Coast Guardsmen jump onto moving narco-sub

[blues]

Should it be though? Was the “war” on drugs ever brought to a close?

I will speak from my many years of experience as a participant in the war on drugs both domestically and internationally. The "war" is just a term in this regard, it does not follow the ROE of a military op.

Even when I flew on U.S. Customs Black Hawks over international waters accompanied by Bahamian authorities so that we could interdict in the U.S., Bahamas or int'l waters, weapons were not loosed unless engaged. Now, the Bahamians had a little more leeway in the aggression they might use on a Bahamian on their native soil, but it was not carte blanche.

We did not shoot down aircraft suspected or known to be carrying a load of narcotics into the U.S. from abroad. We did not blow ships out of the water. There were times that vessels, (fast boats and such), were incapacitated by firing at the engines and rendering them incapable of escape or ramming our vessels.

In this particular capacity the USCG is operating a police action as opposed to a military op. As in such ops, if there is peril to life and limb then the appropriate force can be brought to bear. If there were reason to believe that the vessel presented a grave danger to the U.S. (such as it contained military grade weapons and arms) then the matter could cross from a police action to a military one as the USCG has authority in both arenas.

[blues]

I don’t know, I’ve seen some of the stuff cartels do and it would make me extremely surprised if any of these guys rolled over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've interrogated tons of these guys. Plenty of them roll over and bigger national and international cases are built upon such foundations.

Now, if you want to ask what good it does or has done, that's a different matter entirely. I can tell you that I've arrested hundreds, seized millions of dollars and thousands of kilos...but it's still like shoveling an incoming tide.

[mtnbkr]

I don’t know, I’ve seen some of the stuff cartels do and it would make me extremely surprised if any of these guys rolled over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would there not be materials in the boat that could further investigations? Could the drugs themselves not indicate source via chemical analysis?

I have no experience in this arena, but it seems to me there would be something of value from an investigative perspective.

Chris

[Wake27]

I will speak from my many years of experience as a participant in the war on drugs both domestically and internationally. The "war" is just a term in this regard, it does not follow the ROE of a military op.

Even when I flew on U.S. Customs Black Hawks over international waters accompanied by Bahamian authorities so that we could interdict in the U.S., Bahamas or int'l waters, weapons were not loosed unless engaged. Now, the Bahamians had a little more leeway in the aggression they might use on a Bahamian on their native soil, but it was not carte blanche.

We did not shoot down aircraft suspected or known to be carrying a load of narcotics into the U.S. from abroad. We did not blow ships out of the water. There were times that vessels, (fast boats and such), were incapacitated by firing at the engines and rendering them incapable of escape or ramming our vessels.

In this particular capacity the USCG is operating a police action as opposed to a military op. As in such ops, if there is peril to life and limb then the appropriate force can be brought to bear. If there were reason to believe that the vessel presented a grave danger to the U.S. (such as it contained military grade weapons and arms) then the matter could cross from a police action to a military one as the USCG has authority in both arenas.

Understood on the war being nothing more than a political term, but it still gets at my point as to whether it should be. I'm not just advocating that we start mowing down anyone other than Americans, but what is really the difference between them bringing in a shit ton of cocaine vs smuggling weapons? Sure, people ultimately choose to use drugs and sometimes that results in an OD whereas they typically don't choose to get shot or blown up from cartels or terrorists. But are there differences aside from that? Again, it seems to me that these are foreigners that are violating US national sovereignty AND smuggling in products that will not only harm Americans, but will also fund some of the worst organizations currently in existence. Would it be so bad to loosen the restrictions of what constitutes an LE vs MIL operation and therefore, engagement criteria? I don't know because I have no personal experience in any of these things, so these are all legitimate questions.

I've interrogated tons of these guys. Plenty of them roll over and bigger national and international cases are built upon such foundations.

Now, if you want to ask what good it does or has done, that's a different matter entirely. I can tell you that I've seized millions of dollars and thousands of kilos...but it's still like shoveling an incoming tide.

Interesting, I wouldn't have guessed. What happens to them though, whether they talk or not? Do we deport them or imprison them? How much does that cost? If they talked, how does that change the consequences and the cost that is incurred with those? What is really making sure that these same guys don't do this shit again in a few months, and take some lessons learned back to the organization so that they're more effective? One step further - what is making sure that the consequences are severe enough that there is some type of deterrent against others attempting the same?

[blues]

Interesting, I wouldn't have guessed. What happens to them though, whether they talk or not? Do we deport them or imprison them? How much does that cost? If they talked, to how does that change the consequences and the cost that is incurred with those? What is really making sure that these same guys don't do this shit again in a few months, and take some lessons learned back to the organization so that they're more effective? One step further - what is making sure that the consequences are severe enough that there is some type of deterrent against others attempting the same?

I'm not going to get into how the effort "should" be waged because not only am I retired from the work, but even when I wasn't nobody in D.C. asked for my opinion. You had your mission and you did your best to make the best cases you could within the parameters the law allowed. At least that's how my agency operated, including my years in task forces with other federal, state and local agencies.

As to the questions in your quote above...everyone that I arrested during the course of an investigation was put through the legal system. Most received lengthy sentences of several years to several decades. The only folks turned over to Border Patrol were folks who were already wanted within their system at the time, or those we had no reason to put through the criminal justice system.

Some become government informants and help us with complex international investigations. Others do their time and upon completion are deported. Some flee, if they make bond, and end up returning to their country where they continue their criminal activity or meet an untimely end. Occasionally we would run into someone known to us from prior investigations. But that wasn't the norm.

Nobody that got put through the legal system, (federally), during my years, got a slap on the wrist. I never presented a case that didn't end in a conviction.

What difference has it made? That's a legitimate question for which I have different answers on different days.

[Wake27]

I'm not going to get into how the effort "should" be waged because not only am I retired from the work, but even when I wasn't nobody in D.C. asked for my opinion. You had your mission and you did your best to make the best cases you could within the parameters the law allowed. At least that's how my agency operated, including my years in task forces with other federal, state and local agencies.

As to the questions in your quote above...everyone that I arrested during the course of an investigation was put through the legal system. Most received lengthy sentences of several years to several decades. The only folks turned over to Border Patrol were folks who were already wanted within their system at the time, or those we had no reason to put through the criminal justice system.

Some become government informants and help us with complex international investigations. Others do their time and upon completion are deported. Some flee, if they make bond, and end up returning to their country where they continue their criminal activity or meet an untimely end. Occasionally we would run into someone known to us from prior investigations. But that wasn't the norm.

Nobody that got put through the legal system, (federally), during my years, got a slap on the wrist. I never presented a case that didn't end in a conviction.

What difference has it made? That's a legitimate question for which I have different answers on different days.

Thanks for your input. If I’m reading it right, you’re saying best case (as far as “justice” is concerned), is those guys get locked up in the federal system for many years and then deported once time has been served. Apparently that costs us at least $36k a year, per inmate, plus whatever it costs to actually deport them. Obviously this is far more than just a numbers thing, but numbers alone, that seems like a decent amount of money that is completely wasted. Also, depending on their quality of life working for whatever cartel, I wonder how our federal prisons compare? Maybe it’s not that bad to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gray01]

It's an LE operation, not a military op. Certainly you know that the rules of engagement and the continuum of force applied are different in each instance.

If your remark is simply rhetorical or intended as sarcasm, you should make it plainer. Some of your comments, despite your intended erudition, leave one wondering.

Not sarcasm; maybe cynicism, and also an aside. I know that these operations are prosecuted as LE, and hence any cynicism, since the same tactics for decades have accomplished nothing but more of the same. I know that the men (LE personnel) perform honorably and energetically; nonetheless people have spent entire careers, some duplicated by sons, and accomplishing the same ends. And yes, I understand that the U.S. (at whatever level, either societal or political) lacks the will to prosecute this as a military operation with the intent of destruction (not arrest and confiscation) of the involved people and/or state(s).

The secondary thought (the "aside") was the physical bravery of those in the video, and the absurdity of continuing to put men in physical jeopardy by using such tactics.

And you made me smile with the "intended erudition" comment. I simply write in the same fashion that I speak; those who know me best would simply call me boring, not erudite.

[HCM]

I've interrogated tons of these guys. Plenty of them roll over and bigger national and international cases are built upon such foundations.

Now, if you want to ask what good it does or has done, that's a different matter entirely. I can tell you that I've arrested hundreds, seized millions of dollars and thousands of kilos...but it's still like shoveling an incoming tide.

Time, is a flat circle.

[Drang]

I've had some involvement on the periphery of military support to the war on drugs, and even when door kickers are involved (i.e., Rangers, Long Range Surveillance units) they are doing patrolling and surveillance, but they are only armed in extreme circumstances, where it is judged to be necessary for self-defense. (One operation involved national forest and BLM lands in Oregon, some vacationing congress critter ran across -- but did not trip -- booby traps around acres of marijuana. I Corps supplied aviation and intel assets in support. Later we were supporting JTF 6 with surveillance elsewhere.)

Granted these were domestic operations, posse comitatus and all that.

I suppose it's possible that the navy could be given orders to sink on sight on the high seas, if the CINC got froggy enough and wanted to declare that narco-terrorists are the legal equivalent of pirates, but even Trump doesn't want to open that can of worms.

[TGS]

I suppose it's possible that the navy could be given orders to sink on sight on the high seas, if the CINC got froggy enough and wanted to declare that narco-terrorists are the legal equivalent of pirates, but even Trump doesn't want to open that can of worms.

Hah! We don't even treat pirates like pirates anymore.

We take their weapons, give them water and halal meals, then set them free.