"Interview with a hitman."

Here is an excerpt from Todd Bensman's article on GlobalPost.com:

"Through Department of Homeland Security contacts, Texas journalist Todd Bensman arranged in November 2008 to interview a former Mexican special forces soldier who went AWOL and joined the Gulf Cartel's notoriously brutal The Zetas enforcement gang. The Zetas are responsible for thousands of murders and for operating houses of torture all along the Mexican side of the Texas border. The cartel foot soldier had left the organization several years prior to the interview, and had become a cooperating witness for the U.S. government in the upcoming trial of extradited Gulf Cartel leader Osiel Cardenas Guillen in Houston. The former gunman was produced for Bensman to interview on strict condition that his name and other revealing details not be publicly disclosed, for his protection. Bensman questioned the Zeta about how his gang procured American weapons." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm always up for reading an interview with a former member of Los Zetas or Los Pelones, or any other sicario that used to work for a DTO in Mexico. They don't give interviews to the press very often, and when they do, you have to be careful about what you believe. It's difficult to get good informants to really penetrate the DTO hierarchies, especially into their higher levels, so when information like this is made available to the general public, we want to gobble it up. There are two things to keep an eye on, both with this interview and other rare interviews with former DTO hitmen: the veracity of the information they provide, and the biases or intentions of the interviewer.

First, let's examine the information provided by the subject. He left Los Zetas many years prior to the interview, so there's a pretty good chance that his information regarding cartel operations has changed significantly. In the past year, Los Zetas have left the service of the Gulf Cartel, worked shortly for the BLO, then pretty much struck out on their own. That means there's a chance they're procuring different weapons or from different places. However, there's also a good chance that they had a good thing going with certain guns and certain US suppliers, and not much has changed - we just don't know. The subject identified his organization's weapons of choice as M-16s, AR-15s, and H&K models; that matches up to information the ATF has publicized. However, there seems to be some public dissent (based on blog commentary) regarding how easy (or difficult) it is to convert certain weapons from semi-auto to full auto. Personally, I think an argument can be made for either side, as I've seen convincing information telling me it's easy to convert some weapons and next to impossible to convert others without serious time, equipment, and expertise.

The information the subject provides regarding the movement of guns from the US into Mexico also matches up with what we know from US border agencies. However, I'm a little skeptical about the statements he makes regarding the acquisition of Barret sniper rifles, grenades, and rocket launchers. Those are NOT easily purchased by just anyone in the US, as they are military grade weapons, and are usually obtained elsewhere in Mexico or from other Latin American countries. I am, however, more likely to believe his claims that there wasn't much need to cover up or erase serial numbers or other markings on weapons because either the Mexican police were inept investigators or being paid/threatened to protect the DTOs.

As for the journalist/interviewer, he definitely had an angle, and that was to focus on the southbound weapons trafficking issue. I can't blame him, as that's the hot topic du jour in the media these days. It seemed to me he was trying to make the point that yes, the majority of weapons used by DTOs come from the US. That's fine with me, as that has always been my stance on the issue, and it's fascinating to see that information come "first hand" from a former DTO enforcer. I put that in quotations because there will always be critics of what the subject is saying, or the parts of the interview the journalist or editor selected for publication. I know there is limited time and space for inclusion of parts of that interview, and I would love to know if there was more to it than that. Personally, I would have rounded out the questions a little more, asking more about tactics, training, organization, involvement in human smuggling, kidnapping, etc. Even taken with a large grain of salt, the interview is thought-provoking; hopefully a journalist can soon snag an interview with someone less removed from the action.