So I hear people say how the CIA, or some other gov’t org, going into the projects and selling drugs, like crack, to minorities. I’ve also heard that George H. Bush (the dad) took part in drug trafficking when he was head of the CIA. So could anyone explain if there is any truth to this, or is it just another conspiracy theory?
Probably just an urban legend, although there are a few things that make the idea slightly less than paranoid:
(1). It’s well documented that renegade sections of France’s intelligence services engaged in drug trafficing in order to finance unapproved covert operations. (I doubt our intelligence agencies would need to; they get pretty much all the money they need. :D)
(2). It’s considered an open secret that during the Vietnam era, the US government turned a blind eye to opium trafficing by anti-communist factions in the “Golden Triangle” region in s.e. Asia. Even alligations that the C.I.A. provided transportation for drug shipments in exchange for the trafficer’s cooperation.
(3).As Mexico’s new president puts it, how is it possible for hundreds of tons of drugs to be smuggled into the US every year unless someone is helping the trafficers? While it’s doubtful that the CIA or any other US agency would as an institution promote the drug trade, which the government spends billions to crack down on, it wouldn’t be surprising if some key people were on the take.
The conspiracy you refer to is actually well documented. The story of the CIA-crack connection was broken by Gary Webb in the San Jose Mercury News. It is generally belived within the left wing circles. Make up your own mind.
See Gary Webb’s articles at http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html
The DOJ’s report on the matter: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/c4rpt/c4toc.htm
and yes, I belive Gary.
Outside of left-wing circles, by the way, Gary Webb’s series in the San Jose Mercury News is generally considered to be an embarrassment on an otherwise good paper.
Various right-wing websites say that alot of CIA agents are on the take and protect drug shipments. Supposedly, the CIA and DEA butt heads on a fairly regular basis. I don’t know if George Bush (Sr) was in on it, but I’m not going to blame George W. Bush for anything his dad might have done.
Incidentally, one of the oldest and most persistant rumors about Bill Clinton is that he protected drug shipments in Arkansas as governor. IMHO, alot of the deaths on the “Clinton Body Count” lists were probably drug-related hits, and not something Clinton arranged. Still, Clinton’s reputation is not helped by the fact that a large fraction of his old associates and appointees have either done jail time or died.
Then of course there was Iran-contragate, where Ollie North and his buddies in the NSA imported cocaine from panama and sold weapons to Iran in order to support the “freedom fighters” in Nicaragua.
It’s untrue to say that the CIA itself was actually going around importing and selling drugs. No one believes that they do that themselves.
To take the most well known case, even Webb’s detractors admit that the Contra’s were financing themselves with cocaine. The question is whether the CIA directed them to do so, or helped them do so.
After the Iran-Contra scandal broke, people saw how far Reagan’s administration would go to finance the Contras. When Contra funding was all but shut off in the early 80’s, Reagan obviously wanted to ensure the Contra’s had funding. Either you believe he just said “oh well, that’s too bad”, or you believe he directed the CIA to help them out with their drug trafficing. That’s all speculation, but there is indeed evidence for links from the CIA to the drug trafficing ring. Read Webb’s story for more.
Webb’s article is more about what happened to the cocained when it go to the US. He says it went to South Central LA, sold for cheaper than normal, and started the crack explosion. Part of this story is not new, the LA Times had reported on the crack explosion as well - Webb just pieced together where the crack came from (the Bay Area, and before that Nicaragua from the Contras).
Looking at the big picture, the Contras were an organization with large, obvious ties to the CIA. You would have to believe the CIA were incredibly incompetent to miss that these guys were dealing drugs. If they weren’t incompetent, then they knew, and therefore were guilty of at least not doing anything about it, and at the most, helping them to do so.
The previous posters have done a good job summarizing the issue, making it clear that while it’s unreasonable to say that the CIA, as an institution, was (and is) actively engaged in drug-trafficking activities, it’s certainly within the realm of possibility (and has been documented) that certain operations required the agents and/or divisions involved to operate on a different set of national-security priorities, forcing them to condone and perhaps even obliquely assist the actual traffickers, as with the Nicaraguan Contras.
For more information, I highly recommend you track down a copy of The Underground Empire, by James Mills. It’s been out of print for a while and is very hard to find, so be prepared for a lengthy hunt. Still, if you’re interested in the topic, it’s certainly one of the most informative works available, and is absolutely worth the effort required to seek it out.
The CIA has, and I’d say, is required to have “links” to some organizations, people, etc. These entities do things which the CIA:
a) is interested in or
b) totally irrelevant or
c) may be construed as “negative”.
For instance, this entities may be involved in drug trafficking (as many Marxists groups are) or they may torture their enemies (ditto). What the CIA should do? To do nothing (to turn “blind eye”)? To stop support these entities and, therefore, to defeat the very purpose of what it is supposed to do? To “educate” and “to convert” them? I’m sure that the CIA does not deal in drugs more than the IRS or the FCC do. I’m sure that the CIA deals with drug dealers or tax-evaders or FCC-rules violators, if needed, without thinking twice. But I do not know how to react. I mean, I’d prefer to have an ideal government with a clean intelligent intellegence agency but I am deep in oxymoronia field already.
If the CIA could obtain an advance knowledge of, and prevent the bombing of the USS Cole, but only by dealing with known opium traffickers, should it tried? And then be accused of the involvement in drug dealing? Or if they just paid for the info and the money was then spent to smuggle drugs into the U.S.?
If anyone knows the answer(s), please, answer.
One of the scariest parts about Webb’s series is the media’s reaction to it. The U.S. media, which we like to kid ourselves into thinking is fair and objective, acted in a manner that would do the worst Soviet commissar proud. A few examples: The LA Times set up a “get Gary Webb” team to shoot down Webb’s piece. One of them, Jesse Katz, did an amazing backflip and completely contradicted something he had written about the LA crack epidemic just three years earlier.
To try and debunk Webb, the Washington Post relied primarily on the reporting of Walter Pincus, a man who has written about his connections to the CIA and his role infiltrating student groups in the sixties. Whereas Webb meticulously documented each of his sources, Pincus relied almost entirely on anonymous government officials. Same for Tim Weiner and Tim Golden of the New York Times. Most of these articles basically consisted of the CIA saying “No, of course we wouldn’t do such a thing!” and no serious investigation into Webb’s allegations.
Some lesser publications simply told flat-out lies about what Webb wrote and didn’t write. Quite a sad commentary on the pack mentality of the press.
Dignan, I would highly recommend Webb’s own book, Dark Alliance or Cockburn and St.Clair’s Whiteout if you’re really interested in this issue. And check out the NYT, Washington Post, and LA Times knockdown pieces for examples of a true nadir in the history of American journalism.
I’ve lived near the U.S. border my whole life, and I would say that smuggling drugs is probably about as difficult and risky as going to the store to get a carton of milk.
There just as not enough people working for the U.S. government to guard the entire border, without using the Army to cut it off entirely.
Unless the U.S. were to completely close its borders or entirely militarize the border and invoke martial law along it, I don’t believe it’s possible to prevent smuggling. The immensity of the space to be defended is just beyond comprehension.
The Contras are not just some low-lifes that the CIA had to deal with to try and overthrow the Sandanistas. The Contras were presented to the public as brave freedom fighters, similar to the Founding Fathers. They were supposed to be heroes. If the CIA knew that they were commiting a crime (importing and selling drugs), and did nothing, they are accomplices. Sorry, but this is the law. The Contras were violating the law, and the CIA was violating the law for not reporting it. If the CIA actually initiated the plan to smuggle and sell cocaine, then they are even more guilty. This is very simple. There is no moral dilemna here.
As far as educating and converting those like the Contras… give me a break. Don’t you know that the US had manuals on the proper use of torture and terror techniques that they gave to these groups? That is the education they recieved.
If the CIA does not help the drug dealers, it’s pretty clear cut… they can use the information, and I see no moral dilemna. If they actually help the drug dealers by giving them money, depending on how important the information is, it may or may not be OK. However, if they protect drug smugglers from prosecution, interfere with DEA efforts, and support the drug smuggling over a long period of time - that is not OK. And that’s what we are talking about here.
Choosing between hurting the poor black of South Central LA vs helping the murderous Contras defeat a democratically elected government… ok peace, tell me where the great moral dilemna here is.
FWIW I think at least some CIA agents were involved.
1.) As lumpy noted, many of the anti-Communist tribespeople in Southeast Asia were involved in the opium trade. Were we going to alienate these people by cutting off that trade? I hardly think so.
2.) I have known several soldiers who claimed to have seen CIA agents helping load drugs into aircraft or standing guard over drug shipments. I realize this is anecdotal evidence but I trust these men more than I trust the CIA or the press.
3.) I have engaged in a few successful, if minor, criminal conspiracies myself, and I KNOW it is possible to get away with shit if you have the brains to keep your mouth shut and not leave a paper trail.
Avumede, I adore rose-smelling guys like you, sitting in their libraries and lecturing the CIA what’s right and what’s wrong. So, what are you saying? That helping right-wing contras is a no-no and going to curch every Sunday is good?
And I forgot, what’s your evidence that the CIA deals drugs in SC LA? As far as I know, drug use was rampant in LA before the CIA ever existed. And you tell us that if the CIA had paid informants for the info about the planned Cole explosion, it should have followed how the money was spent, and if it was spent on drugs, demand it back and let them explode the ship? Or do you tell us something different? Something we are unable to understand? Something only you and your evolved morally superior friends are able to comprehend?
BTW, I know that the CIA “actually ininiated the plan to smuggle and sell cocaine”. Recently, the CIA opened a Botanical Department in its inner yard in Langley where they grow more potent Coca plants. They sell the crop in SC LA and Atlanta, GA, to Coke Co. The latter puts it in the famous soda, which you just drank.
Q: Don’t you know that the US had manuals on the proper use of torture and terror techniques that they gave to these groups?
I know. To your surprise, I was a member of one of the groups you are talking about. One such manual, entitled “Sqeezing balls” and stamped “CIA”, still sits on my desk. I do not use it as intended anymore. It just sits here to remind me of the good old days of my stupid youth.
Yes, helping Contras violate US law is a no-no. Like I said, this is no great moral quandry. Why do you think it is?
Strawman. If you read my posts above, I deny that the CIA was personally selling drugs.
peace, why do you feel the need to sneer at morality? Do you think it does it not apply to governments, or what?
Avumede, it applies to governments, of course. And if you read my previous posts, I’d like have a “clean” intelligence. But we live in a dirty immoral world. I am not saying that the CIA should go to the low level of those with whom it deals/forced to deal. No. If they are helping Afghan guerillas to fight the Soviet aggressors, they may close their eyes to the women right violations, but what should it do if the “freedom fighters” torture and kill their prisonners? The CIA do not torture and kill itself. But what should it do? Turn around and say: “We do not play with naughty boys like you!”
What I am saying is that these “moral” issues are hard to decideeven at home. (Do you take a needle away from a drug addict and “save” him or do you give him a clean needle, so he is happy again and does not catch AIDS?). If you have solution for every situation, share it with us and with the CIA. If you do not, shut up.
Again, the easiest thing is to sit in the clean library, read the great moralists and critisize the CIA, first, for the poor intelligence work and then for paying wrong guys for the useful info.
I must also repeat myself. No one is talking about the gray area of paying shady characters for useful information. I am talking about areas where the CIA in some way helps with the shady operations - in the Contra case, it’s drugs.
Would you agree that it would be wrong for the CIA to help out with drug smuggling, whether that help is in the form of protecting certain people from prosecution, giving advice on drug smuggling, or simply not informing the DEA of potentially valuable information?
Avumede and peace, the right place for a discussion as to whether the CIA’s conduct was “right” or “wrong” is Great Debates, not here.
Take it over there, or to the Pit. Not here.