Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 311

Thread: Drugs & US Law Enforcement (2006-2017)

  1. #121
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    The Columbian government should have a "no comment" policy on everything about this operation. That is why it worked in the first place. Celebrate the release of the hostages, other than that be like Sgt. Shultz from Hoagans Heroes.... "I know nothing"
    Actually, I think they did the right thing in apologizing (especially since evidence of misuse of the ICRC was already in the public domain). The ICRC has been quite heavily involved in Columbia, both in humanitarian assistance and in facilitating previous hostage releases--it really is not the kind of assistance that Columbia wants to compromise.

  2. #122
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Actually, I think they did the right thing in apologizing (especially since evidence of misuse of the ICRC was already in the public domain). The ICRC has been quite heavily involved in Columbia, both in humanitarian assistance and in facilitating previous hostage releases--it really is not the kind of assistance that Columbia wants to compromise.
    I understand what you are saying Rex but I disagree. Evidence is not proof and I think the Columbian government had plenty of room for plausible deny- ability by simply stating they will not discuss in detail any capability to rescue hostages and then leave it at that.

  3. #123
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    I understand what you are saying Rex but I disagree. Evidence is not proof and I think the Columbian government had plenty of room for plausible deny- ability by simply stating they will not discuss in detail any capability to rescue hostages and then leave it at that.
    Slap

    I am with Rex on this one. The government of Columbia needs ICRC more that ICRC needs the government of Columbia. What counts most is the perception of the folks on the ground toward the ICRC; without the mea culpa from the government, assumptions would tend toward suspicion.

    best

    Tom

  4. #124
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Slap

    I am with Rex on this one. The government of Columbia needs ICRC more that ICRC needs the government of Columbia. What counts most is the perception of the folks on the ground toward the ICRC; without the mea culpa from the government, assumptions would tend toward suspicion.

    best

    Tom
    Hi Tom, again I understand what you are saying, but I think the most important perception is the people see the Government of Columbia as in charge, to show the people they are the government and can protect them from FARC. Placing ICRC interests above that is not a good idea.

  5. #125
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Hi Tom, again I understand what you are saying, but I think the most important perception is the people see the Government of Columbia as in charge, to show the people they are the government and can protect them from FARC. Placing ICRC interests above that is not a good idea.
    And by pretending to be the ICRC, they undercut their ability to show they are in charge. I am glad the hostages were saved, Slap but the use of the ICRC logo as a ploy was a mistake.

  6. #126
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    And by pretending to be the ICRC, they undercut their ability to show they are in charge. I am glad the hostages were saved, Slap but the use of the ICRC logo as a ploy was a mistake.
    I think is was good use of urban camoflouge(cain't speell). By doing this they pulled off the operation without a shot being fired or an injury or death to anybody. That's getting all Sun Zu and stuff on the enemy. All warfare is based on deception.

  7. #127
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    I think is was good use of urban camoflouge(cain't speell). By doing this they pulled off the operation without a shot being fired or an injury or death to anybody. That's getting all Sun Zu and stuff on the enemy. All warfare is based on deception.
    Committing a war crime is not good for long term interests.

    It remains to be seen what the after effects will be regarding ICRC and other IO/NGOs.

    We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Tom

  8. #128
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,600

    Default

    Just on a side note, I'll mention how important that Red Cross bib is to ICRC personnel. They frequently go into combat zones, into insurgent areas, and negotiate checkpoints, with just that as protection--no body armour, no PSD, no side arms... just a white piece of cloth.

    In many war zones--coupled with good field-level intelligence and good local staff--it is enough, in large part because how ICRC has protected the symbol and its own reputation.

    In some areas (Iraq and Afghanistan among them), obviously, it is not.

  9. #129
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    If the use of the red cross emblem was a mistake or not is open to debate, but it is not a war crime. The Legal concept of Exigent Circumstances was created just for cases like this.(sometimes lawyers do good stuff) Exigent Circumstances will allow Law Enforcement to violate other laws,rules,and procedures in situations where there is an extreme risk of loss of life. Freeing hostages would qualify.

    Further if it was a mistake,that does not require the Columbian Government to discuss it in public. (Having a no comment policy is the same as pleading the 5th in this country) They could have seen the Red Cross in private.

  10. #130
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    If the use of the red cross emblem was a mistake or not is open to debate, but it is not a war crime. The Legal concept of Exigent Circumstances was created just for cases like this.(sometimes lawyers do good stuff) Exigent Circumstances will allow Law Enforcement to violate other laws,rules,and procedures in situations where there is an extreme risk of loss of life. Freeing hostages would qualify.
    It doesn't apply in this case--while international humanitarian law often allows a degree or exigency (or military necessity) to be balanced against harm to civilians, there is no such exemption for use of the red cross symbol (for the obvious reasons that people would constantly be using ambulances to gain tactical surprise). Misuse of the ICRC is an absolute war crime, against which IHL would allow no such defence.

    Hence the Columbians 'fessing up and apologizing so fast--and blaming it on a nervous soldier.

  11. #131
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Since nobody was hurt or killed I don't see how use of the Red Cross is a war crime. So we go with copyright violation and a $50.00 fine.

  12. #132
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I believe 'War Crime' is a bit of a stretch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    It doesn't apply in this case--while international humanitarian law often allows a degree or exigency (or military necessity) to be balanced against harm to civilians, there is no such exemption for use of the red cross symbol (for the obvious reasons that people would constantly be using ambulances to gain tactical surprise). Misuse of the ICRC is an absolute war crime, against which IHL would allow no such defence.
    Without getting into the semantic and legal argument about whether there is such a thing as International Humanitarian Law (as opposed to the existence of international norms, which I fully acknowledge and further acknowledge cover the use of such symbols), use of the Red Cross -- or it's allied symbols including the Red Crescent and Red Star of David (or red Crystal ) -- in an operation may be acknowledged by treaty to be misuse but I don't see how it rises to 'war crime' status. No such misuse is generally likely to produce massive or repulsive damage equating to a war crime.

    As to its use of symbols on ambulances to achieve tactical advantage; I've been the recipient of three attempts to do that on two continents -- all were unsuccessful. My favorite was the US Peace Corps Nurse in the Dominican Republic in mid-1965 who attempted to smuggle two 'wounded' Rebels and about 500 pounds of miscellaneous ammo and weapons past us to the Rebels. When we insisted on searching her ambulance, driver and patients (though not initially her) she proved she was not a lady...

    Nor did the Indian Major general who was the UN Military rep there at the time prove he was a neutral observer with his attempt to defend her and accuse us of a 'war crime.' I'm no lawyer but some of them came to our defense and it was pretty well acknowledged that no crime had been committed by us or her.

  13. #133
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,600

    Default

    Yes, I think we're getting a bit hung up on the "war crimes" issue (and we haven't even started into the "breach" versus "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions aspect)... the bottom line is that misuse of the red cross is explicitly prohibited under Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention (1949).

    And yes, misuse does occur.. the Israelis have been known to commandeer Palestinian ambulances to make arrests, and the Palestinians have been known to use them to transport wanted individuals or weapons. I can't think of a case there, however, where anyone has misused the ICRC symbol though (as opposed to a generic red cross).

  14. #134
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Yes, I think we're getting a bit hung up on the "war crimes" issue (and we haven't even started into the "breach" versus "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions aspect)... the bottom line is that misuse of the red cross is explicitly prohibited under Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention (1949).

    And yes, misuse does occur.. the Israelis have been known to commandeer Palestinian ambulances to make arrests, and the Palestinians have been known to use them to transport wanted individuals or weapons. I can't think of a case there, however, where anyone has misused the ICRC symbol though (as opposed to a generic red cross).
    Agreed but with a difference. What is important to consider is the secondary and tertiary effects of misuse in arenas such as Colombia, Congo, or elsewhere the effective rule of law is already in dispute. Again I am tickled pink they got the hostages out; using the ICRC emblem was maladroit at best and may cost others their lives in the future.

    Tom

  15. #135
    Council Member Wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Inside your OODA loop
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
    I think this is potentially dangerous. Latin America has a huge way to go economically, and seeing everybody shoot their military spending through the roof is not beneficial to any of that. Brazil is going to be the regional power in the long-run; they are already an economic "dwarf-giant," if you will, and their political power will rise in tandem. We should continue to support Colombia, but I just don't see the utility, for us, the Colombians, or anybody in Latin America from a new round of arms races caused by descent into competing "camps." In the long run, Brazil (especially), Argentina, Chile, and Colombia are the powers in LA, not Venezuela or Ecuador or Bolivia, no matter what Chavez and Morales would say.
    Whether or not it's beneficial to them, the Latin American states have already started the arms race (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...73&postcount=3). Chavez recently acquired some new Sukhoi fighters, and apparently he's looking for more from the Russians. Regardless of the fact that his people are still struggling to make ends meet, he's going to buy weapons and boost his domestic surveillance programs. He's got a country flush with oil revenues and he's got a whole lot of ambition. He wants to stick it to The Man, that being the United States and its "puppet," Colombia. Just because it's the proper and prudent course of action doesn't mean that a man like Chavez is going to follow that path.

    Remember, this is IR we're talking about. Regional hegemons wax and wane, and states always compete to enhance their power and influence. An arms race was easy to predict in this case. It was inevitable, IMO.

    Indeed, but since the 1980s, the drug trade has been the watchword and political cover. And to a degree, even if FARC is defeated, our real goals will still coincide with counternarcotics. Economic development and eradication of the drug trade are going to require huge amounts of aid and effort.
    Oh, don't get me wrong. If the FARC evaporates tomorrow I don't expect us to pick up and leave. Drug interdiction is still a huge reason why we're there. But I will counter by saying that if the FARC and the drugs disappear overnight, we will still have a considerable presence in Colombia and we will still shower money on them, because the overarching reason for our involvement in Colombia is based on its importance as a strategic and democratic ally in that region.

  16. #136
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default Red Cross probes emblem 'misuse'

    Misuse of the symbol undermines Red Cross neutrality

    The Geneva-based ICRC says the footage shown on Colombian TV on Monday indicates that the emblem was being used before the operation to free the hostages from Farc guerrillas had even begun, indicating intentional misuse.

    "If authenticated, these images would clearly establish an improper use of the Red Cross emblem, which we deplore," said ICRC deputy director of operations Dominik Stillhart.

    Mr Uribe said he had apologised to the Red Cross for the error, which he said had been made by a nervous soldier acting against orders.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  17. #137
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,025

    Default International support for the FARC

    I thought about posting this in the Latin American section, but decided there are relevant points in this article about international support (both State and non-state) for insurgents and terrorists are relevant on the global level. The take away is that the McCormick Counterinsurgent Diamond model argues you must isolate the insurgents not only from the populace and but also international support. Of course theory is always easier than practice.

    http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscel...eption0908.pdf

    This paper examines:
    The FARC's long-standing ties to Latin American countries such as El Salvador
    and Nicaragua,
    The information-sharing with other terrorist groups, particularly the Provisional
    IRA of Ireland and the ETA Basque separatists of Spain, and the role this
    collaboration played in allowing the FARC to develop weapons that primarily
    targeted the civilian population,
    The FARC's role in founding and directing the Coordinadora Continental
    Bolivariana (CCB), an umbrella group active in much of Latin America.
    The FARC's European network,
    The FARC's attempts to acquire weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, from a
    variety of countries and intermediaries of different nationalities.

  18. #138
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore
    I thought about posting this in the Latin American section, but decided there are relevant points in this article about international support (both State and non-state) for insurgents and terrorists are relevant on the global level. The take away is that the McCormick Counterinsurgent Diamond model argues you must isolate the insurgents not only from the populace and but also international support. Of course theory is always easier than practice.

    The FARC’s International Relations: A Network of Deception
    The necessity of isolating the insurgent from international support has long been a recognized keystone of successful COIN, but - as you state - it is a goal that is very difficult to reach. Reduction of such support (to varying degrees), rather than isolation from, tends to be what is achievable in practical terms. And in today's operational environment, there is a broad spectrum of factors that make such reduction much more difficult than it was in the Cold War era.

    Back in 2001, RAND published a decent, if simplistic, study on Trends in Outside Support for Insurgencies. The brief NEFA paper talks to several of the issues in the context of the FARC that the authors identified as post-Cold War support trends.

    As an aside, given events since '01, the topic could use an in-depth relook.

  19. #139
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default more on coke subs

    Jules Verne eat your heart out:

    In Colombia, they call him Captain Nemo: Authorities say Enrique Portocarrero was the innovative creator of stealthy submarines called semi-submersibles, used by cocaine traffickers to evade detection, By Chris Kraul. Los Angeles Times, December 14, 2008.

    But law enforcement officers here have dubbed him "Captain Nemo," after the dark genius of "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea." They say the 45-year-old has designed and built as many as 20 fiberglass submarines, strange vessels with the look of sea creatures, for drug traffickers to haul cocaine from this area of southern Colombia to Central America and Mexico.

    Capping a three-year investigation that involved U.S. and British counter-narcotics agents, Colombia's FBI equivalent, the Department of Administrative Security, arrested Portocarrero last month in the violent port city of Buenaventura, where he allegedly led a double life as a shrimp fisherman.

    A day later, they descended on Portocarrero's hidden "shipyard" in a mangrove swamp 20 miles south of here and destroyed two of the vessels, which police say were each capable of carrying 8 tons of cargo.

  20. #140
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,098

    Default

    National Drug Threat Assessment 2009 (18.7 MB pdf)
    DTOs rapidly adapt to law enforcement and policy initiatives that disrupt their drug trafficking operations. Law enforcement and intelligence reporting revealed several strategic shifts by DTOs in drug production and trafficking in 2007 and early 2008, attributed in part to the success of counterdrug agencies in disrupting the operations of DTOs. Many of these shifts represent immediate new challenges for policymakers and resource planners. The National Drug Threat Assessment 2009 outlines the progress and emerging counterdrug challenges in detailed strategic findings, including the following:

    • Mexican DTOs represent the greatest organized crime threat to the United States.
    • Violent urban gangs control most retail-level drug distribution nationally, and some have relocated from inner cities to suburban and rural areas.
    • Cocaine is the leading drug threat to society. Methamphetamine is the second leading drug threat, followed by marijuana, heroin, pharmaceutical drugs, and MDMA respectively.
    • Cocaine availability levels in the United States are lower than 2005 and 2006 levels.
    • Domestic methamphetamine production is projected to surpass 2007 levels.
    • To increase domestic methamphetamine production, individuals and criminal groups are increasingly circumventing state and federal pseudoephedrine and ephedrine sales restrictions.
    • The level of domestic outdoor cannabis cultivation is very high and possibly increasing.
    • Marijuana potency has increased to the highest level ever recorded.
    • Lucrative northeastern white heroin markets are attracting Mexican DTOs that distribute Mexican black tar or brown powder heroin.
    • Southwest and Southeast Asian heroin availability and distribution are limited.
    • The level of prescription drug abuse is very high, and individuals are able to acquire these drugs from numerous sources.
    • Asian DTOs are producing MDMA in large clandestine laboratories in Canada.
    Complete 94-page document available at the link.

Similar Threads

  1. Syria: the case for action
    By davidbfpo in forum Middle East
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 10-01-2013, 06:30 AM
  2. The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL
    By jmm99 in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 07-28-2013, 06:41 PM
  3. Amu
    By skiguy in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 08:57 PM
  4. LE Resources
    By sgmgrumpy in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-22-2007, 12:41 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •