Claire Berlinski, Ed.: What Else Do the Zetas Need to Do to Qualify as Terrorists?

The part of this article that truly made my eyes bug out is here:

Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican, has introduced legislation seeking to place six Mexican cartels, including the Zetas, on the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list — a designation that would limit their financial, property and travel interests, and impose harsher punishment on those who provide material support.

I had not realized they were not on the FTO list. Is there any conceivable definition of "foreign terrorist" that would not include the Zetas? 

While the beheadings and dismemberments are used to punish those who oppose or betray them, to establish turf, to terrorize the citizenry against testifying against them, and to press political leaders to collaborate, random killings also have become the gang's trademark — used by the Zetas, Mr. Grayson said, to demonstrate that no one is beyond their reach, that they can kidnap, torture and kill anyone they choose.

“Their brutal attacks on Mexican military and police personnel and their kidnapping and killing of civilians are meant to intimidate the civilian population and increase their successes in extorting funds from street vendors, business owners, political officials and others,” he said. “The mere mention of the word ‘Zeta' in Mexico conjures images of brutal murders and decapitations.”

You can't imagine applying the idiocy "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" here, can you? I can't even imagine Chomsky calling the Zetas freedom fighters. I can't even imagine them being invited to speak at Columbia University. That they're terrorists seems utterly inarguable. Clearly they're foreign, and clearly they're an organization. What more do they need to do to qualify?