- Reaction score
- 12,790
- Points
- 1,260
A few US C17s landed near there last night.
Wonder if Delta is going to add to Pablo’s head.
Mexico’s instability, drug wars, et. al.
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
Wonder if Delta is going to add to Pablo’s head.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,769
- Points
- 1,260
Some Canadians barricaded in hotel amid Mexican unrest, others see calm return
Some Canadian tourists in Mexico remained barricaded in their hotel Friday while others saw calm return after the arrest of a major alleged drug cartel leader led to violence in parts of the country.
Don't forget there's a Three Amigos summit on Tuesday in Mexico City. Could just be presidential security package stuff moving down in advance.
- Reaction score
- 12,753
- Points
- 1,360
They go into Santa Lucia Air Base No.1.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,769
- Points
- 1,260
So these sicarios are fair game for a shwacking indiscriminately?
Nah, usual laws of armed conflict apply, so they need to be discriminate enough. Mexico’s cartels are in open rebellion against the government and have been for years; they exert military, economic, social and political control over territory. They attack Mexican armed forces regularly. It falls into the category of ‘non-international armed conflict’, and Mexico’s a signatory to the Rome Statute. So, the LOAC apply to their military actions against the cartels.
- Reaction score
- 12,790
- Points
- 1,260
The Cartels are Criminal entities, and at best illegal combatants.
The lawful status of the other guy doesn’t change your own obligations for how you observe the LOAC. Yes, the cartels are criminal, but any military or militarized insurgency inherently is.
There’s actually been a decent amount of scholarship over the past decade and a half about whether the cartels and narco insurgency qualify as a NIAC, and some decent consensus that, at least for some periods, it has: I believe that with the intensity of recent violence, it’s fair to say that if it ever has, it very much should right now.
- Reaction score
- 12,790
- Points
- 1,260
You guys need a better lawyer.
The best lawyers are the ones who give the most legally correct answer that gives you a straight steer, even if it’s inconvenient and not what you want to hear.
- Reaction score
- 2,066
- Points
- 1,140
This highlights one of the things that Canada and the US share.Some Canadians barricaded in hotel amid Mexican unrest, others see calm return
Some Canadian tourists in Mexico remained barricaded in their hotel Friday while others saw calm return after the arrest of a major alleged drug cartel leader led to violence in parts of the country.www.ctvnews.ca
We both have violent failing democracies to our immediate south
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 18,385
- Points
- 1,160
Meh...
I thought Mexico City was awesome and didn't feel threatened at all when I was there, or roaming around in the high country to the East.
I was also comforted by the trucks full of heavily armed Infantry roaming the streets 'G3!' (thumbs up)
I thought Mexico City was awesome and didn't feel threatened at all when I was there, or roaming around in the high country to the East.
I was also comforted by the trucks full of heavily armed Infantry roaming the streets 'G3!' (thumbs up)
- Reaction score
- 12,790
- Points
- 1,260
LOAC does a good job for Conventional Military left and right of arcs. It doesn’t do a good job of SOF SMU’s and LE options against Cartels.The best lawyers are the ones who give the most legally correct answer that gives you a straight steer, even if it’s inconvenient and not what you want to hear.
The entire aspect of it refers to Military targets. They aren’t a Military, and as a result what are legitimate targets can be a mess if you try to use the LOAC to guide.
I’m not suggesting one firebombs villages with members in it, but nothing wrong with assassinations, target bombings and the occasional poisoning.
Look back to the post that started this tangent- “kill the shit out of a bunch of Sicarios”. The context was utilizing LOAC constructs as more effective and, frankly, permissive of engaging the threat than a pure LE standpoint.
Booter
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,077
- Points
- 810
That paragraph literally means nothing. Word soup. Which “LOAC construct” specifically are you suggesting people use ?
Smoking armed sicarios engaged with the public and government forces is fine. You keep introducing things to the conversation without linking it to what you’re trying to say,
How does the LOAC keep us from smoking armed hitmen in the streets engaged with government forces?
Smoking armed sicarios engaged with the public and government forces is fine. You keep introducing things to the conversation without linking it to what you’re trying to say,
How does the LOAC keep us from smoking armed hitmen in the streets engaged with government forces?
You may have misread me? I’m not saying LOAC would stop them from getting the job done. Very much to the contrary, I’m saying that the narco insurgency in Mexico is widespread and violent enough that it transcends purely law enforcement approaches. It threatens territorial and governmental sovereignty, and military control of territory. It’s as much a military fight as a law enforcement one, and it’s recognized by many as a “non-international armed conflict”. That’s legally significant, and means that international law regarding LOAC applies.
A military threat can be engaged as a military threat, and struck with the intent of destroying it. Obviously that’s different from what police would generally be trying to achieve. In Mexico’s context, the military approach is likely going to be more effective and useful against some targets. If they want to degrade some of the cartels, and if military force is justified (which I firmly believe it is), it may simply work a lot better than conventional policing.
The reason LOAC entered into this at all was because I made a comment about killing Sicarios, and Halifax Tar asked me about “schwacking sicarios indiscriminately”. I immediately knew where he was going with that, and I brought up LOAC to say ‘no, not indiscriminately’, and to clarify the rule set I believe does apply. That’s the military one: Law of armed conflict to fight an armed conflict.
I think we’re all very agreed on wanting to see these bastards taken out. Just some differences of opinion on the precise rule set.
Booter
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,077
- Points
- 810
It slipped my mind that there is a legitimate legal concern when we start using the word “indiscriminate” in this context. It would
Definitely catch the legal eye. You’re right to be specific. “Indiscriminate attack” specifically.
Since you’re speaking in nuance. Can you comment on how your knowledge contrasts this restriction/ requirement/ idea with the Philippines. Signatories on the Rome statute as well to my knowledge. I would suggest it’s the closest comparable issue- if you have better I’d love to see it.
They did what they did with their hit squads- and just told the ICC no thanks. I don’t feel like the rest of the world cares too much what the Canadian corridor of thought on what they do to police massive internal threats to security.
Further to this- Mexico (in dated experience- so maybe it’s different now) does not have the clear lines between military and police function we re used to. It is more unusual for the marines and several other units there to have not been involved in legitimate civilian security operations. So I’m trying to think of a comparable situation.
Definitely catch the legal eye. You’re right to be specific. “Indiscriminate attack” specifically.
Since you’re speaking in nuance. Can you comment on how your knowledge contrasts this restriction/ requirement/ idea with the Philippines. Signatories on the Rome statute as well to my knowledge. I would suggest it’s the closest comparable issue- if you have better I’d love to see it.
They did what they did with their hit squads- and just told the ICC no thanks. I don’t feel like the rest of the world cares too much what the Canadian corridor of thought on what they do to police massive internal threats to security.
Further to this- Mexico (in dated experience- so maybe it’s different now) does not have the clear lines between military and police function we re used to. It is more unusual for the marines and several other units there to have not been involved in legitimate civilian security operations. So I’m trying to think of a comparable situation.
Similar threads
