Ecuador passes controversial laws to fight organized crime
Ecuador's Intelligence Law would expand the authority of the Strategic Intelligence Center, allowing it to collect personal data, conduct wiretaps and carry out raids without a court order. That law and another measure face review by reviewed by Constitutional Court before taking effect. Photo by Carlos Duran Araujo/EPA-EFE
SANTIAGO, Chile, June 16 (UPI) -- President Daniel Noboa's administration won legislative approval for two key laws aimed at strengthening its response to rising organized crime and violence in Ecuador.
However, the limited debate surrounding the passage of the Intelligence Law and the National Solidarity Law has drawn criticism.
Noboa has defended both laws as essential tools to fight drug trafficking, but some legal experts disagree with the measures.
"Even if Noboa's actions are well-intentioned, both laws must be reviewed to ensure the fight against drug trafficking doesn't violate the Constitution," legal expert Pablo Encalada said.
The Intelligence Law aims to combat organized crime, protect civilians and support economic recovery in violence-plagued areas.
But Ana Belén Cordero, Ecuador's former secretary for Anti-Corruption Public Policy, called the law authoritarian.
"It violates every principle of the rule of law by granting enormous power to the head of the intelligence system, bypassing prosecutors and judges," she said.
The new law also would expand the authority of the Strategic Intelligence Center, or CIES, allowing it to collect personal data, conduct wiretaps and carry out raids without a court order.
The National Solidarity Law would create a legal framework for Ecuador's national intelligence and counterintelligence system. It allows funds seized from drug traffickers to be transferred to security forces without oversight or reporting requirements.
"It makes sense for the state to have confidential funds for intelligence operations, but there must be accountability to the National Assembly on how those resources are used," Cordero said.
The law would allow security forces to receive real estate, equipment and other contributions from domestic or international organizations. Donors would be eligible for tax breaks.
"This opens the door to massive leaks of both public and private funds," said Luis Córdova, a researcher at the Ecuadorian Conflict Observatory (Llamas), in an interview with local outlet Primicia.
He also raised concerns about a proposal to increase penalties for juvenile offenders.
While Cordero acknowledged the need to address youth involvement in crime, she argued that minors should not face the same penalties as adults. She emphasized that the state's absence in the country's poorest areas drives many young people to join drug gangs.
Because the Intelligence Law has faced criticism from human rights organizations, which argue it violates constitutional protections, it must be reviewed by Ecuador's Constitutional Court before it can take effect.
In 2024, Ecuador recorded an average of 38 homicides per 100,000 people -- the highest rate in Latin America, according to Insight Crime and other sources.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
WNBA champ seemingly calls for Trump's impeachment after US strikes Iranian nuclear facilities
New York Liberty guard Natasha Cloud seemingly reacted to the U.S. military's strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday night. Cloud, a WNBA champion with the Washington Mystics and three-time All-Defense Team member, fired off a few posts on social media after the strikes were announced. "A sad sad day, Cloud wrote on X. "Grounds for impeachment," she added. Cloud also retweeted a post that read, "the three branches of government don't operate under a system of checks & balances anymore … democracy or autocracy?" On Instagram, Cloud shared Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's, D-N.Y., criticism of Trump's actions. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. "It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Cloud is far from one to hold off on opinions of the president and the state of the country. She reacted in February to President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate several government DEI programs. "The systems of power are working as they always were intended to work," Cloud told The Associated Press. "And it's time to break down a system that has only been about White men." Cloud added that she believes the country is putting "money over people." "I understand the business aspect and I understand the human aspect," Cloud said. "Too often this country has put the human aspect aside, and put profit and money over people." Cloud doubled down on her remarks in a social media post days later. Thing is I'm not soft, & words don't hurt me lol are we 5? it still remains people over profit," she wrote on X. "If yall truly about being unbiased… Google search any overseas media coverage of what's happening in America. "Then come back to me and tell me the whole world crazy." Trump announced on Saturday night the U.S. had struck a trio of nuclear facilities in Iran. The president ordered U.S. B-2 stealth bombers to carry out the strikes against Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities. "Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated," Trump said. "And Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not. future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier." Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
AOC, other angry Democrats, call for Trump impeachment over attack on Iran
Progressive champion Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a handful of other Democrats quickly floated the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump for launching a military strike on Iran without Congressional authorization. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," the four-term congresswoman from New York wrote on social media Saturday night, soon after the president announced the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Ocasio-Cortez charged that Trump "has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Democrat Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois also argued that the president's order to bomb Iran's nuclear sites without seeking Congressional approval could be considered an "unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten, a four-term representative whose district covers southwestern Chicago and surrounding suburbs, wrote Saturday night on social media that "this is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program….to be clear, I do not dispute that Iran is a nuclear threat." But he highlighted that "no president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." "I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach," Casten added. "I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval." The calls for impeachment are the most visible, and furthest reaching, representation of the party's anger with Trump for taking unilateral action against Iran. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top Democrat in the chamber, wrote that the president had "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." "Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action," Jeffries added in a statement. While the executive branch technically doesn't have the legal authority to order a foreign military attack without the approval of Congress, previous presidents, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump during his first term, launched comparable military actions in Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran. Congress has not actually declared war since 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, and legal scholars have long been divided on whether the president has the authority to unilaterally launch a military strike.
Fox News
19 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Dems suddenly outraged over presidential war powers
Democrats in Washington are again talking impeachment. Politicians and pundits are expressing outrage over President Donald Trump attacking Iran without a prior authorization of Congress. It is the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law where politicians are "shocked, shocked" that Trump is using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors. Fourteen years ago this week, I was in court litigating that very issue when President Barack Obama attacked Libya. Most Democrats supported or were silent on the action. Nevertheless, Democratic members are now calling for impeachment, while others are declaring the attacks unconstitutional. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked that Trump took the action and is calling for a vote under the War Powers Act. Schumer insisted that "no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has issued a similar statement. Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya. I represented a bipartisan group of members of Congress challenging that action. We were unsuccessful, as were such prior challenges. I have long criticized the abandonment of the clear language of the Constitution on the declaration of wars. Only eleven such declarations have been made in our history. That has not happened since World War II in 1942. Over 125 military campaigns have spanned from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is not a rule honored solely in the breach. Democrats were supportive when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks under Operation Infinite Reach on two continents on August 20, 1998. He ordered attacks in locations in Khartoum, Sudan, and Khost Province, Afghanistan. The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent powers to conduct such attacks under their Article II authority as the designated Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The WPA requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours in a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate of the action. The WPA further bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further 30-day withdrawal period. President Trump reportedly did immediately notify Congress after the attack under the WPA. Presidents have long maintained their right to deploy military assets unilaterally without congressional approval to address imminent threats. President Thomas Jefferson did so when he went to war with the Barbary Pirates at the start of the Nineteenth Century. Presidents have also routinely ignored the WPA when it limited their ability to conduct foreign military operations. In 1999, Clinton ignored the 60-day deadline and continued to bomb forces in Kosovo. His actions were also challenged, but the court in Campbell v. Clinton just shrugged off the violation and said it was a non-justiciable political question. In responding to the current demands, Trump could look to a curious ally: Hillary Clinton. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone secure authorization, from Congress. In March 2011, Clinton testified that there was no need for such consultation and declared that the Administration would ignore a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions. Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway. Despite Congress expressly denying "authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces," both Obama and Trump did precisely that. Trump was wise to notify Congress and is currently in compliance with the Act. However, what occurs after that is anyone's guess. The WPA and the AUMF have been paper tigers for decades and most in Congress wanted it that way. Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities to declare war. What remains has been little more than political theater. Even under the WPA, Trump would have 60 days to prosecute this war and another 30 days to draw down forces without congressional approval. The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period. Trump could likely prosecute this campaign in 90 days. Indeed, if it goes beyond 90 days, we will likely be facing a potential global war with retaliatory strikes on both sides. In such an environment, it is very unlikely that Congress would withhold support for our ongoing operations. In the meantime, the calls for impeachment are absurd given the prior actions of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is murky. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on bright-line rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors. This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law. Members will once again express their shock and disgust at the use of the same authority that they once accepted from prior presidents. Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them if history is any measure.
