The case is intriguing. Motion papers allege that the DEA struck a deal with members of a Mexican cartel to allow it to ply their trade so long as they provided information to the DEA about other cartels. The idea has some validity. The motion relies in part on a former DEA chief that promoted the idea of pitting one drug cartel against another, a reasonable tactic.
The thinking is this: If you use Chrysler to destroy Ford, then use General Motors to destroy Chrysler, instead of fighting three auto companies (drug cartels) you will only have to fight one. Equally true, it must be acknowledged, is that in order to effectuate the plan the cartel members have to continue plying their trade. You cannot track a wolf without being part of the pack. But that is far cry from permitting cartel members to ply their trade or looking the other way.
I recall a similar case where the “divide and conquer” approach was used, but it was made very clear by the government that there was no truce, that no one in government would turn a blind eye to drug trafficking and that if any of the cooperating cartel members were caught trafficking, they would be arrested. Members of the cartel have their interest; the U.S. government has its interest. That’s the deal. Nothing more; nothing less.
Maybe this new accusation of government complicity has more substance. I sure hope so–for the defendant’s sake. Because, like killing a king, you better kill him because despite what you have heard of U.S. civility, there are few countries that punish their enemies like the U.S., and the United States is not going to appreciate being called a sponsor of drug trafficking.
David Zapp