico with people from various US government agencies. What's your plan? Shall we send in the army, too? Who will we fight?

      The US government sold the cartels thousands of guns, which have been used to kill hundreds of people including police officers and politicians. I'm sure the Mexicans would be just as happy not to have much more "help" from the US.

      • Re:Drug Cartels (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cosm ( 1072588 ) <> on Saturday October 29, 2011 @04:15PM (#37881330)
        I get that. But we let the Cartels get away with it. We send them guns. We keep the region unstable. Sound familiar? Stability in Mexico apparently is not financially beneficial to the United States. Otherwise I believe we would be working with their government in a different way. Not that there are not good border patrol agents and good people working to fight the corruption and drugs and all that, but doesn't it seem like we should be doing more at the border to stabilize that region in our own country? Our border counties in the US are not the safest places in the world. There are safer provinces in Afghanistan. We are letting Mexico turn into new Afghanistan. Yes it is shameful. Sure it sounds condescending. But can you honestly say that we are sending more money to stabilize Mexico than we are the middle east? Where's the priorities? It is a damn sad shame what is happening to their government, and no I do not think we should impinge on their sovereignty or their people, no more than we should middle eastern nations, but the fact of the matter is immediate borders are important. I'm not talking about just rounding up all Mexicans and shooting them back across the border. I'm talking about smarter border policies and less incentives for the drugs to come here in the first place.

        The second drugs are legalized across the board in the US, you can bet your bottom dollar that the value of all those illegal runs will drop to zero. But the political circus would never do that, nor anything else productive other than stay in gridlock lockstep to protect the old guard and keep things the way they are.
        • Re:Drug Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)

          by znerk ( 1162519 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @07:36PM (#37882562)

          You have an interesting definition of "let the Cartels get away with it". A more accurate definition might be "actively aid and abet these activities via material support and large quantities of funding".

          A truly ridiculous aspect of the drug traffic issue is that the United States hasn't managed to control the infiltration of people across the border; the illegal immigrant problem has apparently reached epic proportions! Can the US actually expect to be able to control the movements of much smaller packages that drugs and money can be smuggled back and forth in?

          As for your "less incentives for the drugs to come here in the first place" plan, I agree wholeheartedly. Legalizing marijuana would be a phenomenal step in social management, as well as reducing the financial support we give to entities we can nearly all agree should not be profiting from us. I don't think it will "drop the value of all those illegal [drug] runs to zero", since we have pharmaceuticals crossing both the Mexican and the Canadian borders on a daily basis - apparently, it's orders of magnitude cheaper to ignore the patent-based monopolies in the US and acquire (supposedly) the exact same chemicals quasi-legally over the border; at least, that's what the spam in my inbox seems to indicate. Not just for "V1@GR@", but a wide array of prescription medications, everything from pain pills to antibiotics.

          Marijuana has been clinically proven to be less physically damaging than either tobacco or alcohol (both of which are legal, albeit age-restricted), even with long-term usage. It keeps the (consuming) population docile, and it's incredibly cheap. Taxing it sounds like a great idea, but even just decriminalizing it would hit the drug cartels harder than sending 100,000 troops down to shoot at them, and it would hurt them where it matters: in the wallet. Why import it from Mexico, when it's so much less expensive to get it (literally, even) from your own back yard?

          Marijuana grows in just about any conditions, that's part of the reason for the nickname "weed". Outlawing it is akin to outlawing carbon dioxide; how do you stop it? It has taken decades of strenuous effort to get rid of most of the "naturally occurring" cannabis growing alongside our nation's highways, never mind in a planter on someone's back porch. Criminalizing marijuana has simply given the cartels a (in effect, government-granted) monopoly on its production and distribution.

          Patty Hearst and the paper industry were responsible for outlawing marijuana in the first place, because it was an economic threat - it's cheaper to make paper from marijuana than from trees. An acre of cannabis produces more paper than an acre of trees, because you can harvest every month instead of every few years. An acre of cannabis also produces more oxygen per year than an acre of trees - and it grows faster than the trees, with much less maintenance required, making it a much more renewable resource with a smaller carbon footprint. Add in the fact that you can grow hemp in a field with other plants, whereas trees pretty much exclude anything except grass, and the hemp seems (from an objective view) to become much more economically viable and environmentally friendly than many other products.

          Hemp fiber is extremely versatile, and can be used to make all kinds of things that are currently made from less renewable resources - paper, clothing, rope, and even plastics and bio-fuels have been made from hemp. For example, replacing cotton with hemp would increase production by several orders of magnitude - cotton requires an entire growing season to become usable, whereas hemp is mature and ready for harvest in a much shorter time, allowing multiple "growing seasons" in the same amount of time; in addition, the cotton is confined to boles, whereas nearly the entire hemp plant is useful for its fibers.

          As for its use in "self-medicating", it is interesting to note that "industrial" hemp has so little THC in it that it's barely measurable - you could smoke an e

      • by RobinEggs ( 1453925 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @04:16PM (#37881338)
        I don't think you're reading his statement correctly. I'm not sure you can read any justification for sovereign manipulation into his statements. He's simply saying that if we insist on putting troops in other countries to suit our interests (which includes nations we like, by the way, such as Japan, Germany, and Turkey) why do we ignore that option when an immediate neighbor has paramilitary uprisings in border territories?

        Asking why we're pursuing the imperial option stupidly and inconsistently doesn't mean he's justifying the imperial option itself.
        • by cosm ( 1072588 )
          You nailed it. I'm not encouraging thin red line imperialism, just questioning the inconsistency in the rhetoric of it and its application across the globe. Perhaps I should have been less inflammatory and used less polarizing language, but the whole quagmire is just disgusting.
          • by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @06:20PM (#37882142)
            An imperialist adventure in the middle east has no real consequences "at home". It really doesn't. There's no bombings, killings, or invasions on the US mainland that remind people that there's a war going on (token overhyped "terrorist attacks" notwithstanding). The cost of the wars are abstract numbers that most people don't "feel" personally. The human costs on soldiers and invasion victims are sanitized and buried in nationalist rhetoric about the Land of the Free and its Destiny.

            Mexico is different. Firstly, it's close to America, so a real war would spill over into the southern US straightaway. Secondly, America is full of Mexican-Americans and illegals, who would take sides immediately. The result is that an imperialist adventure in Mexico would cause actual, real attacks on American soil everywhere, with actual, real consequences to people, actual real economic damage, and actual, real social upheaval and political crises.

            Basically, the war in the Middle East is not a "real" war. The Second World War was a real war, and Vietnam was a semi-real war. Mexico would be a real war, and nobody wants that.

        • by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @07:52PM (#37882684)

          why do we ignore that option when an immediate neighbor has paramilitary uprisings in border territories?

          Because we have a wall and a heavy military presence to keep it from getting out of hand, and as long as we keep supplying arms to keep the balance of power between the cartels even, they won't become a threat to us. That's how MOST countries deal with this problem in countries they share borders with.

          • by tsotha ( 720379 )

            Because we have a wall and a heavy military presence to keep it from getting out of hand

            Not true on either count.

    • Re:Drug Cartels (Score:5, Informative)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @03:34PM (#37881066) Journal
      Are you unfamiliar with the "Mérida Initiative"("Plan Mexico" to skeptics)? For reasons, um, wholly unrelated to that incident where the border between Mexico and the US shifted abruptly some time back, Mexico takes considerable offense at the idea of US troops on its soil. We've settled for rolling out just about all the various instruments of policy-by-proxy we have available there and elsewhere in Latin America(Plan Columbia, Central American Regional Security Initiative, Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, likely the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in some capacity)

      We've carefully avoided doing anything terribly effective; because Prohibition 2.0 is Going Just Fine Thanks For Asking; but unless our plans involve a shooting war with Mexico, an overt military presence in the area seems unlikely(and dubiously productive, most drug production is protected by means other than brute force, which makes soldiers less useful than they might be).
      • but unless our plans involve a shooting war with Mexico

        Extending your argument, can you imagine how stupid a shooting war with Mexico would be? I'm not saying that Mexico could "win" (everyone would lose), but look at the negative impact on the economy if the people who hail from Mexico suddenly went home. What if instead of going home they decided to take out a few neighborhoods.

        No, I'm not saying that Mexicans are inherently violent. I am saying that if the United States were stupid enough to start a shooting war with Mexico, some portion of the populatio

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Knuckles ( 8964 )

      "Keep the drug flow up, keep the police state up.":

      During the Taliban rule, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,500 metric tons in 1999. However, in July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.

      -- []

      Of course in October 2001 the US and allied forces invaded Afghanistan.

      Despite the [2009] decrease, Afghanistan is still the world's leading producer of opium. (...) In 2009, Afghanistan cultivated 123,000 hectares of opium compared to 157,000 hectares in 2008 (...) In 2009, 6,900 tons of opium were produced compared to 7,700 tons in 2008.

      -- []

  • I will BUY TICKETS to that EVENT!

    Wonder if Vegas is taking bets?


  • I suppose the outcome of this is going to depend on which faction of Anonymous we're talking about here. Any of the Mexican drug cartels are definitely not Amateur Night. I have to wonder if the Anonymous in question here really understands on a visceral level that these people (if you can refer to any of these drug cartel animals as "people"), if they find them, will kill them, likely in the most hideous and painful manner possible.
  • Holder will be sending the cartels even more guns.

  • by SpzToid ( 869795 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @03:24PM (#37880986)
    This is not exactly the first online community that has been victimized by the Mexican drug cartels lately. ...So if Anonymous has the muy macho cajones, and it seems they do... I wish them well in their endeavors. []
    • The thing is Anonymous are not 'idealistic' bloggers. This is where they have the advantage. The hard core Anonymous that is.
  • The drug cartels are not playing Anon's little kids game of doxing people. :(

  • by RobinEggs ( 1453925 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @03:47PM (#37881142)

    The person reportedly kidnapped is not named...

    So your organization is called Anonymous and when one of you goes missing you threaten the suspected culprit while still not naming the missing guy?

    It's not like the Zetas only 'disappear' a couple guys a year; they're a massive paramilitary threatening the public safety of entire states. How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return? Furthermore, this splinter of Anonymous is already at war with the Zetas. If they believe they can damage the Zetas so heavily with their supposed cache of information why didn't they do so weeks ago?

    It all seems like weird internet posturing, although of course hacker groups and drug runners aren't exactly paragons of transparency. There may be so much back story missing that it's pointless to comment on.

  • Zeta Response (Score:3, Informative)

    by starmonkey ( 2486412 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @04:49PM (#37881596)
    I wish Anonymous the best of luck. At best, they can release a few names and cut some heads off the Hydra. They will be replaced by equally corrupted politicians, policemen, journalists, etc. They might even be replaced by people that will refuse to be corrupted, at first, until they are offered the choice of plata o plomo (silver or lead = become corrupted or die). Most likely, though, they will find out which kidnap victim is being referred-to, torture him until he names names, then follow the chain of names, torturing them and their families, and leave them all hanging from bridges. Honestly, I can't see how this could possibly be a good move. The best move is to pay the ransom or forget about your friend, instead of getting him tortured to death.
    • Actually it's a sweet move. Let me explain. This is a drug cartel that is camped right on our border. They make tons of money, and chances are they are infected with the "need for high tech toys" that comes with that pile of easy money. Being that these are drug cartel people and not rocket scientists, this means they are probably exposed to the same technology holes in security that the rest of us are. These guys aren't Sony, and Sony got their ass handed to them in the tech security department. I doubt th

  • by lexsird ( 1208192 ) on Saturday October 29, 2011 @07:15PM (#37882440)

    After December the wolves come home. Meaning this, our Military will be home, and there aren't a lot of jobs. But across the border are cartels, loaded with money and generally being a pain in the ass to the world.

    This is where you take finely honed soldiers fresh from the combat zone, and start up some "private Black Ops". The combination of possibilities one can play here are limitless. You can make quick fast scores to finance bigger operations. Dig in, set up intel operations until you map out the players. Then it's a matter of figuring out the most elegant and effective low footprint means of eliminating them. Of course you capture their cache of money, dope, weapons, etc, but more importantly, you establish your own replacement system. You grease the right palms, don't abuse the locals, and bring everything back down under the radar, out of the news and everything becomes a ghost.

    Too much attention has been brought to this region, and it's really bad for "the trade". It's sloppy management, as everything is a "management problem" if there is a problem. This is low hanging fruit for young mercenaries home from the dried up tit called Iraq. Any "mercenary operations brain" will recognize this as a golden opportunity. I don't think it's a matter if it will happen, but a matter of who will get the prize.

    Personally, if I were conducting these ops, I would eliminate the meth production there and keep it eliminated. Frankly, it's rat poison for people, and America has been dosed enough with it. You would even put the squeeze on and shut down the sex slave traffic. Just focus on making money with weed. It's a cash crop that will make everyone more than enough money, giving you enough muscle in the region to keep things civilized. To make it really easy, you get the locals to farm it for you, and give them a taste of the pie. This keeps them at home, and from swarming across the border. It's a win/win/win situation except for assholes.

    Of course this is very illegal and full of wet work, and it has to be done intelligently. Which makes it perfect for Americans. Well, the right kind of Americans that is. Usually this means the kind that not only survive, but thrive in war. Many of the dear gentle readers here have no clue what I mean or think I'm insane or creative. That's fine with me, they are right.

  • by conner_bw ( 120497 ) on Sunday October 30, 2011 @11:17AM (#37886218) Journal

    America's most famous criminal organizations existed in an era where alcohol was illegal, e.g. Al Capone.

    When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states because of competition at legal liquor stores.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand how to end this problem. Sure, there will be other issues raised, but not as bad as illegitimate afghani poppy seed suppliers, international violent cartels, and permanent warfare.

    Not just for hippies any more. Start here: []

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.