La Linea

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales during a Sept. 27, 2011, appearance on Fox News to discuss his border-violence report.
Photo courtesy Fox News
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales during a Sept. 27, 2011, appearance on Fox News to discuss his border-violence report.

Before retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales even stepped up to the podium, it was clear he was in a combative mood. Scales was in Austin in early November as an invited speaker for a security summit at the University of Texas at Austin’s Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law. “Get ready, y’all are going to get it,” a law enforcement official warned me and another reporter in the auditorium. He looked supremely amused.

Scales, who has the pugnacious face of a retired boxer, didn’t disappoint. “The media has utterly failed in covering the border,” the general said, though, oddly, he excepted Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren from his indictment. Scales also excoriated the federal government and “all those three-letter agencies that are cooking the books and hiding the truth” for their failure to secure the southern border.

It turned out Scales was still smarting from criticism he received last year from both Texas congressmen and the media after releasing his report “Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment,” which he’d co-written with retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, drug czar under President Bill Clinton.

“We wrote a report last year and had our coming-out party at the [Texas] Capitol, but the media chose to eviscerate us,” he said. “I wish they’d read the report.”

Many of us had read the report—all 59 pages of it. It struck many as heavy on inflammatory rhetoric and light on evidence. It argued that “narco-terrorists” are turning Texas border counties into “sanitized tactical zones,” and that living on the border is “tantamount to living in a war zone in which civil authorities, law enforcement agencies as well as citizens are under attack around the clock.”

The report was commissioned by Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples and Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw. They’re among the many Texas Republican officials who increasingly equate the war on drugs with the war on terror, a conflation that helps trigger not only more federal spending but more military intervention along the border.

Many border residents, including congressmen Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, and Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, didn’t like having their hometowns characterized as war zones. In a heated congressional committee meeting last year, the congressmen strongly criticized the generals’ report as based on anecdotal evidence and as politically motivated. They grilled the generals about how much they’d been paid ($80,000) and where they’d gotten their information.

A year later at the security summit in Austin, Scales was still upset. The worst thing, he said, was that he had invited his wife to the congressional hearing, telling her it would be a low-key affair. “It was an ambush,” he said. “In all my years of military service I had never been so humiliated. My wife wanted to kill Cuellar.”

Scales said he stands by the report, in which he linked Mexican cartels to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. “If you think it’s just crime and not terrorism, you’re just fooling yourself,” he said. Asked to describe specific incidences of the cartel-terrorism nexus he said, “It’s an existential ideology … the flow of narco money tied together by criminal enterprise, kidnapping, white slavery and other horrible criminal acts.”

The bottom line is this, he said: “The people guarding the border have been poorly chosen and poorly trained, and they have ridiculous rules of engagement. The FBI are notorious for cooking the books. The [crime] numbers are probably half of what it is. The terrorists have gone retail and are in our major cities—it will take generations to root them out.”

With that, General Scales sat down, a sour expression on his face. Next up was Greg Thrash from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. “I hope we’re not one of those three-letter agencies you were referring to,” he chuckled. Scales stood up with his briefcase and headed toward the exit. “I hope it’s not something I said,” Thrash quipped.

“Gotta catch a plane,” Scales shrugged, walking out.

After the general had left, Thrash said his agency hadn’t seen any of the border-violence spillover mentioned in Scales’ report. “From our offices along the border, we don’t see any evidence of any massive spillover,” he said. “Our cases don’t support that.”

On February 15, 2011, ICE agents Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila were ambushed by gunmen on a Mexican highway. The 32-year-old Zapata died that day but Avila, who was injured, survived. That much is certain about the fateful event.

Agent Jaime Zapata Cover IllustrationTo this day, however, Zapata’s family and Victor Avila still don’t understand why they were sent, unescorted, to San Luis Potosi into territory controlled by the brutal Los Zetas drug cartel. As the months progressed after the fatal ambush, media reports revealed disturbing details about weapons bought in the U.S. and traced to the shooting. Now, Zapata’s parents in Brownsville wonder whether the gun that killed their son was part of a botched U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives gun-walking operation called Fast and Furious, which allowed hundreds of guns to be trafficked into Mexico.

New York-based writer Mary Cuddehe is, to my knowledge, the first to take an in-depth look into Zapata’s fatal shooting and its aftermath, in a story released today by the digital publishing house Atavist. Through extensive interviews, reporting and travel from violence-torn Nuevo Laredo to Zapata’s hometown of Brownsville, Cuddehe pieces together a compelling and heartbreaking story of a family devastated by the loss of their son and a government unwilling to give them answers that will help them find peace.

Atavist was kind enough to share an excerpt of “Agent Zapata” with the Observer. As someone who follows events along the U.S-Mexico border closely, I was intrigued to finally see an in-depth piece about this puzzling and tragic murder. Naturally, I had a lot of questions for Cuddehe about her reporting. Following is our conversation about her really excellent story—for a couple dollars, you can download the entire story to your mobile device or computer. You can read an excerpt from “Agent Zapata” here.

Observer: Why did you decide to write this story?

Cuddehe: One day in a conversation with Evan Ratliff, the editor of Atavist, he mentioned that he’d never seen a big piece on the Fast & Furious operation. I had lived in Mexico for a couple of years, and I remember the attack (on Zapata) very well but I hadn’t followed the story very closely. So when I started doing the research into Fast & Furious I found myself drawn into the mystery.

Observer: At one point in your story you write that it’s a wonder that something like what happened to Zapata doesn’t happen more often. Could you explain this further?

Cuddehe: It’s striking to me given the presence of U.S. law enforcement in Mexico in recent decades, which has grown. There are such close relations between the U.S. and Mexico, and given the unique role of  U.S. law enforcement (in Mexico) it is almost surprising that this hasn’t happened more often. But everyone I talk to says there’s this agreement that it’s ‘hands off’ on American law enforcement in Mexico.

Observer: I’ve heard that often as well. But do you think that agreement still holds? Because pretty much everything has changed in Mexico with regards to who is off-limits.

Cuddehe: That was a question people were starting to ask after the attack on Zapata. And then there was the attack on the CIA agents (in Mexico). It remains to be seen, but it does seem like all bets are off.

Observer: Typically, it’s very difficult to get any information from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You got pretty amazing access to the ICE agents who worked with Zapata for your story. Was it difficult to get that access?

Cuddehe:  It’s so funny that it seems like great access because I was so frustrated doing the reporting for the story. Basically, I just showed up at the (ICE) headquarters. They had a bust unveiling for what would have been Jaime’s 34th birthday. I had already been talking to Jaime’s parents and they told me about it. It was a quasi-public thing so I was able to get in and while I was there I hung around and waited until I could talk to people. It’s much more difficult to say no to someone in person. Just because of that, I was able to speak to the agents. But they didn’t really say anything. It was amazing to be in the building and talking to people, but on the other hand it was ridiculous because I didn’t really feel like I was getting anything.

Observer: You got more from the ICE agents than many reporters normally get.

Cuddehe: I had been calling them over and over and not getting anywhere. So it was just me being relentless. Driving to Texas and not taking no for an answer.

Observer: And you had to get permission from their supervisor.

Cuddehe: I was surprised when he gave me permission. And that’s been one of the interesting tensions of this story. On one hand the agency has been really great with the family and done their best to honor him with ceremonies but at the same time they’re not giving the family the answers to the questions that they seek.

Observer: I’ve never seen such a detailed account of the actual ambush and shooting. How did you get your information?

Cuddehe: Most of the information comes from interviews I did with Victor Avila’s sister. He is the only witness, obviously, other than the men who allegedly took part in the attack. So I had to trust his sister’s narration of the events. Victor Avila hasn’t given an interview since the attack. I also read some reports that had statements he’d given that afternoon of the attack but it wasn’t very detailed.

Observer: One of the big looming questions in your piece is the motive for the shooting. Why did it happen?

Cuddehe: I did my best in the story to lay out the different possibilities. My suspicion is that the attack happened initially because they did really think the people in this fancy SUV were rivals from another gang. Maybe they got going and realized they weren’t dealing with the Gulf Cartel but figured they’d finish what they started. That to me seems like the likeliest thing. But we may never really know the answer.

Observer: And are there still doubts that the people in jail in Mexico for the crime may not have done it?

Cuddehe: Well, that’s a given with any arrest in Mexico. That there’s going to be some scrutiny and questioning of the validity of the arrests. But the people I’ve spoken with seem pretty confident that they have the right people.

Observer: How is Jaime Zapata’s family doing after his death?

Cuddehe: The scrutiny and intense media interest and the way its been politicized has made the grieving process unusually arduous for them. But the last time we spoke they seemed to be looking for closure so they could move on.

Observer: What would be closure for them?

Cuddehe: That’s the interesting thing about this story. It has evolved for them over time. The questions around the case have become more complex. I think they would like to know why was Jaime sent to San Luis Potosi? They still haven’t even seen the autopsy report. There are still so many basic questions about what he was doing and why he was sent that they haven’t been able to get answers too. And I think some of those answers would help them move on.

Observer: What was the most puzzling thing about the story for you? What questions are still pending?

Cuddehe: There were so many questions. Initially, I spent a lot of time trying to find out what Jaime’s mission was in Mexico City and never got answers to that. I wasn’t able to ever get an interview with ATF. It still seems odd that ICE wouldn’t give any info about what Jaime was doing in Mexico City.

Mexico’s drug war is enriching Texas border communities in more ways than one. Not only have wealthy Mexican business owners invested in the region, local law enforcement is benefiting from millions in assets seized from drug traffickers.

Texas has some of the country’s broadest asset-forfeiture rules. The law allows personal assets to be seized by officers during the investigation of possible felonies and misdemeanors. Funds from seized assets are distributed by federal agencies to local law enforcement agencies after joint investigations.

Increasingly, such money is being used to build surveillance networks and militarize the border, which is already bristling with predator drones, armored gun boats, the National Guard and a border fence. Civil liberties advocates like the ACLU want to ensure that privacy laws and First Amendment rights in border communities keep pace with security measures. “With drones and other surveillance technology, our concern is always, what kind of data are they collecting, how is it kept, and what other entities are they sharing it with?” says ACLU of Texas policy strategist Matt Simpson. “Communities need to have a say in how their communities are being policed.”

In September, the Mission Police Department installed a surveillance network of 32 cameras in Mission for an estimated $395,000, according to McAllen newspaper The Monitor. The network is already equipped with automated license plate readers, which can scan and process thousands of license plates per hour. Civil libertarians are concerned that there are virtually no rules or guidelines about how the data can be used and shared.

The department could afford the state-of-the-art technology because it received $1.18 million this year from the seized assets of Osiel Cárdenas Guillén, former boss of the Gulf Cartel, who is serving a life sentence in the United States.

More money is on the way. Four decades into America’s war on drugs, asset forfeiture funds at the state and federal level are ballooning. In 2011, the Justice Department’s asset forfeiture fund was $1.8 billion, more than three times the $500 million balance in 2003.

Defense contractors are following the money. It’s estimated that the state and local law enforcement market for homeland security expenditures will reach $19.2 billion by 2014, up from approximately $15.8 billion in 2009, according to a recent report by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Now, even the border’s smallest police departments have SWAT units, armored carriers and other military-grade equipment. In August, the Laredo Morning Times reported that the Webb County Sheriff’s office is considering buying a drone helicopter for surveillance. No doubt Webb County can afford it. In September, Sheriff Martin Cuellar received a check for more than $800,000 from the federal government for his department’s role in busting a drug smuggling ring.

State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, convened a group of elected officials Monday at the Texas Capitol to watch a video taken from the helicopter during the DPS sniper shooting last month where two unarmed Guatemalan men were killed and one critically injured.

The Department of Public Safety helicopter was assisting Texas game wardens as they tried to pull over a pickup truck, during a high speed pursuit near La Joya in Hidalgo County. Wardens reportedly thought the truck was carrying a drug load. Instead it was packed with undocumented Guatemalan migrant workers concealed under a tarp.

After the October 25 fatal shooting, survivors said the tarp had come loose during the pursuit. They said they could clearly be seen by the sniper, according to various news reports.

But Burnam said watching the video footage taken from the helicopter it appeared the tarp was fastened throughout the chase. “I could not by watching this video detect anything other than the tarp being secured. And I could easily see why they thought it was a load of drugs.”

Burnam said he and the other legislators could hear the commentary by the troopers in the helicopter as the chase ensued. After the DPS sniper, Miguel Avila, shot at the truck which was traveling at 80 mph on a caliche road, the truck finally skidded to a stop. Three of the tires had been shot out. “People started bailing out of the back of the truck from under the tarp,” Burnam says. The legislators listened as Avila realized he’d shot at a truckload of people, not a drugload. “He said ‘Oh my god.’ He was just appalled,” says Burnam. No drugs were found in the truck. The men were unarmed.

“It was a horrible tragedy from what I could see in the video,” Burnam says. What troubles him most is that Avila was only following DPS policy and training which allows troopers to shoot at moving vehicles to disable them. Avila shot at the truck because it was approaching a school and the safety of the school children was at stake, claims DPS. A 14-year-old boy was driving the truck packed with Guatemalan migrants.

Burnam says he is concerned about a culture within DPS that is militarizing the border. “The relevant question is there anything we can do to avoid this in the future?” he says. “Steve McCraw, the DPS director, says the agency needs helicopter snipers because we are in a war on drugs, and they keep escalating the battle. There’s an arms race on the border.”

At the meeting Monday, Burnam was joined by State Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Laredo, State Rep. Borris Miles, D-Houston and staffers from the offices of State Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen and Republican House Speaker Joe Straus. Burnam said he’s unsure yet whether there will be legislation to change the policy during the upcoming legislative session.

Democrat Pete Gallego won a hotly contested race against Republican Francisco Canseco
PHOTO SOURCE: www.facebook.com/pete.gallego
Democrat Pete Gallego won a hotly contested race against Republican Francisco Canseco.

 

A day after the presidential election, even Republican strategists agree that Mitt Romney blew it with Latino voters and that the GOP has some serious soul searching ahead of it. Deep in the heart of red Texas, Republicans should also see the writing on the wall.

“Clearly, when you look at African-American and Latino voters, they went overwhelmingly for the president,” John Stineman, a Republican strategist from Iowa told Fox News Latino. “And that’s certainly a gap that’s going to require a lot of attention from Republicans.”

Overwhelming is right.  Obama won 71 percent of the Latino vote while Romney won a piddly 27 percent, according to national exit polls. Obama did even better than in 2008 with Latino turnout, when he took 67 percent to Republican John McCain’s 31 percent.

Remember more than a decade ago when George W. Bush won about 40 percent of the Latino vote nationally? The Texas Republican Party and groups like the Hispanic Republicans of Texas, co-founded by George W.’s nephew George P. Bush, want to prove it wasn’t an anomaly.

Republican state Chair Steve Munisteri admitted it was crucial to the party’s survival during a 2011 Observer interview: “The Republican Party is living on borrowed time. If every Latino were to vote today in Texas, the Republican Party would lose all of its statewide seats.”

George P. Bush and others were feeling confident after the 2010 election, with six Hispanic Republicans, including Aaron Peña who switched parties, in the Texas House and two in U.S. Congress.

But last night those numbers plummeted. Republicans may still hold the majority of seats in Texas, but Tuesday’s election showed the party has serious problems for relevancy with the growing Hispanic electorate in Texas.

Of the seven Hispanic Republicans elected in 2010, only two remain: State Rep. Larry Gonzalez of Round Rock and U.S. Rep. Bill Flores.

Sure, there were some wins last night for Hispanic Republicans: State Rep. Jason Villalba in Dallas beat his Democratic opponent; Democrat-turned-Republican J.M. Lozano won his Coastal Bend district; and Ted Cruz trounced his democratic opponent for a U.S. Senate seat.

But there were more bruising defeats than triumphs. The biggest was the loss of Congressional District 23, a rural district that spans from San Antonio to El Paso County. Nationally, both parties see the majority Hispanic district as a bellwether that signals which party can best appeal to the growing number of Latino voters. Both sides combined to pour more than $10 million into the race, making it one of the nation’s most expensive per capita.

Last night, Democratic challenger Pete Gallego won the district with 50.3 percent to Republican Francisco “Quico” Canseco’s 45.3 percent. (Canseco has filed a complaint with the Secretary of State, claiming voting irregularities). It was a resounding loss for Republicans who poured millions into the race.

The 2012 election has forced the national Republican Party to acknowledge reality—America is more diverse than it used to be. In fact, it’s starting to look a lot like Texas. So as the national Republican Party engages in some soul searching, Texas’s GOP should do the same. Last night’s significant losses do not bode well for the party’s future.