At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate, followed Benjamin Franklin from Independence Hall. He recorded a question asked by a lady, directed at Dr. Franklin.

The lady asked, "Well Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic," replied Dr. Franklin, "if you can keep it."

IN DEFENSE OF MINORITIES!

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Bloody Mexico - Vincente's Defense

Vangardia (LINK) reports (in the Spanish language) the strategy of the legal defense team in the matter of Vincente Zambada Niebla, coming to trial in Chicago on Wednesday, March 30, 2011. But before we go there, let's take a step back and put it in context with his arrest. 

CNN Reported (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/19/mexico.drug.arrest/index.html) "Vicente Zambada Niebla, known as "El Vicentillo," was arrested Wednesday (March 19, 2009) along with five subordinates, Mexico's defense department and attorney general's office said in a joint release. The men were acting suspiciously and had military-grade weapons, officials said.
"Zambada is the son of Ismael Zambada GarcĂ­a, known as "El Mayo." The elder Zambada is a top lieutenant in the Sinaloa cartel, headed by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, officials said."
Vincent Zambada would be hard pressed to assert that he had not trafficked or caused to be trafficked, tons of cocaine, firearms, and had conspired to do the things that drug kingpins do. The US Government's case (1:09-CR-00383) is well defined, the witnesses are stacked up and to that extent there are no surprises. The defense team are not alleging that Vincente didn't do it. They are saying that the US Government was complicit in his drug dealing. In some cases, the "dog ate the homework" defense works and in others, it doesn't. While we don't know what the US Government did and didn't do, we can presume that they helped the Mexican government in their counter-narcotics efforts and we're also safe in presuming that many Mexican officials were complicit in the Sinaloa Cartel's drug empire.

To quote Vangardia and reporter Anabel Hernandez (with slight editorializing because she writes in Spanish), the defense filed a motion on March 15 (2011) that shows that the narcotics trafficking undertaken by Vincente Zambada was done with the consent of the US Department of Justice, DEA, FBI, the US Department of Homeland Security and US Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE). They specify that the DEA's regional assistant for South America, the Director General of DEA in Mexico as well as DEA agents assigned to Monterrey, Hermosillo and Mexico City  as well as FBI Agents assigned to Mexico are involved in the complicit activities alleged. 

Was the Obama Administration complicit in drug running? I personally doubt it. There is a substantial burden on the defense when they make this sort of "public authority" allegation. All we can do now is to wait and see how it plays out.


5 comments:

Sandee said...

Why is this guy still breathing. Just saying. These thugs are deadly. How many has he had offed while the defense is trying to implicate anyone other than him. Attorney's can be such slime. Oh wait, that's what is running our country...attorney's.

Have a terrific day. :)

WoFat said...

The defense probably doesn't care.

LL said...

I don't think the defense cares, but there's strategy at work and the Cartel cares.

Race Bannon said...

Interesting. Several thoughts: Defense Attorneys trying to prove their worth to the paying client (Tom Cruise, A Few Good Men..."He's making an argument")? Defense Attorneys going to make an argument for more discovery…for the cartels to harvest?

But the more deeper conspiracy, and this gives the cartels way too much credit: Most good narcotics cases run into that problem of the point in the investigation where they know where the drugs are, or they know where the money is, and the prosecuting authority, or somebody in DC, wants to jump it, “Can’t let the drugs hit the streets…” (even thought they are already hitting the streets, and one seizure won't stop that). When an investigator finds that gem of a case, where he can sit back and watch, or better (and more rare) there is somebody on the inside, in the right place - then he knows its a race between how high-up you can go in the Drug Trafficking Organization, and how fast somebody shuts it down…for fear of the accusation that law enforcement was complicit in the drug trade…

They could just be trying to reinforce the lack of cojones in Assistant United States Attorney's to try cases like this.

LL said...

Race - I don't think that they can make the nexus for their case, but the defense attorneys are being paid to do a show and that's what they're giving their clients.

Law Enforcement has been complicit in the past and the logical comparison here and now is BATFE's Op: Fast and Furious where they were selling firearms to the cartels. (why?)

Most of the heavy weapons that the cartels have comes from US Sales to nations other than Mexico, and to Chinese NORINCO salesmanship. You can't buy military grade full auto weapons on the streets in the US easily. You can take them out of inventory from a third world country easily with a wad of cash and a complicit party.

There was an error in this gadget

Followers

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed