Chapo Guzman son arrested, then freed...

[TGS]

I liked AZ, but figure it's probably too hot in the summer for me, even with the ocean's gentle breeze. Maybe a nice toll bridge instead?

I'm sure the Mexican gov't does all sorts of things I wouldn't find acceptable. I'm sure our gov't does things I wouldn't find acceptable. I just find our way of life the least shitty, but I don't have to base my moral compass on either. Summary execution of a controlled prisoner is morally wrong and is not the same as what happened in Dallas, etc. You said "you do know better than that" so I'm legitimately confused as to why you keep equating the two. Are you arguing that it does, in fact, happen? Sure. Are you arguing that my moral compass is wrong for not agreeing with it? Then you're wasting your time. I am not a peacenik and have the proven capability to kill if required. However executing prisoners is outside what I find morally allowable regardless of who or why others engage in it.

When did I say your morals are wrong? Why are you jumping to defensiveness about your personal morals?

And what about my clarification/explanation does not make sense?

It's not that your morals are wrong, the problem is that you're seemingly resistent to the idea of discussing the concept of morality and what constitutes an unlawful killing at its core precept. If your position really is that summary execution is wrong, full stop, no further comment, then that's simply a very black and white take on the world that, IMO, is lacking nuance and failing to take into account the factors that HCM just wrote about above, as well as not consistent with the US Consitution.

It's a similar statement to one made by a "drive by member" here a couple years ago that there is no moral reason to shoot a man in the back. He's free to have that hardline stance, but it's a stance lacking nuance and not consistent with the law.

[BehindBlueI's]

When did I say your morals are wrong? Why are you jumping to defensiveness about your personal morals?
.

The exchange goes as follows:

HJB: But, to suggest that they just kill this creep and run.....

HCM: ...This is extremely naive in the worst, “ugly American” sort of way. ... I would not judge them at all.[/QUOTE]

Me: I guess I'm naive and "ugly American" as well when it comes to summarily executing prisoners, even prisoners of war as well, then.

You:...Just because something is illegal or culturally inappropriate in the US does not make it so to the rest of the world

Seems like a claim that the fact it's legal or culturally appropriate elsewhere should matter to me. It doesn't.

In the clearest terms, how one treats enemy combatants, civilians, and prisoners is a pretty solid way for me to sort "good guys vs bad guys" instead of just "Team A vs Team B". Can I think of some scenario where the execution of a prisoner is the lesser of two evils? Probably, but that doesn't mean the lesser of two evils isn't still evil.

As far as clarification, I don't see how drone strikes or Dallas equate in the slightest. It's *not* sending men to their death vs killing a prisoner. A prisoner, by definition, is captured and restrained. They are not an ongoing threat. An enemy combatant in the field is an ongoing threat, regardless of citizenship. A pinned down suicide bomber is not a prisoner. A person wounded by their own suicide belt but not disarmed and chained to a gurney is. Killing the first is not summary execution. Killing the second is. Once someone is rendered helpless, the captive is the responsibility of those who have captured them. They are entitled to due process and humane treatment. What the given law or moral code of the capturing party is is irrelevant because not all legal or moral codes are equivalent.

[TGS]

And with that train of thought, I'd argue that a narco-terrorist leader with cuffs on him in Mexico is not effectively in the custody of the government, because they are not subject to the same civil process and stability that a prisoner is in the US when a cop puts cuffs on them, as that man and the organization he runs is still an imminent threat to the law and order of the state.

Which goes back to my original comment: "policing is regional".

Looking at Mexico's internal stability operations through the same lens you view the US's criminal justice system is aloof and not realistic, IMO.

[BehindBlueI's]

Looking at Mexico's internal stability operations through the same lens you view the US's criminal justice system is aloof and not realistic, IMO.

Add that I've also compared it to the US military, treatment of POW, etc. and I'm explicitly ok with that. I already stated my "America first" view point.

If they've fucked up their country to the point that's the only realistic option, sucks to be them and why it's better to be us. That said, it goes back to I don't have to pretend the lesser of two evils isn't still evil and I still get to have my own moral code independent of whatever shit position they've allowed themselves to become embroiled in. Mexico, Palestine, Afghanistan, whoever. I can be sympathetic to their plight and understand the framework that they live in that drives them to the shitty things they do while still recognizing that they *are* shitty things they are doing and not pretending it's all equal and there is no right and wrong.

[TheNewbie]

The lesser of two evils may still be evil but it also means less evil. Often that’s the only two realistic choices.

We don’t have to face what Mexican cops do. While I don’t like all of their methods and don’t want to see them here, they are operating in a different world down there.

[BehindBlueI's]

The lesser of two evils may still be evil but it also means less evil. Often that’s the only two realistic choices.

We don’t have to face what Mexican cops do. While I don’t like all of their methods and don’t want to see them here, they are operating in a different world down there.

Agreed on all counts. Which is why we need real border security and why "America First" is better than cultural relativism.

[TiroFijo]

Rememember that nearly every cent those druglords have has been gladly paid by US citizens...

[TheNewbie]

Rememember that nearly every cent those druglords have has been gladly paid by US citizens...

Yep. It’s a two way street.

[BehindBlueI's]

Sounds like the government capitulated to save hostages.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-show-of-force

Part of the effort by the cartel to get Guzmán released reportedly included not only taking armed forces hostage, but also kidnapping their families.

[Lex Luthier]

I got this in via email yesterday, but didn't have time to post it. This morning, Glenn Reynolds linked it at Instapundit.

Sobering reading.

https://claireberlinski.substack.com...llapse-a-guest

the first four paragraphs lay it out:

"You may have read the news just a few days back: the Mexican military captured not one but two of El Chapo’s sons in the heart of Culiacán, the Sinaloan capital. One son freed himself—which is to say his entourage and retainers at hand overpowered and killed the soldiers at hand—and then, in a decisive riposte, seized the entire city center of Culiacán to compel the liberation of his brother.

The forces that emerged were in the literal sense awesome and awful. Heavy weaponry that would be familiar on any Iraqi, Syrian, or Yemeni battlefield was brought to bear. More and worse: custom-built armored vehicles, designed and built to make a Sahel-warfare technical look like an amateur’s weekend kit job, were rolled out for their combat debut. Most critically, all this hardware was manned by men with qualities the Mexican Army largely lacks: training, tactical proficiency, and motivation.

Then the coup de grace: as the Chapo sons’ forces engaged in direct combat with their own national military, kill squads went into action across Culiacán, slaughtering the families of soldiers engaged in the streets.

Cowed and overmatched—most crucially in the moral arena—the hapless band of soldiers still holding the second son finally received word from Mexico City, direct from President AMLO himself: surrender. Surrender and release the prisoner.

It’s an absolutely extraordinary episode even by the grim and bizarre annals of what we mistakenly call the post-2006 Mexican Drug War. The Battle of Culiacán stands on a level above, say, the Ayotzinapa massacre, or the Zetas’ expulsion of the entire population of Ciudad Mier. Killing scores of innocents and brutalizing small towns is one thing: seizing regional capital cities and crushing the national armed forces in open fighting in broad daylight is something else. "

The guest writer (a pseudonymous Mexican national) makes the case that we are seeing the current government of Mexico's end state, and a hot anti-government insurgency has begun.