5 ms·

Mexico is in a civil war. There are a few factions - but this is not a drug war - it is in a total civil war. The difference is: the ability to control governm

Mexico is in a civil war. There are a few factions - but this is not a drug war - it is in a total civil war. The difference is: the ability to control government. Taking over towns, expelling the police, trying to murder top police cheifs [1], negotiation of prisoners [3] -- all examples of what happens when a society is divided - in civil war. They are not fighting over pot farms. Killing 24 people in a rehab clinic isn't reported much in the US due to politics [2], but, this country needs international help NOW. The US is purchasing drugs at a massive rate on the I5 corridor and is now a drugged out enabler. I wouldn't expect help from the US. The cash stakes are huge: some cities import drugs in metric tons in the US and avoid prosecution [4]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/world/americas/mexico-city-police-chief-shot.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/world/americas/mexico-cit... [2] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-07-01/24-people-killed-in-attack-in-central-mexico-media-reports https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-07-01/24-peo... [3] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8k9w/mexico-confirmed-they-found-el-chapos-son-and-let-him-go https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8k9w/mexico-confirmed-t... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/no-charges-for-personal-drug-possession-seattles-bold-gamble-to-bring-peace-after-the-war-on-drugs/2019/06/11/69a7bb46-7285-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/no-charge...

0DHm2CxO7Lb3 6y ago
I heard that rehab clinics in Mexico are often used by the cartels as safe houses for cartel members, and their weapons are taken away during their stay until they actually go out and do their mission to avoid cartel members to go freelancing.
082349872349872 6y ago
Strictly speaking it isn't officially a civil war, because the cartels prefer to operate as a mafia instead of as a Party To A Conflict. (or am I showing that I grew up last century, by even considering Geneva Conventions?) According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Prisoners_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Prisoners_o... they certainly fulfil three conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; but for whatever reason they feel they have an advantage in not fulfilling: (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Nota Bene George Washington would return, unopened, letters from the British that were not properly addressed, because he wished to emphasise that his men were regulars. In more recent news, the sundry poorly regulated US militia may have (a) and (c) but fail on (b), while the "boogaloo" have (b) and (c) but fail on (a), and neither has yet shown any sign of how far they might observe (d).
- hef19898 6y ago
  Most guerillas don't fall under that definition any way. And there can be civil war regardless, Northern Ireland, various parts of Africa, Afghanistan, Syria...
  - dna_polymerase 6y ago
    Just from the number of shootings per day you can count the U.S. in.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      Shootings per day in the US doesn't count. To be a Party To A Conflict, not only does there have be some organisation to the violence, but the organised party has to agree to certain things, including renouncing physical or mental torture, or cruel or degrading treatment, as well as attacks on civilian population as such or civilian persons. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives. (These are probably the reasons the cartels have for not becoming recognised belligerents: they likely see themselves as having unbundled the profitable aspects of violence from the unprofitable parts of governance.) to switch references from the Geneva Conventions, consider the formal definition provided by Dr. Linebarger: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm > Formally, war may be defined as the "reciprocal application of violence by public, armed bodies." > If it is not reciprocal, it is not war, the killing of persons who do not defend themselves is not war, but slaughter, massacre, or punishment. > If the bodies involved are not public, their violence is not war. Even our enemies in World War II were relatively careful about this distinction, because they did not know how soon or easily a violation of the rules might be scored against them. To be public, the combatants need not be legal—that is, constitutionally set up; it suffices, according to international usage, for the fighters to have a reasonable minimum of numbers, some kind of identification, and a purpose which is political. If you shoot your neighbor, you will be committing mere murder; but if you gather twenty or thirty friends, together, tie a red handkerchief around the left arm of each man, announce that you are out to overthrow the government of the United States, and then shoot your neighbor as a counterrevolutionary impediment to the new order of things, you can have the satisfaction of having waged war. (In practical terms, this means that you will be put to death for treason and rebellion, not merely for murder.) > Finally, war must be violent. According to the law of modern states, all the way from Iceland to the Yemen, economic, political, or moral pressure is not war; war is the legalization, in behalf of the state, of things which no individual may lawfully do in time of peace. As a matter of fact, even in time of war you cannot kill the enemy unless you do so on behalf of the state; if you had shot a Japanese creditor of yours privately, or even shot a Japanese soldier when you yourself were out of uniform, you might properly and lawfully have been put to death for murder—either by our courts or by the enemies'. (This is among the charges which recur in the war trials. The Germans and Japanese killed persons whom even war did not entitle them to kill.)

0DHm2CxO7Lb3 6y ago

I heard that rehab clinics in Mexico are often used by the cartels as safe houses for cartel members, and their weapons are taken away during their stay until they actually go out and do their mission to avoid cartel members to go freelancing.

082349872349872 6y ago

Strictly speaking it isn't officially a civil war, because the cartels prefer to operate as a mafia instead of as a Party To A Conflict. (or am I showing that I grew up last century, by even considering Geneva Conventions?) According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Prisoners_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Prisoners_o... they certainly fulfil three conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; but for whatever reason they feel they have an advantage in not fulfilling: (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Nota Bene George Washington would return, unopened, letters from the British that were not properly addressed, because he wished to emphasise that his men were regulars. In more recent news, the sundry poorly regulated US militia may have (a) and (c) but fail on (b), while the "boogaloo" have (b) and (c) but fail on (a), and neither has yet shown any sign of how far they might observe (d).

hef19898 6y ago
Most guerillas don't fall under that definition any way. And there can be civil war regardless, Northern Ireland, various parts of Africa, Afghanistan, Syria...
- dna_polymerase 6y ago
  Just from the number of shootings per day you can count the U.S. in.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Shootings per day in the US doesn't count. To be a Party To A Conflict, not only does there have be some organisation to the violence, but the organised party has to agree to certain things, including renouncing physical or mental torture, or cruel or degrading treatment, as well as attacks on civilian population as such or civilian persons. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives. (These are probably the reasons the cartels have for not becoming recognised belligerents: they likely see themselves as having unbundled the profitable aspects of violence from the unprofitable parts of governance.) to switch references from the Geneva Conventions, consider the formal definition provided by Dr. Linebarger: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm > Formally, war may be defined as the "reciprocal application of violence by public, armed bodies." > If it is not reciprocal, it is not war, the killing of persons who do not defend themselves is not war, but slaughter, massacre, or punishment. > If the bodies involved are not public, their violence is not war. Even our enemies in World War II were relatively careful about this distinction, because they did not know how soon or easily a violation of the rules might be scored against them. To be public, the combatants need not be legal—that is, constitutionally set up; it suffices, according to international usage, for the fighters to have a reasonable minimum of numbers, some kind of identification, and a purpose which is political. If you shoot your neighbor, you will be committing mere murder; but if you gather twenty or thirty friends, together, tie a red handkerchief around the left arm of each man, announce that you are out to overthrow the government of the United States, and then shoot your neighbor as a counterrevolutionary impediment to the new order of things, you can have the satisfaction of having waged war. (In practical terms, this means that you will be put to death for treason and rebellion, not merely for murder.) > Finally, war must be violent. According to the law of modern states, all the way from Iceland to the Yemen, economic, political, or moral pressure is not war; war is the legalization, in behalf of the state, of things which no individual may lawfully do in time of peace. As a matter of fact, even in time of war you cannot kill the enemy unless you do so on behalf of the state; if you had shot a Japanese creditor of yours privately, or even shot a Japanese soldier when you yourself were out of uniform, you might properly and lawfully have been put to death for murder—either by our courts or by the enemies'. (This is among the charges which recur in the war trials. The Germans and Japanese killed persons whom even war did not entitle them to kill.)