Mexican cartel recruits allegedly killed for resisting training
A Mexican drug cartel allegedly tortured and killed recruits who refused to cooperate or tried to flee a training camp where bones and clothing were found, the government said Monday.
So far, however, there is no evidence that the ranch in the western state of Jalisco was used as an "extermination camp," Security Minister Omar Garcia Harfuch told a news conference.
The Jalisco New Generation Cartel, one of the drug trafficking groups designated terrorist organizations by US President Donald Trump, tricked people with fake job adverts for positions such as security guards, Security Minister Omar Garcia Harfuch said.
At the ranch in Teuchitlan, recruits changed into military-style boots and clothing, he told a news conference.
They were given firearms and other training before being assigned a position within the organization, Harfuch said, based on the testimony of an alleged cartel recruiter who was arrested.
"According to the detainee's testimony, they even took the lives of people who resisted the training or tried to escape, as well as beating them and subjecting them to some form of torture," Harfuch said.
The discovery of charred bones, shoes and clothing this month by a group searching for missing relatives at the Izaguirre Ranch caused shock in a country where more than 120,000 people have disappeared.
The New York-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch has described the ranch as an "apparent mass killing site."
Harfuch said that the government had confirmed that the ranch was used as a training center but so far "there is no evidence that it was an extermination camp."
Attorney General Alejandro Gertz last week vowed to uncover the truth about what happened at the ranch, following calls from the United Nations Human Rights Office and human rights NGOs for a transparent investigation.
He listed multiple flaws in the initial investigation overseen by local prosecutors, including a failure to thoroughly search the site last September when the military raided it following reports of gunfire.
According to the Jalisco state prosecutor's office, 10 people were arrested, two captives freed and a dead body found at that time.
dr/st
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Tourists on the Tram? Roosevelt Islanders Are Fed Up.
Good morning. It's Wednesday. Today we'll find out why some Roosevelt Island residents want priority boarding on the tram to and from Manhattan. We'll also get details on former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's endorsement of Andrew Cuomo for his former job. New York is a city where people stand in lines to get into restaurants, to get into Broadway shows and lately even to get onto the unassuming Roosevelt Island tram. Social media discovered the tram several years ago and turned it into a tourist destination, an inexpensive way to take in the Manhattan skyline. Even on cloudy, foggy days, a steady stream of sightseers rides the tram — and on a picture-perfect day, something can happen that was once unheard-of: Lines can form at the tram station in Manhattan, on Second Avenue just beyond the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge. Long lines, some Roosevelt Island residents say. 'Sometimes the lines can be 45 minutes or an hour,' said Anna Zychlinsky Scharff, a physician and researcher in pediatric oncology who lives on Roosevelt Island. 'I have to get to day care to pick up my kid. I don't have 45 minutes.' Residents like Zychlinsky Scharff want what some passengers get at the airport: priority boarding. Paul Krikler, a member of Manhattan Community Board 8 and the chairman of its Roosevelt Island Committee, said that 'fast pass' boarding would let residents and people who work on Roosevelt Island 'go about our regular lives, going to work, school, doctors' appointments and the like' no matter how big the tourist crowds are. The community board approved a resolution in January that called for priority boarding. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
‘Everything is uncertain now': Venezuelan travelers blindsided by travel ban
For Venezuelan travelers the past few days have been filled with uncertainty, fear and confusion — not to mention the financial toll. Since the Trump administration issued a travel ban barring nationals from 12 countries including Venezuela, Venezuelans both in and outside the U.S. have scrambled to reschedule flights — some moved them earlier, others delaying plans. Some wanted to arrive before the ban kicked in on Monday. Others wanted to waitto travel out of fear that Customs and Border Protections would be revoking visas. And for families that were hoping for reunification pending an upcoming appointment to get a visa, plans have been canceled. Among those who changed plans to beat the travel ban was José Malave and his family. READ MORE: What you need to know about Trump's travel ban on Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela Malave had booked a flight with his wife, Estefanía Ramírez, their 10-month-old baby, and his mother-in-law from Mexico City, where they currently reside, to New York City. The trip was meant to reunite his wife with her brothers, whom she hadn't seen in over a decade. The family had scheduled the trip six months in advance for June 12 — just three days after the travel ban was set to take effect. But on June 4, when the White House proclamation was made public, their plans were thrown into chaos. 'We moved our flight to June 8, a day before the travel ban took effect, terrified that once it started we wouldn't be allowed into the U.S.,' Malave said. 'We were scared and distressed, but luckily, we were able to enter without any issues at customs, though the financial impact has been huge.' The family had to spend an extra $800 to change the flights. Malave, 33, and Ramírez, 32, both computer programmers, are naturalized Mexican citizens. However, they travel using their U.S. tourist visas, which are stamped in their Venezuelan passports. Their 10-month-old son is a born Mexican citizen with a U.S. visa in his Mexican passport, while Ramírez's mother holds only Venezuelan citizenship. Malave expressed deep frustration with the abruptness of the travel ban — and he takes great offense to the implications it makes about Venezuelans. Trump's proclamation states that the measure is a way to protect the United States from terrorism and crime, and that the designated countries lack screening and vetting information for travelers. 'This proclamation affects everyone, no matter their background. It should've taken effect with more notice,' he said. 'People are interpreting it differently, and Venezuelans are caught in the middle.' He feels heartbroken, unsure of how to plan for the future. 'Everything is uncertain now. We had planned to spend Christmas in New York, maybe take our son to Disney — but those dreams are shattered. We don't even know if we'll be able to travel again on our Venezuelan passports.' 'We don't know when, or if, we'll see our family again. This is the reality Venezuelans face, even outside of Venezuela.' While Malave's family was able to reschedule their flights and reunite with their relatives, many others may never get the chance to reunite with their loved ones in the U.S. Karla Flores is a Venezuelan who has has lived in Woodbridge, Va., for the past three years. She planned to take her mother, Mercedes, from Venezuela to Spain in order to apply for a U.S. tourist visa, where the application process is faster than in Colombia. Since the Nicolás Maduro regime severed diplomatic relations with the United States in 2019 after President Trump, during his first term, recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's interim president, the U.S. consular office for Venezuelan visa applications now operates out of Bogotá, Colombia. But it has a year-long backlog. Flores said her mother is living alone and struggling with health issues. Flores left Venezuela eight years ago—that was the last time she saw her mother, who is 75. Now the hope for a reunion seems lost. 'We have uncertainty and profound sadness,' Flores said. 'We don't understand why we have to go through this.' Fear of having visas revoked The U.S. State Department clarified on Sunday that the travel ban does not apply to individuals holding valid visas issued before June 9. However, for many Venezuelans with current tourist, business, or student visas, and flights scheduled just days away, the clarification came too late to ease their fears. Confusion and anxiety had already set in, with travelers uncertain about whether they would be denied entry at the border — or worse, have their visas revoked. Venezuelans living in Maracaibo, in the western state of Zulia—about 700 kilometers from Caracas—often travel overland for more than three hours to reach Colombian border cities before flying from Bogotá to U.S. destinations like Miami. There have been no direct flights between Venezuela and the United States since 2019, when the Trump administration suspended air service. As a result, what was once a three-hour flight from Caracas to Miami has become a costly and time-consuming journey, often taking longer than a flight to Europe. On Monday, Venezuelan passengers at Bogotá's airport reported unusually slow and thorough security screenings. Aleika Áñez, co-owner of Kunana Travel, a Venezuelan travel agency with 34 years of experience said her clients reported that there were delays leaving Colombian airports. 'A customer who traveled on Monday said the check-in process was more rigorous at the airline counter because they held Venezuelan passports,' she said but despite the uncertainty, many Venezuelans flying from Colombia to Miami have been able to enter the U.S. 'without incident.' Many are waiting to see how Venezuelans are treated at immigration checkpoints this week, she said. Entry to the U.S. ultimately depends on the discretion of customs officers. Eduardo, a 36-year-old Venezuelan living in Mexico since 2015, has postponed his July trip to Los Angeles. Fearing it could jeopardize his chances of entering the U.S., he asked the Herald to withhold his full name. Eduardo had hoped to reunite with his brother, whom he hasn't seen in years since both fled Venezuela, but now worries that traveling on his Venezuelan passport is too risky. 'I suspended my trip because of all the uncertainty surrounding this situation,' he said. Another Venezuelan, Carlos, a 40-year-old lawyer who has a tourism and business visa, decided to postpone his flight from Maracaibo to Atlanta after hearing the news. 'It cost $1,900, and I wasn't willing to risk both my money and my visa,' he told the Herald. Carlos, who requested to not use his full name as well, plans to consult his travel agency later this week and buy his ticket if the situation stabilizes. 'If everything calms down, I'll go ahead and purchase it,' he said.
