III ASAMBLEA MUNDIAL DE LAS NACIONES ORIGINARIAS

 

SE NECESITA AYUDA A ENCONTRAR A JOVEN MEXICANO, DESAPARECIDO EN FEBRERO DEL 2026

 

 

 

El Colegio Nacional de Abogados Democráticos insta a defender la soberanía jurídica de México desde el Tribunal Constitucional

 

Por Antonio Pérez Sánchez

En un encuentro clave para el rumbo del Colegio Nacional de Abogados Democráticos (CNAD) se reunieron la mañana del 8 de julio, integrantes del consejo Nacional de esta organización en la sede del Tribunal Constitucional de México. El colegio calificó este recinto no solo como un espacio que custodia la legalidad y seguridad jurídica de los justiciables, sino como el auténtico guardián del Estado de Derecho y de la soberanía nacional.

Durante el acto, los representantes del CNAD expresaron su firme agradecimiento por la apertura al diálogo en un momento histórico que, aseguraron, exige la máxima lucidez, así como una profunda definición ética y jurídica por el destino de la patria.

La organización de abogados aprovechó el espacio para recordar que el CNAD nació con la convicción de poner el Derecho al servicio del pueblo y defender la autodeterminación del Estado mexicano. En este sentido, fijaron una postura clara ante el panorama global actual:

"Hoy no podemos ser indiferentes ante las complejidades del escenario internacional, cuyas voces desde el extranjero cuestionan nuestras formas de vivir la democracia, el diseño de nuestras instituciones y el modo de procuración e impartición de justicia."

Hacia el cierre del encuentro, el Colegio extendió una respetuosa invitación a los presentes a continuar con la construcción de un marco jurídico inclusivo. Subrayaron la urgencia de consolidar un derecho que proteja activamente a los sectores más vulnerables, garantice la justicia social y mantenga intacta la dignidad y autonomía de la nación mexicana.

Houston Family of Mexican Worker Killed During ICE Operation Demands Accountability

 

By Armando García Álvarez

The family of Lorenzo Salgado Aro, a Mexican construction worker who was fatally shot during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation in Houston, Texas, has spoken publicly for the first time, calling for a full, transparent, and independent investigation into the incident that claimed his life.

Surrounded by community leaders, attorneys, immigrant-rights advocates, and members of Congress, Lorenzo's relatives delivered an emotional account of the tragedy during a press conference in Houston. Fighting back tears, they described him as a hardworking husband, father, and provider whose only goal was to support his family through honest labor.

According to the family, Lorenzo left home that morning expecting another ordinary workday. Instead, what began as an immigration enforcement operation ended in a fatal shooting that has raised serious questions about the use of force by federal officers.

"We deserve answers," one family member said. "Our loved one cannot speak for himself, so we will continue speaking for him until the truth is known."

The shooting has reignited debate over immigration enforcement tactics in the United States, particularly the increasing number of operations taking place in residential neighborhoods and workplaces. Civil rights organizations argue that these actions often create fear within immigrant communities and can escalate into unnecessary confrontations.

Members of Congress attending the news conference expressed concern over the circumstances surrounding Lorenzo's death and called on federal authorities to release all available evidence, including body-camera footage, witness statements, radio communications, and investigative reports.

Representative Sylvia Garcia stated that every person, regardless of immigration status, deserves to be treated with dignity and afforded due process. She emphasized that public confidence in law enforcement depends on transparency and accountability whenever deadly force is used.

Attorneys representing the Salgado family have requested an independent investigation separate from ICE's internal review process. They argue that an outside investigation is essential to ensure impartiality and to determine whether established law enforcement protocols were followed.

The family is also urging the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General to examine every aspect of the operation, including the planning, execution, and decision to use lethal force.

The tragedy has prompted renewed calls from immigrant-rights organizations for greater oversight of federal immigration enforcement. Advocacy groups contend that accountability measures, independent reviews, and clearer standards governing the use of force are necessary to protect both officers and civilians.

Community leaders emphasized that the case extends beyond one family's grief. They described Lorenzo's death as part of a broader national conversation about civil rights, public safety, and the treatment of immigrant communities throughout the United States.

A vigil held in Lorenzo's memory drew hundreds of supporters who carried candles, flowers, and signs demanding justice. Participants called for transparency in the investigation and urged authorities to ensure that the circumstances surrounding his death are fully disclosed to the public.

Federal officials have confirmed that an investigation into the shooting is underway but have released only limited information while the review continues.

For Lorenzo Salgado Aro's family, however, the investigation represents more than a legal process. They say it is a search for truth, accountability, and justice for a man they remember not as a headline, but as a devoted family member whose life ended far too soon.

As the investigation moves forward, civil rights advocates, elected officials, and community organizations say they will continue monitoring the case closely, insisting that every question surrounding the fatal shooting be answered openly and transparently.

The Civilian at the Crosshairs: A Critical Examination of U.S. Military Doctrine Since World War II

 

By Max Villareal

War has always inflicted suffering on civilians. Yet one of the most controversial arguments advanced by critics of U.S. foreign policy is that, since World War II, civilian populations have increasingly become not merely unintended victims of military operations, but central to strategies built around overwhelming force, strategic bombing, and coercion. Whether one agrees with that conclusion or not, the historical record contains numerous episodes that continue to fuel an international debate about the limits of military power, accountability, and the protection of innocent lives.

The United States has consistently defended its military operations as necessary to achieve national security objectives and has maintained that its armed forces operate under the laws of armed conflict, taking extensive measures to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, historians, human rights organizations, and international legal scholars have repeatedly questioned whether some campaigns have complied with those principles.

One of the earliest and most devastating examples came during the Korean War. General Curtis LeMay, who commanded the Strategic Air Command, later reflected on the massive bombing campaign against North Korea, stating:

"Over a period of three years or so we killed off—what—twenty percent of the population."

Although historians debate the precise percentage, there is broad agreement that the U.S. bombing campaign destroyed much of North Korea's urban infrastructure and caused enormous civilian suffering. Entire cities were leveled, dams were bombed, and millions of civilians were displaced.

The Vietnam War further intensified questions about military conduct. The 1968 My Lai massacre, in which hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians were killed by U.S. soldiers, became one of the most infamous war crimes of the twentieth century. The massacre shocked the American public after it became known, raising profound questions about military leadership, accountability, and the treatment of civilian populations.

Critics also point to the career of General Colin Powell. During the Vietnam War, Powell participated in reviewing reports concerning allegations related to My Lai. Although he was never accused of participating in the massacre itself, historians continue to debate whether his early handling of complaints adequately addressed evidence of abuses. Powell later rose to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, illustrating how controversial episodes often remain part of broader debates about military responsibility and political leadership.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain perhaps the most enduring symbol of civilian destruction in modern warfare. On August 6, 1945, President Harry Truman announced:

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

Subsequent historical research, however, has documented that Hiroshima was a major urban center with a substantial civilian population. The bomb killed tens of thousands almost instantly, with many more dying in the months and years that followed from burns, injuries, and radiation exposure. Today, historians continue to debate whether the bombings were militarily necessary or whether they constituted an avoidable humanitarian catastrophe.

In the decades that followed, military technology evolved dramatically. Precision-guided weapons and drones were presented as innovations capable of reducing civilian casualties. Yet critics argue that while precision has improved, civilian deaths have remained a recurring feature of conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere.

The issue remains deeply contested in current conflicts. In June 2026, reports emerged alleging that a drone strike hit a student dormitory at Starobelsk College in the Luhansk region, reportedly killing 21 people, many described as young women and teenagers, and injuring dozens more. Because information from active war zones is often difficult to verify independently, competing accounts have circulated regarding the circumstances of the strike. Nevertheless, the incident has been cited by critics as another example of civilian suffering receiving insufficient international attention.

These debates raise broader questions extending beyond any single conflict. When civilian casualties are described as "collateral damage," critics argue that the language itself risks obscuring the human cost of war. Likewise, labels such as "terrorist," "insurgent," or "enemy combatant" often shape public perception while complicating efforts to distinguish combatants from noncombatants.

International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, requires all parties to armed conflict to distinguish between military objectives and civilians and to avoid attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military advantage. Human rights organizations have repeatedly called for independent investigations whenever credible allegations of unlawful attacks arise, regardless of which nation or armed group is responsible.

Ultimately, the enduring challenge is not merely one of military strategy but of moral responsibility. Every civilian life lost represents a family shattered, a future erased, and a reminder that the consequences of war extend far beyond the battlefield.

Those who advocate for peace argue that genuine security cannot be built solely through military superiority. Instead, they contend that lasting peace depends upon diplomacy, international cooperation, respect for international law, and accountability for violations committed by all parties.

Whether viewed through the lens of history, law, or human suffering, one principle remains widely recognized: the protection of civilians should remain at the center of every nation's conduct during armed conflict. As new wars emerge and new technologies reshape battlefields, the international community continues to face the difficult challenge of ensuring that humanity itself does not become the ultimate casualty.