Huh? I don’t know that.
Yeah, it has been known for a couple years now. I know I took part in a protest back in 96, and we were carrying signs that said “CIA- Crack Industry Associates.” I hate for others to do my grunt work, but I have to get off the computer in approximately 5 minutes- does anyone know of a link? If not, I’ll look tomorrow.
I believe the public became aware because of declassified documents, although it could have been a leak. Can’t say I’m sure on that. But document(s) did get in the hands of the people that, at the least, blatantly alluded to the CIA’s helping proliferate crack in inner cities. The overt purpose (unless I have gotten too much of my information from radicals) was to break up the black power movements and subsequent black radicalism.
Besides crack, look at alcohol. Not illegal, of course. But have you ever seen the volume of alcohol advertising in poor neighborhoods? It is pretty blatant, I think. The only billboards I see in poor neighborhoods are alcohol ads and lawyer ads. Pretty sad. It is like, “drink away your poverty, and when you get a DWI call this guy.” There is a great Public Enemy song on the subject, on their album “Apocalypse 91…The Enemy Strikes Black.”
Check it out.
“On one side of the street there is a church,
on the other side a liquor store,
both of them keeping us poor.”
-PE
colin
How do you “blatantly allude” to something? Is it like “subtly nuking” a city?
These links might help:
Thank you Zigaretten for motivating me to find some links. You will find that they contest (often with much more documentation than your links) many of the facts your links suggest.
Try:
You will find that Webb, the author of the SJMN article, wrote a book on the subject. The site has a couple great articles (citing officials in the CIA quite a bit) on the subject that paint a much different picture than you suggest.
Also:
www.connix.com/~harry/cia-guat.htm
There is information given by Castillo, an ex-DEA agent who claims he saw CIA agents loading up plane loads of cocaine. A lot of other good information as well.
In reference to the validity of the SJMN story:
They also have criticisms of the SJMN story, but uphold the premises the article was written under. Very well cited and very informative.
Touche!
Colin
OK……let’s see what you’ve got. On this first site I find links to three articles. If you don’t mind, I’ll deal with these articles in three separate posts for the sake of clarity.
The first article is headlined:
MASSACHUSETTS COURT CASE HINTS AT MAJOR BREAK IN CIA DRUG STORY…COMPLAINTS FILED BY FORMER GREEN BERET AGAINST THE CIA, GEORGE BUSH AND VARIOUS MASSACHUSETTS OFFICIALS – SPECIAL PROSECUTOR POSSIBLE
This article concerns Bill Tyree, a Green Beret private who was convicted of murdering his wife in 1979 and in 1998, almost twenty years later, has decided to bring a lawsuit based on the allegation that
“….Geo. Bush, in his capacity as DCI and as documented head of CIA drug trafficking activities ordered the theft and destruction of diaries kept by Elaine Tyree prior to her murder. It also alleges that Bush and CIA have been part of an ongoing criminal activity designed to smuggle drugs into the United States…”
Now the first thing that I notice is that Pvt. Tyree has been in prison since 1979. The Sandanistas did not take power in Nicaragua until July of 1979. Already I am skeptical that Pvt. Tyree would know very much about any CIA/Contra connections.
Another interesting point from the article:
“The heart of the Tyree documentation consists of an affidavit allegedly written by Col. Ed Cutolo who was also Tyree’s commanding officer……I determined in 1994 that Cutolo did not write the affidavit itself. Yet it was hauntingly accurate……”
I’ll just point out for anyone interested that Cutolos affidavit, which Cutolo didn’t write, not only exposes CIA involvement in drug smuggling, it also explains how the CIA framed poor innocent Tyree for the murder of his wife.
And then we have “Five Special Forces Colonels (Cutolo, Baker, Malvesti, Rowe and Bayard) have died under mysterious circumstances since (the mid-1970s).
A few minutes of googling indicate that Cutolo died in a car accident; Rowe was killed by communist guerillas in the Philippines and Bayard died in 1977, two years before the Sandanistas came to power.
I’m not even going to discuss the parts about a “doomsday file” or what “the daughter of Cutolo…. has (told) to Dee Ferdinand, daughter of Albert Carone, a CIA-Mafia connected money launderer….”
The article also discusses, at some length, the probability that Tyree will be offered a pardon by the government so as to avoid embarrassment. It suggests that Tyree should refuse such a pardon since this would leave him a convicted murderer and the government might attach strings to any pardon to ensure Tyrees silence.
Readers of this article might, therefor, be surprised to learn the following:
“What is the current status of this federal complaint in Boston? On September 30, 1999, Federal Judge Joseph Tauro issued an Order. The CIA’s Motion to Dismiss the case was granted, without prejudice. On November 1, 1999, Tyree’s attorney, Ray Kohlman, filed a Motion to Amend, which has been denied. The case is now closed.”
Colinito67 - this article is conspiracy tripe at its worst. (my opinion)
The second article on your first link is headlined:
Volume Two of the CIA Inspector Generals Report on CIA involvement in drug trafficking sent major shock wave through Washington. Colonel Oliver North is implicated. Gary Webb is vindicated.
This link proved to be a great deal more serious than that first article. This isn’t too surprising since it consists entirely of Volume II of the CIA Inspector Generals Report of Investigation: ALLEGATIONS OF CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CIA AND THE CONTRAS IN COCAINE TRAFFICKING TO THE UNITED STATES.
The first thing that struck me, however, was that your site was linking to Volume II but had nothing to say about Volume I. It wasn’t to difficult too figure out why.
In the Introduction of Volume II you can find descriptions of both volumes. So, “Volume I of the Report describes in detail the San Jose Mercury News allegations…” and the investigation into those allegations and any conclusions drawn from that investigation.
Volume II consists of an investigation into the question: was the CIA aware of allegations of drug trafficking by contras and if so what did they do about it. Also it addresses the question of what should the CIA have done about such allegations according to policy, protocol, etc. (and not according to what you or I think they should have done). From the Introduction:
“The investigation on which Volume II is based was not intended to prove or disprove the allegations or information received by the Agency concerning possible drug trafficking by specific individuals or organizations.”
What were the findings? For volume II, my very, very simplified summary would be:
-
on a number of occasions CIA agents were aware of allegations that people they were dealing with were involved in drug smuggling.
-
on some occasions the agents reacted to these allegations by cutting off all ties with the people in question and providing information to DEA, etc; but on most occasions the agents didn’t give a damn.
-
policies on the proper procedures in such cases were contradictory and unclear.
Before you get too indignant, keep in mind that the job of the CIA is to gather intelligence, foment rebellions, etc. It is not the enforcement of drug laws. And these days, my opinion is that if the CIA has to rub shoulders with a few drug dealers in order to get intelligence on terrorists then more power to ‘em.
As for Gary Webb and Volume I, you’ll find the full report here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/cocaine/report/index.html
and the conclusions are here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/cocaine/report/conclusions.html
but I warn you that the constant repetition of the phrase “No information has been found to indicate…” makes the conclusions a somewhat tedious read.
Gary Webb is not vindicated. I couldn’t find where Oliver North was implicated either, but I might have missed it.
What about Castillo- the ex-DEA agent that claims he saw CIA agents help (or oversee) loads of cocaine being loaded onto airplanes headed to the US?
And what about the www.pir.org/ppost04.html link?
You are thorough, I’ll give you that.
And much more willing to do tedioius internet-sleuthing than I.
But, are you surprised that, supposing the CIA did do these things, a massive cover up or unwillingness to release documents is in store? A lot of “not much more information is available at this time” seems forgivable considering the extremely limited access to information.
colin
No……just bored (and possibly boring).
**
Ok….you asked for it.
Actually….Castillo is more interesting than your other links. He probably deserves a lot more than the hour or so on the internet that I’ve given him, but he’s your baby so I’ll let you do the hard work. Heres what I’ve got…
He was investigated by the Inspector General of the DOJ, which supervises the DEA, for whom Castillo worked.
Here is the report: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/c4rpt/c4toc.htm
A very quick summary:
“We concluded that while some of Castillo’s factual allegations had a seed of truth, the inferences he drew from these facts and his broad claims about a conspiracy by the CIA and the Contras concerning drug trafficking were not supported. “
But by all means read Chapter X. It’s very interesting, but it’s hard to know just what to believe. My big problem is that Castillo claims he wants to spill the beans, he’s telling his story over the internet, on radio, in interviews and he’s even writing a book. But when he finally gets a chance to tell his story to the Inspector General of the DOJ, someone who can actually act on this information, he balks. He refuses to be interviewed unless Maxine Waters is present and since she cannot be present (conflict of interest as even she tells him) this has the same effect as simply refusing to be interviewed.
Now, the most obvious reason that I can think of for him to refuse an interview is that he doesn’t want to face hard questions from knowledgeable people. The only other reason I can think of is that he thinks that the DOJ is “out to get him”, in which case I have to suspect that Mr. Castillo has become somewhat paranoid and perhaps less than reliable.
Anyway….it’s an interesting case, but there is nothing to inspire confidence in Mr Castllos claims.
**
This appears to me to be simply a recap of other evidence. If Webbs claims are no good and Castillos claims are no good, then I don’t see anything new in this article.