Tor

Tor is free software for enabling anonymous communication. The name is an acronym derived from the original software project name The Onion Router,[7] however the correct spelling is “Tor”, capitalizing only the first letter.[8] Tor directs Internet traffic through a free, worldwide, volunteer network consisting of more than seven thousand relays[9] to conceal a user’s … Continue reading Tor

Tor is free software for enabling anonymous communication. The name is an acronym derived from the original software project name The Onion Router,[7] however the correct spelling is “Tor”, capitalizing only the first letter.[8] Tor directs Internet traffic through a free, worldwide, volunteer network consisting of more than seven thousand relays[9] to conceal a user’s location and usage from anyone conducting network surveillance or traffic analysis. Using Tor makes it more difficult for Internet activity to be traced back to the user: this includes “visits to Web sites, online posts, instant messages, and other communication forms”.[10] Tor’s use is intended to protect the personal privacy of users, as well as their freedom and ability to conduct confidential communication by keeping their Internet activities from being monitored.

Onion routing is implemented by encryption in the application layer of a communication protocol stack, nested like the layers of anonion. Tor encrypts the data, including the destination IP address, multiple times and sends it through a virtual circuit comprising successive, randomly selected Tor relays. Each relay decrypts a layer of encryption to reveal only the next relay in the circuit in order to pass the remaining encrypted data on to it. The final relay decrypts the innermost layer of encryption and sends the original data to its destination without revealing, or even knowing, the source IP address. Because the routing of the communication is partly concealed at every hop in the Tor circuit, this method eliminates any single point at which the communicating peers can be determined through network surveillance that relies upon knowing its source and destination.

An adversary might try to de-anonymize the user by some means. One way this may be achieved is by exploiting vulnerable software on the user’s computer.[11] The NSA has a technique that targets outdated Firefox browsers codenamed EgotisticalGiraffe,[12] and targets Tor users in general for close monitoring under its XKeyscore program.[13] Attacks against Tor are an active area of academic research,[14][15] which is welcomed by the Tor Project itself.[16]

GCHQ’s spying actions

UK Government quietly rewrites law so that GCHQ and other British spy agencies can avoid prosecution for hacking computers Government has changed the law via an amendment to Serious Crime Bill The change offers more protection to spy agencies who hack … Continue reading

UK Government quietly rewrites law so that GCHQ and other British spy agencies can avoid prosecution for hacking computers

  • Government has changed the law via an amendment to Serious Crime Bill
  • The change offers more protection to spy agencies who hack computers
  • Privacy International is challenging the legality of GCHQ’s spying actions
  • The charity has called Government’s ‘underhand’ behaviour ‘disgraceful’  

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084535/UK-Government-quietly-rewrites-law-GCHQ-British-spy-agencies-avoid-prosecution-hacking-computers.html#ixzz3sREYu3Ts
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

NSA spying

Paul Mason Culture and Digital Editor  
 
20 November 2013

Between 2004 and 2007 the Labour government gave the US National Security Agency permission to use information on innocent British people collected in the process of spying on actual targets.
According to a top secret memo I have seen, from within the NSA and dated June 2007, Britain agreed the Americans could “unminimise” British landline numbers as early as 2004. That means they were not obliged to delete them, and could now use their systems to analyse them.

By 2004 the Americans had clear reasons to be concerned about UK citizens and terror. Shoe bomber Richard Reid was in a US jail; there were nine Brits in Guantanamo.

These two documents are the first proof in black and white that an agreement exists between Britain and the USA on the targeting of each other’s citizens (on the assumption, not confirmed, that Britain gained the reciprocal right to use data collected on Americans in the 2007 agreement).


Edited time: July 26, 2013 05:49

The US House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to reject an attempt to reign in domestic spying by the National Security Agency following a storm of lobbying by the White House against the measure.

In a 205-217 vote the House defeated an amendment introduced by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) which would have prevented the NSA from collecting the phone data of individuals not currently under investigation.

Amash aimed to challenge the NSA’s program of widespread collection of phone records, specifically information known as ‘metadata,’ the details of which were revealed by The Guardian in June.

That newspaper was able to acquire and publish a copy of a top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion which required the mobile carrier Verizon to provide the NSA with the phone numbers of both parties involved in calls, along with the time and duration of the calls as well as calling card numbers used, and the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number for mobile carriers.

Since that information was revealed, officials have both confirmed the authenticity of the leak and justified its actions, as well as suggested that many more telecom companies are involved.

Surveillance of phone communications was itself eclipsed by revelations then made by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who blew the whistle on an unimagined level of online surveillance being conducted by the intelligence agency in conjunction with a long list of major American companies, including Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and Facebook.

According to various experts on the matter, including analysis provided by Wired Magazine, the NSA’s indiscriminate collection of such data would thereby allow the government to build a massive database to map connections and relationships between callers.


Published time: October 31, 2013 07:55

EU leaders are calling for the suspension of a trade pact with the US worth billions of dollars over NSA spying. The 28-nation bloc suspects the so-called ‘Safe Harbor’ deal is being undermined by US espionage and has demanded safeguards for EU citizens.

The EU’s top politicians have slammed Washington for a “breakdown of trust” and seek guarantees for the safety of EU customer data.

“For ambitious and complex negotiations to succeed there needs to be trust among the negotiating partners,” EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said Wednesday in a speech at Yale University.

The Safe Harbor agreement has been in place for 13 years and it allows over 4,300 American companies to collect and process sales, emails and photos from EU customers. In order for firms to be able to collate this information they have to comply with seven directives to prevent data loss and disclosure.

However, EU officials believe the system is flawed and can be manipulated by the NSA.

“If you look at the US legal environment, there is no adequate legal protection for EU citizens,” said the European Parliament’s leading data protection lawmaker Jan Philipp Albrecht after talks with officials in Washington.

In the light of the spy scandal the EU has threatened to suspend the treaty pending stipulated changes that would sure up security. EU leaders are expected to urge the US to strengthen its privacy laws to allow European citizen more control over how their private data is used.

If the ‘Safe Harbor’ pact is suspended it could have a massive knock-on effect, costing the US and EU billions of dollars in trade. Moreover, the pact allows US companies to get around the lengthy approval procedure by the European data protection authorities, without it some US firms would be forced to stop doing business in the EU.

“I don’t think the US government can be convinced by arguments or outrage alone, but by making it clear that American interests will suffer if this global surveillance is simply continued,” said Peter Schaar, the head of Germany’s data protection watchdog.

Free trade deal

If Washington fails to comply with the EU’s demands then it could further endanger a free trade deal which could add an estimated $138 billion a year to each economy’s gross domestic product.

Reding warned that if changes were not made to US privacy regulations, negotiations for the free trade agreement could easily be “derailed.”

Negotiations on the conditions of the transatlantic agreement are due to resume in December and a decision is likely to be reached by the end of the year.

The revelations of the NSA’s spying activities in Europe scandalized the 28-nation bloc. Security leaks released by former CIA worker Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA taps millions of phone calls across the continent and stores the collected information in its data banks.

Furthermore, the security disclosures indicate the NSA not only monitors citizens it suspects are involved in terrorism, but also businessmen and high-profile politicians.


By Gregor Waschinski october 31, 2013

Washington (United States) (AFP) – Europe and Washington traded spying accusations, as envoys met to seek ways to rebuild trust after shock revelations about the scale and scope of US surveillance of its allies.

A German intelligence delegation and a separate group of EU lawmakers were in the US capital to confront their American allies about the alleged bugging of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone.

And the visit coincided with the latest in a series of newspaper reports based on leaked National Security Agency files, this one alleging US agents hacked into cables used by Google and Yahoo.

President Barack Obama’s spy chiefs are on the defensive over the reports, which have riled America’s allies and exposed the vast scale of the NSA’s snooping on telephone calls and Internet traffic.

The head of the NSA, General Keith Alexander, repeated the administration’s argument that all countries spy on one another, and said that the allies should discuss a new working relationship.

“I think this partnership with Europe is absolutely important,” he said. “But it has to do with everybody coming to the table and let’s put off all the sensationalism and say: ‘Is there a better way for our countries to work together?'”

US intelligence chiefs have said these reports are based on a misinterpretation of an NSA slide leaked to the media by fugitive former intelligence technician Edward Snowden.

Rather than siphoning off the records of tens of millions of calls in Europe, as the slide seems to suggest, they argue that the data was in many cases gathered and shared by European agencies.

‘Foreign nations spying on US’

“The perception that NSA is collecting 70 million phone calls in France or Spain or Italy is factually incorrect,” Alexander said at a conference organized by Bloomberg media group.

“This is actually countries working together to support military operations, collecting what they need to protect our forces in areas where we work together as nations.”

This argument, which Alexander and overall US spy chief James Clapper made on Tuesday before a Congressional committee, had already raised eyebrows in Europe.

French government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, speaking after a cabinet meeting chaired by President Francois Hollande, said: “The NSA director’s denials don’t seem likely.”

Germany, angered by the revelation that the NSA tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone, also issued a stern response, denying US claims that the European allies spy on US targets in turn.

Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s committee on foreign affairs, told reporters that Alexander had admitted to an EU delegation that America had targeted Merkel.

The spy had shown the envoys evidence that much of the data from France, Spain and Germany referenced in the latest leaked slide had indeed been European intelligence shared with the NSA.

“This was given to the US by the French, Spanish or German authorities not spying on Germany, France or Spain, but on what was known in Afghanistan or Yemen,” Brok said.

But Brok also noted that Alexander had confirmed at the same time that the NSA and other US intelligence services also “work unilaterally” in Europe, without the knowledge of their local partners.

Merkel’s spokesman Steffen Seibert said German officials and intelligence officers were in Washington to discuss “a new basis of trust and new regulation for our cooperation in this area.”

“We are in a process of intensive contacts with US partners both at the intelligence as well as the political level,” he said.

Meanwhile, a new report in the Washington Post alleged that NSA technicians had tapped into Yahoo and Google data centers around the world, winning access to vast amounts of private data.

The report said a program dubbed MUSCULAR, operated with the NSA’s British counterpart GCHQ, can intercept data directly from the fiber-optic cables used by the US Internet giants.

The Post reported this is a secret program that is unlike PRISM, another NSA tool revealed by Snowden’s leaks, which relies on secret court orders to obtain data from technology firms.

According to a document cited by the newspaper dated January 9, 2013, some 181 million records were collected in the prior 30 days, ranging from email metadata to text, audio and video content.

Alexander protested “to my knowledge, this never happened.”

But a statement released later Wednesday by the NSA was somewhat more guarded and did not deny that foreign citizens’ data is targeted.

“NSA has multiple authorities that it uses to accomplish its mission, which is centered on defending the nation,” the statement said.”NSA is…focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets only.”

And, in another embarrassing chapter for Washington, the United Nations said it had received an assurance that US agencies would not bug its secret communications in the future.

Conspicuously, the United States could not promise the world body it had not been spied upon in the past.


The NSA has far too much power to spy on innocent Americans without any meaningful oversight.
It’s gotten so bad that even one of the original ultra-conservative authors of the Patriot Act, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, joined with progressive stalwart Rep. John Conyers and Senator Patrick Leahy in introducing a bipartisan NSA reform bill.
This bill, which they named the USA Freedom Act, would end the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records and provide a modest measure of needed transparency to the use of National Security Letters and other forms of warrantless wiretapping.
It’s a good first step, and we need to show the House and the Senate that there’s popular support for Congress starting the process of restoring our constitutional rights.


Let’s be clear. We support the full repeal of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. The only legislative vehicle for that is Rep. Rush Holt’s Surveillance State Repeal Act, which we will continue to fight for.
But until we succeed in repealing the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, we should support anything that will start the process of reining in the NSA without making anything worse.
The Sensenbrenner-Leahy bill is a good move in that direction. It will at the very least stop the kind of bulk surveillance dragnets that allows the government to spy on millions of Americans who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. And it will take a minor step toward transparency by allowing companies to disclose the number of requests they get from the government that force them to turn over the private information of their users and customers without a court order and under a gag.
It’s important to note that this is far less than what we truly need to rein in the NSA. But it’s a good start. The bill preserves much of the status quo. Let’s remember, the problem of overbroad and unconstitutionally intrusive government surveillance is so vast that even the president didn’t know that the U.S. was tapping the phones of allied world leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
But while the Sensenbrenner-Leahy bill is a good first step, the same cannot be said for the bill proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which in the name of reform would simply codify the ability of the government to spy on innocent Americans without doing anything to prevent the rampant abuses that have become routine practices of a rogue NSA and other intelligence agencies.
That’s why we’re asking Congress to support Rep. Sensenbrenner and Sen. Leahy’s USA Freedom Act, and oppose Senator Feinstein’s sham bill which is meant to make the public think oversight is being strengthened over the NSA when there will be no meaningful reform established in the legislation.
Tell Congress: Rein in the NSA to stop its unconstitutional spying. Click the link below to automatically sign the petition:
http://act.credoaction.com/go/2449?t=5&akid=9309.5084505.aOO89Q
Thank you for taking a stand against unconstitutional government spying.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager


October 28, 2013

BERLIN (Reuters) – A German newspaper said on Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama knew his intelligence service was eavesdropping on Angela Merkel as long ago as 2010, contradicting reports that he had told the German leader he did not know.

Germany received information this week that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had bugged Merkel’s mobile phone, prompting Berlin to summon the U.S. ambassador, a move unprecedented in post-war relations between the close allies.

Reuters was unable to confirm Sunday’s news report. The NSA denied that Obama had been informed about the operation by the NSA chief in 2010, as reported by the German newspaper. But the agency did not comment directly on whether Obama knew about the bugging of Merkel’s phone.

Both the White House and the German government declined comment.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that the NSA ended the program that involved Merkel after the operation was uncovered in an Obama administration review that began this summer. The program also involved as many as 35 other world leaders, some of whom were still being monitored, according to the report, which was attributed to U.S. officials.

In response to the WSJ report, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden noted in a statement that Obama had ordered a review of U.S. surveillance capabilities.

“Through this review, led by the White House, the United States is reviewing the way that we gather intelligence to ensure that we properly account for the security concerns of our citizens and allies and the privacy concerns that all people share,” Hayden said, adding that she was not in a position to discuss the details.

Citing a source in Merkel’s office, some German media have reported that Obama apologized to Merkel when she called him on Wednesday, and told her that he would have stopped the bugging happening had he known about it.

But Bild am Sonntag, citing a “U.S. intelligence worker involved in the NSA operation against Merkel”, said NSA chief General Keith Alexander informed Obama in person about it in 2010.

“Obama didn’t stop the operation back then but let it continue,” the mass-market paper quoted the source as saying.

The NSA said, however, that Alexander had never discussed any intelligence operations involving Merkel with Obama.

“(General) Alexander did not discuss with President Obama in 2010 an alleged foreign intelligence operation involving German Chancellor Merkel, nor has he ever discussed alleged operations involving Chancellor Merkel”, NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines said in an emailed statement.

“News reports claiming otherwise are not true.”

Bild am Sonntag said Obama in fact wanted more material on Merkel, and ordered the NSA to compile a “comprehensive dossier” on her. “Obama, according to the NSA man, did not trust Merkel and wanted to know everything about the German,” the paper said.

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden declined to comment and reiterated the standard policy line that the United States gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations.

Bild said the NSA had increased its surveillance, including the contents of Merkel’s text messages and phone calls, on Obama’s initiative and had started tapping a new, supposedly bug-proof mobile she acquired this summer, a sign the spying continued into the “recent past”.

The NSA first eavesdropped on Merkel’s predecessor Gerhard Schroeder after he refused to support President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq and was extended when Merkel took over in 2005, the paper said.

Eighteen NSA staff working in the U.S. embassy, some 800 meters (yards) from Merkel’s office, sent their findings straight to the White House, rather than to NSA headquarters, the paper said. Only Merkel’s encrypted landline in her office in the Chancellery had not been tapped, it added.

Bild said some NSA officials were becoming annoyed with the White House for creating the impression that U.S. spies had gone beyond what they had been ordered to do.

BREACH OF TRUST

Merkel has said she uses one mobile phone and that all state-related calls are made from encrypted lines.

The rift over U.S. surveillance activities first emerged this year with reports that Washington had bugged European Union offices and tapped half a billion phone calls, emails and text messages in Germany in a typical month.

Merkel’s government said in August – just weeks before a German election – that the United States had given sufficient assurances it was complying with German law.

This week’s news has reignited criticism of the U.S. surveillance. Volker Kauder, head of Merkel’s party in parliament, called it a “grave breach of trust” and said the United States should drop its “global power demeanor”.

Kauder said, however, that he was against halting negotiations on a European free trade agreement with the United States, a call made by Social Democrats and some of Merkel’s Bavarian allies.

Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich told Bild am Sonntag: “Bugging is a crime and those responsible for it must be held to account.”

The Social Democrats, with whom Merkel is holding talks to form a new government, have joined calls from two smaller opposition parties for a parliamentary investigation into the U.S. surveillance, but Kauder has rejected the idea.

SPD parliamentary whip Thomas Oppermann said former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked many of the sensitive documents, could be called as a witness. Snowden is living in Russia, out of reach of U.S. attempts to arrest him.

(Reporting by Annika Breidthardt; Additional reporting by Anna Yukhananov in Washington; Editing by Robin Pomeroy, Alistair Lyon, Christopher Wilson and Paul Simao)


By John O’Donnell and Luke Baker
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – German Chancellor Angela Merkel demanded on Thursday that the United States strike a “no-spying” agreement with Berlin and Paris by the end of the year, saying alleged espionage against two of Washington’s closest EU allies had to be stopped.

Speaking after talks with EU leaders that were dominated by allegations that the U.S. National Security Agency had accessed tens of thousands of French phone records and monitored Merkel’s private mobile phone, the chancellor said she wanted action from President Barack Obama, not just apologetic words.
Germany and France would seek a “mutual understanding” with the United States on cooperation between their intelligence agencies, and other EU member states could eventually take part.
“That means a framework for cooperation between the relevant (intelligence) services. Germany and France have taken the initiative and other member states will join,” she said.
In a statement issued after the first day of the summit, the EU’s 28 leaders said they supported the Franco-German plan.
Merkel first raised the possibility of a “no-spying” agreement with Obama during a visit to Berlin in June this year, but nothing came of it. The latest revelations, part of the vast leaks made by former U.S. data analyst Edward Snowden, would appear to have renewed her determination for a pact.
The United States has a “no-spying” deal with Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, an alliance known as “Five Eyes” that was struck in the aftermath of World War Two.
But there has traditionally been a reluctance to make similar arrangements with other allies, despite the close relations that the United States and Germany now enjoy.
Merkel said an accord with Washington was long overdue, given the shared experiences the countries face.
“We are in Afghanistan together. Our soldiers experience life threatening situations. They sometimes die in the same battles,” she said.
“The friendship and partnership between the European member states, including Germany, and the United States is not a one-way street. We depend on it. But there are good reasons that the United States also needs friends in the world.”
COLLECTIVE ANGER
As EU leaders arrived for the two-day summit there was near-universal condemnation of the alleged activities by the NSA, particularly the monitoring of Merkel’s mobile phone, a sensitive issue for a woman who grew up in East Germany, living under the Stasi police force and its feared eavesdropping.
Some senior German officials, and the German president of the European Parliament, have called for talks between the EU and United States on a free-trade agreement, which began in July, to be suspended because of the spying allegations.
Merkel, whose country is one of the world’s leading exporters and stands to gain from any trade deal with Washington, said that was not the right path to take, saying the best way forward was to rebuild trust.
The series of Snowden-based leaks over the past three months have left Washington at odds with a host of important allies, from Brazil to Saudi Arabia, and there are few signs that the revelations are going to dry up anytime soon.
Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday that one NSA contact, a U.S. official, had provided the telephone numbers of 35 world leaders that had then been monitored.
As well as raising questions about the EU-US trade negotiations, the spying furor could also have an impact on data-privacy legislation working its way through the EU.
The European Parliament this week backed legislation, proposed by the European Commission in early 2012, that would greatly toughen EU data protection rules dating from 1995.
The new rules would restrict how data collected in Europe by firms such as Google and Facebook is shared with non-EU countries, introduce the right of EU citizens to request that their digital traces be erased, and impose fines of 100 million euros ($138 million) or more on rule breakers.
The United States is concerned the regulations, if they enter into law, will raise the cost of handling data in Europe. Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and others have lobbied hard against the proposals.
Given the spying accusations, France and Germany – the two most influential countries in EU policy – may succeed in getting member states to push ahead on negotiations with the parliament to complete the new data regulations by 2015.
For the United States, it could substantially change how data privacy rules are implemented globally.
(Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers and Noah Barkin in Berlin, Julien Ponthus, Robin Emmott and John O’Donnell in Brussels and Alexandria Sage in Paris; Editing by Will Waterman)


NSA revelations made Argentina’s Cristina Kirchner reach out to Brazil to improve their cyber defense. Countries in the region are now paying attention to this project in order to develop their own email systems: specifically designed for those who don’t want Google and Yahoo accounts which allow US intelligence in. That is open retaliation, but much more might happen behind closed doors. American presence is still important; but now that China’s star is rising rapidly as Latin America’s trade partner, the pressure is on the US.

Paul Mason Culture and Digital Editor  
 
20 November 2013

Between 2004 and 2007 the Labour government gave the US National Security Agency permission to use information on innocent British people collected in the process of spying on actual targets.
According to a top secret memo I have seen, from within the NSA and dated June 2007, Britain agreed the Americans could “unminimise” British landline numbers as early as 2004. That means they were not obliged to delete them, and could now use their systems to analyse them.

By 2004 the Americans had clear reasons to be concerned about UK citizens and terror. Shoe bomber Richard Reid was in a US jail; there were nine Brits in Guantanamo.

These two documents are the first proof in black and white that an agreement exists between Britain and the USA on the targeting of each other’s citizens (on the assumption, not confirmed, that Britain gained the reciprocal right to use data collected on Americans in the 2007 agreement).


Edited time: July 26, 2013 05:49

The US House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to reject an attempt to reign in domestic spying by the National Security Agency following a storm of lobbying by the White House against the measure.

In a 205-217 vote the House defeated an amendment introduced by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) which would have prevented the NSA from collecting the phone data of individuals not currently under investigation.

Amash aimed to challenge the NSA’s program of widespread collection of phone records, specifically information known as ‘metadata,’ the details of which were revealed by The Guardian in June.

That newspaper was able to acquire and publish a copy of a top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion which required the mobile carrier Verizon to provide the NSA with the phone numbers of both parties involved in calls, along with the time and duration of the calls as well as calling card numbers used, and the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number for mobile carriers.

Since that information was revealed, officials have both confirmed the authenticity of the leak and justified its actions, as well as suggested that many more telecom companies are involved.

Surveillance of phone communications was itself eclipsed by revelations then made by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who blew the whistle on an unimagined level of online surveillance being conducted by the intelligence agency in conjunction with a long list of major American companies, including Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and Facebook.

According to various experts on the matter, including analysis provided by Wired Magazine, the NSA’s indiscriminate collection of such data would thereby allow the government to build a massive database to map connections and relationships between callers.


Published time: October 31, 2013 07:55

EU leaders are calling for the suspension of a trade pact with the US worth billions of dollars over NSA spying. The 28-nation bloc suspects the so-called ‘Safe Harbor’ deal is being undermined by US espionage and has demanded safeguards for EU citizens.

The EU’s top politicians have slammed Washington for a “breakdown of trust” and seek guarantees for the safety of EU customer data.

“For ambitious and complex negotiations to succeed there needs to be trust among the negotiating partners,” EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said Wednesday in a speech at Yale University.

The Safe Harbor agreement has been in place for 13 years and it allows over 4,300 American companies to collect and process sales, emails and photos from EU customers. In order for firms to be able to collate this information they have to comply with seven directives to prevent data loss and disclosure.

However, EU officials believe the system is flawed and can be manipulated by the NSA.

“If you look at the US legal environment, there is no adequate legal protection for EU citizens,” said the European Parliament’s leading data protection lawmaker Jan Philipp Albrecht after talks with officials in Washington.

In the light of the spy scandal the EU has threatened to suspend the treaty pending stipulated changes that would sure up security. EU leaders are expected to urge the US to strengthen its privacy laws to allow European citizen more control over how their private data is used.

If the ‘Safe Harbor’ pact is suspended it could have a massive knock-on effect, costing the US and EU billions of dollars in trade. Moreover, the pact allows US companies to get around the lengthy approval procedure by the European data protection authorities, without it some US firms would be forced to stop doing business in the EU.

“I don’t think the US government can be convinced by arguments or outrage alone, but by making it clear that American interests will suffer if this global surveillance is simply continued,” said Peter Schaar, the head of Germany’s data protection watchdog.

Free trade deal

If Washington fails to comply with the EU’s demands then it could further endanger a free trade deal which could add an estimated $138 billion a year to each economy’s gross domestic product.

Reding warned that if changes were not made to US privacy regulations, negotiations for the free trade agreement could easily be “derailed.”

Negotiations on the conditions of the transatlantic agreement are due to resume in December and a decision is likely to be reached by the end of the year.

The revelations of the NSA’s spying activities in Europe scandalized the 28-nation bloc. Security leaks released by former CIA worker Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA taps millions of phone calls across the continent and stores the collected information in its data banks.

Furthermore, the security disclosures indicate the NSA not only monitors citizens it suspects are involved in terrorism, but also businessmen and high-profile politicians.


By Gregor Waschinski october 31, 2013

Washington (United States) (AFP) – Europe and Washington traded spying accusations, as envoys met to seek ways to rebuild trust after shock revelations about the scale and scope of US surveillance of its allies.

A German intelligence delegation and a separate group of EU lawmakers were in the US capital to confront their American allies about the alleged bugging of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone.

And the visit coincided with the latest in a series of newspaper reports based on leaked National Security Agency files, this one alleging US agents hacked into cables used by Google and Yahoo.

President Barack Obama’s spy chiefs are on the defensive over the reports, which have riled America’s allies and exposed the vast scale of the NSA’s snooping on telephone calls and Internet traffic.

The head of the NSA, General Keith Alexander, repeated the administration’s argument that all countries spy on one another, and said that the allies should discuss a new working relationship.

“I think this partnership with Europe is absolutely important,” he said. “But it has to do with everybody coming to the table and let’s put off all the sensationalism and say: ‘Is there a better way for our countries to work together?'”

US intelligence chiefs have said these reports are based on a misinterpretation of an NSA slide leaked to the media by fugitive former intelligence technician Edward Snowden.

Rather than siphoning off the records of tens of millions of calls in Europe, as the slide seems to suggest, they argue that the data was in many cases gathered and shared by European agencies.

‘Foreign nations spying on US’

“The perception that NSA is collecting 70 million phone calls in France or Spain or Italy is factually incorrect,” Alexander said at a conference organized by Bloomberg media group.

“This is actually countries working together to support military operations, collecting what they need to protect our forces in areas where we work together as nations.”

This argument, which Alexander and overall US spy chief James Clapper made on Tuesday before a Congressional committee, had already raised eyebrows in Europe.

French government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, speaking after a cabinet meeting chaired by President Francois Hollande, said: “The NSA director’s denials don’t seem likely.”

Germany, angered by the revelation that the NSA tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone, also issued a stern response, denying US claims that the European allies spy on US targets in turn.

Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s committee on foreign affairs, told reporters that Alexander had admitted to an EU delegation that America had targeted Merkel.

The spy had shown the envoys evidence that much of the data from France, Spain and Germany referenced in the latest leaked slide had indeed been European intelligence shared with the NSA.

“This was given to the US by the French, Spanish or German authorities not spying on Germany, France or Spain, but on what was known in Afghanistan or Yemen,” Brok said.

But Brok also noted that Alexander had confirmed at the same time that the NSA and other US intelligence services also “work unilaterally” in Europe, without the knowledge of their local partners.

Merkel’s spokesman Steffen Seibert said German officials and intelligence officers were in Washington to discuss “a new basis of trust and new regulation for our cooperation in this area.”

“We are in a process of intensive contacts with US partners both at the intelligence as well as the political level,” he said.

Meanwhile, a new report in the Washington Post alleged that NSA technicians had tapped into Yahoo and Google data centers around the world, winning access to vast amounts of private data.

The report said a program dubbed MUSCULAR, operated with the NSA’s British counterpart GCHQ, can intercept data directly from the fiber-optic cables used by the US Internet giants.

The Post reported this is a secret program that is unlike PRISM, another NSA tool revealed by Snowden’s leaks, which relies on secret court orders to obtain data from technology firms.

According to a document cited by the newspaper dated January 9, 2013, some 181 million records were collected in the prior 30 days, ranging from email metadata to text, audio and video content.

Alexander protested “to my knowledge, this never happened.”

But a statement released later Wednesday by the NSA was somewhat more guarded and did not deny that foreign citizens’ data is targeted.

“NSA has multiple authorities that it uses to accomplish its mission, which is centered on defending the nation,” the statement said.”NSA is…focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets only.”

And, in another embarrassing chapter for Washington, the United Nations said it had received an assurance that US agencies would not bug its secret communications in the future.

Conspicuously, the United States could not promise the world body it had not been spied upon in the past.


The NSA has far too much power to spy on innocent Americans without any meaningful oversight.
It’s gotten so bad that even one of the original ultra-conservative authors of the Patriot Act, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, joined with progressive stalwart Rep. John Conyers and Senator Patrick Leahy in introducing a bipartisan NSA reform bill.
This bill, which they named the USA Freedom Act, would end the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records and provide a modest measure of needed transparency to the use of National Security Letters and other forms of warrantless wiretapping.
It’s a good first step, and we need to show the House and the Senate that there’s popular support for Congress starting the process of restoring our constitutional rights.


Let’s be clear. We support the full repeal of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. The only legislative vehicle for that is Rep. Rush Holt’s Surveillance State Repeal Act, which we will continue to fight for.
But until we succeed in repealing the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, we should support anything that will start the process of reining in the NSA without making anything worse.
The Sensenbrenner-Leahy bill is a good move in that direction. It will at the very least stop the kind of bulk surveillance dragnets that allows the government to spy on millions of Americans who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. And it will take a minor step toward transparency by allowing companies to disclose the number of requests they get from the government that force them to turn over the private information of their users and customers without a court order and under a gag.
It’s important to note that this is far less than what we truly need to rein in the NSA. But it’s a good start. The bill preserves much of the status quo. Let’s remember, the problem of overbroad and unconstitutionally intrusive government surveillance is so vast that even the president didn’t know that the U.S. was tapping the phones of allied world leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
But while the Sensenbrenner-Leahy bill is a good first step, the same cannot be said for the bill proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which in the name of reform would simply codify the ability of the government to spy on innocent Americans without doing anything to prevent the rampant abuses that have become routine practices of a rogue NSA and other intelligence agencies.
That’s why we’re asking Congress to support Rep. Sensenbrenner and Sen. Leahy’s USA Freedom Act, and oppose Senator Feinstein’s sham bill which is meant to make the public think oversight is being strengthened over the NSA when there will be no meaningful reform established in the legislation.
Tell Congress: Rein in the NSA to stop its unconstitutional spying. Click the link below to automatically sign the petition:
http://act.credoaction.com/go/2449?t=5&akid=9309.5084505.aOO89Q
Thank you for taking a stand against unconstitutional government spying.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager


October 28, 2013

BERLIN (Reuters) – A German newspaper said on Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama knew his intelligence service was eavesdropping on Angela Merkel as long ago as 2010, contradicting reports that he had told the German leader he did not know.

Germany received information this week that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had bugged Merkel’s mobile phone, prompting Berlin to summon the U.S. ambassador, a move unprecedented in post-war relations between the close allies.

Reuters was unable to confirm Sunday’s news report. The NSA denied that Obama had been informed about the operation by the NSA chief in 2010, as reported by the German newspaper. But the agency did not comment directly on whether Obama knew about the bugging of Merkel’s phone.

Both the White House and the German government declined comment.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that the NSA ended the program that involved Merkel after the operation was uncovered in an Obama administration review that began this summer. The program also involved as many as 35 other world leaders, some of whom were still being monitored, according to the report, which was attributed to U.S. officials.

In response to the WSJ report, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden noted in a statement that Obama had ordered a review of U.S. surveillance capabilities.

“Through this review, led by the White House, the United States is reviewing the way that we gather intelligence to ensure that we properly account for the security concerns of our citizens and allies and the privacy concerns that all people share,” Hayden said, adding that she was not in a position to discuss the details.

Citing a source in Merkel’s office, some German media have reported that Obama apologized to Merkel when she called him on Wednesday, and told her that he would have stopped the bugging happening had he known about it.

But Bild am Sonntag, citing a “U.S. intelligence worker involved in the NSA operation against Merkel”, said NSA chief General Keith Alexander informed Obama in person about it in 2010.

“Obama didn’t stop the operation back then but let it continue,” the mass-market paper quoted the source as saying.

The NSA said, however, that Alexander had never discussed any intelligence operations involving Merkel with Obama.

“(General) Alexander did not discuss with President Obama in 2010 an alleged foreign intelligence operation involving German Chancellor Merkel, nor has he ever discussed alleged operations involving Chancellor Merkel”, NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines said in an emailed statement.

“News reports claiming otherwise are not true.”

Bild am Sonntag said Obama in fact wanted more material on Merkel, and ordered the NSA to compile a “comprehensive dossier” on her. “Obama, according to the NSA man, did not trust Merkel and wanted to know everything about the German,” the paper said.

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden declined to comment and reiterated the standard policy line that the United States gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations.

Bild said the NSA had increased its surveillance, including the contents of Merkel’s text messages and phone calls, on Obama’s initiative and had started tapping a new, supposedly bug-proof mobile she acquired this summer, a sign the spying continued into the “recent past”.

The NSA first eavesdropped on Merkel’s predecessor Gerhard Schroeder after he refused to support President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq and was extended when Merkel took over in 2005, the paper said.

Eighteen NSA staff working in the U.S. embassy, some 800 meters (yards) from Merkel’s office, sent their findings straight to the White House, rather than to NSA headquarters, the paper said. Only Merkel’s encrypted landline in her office in the Chancellery had not been tapped, it added.

Bild said some NSA officials were becoming annoyed with the White House for creating the impression that U.S. spies had gone beyond what they had been ordered to do.

BREACH OF TRUST

Merkel has said she uses one mobile phone and that all state-related calls are made from encrypted lines.

The rift over U.S. surveillance activities first emerged this year with reports that Washington had bugged European Union offices and tapped half a billion phone calls, emails and text messages in Germany in a typical month.

Merkel’s government said in August – just weeks before a German election – that the United States had given sufficient assurances it was complying with German law.

This week’s news has reignited criticism of the U.S. surveillance. Volker Kauder, head of Merkel’s party in parliament, called it a “grave breach of trust” and said the United States should drop its “global power demeanor”.

Kauder said, however, that he was against halting negotiations on a European free trade agreement with the United States, a call made by Social Democrats and some of Merkel’s Bavarian allies.

Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich told Bild am Sonntag: “Bugging is a crime and those responsible for it must be held to account.”

The Social Democrats, with whom Merkel is holding talks to form a new government, have joined calls from two smaller opposition parties for a parliamentary investigation into the U.S. surveillance, but Kauder has rejected the idea.

SPD parliamentary whip Thomas Oppermann said former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked many of the sensitive documents, could be called as a witness. Snowden is living in Russia, out of reach of U.S. attempts to arrest him.

(Reporting by Annika Breidthardt; Additional reporting by Anna Yukhananov in Washington; Editing by Robin Pomeroy, Alistair Lyon, Christopher Wilson and Paul Simao)


By John O’Donnell and Luke Baker
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – German Chancellor Angela Merkel demanded on Thursday that the United States strike a “no-spying” agreement with Berlin and Paris by the end of the year, saying alleged espionage against two of Washington’s closest EU allies had to be stopped.

Speaking after talks with EU leaders that were dominated by allegations that the U.S. National Security Agency had accessed tens of thousands of French phone records and monitored Merkel’s private mobile phone, the chancellor said she wanted action from President Barack Obama, not just apologetic words.
Germany and France would seek a “mutual understanding” with the United States on cooperation between their intelligence agencies, and other EU member states could eventually take part.
“That means a framework for cooperation between the relevant (intelligence) services. Germany and France have taken the initiative and other member states will join,” she said.
In a statement issued after the first day of the summit, the EU’s 28 leaders said they supported the Franco-German plan.
Merkel first raised the possibility of a “no-spying” agreement with Obama during a visit to Berlin in June this year, but nothing came of it. The latest revelations, part of the vast leaks made by former U.S. data analyst Edward Snowden, would appear to have renewed her determination for a pact.
The United States has a “no-spying” deal with Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, an alliance known as “Five Eyes” that was struck in the aftermath of World War Two.
But there has traditionally been a reluctance to make similar arrangements with other allies, despite the close relations that the United States and Germany now enjoy.
Merkel said an accord with Washington was long overdue, given the shared experiences the countries face.
“We are in Afghanistan together. Our soldiers experience life threatening situations. They sometimes die in the same battles,” she said.
“The friendship and partnership between the European member states, including Germany, and the United States is not a one-way street. We depend on it. But there are good reasons that the United States also needs friends in the world.”
COLLECTIVE ANGER
As EU leaders arrived for the two-day summit there was near-universal condemnation of the alleged activities by the NSA, particularly the monitoring of Merkel’s mobile phone, a sensitive issue for a woman who grew up in East Germany, living under the Stasi police force and its feared eavesdropping.
Some senior German officials, and the German president of the European Parliament, have called for talks between the EU and United States on a free-trade agreement, which began in July, to be suspended because of the spying allegations.
Merkel, whose country is one of the world’s leading exporters and stands to gain from any trade deal with Washington, said that was not the right path to take, saying the best way forward was to rebuild trust.
The series of Snowden-based leaks over the past three months have left Washington at odds with a host of important allies, from Brazil to Saudi Arabia, and there are few signs that the revelations are going to dry up anytime soon.
Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday that one NSA contact, a U.S. official, had provided the telephone numbers of 35 world leaders that had then been monitored.
As well as raising questions about the EU-US trade negotiations, the spying furor could also have an impact on data-privacy legislation working its way through the EU.
The European Parliament this week backed legislation, proposed by the European Commission in early 2012, that would greatly toughen EU data protection rules dating from 1995.
The new rules would restrict how data collected in Europe by firms such as Google and Facebook is shared with non-EU countries, introduce the right of EU citizens to request that their digital traces be erased, and impose fines of 100 million euros ($138 million) or more on rule breakers.
The United States is concerned the regulations, if they enter into law, will raise the cost of handling data in Europe. Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and others have lobbied hard against the proposals.
Given the spying accusations, France and Germany – the two most influential countries in EU policy – may succeed in getting member states to push ahead on negotiations with the parliament to complete the new data regulations by 2015.
For the United States, it could substantially change how data privacy rules are implemented globally.
(Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers and Noah Barkin in Berlin, Julien Ponthus, Robin Emmott and John O’Donnell in Brussels and Alexandria Sage in Paris; Editing by Will Waterman)


NSA revelations made Argentina’s Cristina Kirchner reach out to Brazil to improve their cyber defense. Countries in the region are now paying attention to this project in order to develop their own email systems: specifically designed for those who don’t want Google and Yahoo accounts which allow US intelligence in. That is open retaliation, but much more might happen behind closed doors. American presence is still important; but now that China’s star is rising rapidly as Latin America’s trade partner, the pressure is on the US.

Homeland Security

Oct 27 2013, 9:55 AM ET

(The Atlantic) -The Department of Homeland Security is using algorithms to “prescreen” travelers before they board domestic flights, reviewing government and private databases that include Americans’ tax identification numbers, car registrations and property records.

Documents leaked by whistleblower Edward J. Snowden emerged this week, revealing NSA phone monitoring of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, 35 unidentified heads of state, and 70 million calls in France.

The extent of the surveillance is sparking widespread indignation and endangering joint counter-terrorism operations among Germany, France and the United States.

Inside the United States, meanwhile, press reports emerged on Monday that the Transportation Security Administration is expanding its prescreening of airline passengers to include government and private databases that contain employment information, property records and physical characteristics.
Khaliah Barnes, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which opposes this prescreening, said many Americans do not grasp the current scale of domestic government data mining.
“The average person doesn’t understand how much intelligence-driven matching is going on and how this could be accessed for other purposes,” she said. “There’s no meaningful oversight, transparency or accountability.”
One critic called the new TSA program “a ‘pre-crime’ assessment every time you fly.”
A bipartisan proposal to rein in government surveillance unveiled last month by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a good start. The measure would end the bulk collection of American’s communications records; limit Washington’s ability to obtain information from Google and other online providers, and make the secret court that oversees U.S. surveillance operations far more transparent.


Published on Mar 13, 2013

The Economy isn’t going to recover. The government knows this and is getting ready, but in ways that are very disturbing.
Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/StormCloudsGathering


Links to get you started on your research:

NDAA 2013 passes with indefinite detention still intact
http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-indefinit…

The Patriot Act
http://thepage.time.com/2011/02/15/ho…
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/…

Obama extends Patriot Act: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05…

Widespread abuse of patriot act: http://www.aclu.org/national-security…

Obama tries to hide information regarding rape and sexual abuse in Abu Ghraib: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

Obama’s kill list: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/wor…

FBI finalizing its NGI Biometrics Database:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fing…

Biometrics at departures: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/po…

http://rt.com/usa/us-foreigners-leave…

People placed on no-fly list for political reasons:

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/articl…

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-sec…

Drones used to hunt Dorner: http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner…

Dorner fire set intentionally:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02…
The police finally admit it: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow…

Leaked Document: Government setting up military detention centers for Activists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfkZ1y…

FBI Murdered Todashev execution style:
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/a…

http://rt.com/news/todashev-head-shot…

Senator Coburn points out the DHS “zombie” training exercise as wasteful: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/i…

But if you actually watch it it’s much more disturbing: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/dhs-t…

Yes this really happened (details about the exercise):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/your-ta…

Police admit Dorner fire was set on purpose: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow…

DHS buying billions of bullets (links to some of the purchase orders):
450 million rounds purchased by DHS earlier this year:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Secu…

Purchase order for additional 750 million rounds of ammunition
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportuni…

DHS buys even more bullets:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportuni…

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editori…

Iris scanning from a distance:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/…

Biometrics checks at border… Already in place for immigrants entering, now to be added for exits.


The No Fly List is a list, created and maintained by the United States government’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC),[1] of people who are not permitted to board a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of the United States. The list has also been used to divert away from U.S. airspace aircraft not flying to or from the U.S.[2] The number of people on the list rises and falls according to threat and intelligence reporting. As of 2011, the list contained about 10,000 names.[3][4] In 2012, the list doubled in size to about 21,000 names. [5] The list – along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection – was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001.
The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism.[6] The Terrorist Watch List contained around 400,000 names as of summer 2011, according to the TSC.[7][8] In 2013, the Terrorist Watch List had increased to 875,000 names. [9]
The list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. Finally, it has been criticized as costly,[10] prone to false positives,[11] and easily defeated.[12]
The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: “The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense.”[13]

On September 11, 2001, the FBI had a list of 16 people deemed “no transport” because they “presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.”[6] The list had grown to more than 400 names by November 2001, when responsibility for keeping it was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration.[6]
In mid-December 2001, two lists were created: the “No Fly List” of 594 people to be denied air transport, and the “Selectee” list of 365 people who were to be more carefully searched at airports.[6] By December 2002, the No Fly List held more than 1,000 names.[citation needed]60 Minutes reported on 8 October 2006 that the news program had obtained a March 2006 copy of the list that contained 44,000 names.[14]TSA officials said that, as of November 2005, 30,000 people in 2005 had complained that their names were matched to a name on the list via the name matching software used by airlines.[15] In April 2007, the United States government “terrorist watch list” administered by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is managed principally by the FBI, contained 700,000 records.[16] A year later, the ACLU estimated the list to have grown to over 1,000,000 names and to be continually expanding.[17]
However, according to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, in October 2008 the No Fly list contained only 2,500 names, with an additional 16,000 “selectees”, who “represent a less specific security threat and receive extra scrutiny, but are allowed to fly.”

Among the complaints about the No Fly List is the use of credit reports in calculating the risk score. In response to the controversy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials said in 2005 that they would not use credit scores to determine passengers’ risk score and that they would comply with all rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.[28]
The European Union and other non-U.S. government entities have expressed concern about allowing the CAPPS II proposal to be implemented within their borders. During the early testing of the No Fly List and CAPPS II, the TSA privately asked airlines to disclose massive amounts of personal information about their passengers. This action has been said[who?] to be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, which forbids the government to compile secret databases on U.S. citizens.
In the midst of this controversy, the Government Accountability Office of the U.S. Congress produced a report critical of the CAPPS II system. It characterized the proposal as incomplete and seriously behind schedule, and noted that the TSA had failed to address “developmental, operational, and privacy issues identified by Congress”. On July 14, 2004, TSA officials announced that CAPPS II was being pulled from consideration without proceeding to full testing. Critics have alleged that the TSA has merely chosen to start with a less controversial entry point that they are calling the “Registered Traveler” program.[29] TSA has also begun testing of another program called “Secure Flight“, which is supposed to solve some of the problems of CAPPS I while avoiding the privacy issues of CAPPS II.
In January 2009, Marcus Holmes[30] conservatively estimated the total cost of the program to be $536 million since 9/11, with a reasonable estimation range that approaches $1 billion, and he questioned whether the benefits of the list outweigh the costs.[10]

A “false positive” occurs when a passenger who is not on the No Fly List has a name that matches or is similar to a name on the list. False positive passengers will not be allowed to board a flight unless they can differentiate themselves from the actual person on the list, usually by presenting ID showing their middle name or date of birth. In some cases, false positive passengers have been denied boarding or have missed flights because they could not easily prove that they were not the person on the No Fly List.
When an airline ticket is purchased, the reservation system uses software to compare the passenger’s name against the No Fly List. If the name matches, or is similar to a name on the No Fly List, a restriction is placed in their reservation that prevents them from being issued a boarding pass until the airline has determined whether or not they are the actual person whose name is on the No Fly List. Passengers are not told when a restriction has been placed on their reservation, and they normally do not find out that anything is unusual until they attempt to check in. “False positive” passengers cannot use Internet check-in or the automatic check-in kiosks in airports. Any attempt to use them will normally result in a message that the check-in cannot be completed and that the passenger needs to see a live check-in agent.
In order to be issued a boarding pass, a “false positive” passenger must present identification that sufficiently differentiates them from the person on the No Fly List. This can include, but is not limited to, date and place of birth, middle name, citizenship, passport number, etc. Depending on the airline, this clearance can be done either electronically, with the check-in agent keying the information into the system, or a manual procedure where the agent telephones a centralized security office to obtain clearance. Once a “false positive” passenger has been cleared for a flight, the clearance will usually, but not always, apply to the remaining flights on that reservation, including the return. However, the next time this passenger purchases an airline ticket, they will have to be cleared all over again. If a passenger’s identification is insufficient to differentiate that passenger from a name on the No-Fly List, the airline will refuse to issue a boarding pass and tell the passenger to contact the TSA.
Policies vary from airline to airline as to whether a check-in agent will tell passengers why they must always have additional steps performed when they check in, or why they are unable to check in via Internet, kiosk, or at curbside. In some cases, check-in agents will incorrectly tell passengers that they must be cleared because they are “on the No Fly List”, when in fact they are simply a “false positive” (having the same name as someone on the No-Fly List). False positive passengers who are ultimately issued boarding passes are not on the No Fly List. In the majority of instances, passengers are not told anything, and it is only through the repeated experience of needing to be cleared or being unable to use curbside, Internet or automatic check-in that they come to suspect that they are “false positives”.
In an effort to reduce the number of false positives, DHS announced on April 28, 2008 that each airline will be permitted to create a system to verify and store a passenger’s date of birth, to clear up watch list misidentifications. Passengers can voluntarily provide this information to the airline, which would have to be verified by presenting acceptable ID at the ticket counter. Once this data has been stored, travelers that were previously inconvenienced on every trip would be able to check in online or at remote kiosks.[31] It will be up to each individual airline to choose whether they wish to implement such a system.

False positives and abuses that have been in the news include:

  • Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives.[32][33][34]
  • Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.[35]
  • David Fathi, an attorney for the ACLU of Iranian descent and a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit.[36]
  • Asif Iqbal, a management consultant and legal resident of the United States born in Pakistan, plans to sue the U.S. government because he is regularly detained when he tries to fly, because he has the same name as a former Guantanamo detainee.[11][37] Iqbal’s work requires a lot of travel, and, even though the Guantanamo detainee has been released, his name remains on the No Fly List, and Iqbal the software consultant experiences frequent, unpredictable delays and missed flights.[38] He is pushing for a photo ID and birthdate matching system, in addition to the current system of checking names.[39]
  • Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as a Democrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, “This could just be a government screw-up, but I don’t know, and they won’t tell me.”[40] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.[14]
  • In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name “T Kennedy” was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to “T Kennedy”. (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom “Ted” was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of “ordinary citizens”: “How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”[41] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to “rethink aviation security” in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[42]
  • U.S. Representative, former Freedom Rider, and Chairman of SNCC John Lewis (politician) (D-GA) has been stopped many times.[43]
  • Canadian journalist Patrick Martin has been frequently interrogated while traveling, because of a suspicious individual with the same name.[44]
  • Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass “because I [Professor Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list.” The airline employee asked, “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” “I explained,” said professor Murphy, “that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.” To which the airline employee responded, “That’ll do it.”[45]
  • David Nelson, the actor best known for his role on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, is among various persons named David Nelson who have been stopped at airports because their name apparently appears on the list.[46][47]
  • Jesselyn Radack, a former United States Department of Justice ethics adviser who argued that John Walker Lindh was entitled to an attorney, was placed on the No Fly List as part of what she [48] believes to be a reprisal for her whistle-blowing.
  • In September 2004, former pop singer Cat Stevens (who converted to Islam and changed his name to “Yusuf Islam” in 1978) was denied entry into the U.S. after his name was found on the list.[49]
  • In February 2006, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) stated in a committee hearing that his wife Catherine had been subjected to questioning at an airport as to whether she was Cat Stevens due to the similarity of their names.[46][50]
  • U.S. Representative Don Young (R-AK), the third-most senior Republican in the House, was flagged in 2004 after he was mistaken for a “Donald Lee Young”.[51]
  • Some members of the Federal Air Marshal Service have been denied boarding on flights that they were assigned to protect because their names matched those of persons on the no-fly list.[52]
  • Until July 2008, Nelson Mandela and other members of the African National Congress were on the list, something that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “rather embarrassing”.[53] On July 5, 2008, the U.S. removed Mandela and the ANC from the list.[54]
  • In August 2008, CNN reported that an airline captain and retired brigadier general for the United States Air Force has had numerous encounters with security officials when attempting to pilot his own plane.[55]
  • After frequent harassment at airport terminals, a Canadian businessman changed his name to avoid being delayed every time he took a flight.[56]
  • In October 2008, the Washington Post reported that Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent political activists as terrorists, and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases, with labels indicating that they were terror suspects. The protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations. During a hearing, it was revealed that these individuals and organizations had been placed in the databases because of a surveillance operation that targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war.[57]
  • In April 2009, TSA refused to allow an Air France flight from Paris to Mexico to cross U.S. airspace because it was carrying Colombian journalist Hernando Calvo Ospina. Air France did not send the passenger manifest to the US authorities, they did however send it to Mexico who forwarded it to the US.[2]
  • Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan was held for extensive questioning by US Immigration and Customs officials in August 2009, because as he reported, “his name came up on a computer alert list.” Customs officials claimed he “was questioned as part of a routine process that took 66 minutes.” Khan was visiting the United States to promote his film My Name Is Khan, which concerns racial profiling of Muslims in the United States.[58]
  • In June 2010, The New York Times reported Yahya Wehelie, a 26 year-old Muslim-American man was being prevented from returning to the United States, and trapped in Cairo. Despite Wehelie’s offer to FBI agents to allow them to accompany him in the plane, while shackled, he was not permitted to return. The ACLU has argued that this constitutes banishment.[59]
  • A U.S. citizen, stranded in Colombia after being placed on the no-fly list as a result of having studied in Yemen, sought to re-enter the U.S. through Mexico but was returned to Colombia by Mexican authorities.[59]
  • Michael Migliore, a 23-year-old Muslim convert and dual citizen of the United States and Italy, was detained in the United Kingdom after traveling there from the U.S. by train and then cruise ship because he was not permitted to fly. He said that he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because he refused to answer questions about a 2010 Portland car bomb plot without his lawyer present.[60] He was released eight or ten hours later, but authorities confiscated his electronic media items including a cell phone and media player.[61]
  • Abe Mashal, a 31-year-old Muslim and United States Marine Veteran, found himself on the No Fly List in April 2010 while attempting to board a plane out of Midway Airport. He was questioned by the TSA, FBI and Chicago Police at the airport and was told they had no clue why he was on the No Fly List. Once he arrived at home that day two other FBI agents came to his home and used a Do Not Fly question-and-answer sheet to question him. They informed him they had no idea why he was on the No Fly List. In June 2010 those same two FBI agents summoned Mashal to a local hotel and invited him to a private room. They told him that he was in no trouble and the reason he ended up on the No Fly List was because of possibly sending emails to an American imam they may have been monitoring. They then informed him that if he would go undercover at various local mosques, they could get him off the No Fly List immediately and he would be compensated for such actions. Mashal refused to answer any additional questions without a lawyer present and was told to leave the hotel. Mashal then contacted the ACLU and is now being represented in a class-action lawsuit filed against the TSA, FBI and DHS concerning the legality of the No Fly List and how people end up on it. Mashal feels as if he was blackmailed into becoming an informant by being placed on the No Fly List. Mashal has since appeared on ABC, NBC, PBS and Al Jazeera concerning his inclusion on the No Fly List. He has also written a book about his experience titled “No Spy No Fly.” [62]

The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a procedure for travelers who are delayed or denied boarding of an aircraft, consistently receive excess scrutiny at security checkpoints, or are denied entry to the U.S. because they are believed to be or are told that they are on a government watch list. The traveler must complete an online application at the Department of Homeland Security website, print and sign the application, and then submit it with copies of several identifying documents. After reviewing their records, DHS notifies the traveler that if any corrections of data about them were warranted, they will be made.
Travelers who apply for redress through TRIP are assigned a record identifier called a “Redress Control Number”. Airline reservations systems allow passengers who have a Redress Control Number to enter it when making their reservation.
DHS TRIP may make it easier for an airline to confirm a traveler’s identity. False-positive travelers, whose names match or are similar to the names of persons on the No Fly List, will continue to match that name even after using DHS TRIP, so it will not restore a traveler’s ability to use Internet or curbside check-in or to use an automated kiosk. It does usually help the airline identify the traveler as not being the actual person on the No Fly List, after an airline agent has reviewed their identity documents at check-in.
DHS TRIP is often accused of being defunct and existing only to appease civil rights organizations without having any actual effect.[63]

(The Atlantic) -The Department of Homeland Security is using algorithms to “prescreen” travelers before they board domestic flights, reviewing government and private databases that include Americans’ tax identification numbers, car registrations and property records.

Documents leaked by whistleblower Edward J. Snowden emerged this week, revealing NSA phone monitoring of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, 35 unidentified heads of state, and 70 million calls in France.

The extent of the surveillance is sparking widespread indignation and endangering joint counter-terrorism operations among Germany, France and the United States.

Inside the United States, meanwhile, press reports emerged on Monday that the Transportation Security Administration is expanding its prescreening of airline passengers to include government and private databases that contain employment information, property records and physical characteristics.
Khaliah Barnes, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which opposes this prescreening, said many Americans do not grasp the current scale of domestic government data mining.
“The average person doesn’t understand how much intelligence-driven matching is going on and how this could be accessed for other purposes,” she said. “There’s no meaningful oversight, transparency or accountability.”
One critic called the new TSA program “a ‘pre-crime’ assessment every time you fly.”
A bipartisan proposal to rein in government surveillance unveiled last month by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a good start. The measure would end the bulk collection of American’s communications records; limit Washington’s ability to obtain information from Google and other online providers, and make the secret court that oversees U.S. surveillance operations far more transparent.


Published on Mar 13, 2013

The Economy isn’t going to recover. The government knows this and is getting ready, but in ways that are very disturbing.
Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/StormCloudsGathering


Links to get you started on your research:

NDAA 2013 passes with indefinite detention still intact
http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-indefinit…

The Patriot Act
http://thepage.time.com/2011/02/15/ho…
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/…

Obama extends Patriot Act: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05…

Widespread abuse of patriot act: http://www.aclu.org/national-security…

Obama tries to hide information regarding rape and sexual abuse in Abu Ghraib: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

Obama’s kill list: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/wor…

FBI finalizing its NGI Biometrics Database:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fing…

Biometrics at departures: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/po…

http://rt.com/usa/us-foreigners-leave…

People placed on no-fly list for political reasons:

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/articl…

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-sec…

Drones used to hunt Dorner: http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner…

Dorner fire set intentionally:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02…
The police finally admit it: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow…

Leaked Document: Government setting up military detention centers for Activists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfkZ1y…

FBI Murdered Todashev execution style:
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/a…

http://rt.com/news/todashev-head-shot…

Senator Coburn points out the DHS “zombie” training exercise as wasteful: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/i…

But if you actually watch it it’s much more disturbing: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/dhs-t…

Yes this really happened (details about the exercise):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/your-ta…

Police admit Dorner fire was set on purpose: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow…

DHS buying billions of bullets (links to some of the purchase orders):
450 million rounds purchased by DHS earlier this year:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Secu…

Purchase order for additional 750 million rounds of ammunition
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportuni…

DHS buys even more bullets:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportuni…

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editori…

Iris scanning from a distance:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/…

Biometrics checks at border… Already in place for immigrants entering, now to be added for exits.


The No Fly List is a list, created and maintained by the United States government’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC),[1] of people who are not permitted to board a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of the United States. The list has also been used to divert away from U.S. airspace aircraft not flying to or from the U.S.[2] The number of people on the list rises and falls according to threat and intelligence reporting. As of 2011, the list contained about 10,000 names.[3][4] In 2012, the list doubled in size to about 21,000 names. [5] The list – along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection – was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001.
The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism.[6] The Terrorist Watch List contained around 400,000 names as of summer 2011, according to the TSC.[7][8] In 2013, the Terrorist Watch List had increased to 875,000 names. [9]
The list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. Finally, it has been criticized as costly,[10] prone to false positives,[11] and easily defeated.[12]
The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: “The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense.”[13]

On September 11, 2001, the FBI had a list of 16 people deemed “no transport” because they “presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.”[6] The list had grown to more than 400 names by November 2001, when responsibility for keeping it was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration.[6]
In mid-December 2001, two lists were created: the “No Fly List” of 594 people to be denied air transport, and the “Selectee” list of 365 people who were to be more carefully searched at airports.[6] By December 2002, the No Fly List held more than 1,000 names.[citation needed] 60 Minutes reported on 8 October 2006 that the news program had obtained a March 2006 copy of the list that contained 44,000 names.[14] TSA officials said that, as of November 2005, 30,000 people in 2005 had complained that their names were matched to a name on the list via the name matching software used by airlines.[15] In April 2007, the United States government “terrorist watch list” administered by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is managed principally by the FBI, contained 700,000 records.[16] A year later, the ACLU estimated the list to have grown to over 1,000,000 names and to be continually expanding.[17]
However, according to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, in October 2008 the No Fly list contained only 2,500 names, with an additional 16,000 “selectees”, who “represent a less specific security threat and receive extra scrutiny, but are allowed to fly.”

Among the complaints about the No Fly List is the use of credit reports in calculating the risk score. In response to the controversy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials said in 2005 that they would not use credit scores to determine passengers’ risk score and that they would comply with all rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.[28]
The European Union and other non-U.S. government entities have expressed concern about allowing the CAPPS II proposal to be implemented within their borders. During the early testing of the No Fly List and CAPPS II, the TSA privately asked airlines to disclose massive amounts of personal information about their passengers. This action has been said[who?] to be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, which forbids the government to compile secret databases on U.S. citizens.
In the midst of this controversy, the Government Accountability Office of the U.S. Congress produced a report critical of the CAPPS II system. It characterized the proposal as incomplete and seriously behind schedule, and noted that the TSA had failed to address “developmental, operational, and privacy issues identified by Congress”. On July 14, 2004, TSA officials announced that CAPPS II was being pulled from consideration without proceeding to full testing. Critics have alleged that the TSA has merely chosen to start with a less controversial entry point that they are calling the “Registered Traveler” program.[29] TSA has also begun testing of another program called “Secure Flight“, which is supposed to solve some of the problems of CAPPS I while avoiding the privacy issues of CAPPS II.
In January 2009, Marcus Holmes[30] conservatively estimated the total cost of the program to be $536 million since 9/11, with a reasonable estimation range that approaches $1 billion, and he questioned whether the benefits of the list outweigh the costs.[10]

A “false positive” occurs when a passenger who is not on the No Fly List has a name that matches or is similar to a name on the list. False positive passengers will not be allowed to board a flight unless they can differentiate themselves from the actual person on the list, usually by presenting ID showing their middle name or date of birth. In some cases, false positive passengers have been denied boarding or have missed flights because they could not easily prove that they were not the person on the No Fly List.
When an airline ticket is purchased, the reservation system uses software to compare the passenger’s name against the No Fly List. If the name matches, or is similar to a name on the No Fly List, a restriction is placed in their reservation that prevents them from being issued a boarding pass until the airline has determined whether or not they are the actual person whose name is on the No Fly List. Passengers are not told when a restriction has been placed on their reservation, and they normally do not find out that anything is unusual until they attempt to check in. “False positive” passengers cannot use Internet check-in or the automatic check-in kiosks in airports. Any attempt to use them will normally result in a message that the check-in cannot be completed and that the passenger needs to see a live check-in agent.
In order to be issued a boarding pass, a “false positive” passenger must present identification that sufficiently differentiates them from the person on the No Fly List. This can include, but is not limited to, date and place of birth, middle name, citizenship, passport number, etc. Depending on the airline, this clearance can be done either electronically, with the check-in agent keying the information into the system, or a manual procedure where the agent telephones a centralized security office to obtain clearance. Once a “false positive” passenger has been cleared for a flight, the clearance will usually, but not always, apply to the remaining flights on that reservation, including the return. However, the next time this passenger purchases an airline ticket, they will have to be cleared all over again. If a passenger’s identification is insufficient to differentiate that passenger from a name on the No-Fly List, the airline will refuse to issue a boarding pass and tell the passenger to contact the TSA.
Policies vary from airline to airline as to whether a check-in agent will tell passengers why they must always have additional steps performed when they check in, or why they are unable to check in via Internet, kiosk, or at curbside. In some cases, check-in agents will incorrectly tell passengers that they must be cleared because they are “on the No Fly List”, when in fact they are simply a “false positive” (having the same name as someone on the No-Fly List). False positive passengers who are ultimately issued boarding passes are not on the No Fly List. In the majority of instances, passengers are not told anything, and it is only through the repeated experience of needing to be cleared or being unable to use curbside, Internet or automatic check-in that they come to suspect that they are “false positives”.
In an effort to reduce the number of false positives, DHS announced on April 28, 2008 that each airline will be permitted to create a system to verify and store a passenger’s date of birth, to clear up watch list misidentifications. Passengers can voluntarily provide this information to the airline, which would have to be verified by presenting acceptable ID at the ticket counter. Once this data has been stored, travelers that were previously inconvenienced on every trip would be able to check in online or at remote kiosks.[31] It will be up to each individual airline to choose whether they wish to implement such a system.

False positives and abuses that have been in the news include:

  • Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives.[32][33][34]
  • Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.[35]
  • David Fathi, an attorney for the ACLU of Iranian descent and a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit.[36]
  • Asif Iqbal, a management consultant and legal resident of the United States born in Pakistan, plans to sue the U.S. government because he is regularly detained when he tries to fly, because he has the same name as a former Guantanamo detainee.[11][37] Iqbal’s work requires a lot of travel, and, even though the Guantanamo detainee has been released, his name remains on the No Fly List, and Iqbal the software consultant experiences frequent, unpredictable delays and missed flights.[38] He is pushing for a photo ID and birthdate matching system, in addition to the current system of checking names.[39]
  • Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as a Democrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, “This could just be a government screw-up, but I don’t know, and they won’t tell me.”[40] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.[14]
  • In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name “T Kennedy” was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to “T Kennedy”. (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom “Ted” was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of “ordinary citizens”: “How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”[41] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to “rethink aviation security” in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[42]
  • U.S. Representative, former Freedom Rider, and Chairman of SNCC John Lewis (politician) (D-GA) has been stopped many times.[43]
  • Canadian journalist Patrick Martin has been frequently interrogated while traveling, because of a suspicious individual with the same name.[44]
  • Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass “because I [Professor Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list.” The airline employee asked, “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” “I explained,” said professor Murphy, “that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.” To which the airline employee responded, “That’ll do it.”[45]
  • David Nelson, the actor best known for his role on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, is among various persons named David Nelson who have been stopped at airports because their name apparently appears on the list.[46][47]
  • Jesselyn Radack, a former United States Department of Justice ethics adviser who argued that John Walker Lindh was entitled to an attorney, was placed on the No Fly List as part of what she [48] believes to be a reprisal for her whistle-blowing.
  • In September 2004, former pop singer Cat Stevens (who converted to Islam and changed his name to “Yusuf Islam” in 1978) was denied entry into the U.S. after his name was found on the list.[49]
  • In February 2006, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) stated in a committee hearing that his wife Catherine had been subjected to questioning at an airport as to whether she was Cat Stevens due to the similarity of their names.[46][50]
  • U.S. Representative Don Young (R-AK), the third-most senior Republican in the House, was flagged in 2004 after he was mistaken for a “Donald Lee Young”.[51]
  • Some members of the Federal Air Marshal Service have been denied boarding on flights that they were assigned to protect because their names matched those of persons on the no-fly list.[52]
  • Until July 2008, Nelson Mandela and other members of the African National Congress were on the list, something that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “rather embarrassing”.[53] On July 5, 2008, the U.S. removed Mandela and the ANC from the list.[54]
  • In August 2008, CNN reported that an airline captain and retired brigadier general for the United States Air Force has had numerous encounters with security officials when attempting to pilot his own plane.[55]
  • After frequent harassment at airport terminals, a Canadian businessman changed his name to avoid being delayed every time he took a flight.[56]
  • In October 2008, the Washington Post reported that Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent political activists as terrorists, and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases, with labels indicating that they were terror suspects. The protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations. During a hearing, it was revealed that these individuals and organizations had been placed in the databases because of a surveillance operation that targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war.[57]
  • In April 2009, TSA refused to allow an Air France flight from Paris to Mexico to cross U.S. airspace because it was carrying Colombian journalist Hernando Calvo Ospina. Air France did not send the passenger manifest to the US authorities, they did however send it to Mexico who forwarded it to the US.[2]
  • Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan was held for extensive questioning by US Immigration and Customs officials in August 2009, because as he reported, “his name came up on a computer alert list.” Customs officials claimed he “was questioned as part of a routine process that took 66 minutes.” Khan was visiting the United States to promote his film My Name Is Khan, which concerns racial profiling of Muslims in the United States.[58]
  • In June 2010, The New York Times reported Yahya Wehelie, a 26 year-old Muslim-American man was being prevented from returning to the United States, and trapped in Cairo. Despite Wehelie’s offer to FBI agents to allow them to accompany him in the plane, while shackled, he was not permitted to return. The ACLU has argued that this constitutes banishment.[59]
  • A U.S. citizen, stranded in Colombia after being placed on the no-fly list as a result of having studied in Yemen, sought to re-enter the U.S. through Mexico but was returned to Colombia by Mexican authorities.[59]
  • Michael Migliore, a 23-year-old Muslim convert and dual citizen of the United States and Italy, was detained in the United Kingdom after traveling there from the U.S. by train and then cruise ship because he was not permitted to fly. He said that he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because he refused to answer questions about a 2010 Portland car bomb plot without his lawyer present.[60] He was released eight or ten hours later, but authorities confiscated his electronic media items including a cell phone and media player.[61]
  • Abe Mashal, a 31-year-old Muslim and United States Marine Veteran, found himself on the No Fly List in April 2010 while attempting to board a plane out of Midway Airport. He was questioned by the TSA, FBI and Chicago Police at the airport and was told they had no clue why he was on the No Fly List. Once he arrived at home that day two other FBI agents came to his home and used a Do Not Fly question-and-answer sheet to question him. They informed him they had no idea why he was on the No Fly List. In June 2010 those same two FBI agents summoned Mashal to a local hotel and invited him to a private room. They told him that he was in no trouble and the reason he ended up on the No Fly List was because of possibly sending emails to an American imam they may have been monitoring. They then informed him that if he would go undercover at various local mosques, they could get him off the No Fly List immediately and he would be compensated for such actions. Mashal refused to answer any additional questions without a lawyer present and was told to leave the hotel. Mashal then contacted the ACLU and is now being represented in a class-action lawsuit filed against the TSA, FBI and DHS concerning the legality of the No Fly List and how people end up on it. Mashal feels as if he was blackmailed into becoming an informant by being placed on the No Fly List. Mashal has since appeared on ABC, NBC, PBS and Al Jazeera concerning his inclusion on the No Fly List. He has also written a book about his experience titled “No Spy No Fly.” [62]

The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a procedure for travelers who are delayed or denied boarding of an aircraft, consistently receive excess scrutiny at security checkpoints, or are denied entry to the U.S. because they are believed to be or are told that they are on a government watch list. The traveler must complete an online application at the Department of Homeland Security website, print and sign the application, and then submit it with copies of several identifying documents. After reviewing their records, DHS notifies the traveler that if any corrections of data about them were warranted, they will be made.
Travelers who apply for redress through TRIP are assigned a record identifier called a “Redress Control Number”. Airline reservations systems allow passengers who have a Redress Control Number to enter it when making their reservation.
DHS TRIP may make it easier for an airline to confirm a traveler’s identity. False-positive travelers, whose names match or are similar to the names of persons on the No Fly List, will continue to match that name even after using DHS TRIP, so it will not restore a traveler’s ability to use Internet or curbside check-in or to use an automated kiosk. It does usually help the airline identify the traveler as not being the actual person on the No Fly List, after an airline agent has reviewed their identity documents at check-in.
DHS TRIP is often accused of being defunct and existing only to appease civil rights organizations without having any actual effect.[63]

The Mena Chronicles


Mena links (Courtesy of “Uncle Bill” at Free Republic)


A MENA BIBLIOGRAPHY

SUGGESTED BOOKS

Castillo, Celerino III and Harmon, Dave, POWDERBURNS, Oakville, Ont., Mosaic Press, 1994 Head of DEA in El Salvador discovered that the Contras were smuggling cocaine into the United States. Castillo’s superiors reacted to his reports by burying them. This book is too controversial for an American publisher to print.
Cockburn, Leslie, OUT OF CONTROL, New York, Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987 Early account of the of the Reagan Administration’s secret war in Nicaragua, the illegal arms pipeline and the Contra drug connection.
Johnson, Haynes, SLEEPWALKING THROUGH HISTORY, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 1991. Pg. 261-274, 292-293 History of the Reagan years traces the relationships of William Casey, Manuel Noriega and the Medellin cocaine cartel.
Levine, Michael, THE BIG WHITE LIE, New York, Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1993 DEA undercover investigator learns that the biggest deterrent to stopping the drug epidemic is the Central Intelligence Agency.
Levine, Michael, DEEP COVER, New York, Dell Publishing, 1990 DEA undercover operative penetrates the leadership of the Bolivian cocaine cartel, Panamanian money-launderers and Mexican military middle-men. But it is all for nought, as interference from the CIA and Attorney General Meese, along with DEA infighting, sabotage the investigation.
McCoy, Alfred, THE POLITICS OF HEROIN, Brooklyn, NY, Lawrence Hill Books, 1991 Excellent history about CIA complicity in the global drug trade, from the French Connection, to Southeast Asia and onward into the Afghanistan and Latin America. A must read.
Parry, Robert, FOOLING AMERICA, New York, William Morrow and Company, 1992 Several sections discuss Contra cocaine smuggling in this book which describes how Washington insiders twist the truth and manufacture the Conventional Wisdom.
Persico, Joseph E., CASEY, New York, Viking Penguin, 1990, pg..478-481 Biography on former CIA director William Casey briefly explores the relationships between the CIA and drug traffickers, as well as the protection of narco-CIA assets.
Reed, Terry and Cummings, John, COMPROMISED, New York, S.P.I. Books, 1994 The definitive book on Mena, Reed’s first person account of his CIA service on behalf of the Contras opens eyes as to the relationships between the CIA, drug trafficking and recent occupants of the White House. A second edition is in bookstores, however not from bankrupt S.P.I. Books. [I highly recommend this book]
Terrell, Jack with Martz, Ron, DISPOSABLE PATRIOT: REVELATIONS OF A SOLDIER IN AMERICA’S SECRET WARS, Washington, DC, National Press Books, 1992 ISBN 0-915765-38-1 An American soldier goes to fight the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But he discovers that the most dangerous war is the political infighting of Washington as politicians and covert operatives fight to save their political skins ans stay out of jail.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Adams, Lorraine, “North Didn’t Relay Drug Tips; DEA Says It Finds No Evidence Reagan Aide Talked to Agency,” WASHINGTON POST, October 22, 1994, pg A1 Oliver North knew his Contra network was smuggling cocaine, but he did not inform the DEA as required by law.
Anderson, Jack and Van Atta, Dale, “Drug Runner’s Legacy,” February 28, 1989 Federal authorities stonewall investigations into Barry Seal’s drug-trafficking.
Anderson, Jack and Van Atta, Dale, “Small Town for Smuggling,” March 1, 1989 Suspects say they worked for the CIA to turn back investigations into the cocaine of Mena.
Arbanas, Michael, “Hutchinson knew in 83 of Seal probe, ex-IRS agent says,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, September 19, 1990 IRS agent William Duncan claimed Asa Hutchinson knew about allegations of drug trafficking at Mena when he was US Attorney.
Arbanas, Michael, “Truth on Mena, Seal shrouded in shady allegations; Drug smuggling rumors just won’t die,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, December 22, 1990 Long overview of Mena evidence.
Arbanas, Michael, “FBI apparently investigating Mena, Seal,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, May 24, 1991
Bowers, Rodney, “Slain smuggler used airport,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, December 14, 1987 Evidence showing drug smuggler Barry Seal used Mena airport, and that federal Justice officials interfered in local law enforcement investigating the narcotics.
Bowers, Rodney, “House investigators opens Mena probe,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, December 17, 1987 Aide to Congressman William Hughes (D-NJ) visited Mena to gather evidence and testimony.
Brown, Chip, “Former DEA agent: North knew of cocaine shipments to US,” ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 17, 1994 DEA agent Celerino Castillo tells of his knowledge regarding drug smuggling through the Contra resupply network.
“Co-pilot held answers sought in investigation; But he died in plane crash in 1985,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 27, 1988, pg 6A
Cockburn, Alexander, “Chapters in the Recent History of Arkansas,” THE NATION, February 24, 1992 Describes what was revealed in court papers filed by Terry Reed in his case against Clinton aide Buddy Young regarding CIA Contra cocaine smuggling out of Mena.
Crudele, John, “Drugs and the CIA — A Scandal Unravels in Arkansas,” NEW YORK POST, April 21, 1995 Report that special prosecutor Kenneth Starr is investigating the CIA guns-for-drugs operations at Mena.
Crudele, John, “Bombshell in Arkansas Investigations Brings Both Parties the Jitters,” NEW YORK POST, August 14, 1995 Congressman Jim Leach’s Banking Committee and the House Judiciciary Committee investigate allegations of cocaine trafficking at Mena that point responsibility at the Clinton, Bush and Reagan administrations.
“Demo Says IRS Blocked Probe Of Drugs, Arms,” SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (ASSOCIATED PRESS), July 28, 1989 Rep. Alexander (D-Ark.) Charges the IRS with blocking investigations into cocaine of Mena.
“Deposition summarizes rumors about Seal,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 26, 1988, pg. 18A Former military investigator Gary Wheaton gave a sworn deposition claiming that Barry Seal engaged in gun-running and drug smuggling with the consent of the Drug Enforcement Administration and Central Intelligence Agency.
editorial, “Investigate Mena,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, July 10, 1995, pg A12
Epstein, Edward Jay, “On the Mena Trail,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, April 20, 1994 The Journal warns that beneath Clinton’s crimes, lie the crimes of Reagan and Bush.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Cocaine and Toga Parties,” SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, July 17, 1994 Describes evidence that Bill Clinton enjoyed drugs and young women.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “International Smugglers linked to Contra arms deals,” SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, October 9, 1994 Links Contra cocaine smuggling with Bill Clinton associate, Dan Lasater.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Airport scandal set to crash into White House,” DAILY TELEGRAPH, March 27, 1995 Recounts evidence provided by Terry Reed and William Duncan regarding cocaine trafficking through Arkansas.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Clinton Involved in CIA Arms and Drugs Racket,” SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, July 9, 1995 Reveals that AMERICAN SPECTATOR was about to publish and interview with former Clinton bodyguard, L.D. Brown. Conservative editor R. Emmett Tyrrell remarked how shocked he was to uncover CIA skullduggery involving the secret was against the Sandinistas.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Embattled Clinton falls back on Nixon’s Watergate defence,” ELECTRONIC TELEGRAPH, December 18, 1995
Haddigan, Michael, ” Fat Man’ key to mystery,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 26, 1988, pg. A1 Overview of the investigations and obstructions to uncovering the truth behind the cocaine of Mena.
Haddigan, Michael, “The Kingpin and his many connections,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 27, 1988, pg. 1A Explores the career of Barry Seal.
Haddigan, Michael, “Mena tires of rumors,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 28, 1988, pg. 1A Remote Mena airport does special refittings for planes from around the world.
Hanchette, John, “House Banking Committee Probing Tangles Tale of Mena, Ark.,” GANNETT NEWS SERVICE, January 25, 1996 House Banking Chairman Jim Leach is investigating Mena.
Harmon, Dave, “Ex-agent: Drug sales aided contras; Retired DEA man says smuggling, North venture linked,” CHICAGO TRIBUNE, January 26, 1993 Celerino Castillo describes the frustration in prosecuting cocaine smugglers involved with the Contra resupply network.
Henson, Maria, “Testimony reveals leak in drug probe: Cost Seal his life, witness says,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, July 29, 1988 House Judiciary subcommittee on crime hears DEA officials tell how a White House leak revealing Barry Seal’s undercover work ruined a major drug investigation.
Henson, Maria, “Alexander threatens budget ax to get agency’s cooperation; He pledges to continue investigation into drug trafficking,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, October 5, 1988 Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.) tries to force the Reagan administration to allow a General Accounting Office investigation into drug-trafficking around Mena.
“IRS says smuggler owes $29 million, seizes his property,” BATON ROUGE STATE TIMES, February 5, 1986, pg. 1-A Some of Barry Seal’s assets are listed.
“Judge set to rule in dispute over Seal’s tax assessment,” BATON ROUGE STATE TIMES, March 28, 1986
Kwitny, Jonathan, “Dope Story: Doubts Rise on Report Reagan Cited in Tying Sandinistas to Cocaine,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, April 22, 1987 Account of Barry Seal’s activities in Mena and his attempt as a DEA informant to connect the Sandinistas with cocaine trafficking.
Lemons, Terry and Fullerton, Jane, “Perot Called Clinton About Mena Inquiry,” ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE, April 19, 1992 In 1988, Ross Perot called Gov. Bill Clinton to discuss the allegations of cocaine trafficking on behalf of the Contras in Mena.
Lemons, Terry and Fullerton, Jane, “Perot Vows Mena Airport Won’t Be Issue If He Runs,” ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE, April 26, 1992. Perot confirms that he discussed Mena with Gov. Bill Clinton in 1988.
Morris, Scott, “Clinton: State did all it could in Mena case,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, September 11, 1991 Gov. Bill Clinton claims the Arkansas State Police conducted a “very vigorous” investigation into allegations of drugs and money-laundering around Mena.
Morrison, Micah, “Mena Coverup? Razorback Columbo to Retire,” WALL STREET JOURNAL May 10, 1995, pg. A18 Recounts the efforts of Arkansas State Policeman Russell Welch to investigate Mena, and the career troubles which ensued.
Morrison, Micah, “Mysterious Mena,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, June 29, 1994 Recounts the stories about allegations of U.S. government-protected drug-running in Arkansas.
Morrison, Micah, “The Mena Coverup” WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 18, 1994 IRS investigator William Duncan developed documentation proving the money-laundering of cocaine profits through Arkansas.
Nabbefeld, Joe, “Evidence on Mena-CIA ties to go to Walsh; Airport’s inclusion in Contra probe urged,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, September 10, 1991 Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh is given evidence on drug money-laundering involving CIA-Contra activities at Mena.
Norman, Jane, “Arkansas Airstrip Under Investigation,” DES MOINES REGISTER, January 26, 1996, pg. 3 House Banking Chairman Jim Leach is investigating Mena.
“Panel investigating slain informant’s activities,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, April 11, 1988 House investigators continue probing allegations of Contra cocaine smuggling.
Rafinski, Karen, “North gets boosters, protesters; Controversial Iran-Contra figure campaigns for Hayes,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, September 23, 1990 Oliver North visits Arkansas to support Republican Terry Hayes running against Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.).
Scarborough, Rowan, “House Panel Takes a Long Look at Mena,” WASHINGTON TIMES, January 18, 1996 House Banking Committee is investigating the cocaine trafficking at Mena.
Semien, John, “Agent says Seal trafficked drugs while an informant,” BATON ROUGE MORNING ADVOCATE, March 28, 1986 Louisiana state police describe their evidence that Barry Seal was a drug trafficker.
Semien, John, “Plane downed in Nicaragua once owned by Adler Barry Seal,” BATON ROUGE MORNING ADVOCATE, March 10, 1986 The plane shot down over Nicaragua, revealing the Iran-contra affair, was owned by drug smuggler Barry Seal.
Semien, John, “Congress investigating Barry Seal’s activities,” BATON ROUGE SUNDAY ADVOCATE, April 10, 1988 Investigators for the House Subcommittee on Crime visited Louisiana to develop evidence regarding cocaine smuggling and the Contra resupply network.
Stewart, Julie, “Contras, Drug Smuggling Questions Remain Abut Arkansas Airport, ASSOCIATED PRESS, September 24, 1991
Stinson, Jeffrey, “Alexander vows to find answers to Seal story,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, December 22, 1990 Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.) Renews his efforts for a federal investigation of Mena.
Stinson, Jeffrey, “House panel hears tales of illegal activities at Mena airport,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, July 25, 1991 IRS investigator William Duncan describes the evidence he collected on drug trafficking at Mena and how the Justice Department asked him to perjure himself before a grand jury.
Tyrrell, R. Emmett Jr., “Furtive Drug Flights,” August 25, 1995 Former Clinton bodyguard L.D. Brown reveals that apparently both Bill Clinton and George Bush knew about the Contra cocaine flights into Mena.
Walker, Martin, “Conspiracy theorists let imagination run riot over Whitewater scandal; Murder, arson, burglary, drug trafficking . . . they’re all part of he plot, if the Clintons’ accusers in the press are to be believed,” THE GUARDIAN, March 24, 1994 Recounts the darkest allegations against Bill Clinton.
Weiner, Tim, “Suit by Drug Agent Says U.S. Subverted His Burmese Efforts,” NEW YORK TIMES, October 27, 1994 Top DEA official in Burma describes how the State Department and CIA jeopardized his heroin investigations and put his life in danger.
MAGAZINE ARTICLES

Chua-Eoan, Howard G. and Shannon, Elaine, “Confidence Games,” TIME, November 29, 1993, pg.35 CIA facilities in Venezuela are used to store 1,000 kilos of cocaine that is shipped to Miami.
Corn, David, “The C.I.A. and the Cocaine Coup,” THE NATION, October 7, 1991, pg.404 Tells of CIA assistance in 1980 Bolivian coup that put cocaine cartel leaders into power.
COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN, “The CIA and Drugs” edition, Number 28 (Summer 1987) 8 articles on the history of CIA drug trafficking and money laundering. Ordering information at http://www.worldmedia.com/caq
Dettmer, Jamie and Rodriguez, Paul M., “Starr Investigation Targets Law-Enforcement Complicity,” INSIGHT, May 29, 1995 Report that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was investigating the shredding by Arkansas law enforcement of documents related to Iran-contra drug smuggling.
“Ghosts of carelessness past,” ECONOMIST, May 7, 1994, pg. 30 Summary of allegations regarding cocaine smuggling at Mena.
Robinson, Deborah, “Unsolved mysteries in Clinton country,” IN THESE TIMES, February 12-18, 1992 As Bill Clinton moved to gain the Democratic nomination for President, allegations surfaced that he ignored local law enforcement officials’ pleas for assistance to investigate Mena.
Robinson, Linda and Duffy, Brian, “At play in the field of the spies; A primer: How not to fight the war on drugs,” U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, November 29, 1993 CIA operatives in Venezuela were involved in or had known about drug shipments in the United States, but did nothing to stop them.
Tyrrell, R. Emmett Jr., “The Arkansas Drug Shuttle,” THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, August, 1995, pg.16 Story of former Clinton bodyguard, L.D. Brown, and his experiences in the Contra resupply operation
Wheeler, Scott L., “Dateline Mena: New Evidence, Rumored Congressional Inquiry Redirect Attention Toward Lingering Scandal,” MEDIA BYPASS, January, 1996, pg. 60 More allegations rise to surface regarding cocaine trafficking at Mena, including evidence that the drug smuggling continues unabated.
“Whitewater Ad Nauseam?” BUSINESSWEEK, February 26, 1996, pg.45 House Banking Chairman James Leach is investigating Mena.
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS

CONTINUED INVESTIGATION OF SENIOR-LEVEL EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT AND MISMANAGEMENT AT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Hearing before the Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, First Session, July 24, 1991, GOV DOC # Y 4.G 74/7:Em 7/16 House probe into why IRS investigator William Duncan faced a career crisis for documenting the money-laundering through Arkansas in the 1980s.
DRUGS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FOREIGN POLICY, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 1989, S. Prt. 100-165 Chaired by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the subcommittee heard abundant testimony by drug dealers and pilots about CIA connections to the smuggling.
ENFORCEMENT OF NARCOTICS, FIREARMS, AND MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS, Oversight Hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, Second Session, July 28, September 23, 29, and October 5, 1988, GOV DOC # Y 4.J 89/1:100/138 Investigation of connections between cocaine smuggler Barry Seal and the Contra resupply network.
IRS SENIOR EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT PROBLEMS, Hearings before the Commerce Consumer and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, July 25, 26 and 27, 1989, GOV DOC # Y 4.G 74/7:Em 7/11 Congressional hearings discover that IRS employee problems are due to employees investigating money-laundering of cocaine through Arkansas.
SYRIA, PRESIDENT BUSH AND DRUGS, Subcommittee Staff Report, House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, October 28, 1992 Reports that Bekaa Valley heroin traffickers have close ties to the Syrian government and Army, and that President Bush ignores this problem in his policy towards Syria.


SUMMARY OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JANET RENO

by Tami Kay Freedman
TamKay24@aol.com

We the people, present these charges against Attorney General Janet Reno:

1. DERILICTION OF DUTY (Ruby Ridge, Idaho – 1992)
Janet Reno refused to support the conclusion of a Justice Dept. investigation that found an FBI sniper shot which killed Vicki Weaver was unconstitutional. Senate testimony showed that an FBI sniper killed Vicki Weaver by shooting her in the head as she held her baby while standing with the door open on her front porch. The FBI snipers were shooting at the Weavers from over 200 yards away using rifles with 10 power scopes. The snipers and assistant FBI director Larry Potts, testified that they had the right to shoot and kill anyone if that person was holding a gun. Chairman Spector pointed out that such a situation did not warrant the use of deadly force according to FBI policy. On the House floor, Idaho representative, Helen Chenoweth, called for the resignation of Potts who was also responsible for the WACO disaster and a personal friend of FBI Director Freeh, the Reno appointee. Randy Weaver’s attorney called for Lon Horiuchi, the sniper, to be tried for murder based on the Justice Dept. investigation. Instead Horiuchi and Potts received paid leave for over two years. (SENATE RUBY RIDGE SIEGE INVESTIGATION)

2. FAILURE TO UPHOLD THE 4TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (Waco, Texas – 1993)
Janet Reno approved the CS military gas attack that led to the deaths of over 80 men, women and children who had never been charged with any crime. She also stated that she “could not find anything wrong” with FBI actions in Waco despite overwhelming video based evidence that the FBI was responsible for the deaths of the Davidians. An aerial video tape shows a tank destroying a Davidian building while people were still inside. Autopsy reports indicate that six bodies found in the rubble of that building were crushed to death. The Forward Looking Infared (FLIR) tape clearly shows heat images from bullets being fired at the Davidians as they tried to escape from the burning buildings. Janet Reno also could find no violation of the Posse Comitatus act which expressly prohibits the use of military equipment and personnel to enforce laws against American citizens unless authorized by the U.S. Constitution or act of Congress. (HOUSE BRANCH DAVIDIAN INCIDENT INVESTIGATION, RULES OF ENGAGEMENT – WILLIAM GAZECKI)

3. ABUSE OF POWER (Firing of all U.S. Attorneys – 1993)
Janet Reno fired all 94 United States Attorneys, a move unprecedented in American history, shortly after her appointment in March 1993. She stated that the replacement of all U.S. Attorneys was a “joint decision” with the White House. The liaison with the White House was the third highest ranking Justice Dept. official, associate attorney general, Webster Hubbell, who is now a convicted felon.

4. WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE (Fiske Appointment – 1993)
Janet Reno appointed Robert Fiske as a special independent prosecutor to investigate the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings even though Fiske was a lawyer for International Paper Inc., the company that had sold land to the Whitewater partnership of Clinton and McDougal. Fiske was also a lawyer for the Bank of Commerce and Credit, which received laundered drug money transfers from the Arkansas Development Finance Authority, (ADFA) as explained by ADFA marketing director Larry Nichols. Bank records show that the laundering abruptly ended when Barry Seal, who ran a Mena Arkansas drug trafficking ring was assassinated in 1986 just before he was to testify before a grand jury. ADFA was created by Bill Clinton, who was the only authorized payer. BCCI created one of the worst scandals in savings & loan history when it collapsed in 1985 and was shut down in July 1991. As president, Clinton dismissed charges against the head of BCCI, Clark Clifford, who was the former LBJ defense secretary. (CITIZENS FOR HONEST GOVERNMENT – CLINTON CHRONICLES)

5. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (Arkansas U.S. Attorney – 1993-present)
Janet Reno has refused a 1993 FBI investigation recommendation to prosecute Chuck Banks, the former Arkansas U.S. attorney who was to be tried for obstruction of justice for shutting down a federal drug investigation that implicated many people within the state and local governments. The investigation found compromised local judges and prosecutors, drug trafficking at Mena, money laundering through ADFA, suppression and distortion by the media and information about the murder of Kevin Ives and Don Henry as well as five other subsequent deaths. Assistant U.S. attorney Bob Govar, who resigned in protest, received much information from Jean Duffey, the head of a drug task force investigation that was shut down by Judge John Cole. Duffey was attacked with 200 false press articles, threatened with imprisonment on an illegal warrant issued by the same judge, pressured to turn over her investigation to the people she was investigating and forced to temporarily flee the state when her mother received a tip from a police dispatcher that she would be killed if imprisoned. Despite confiscation of task force evidence, Dan Harmon, a prosecutor that she implicated, was tried and convicted in June of 1997 on five drug related felony counts, each carrying a maximum of 20 years in jail and a $150,000 fine. Harmon was convicted in 1990 on tax evasion but had his suspended law license reinstated after Winston Bryant, the Arkansas attorney general under Governor Clinton, testified on his behalf. To date, no one has been charged in any of the murders, despite contentions of the task force undercover agents that the murders were easily solvable. (CITIZENS FOR HONEST GOVERNMENT – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE)

6. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE (Tyson / Espy Investigation – 1994)
Janet Reno barred expansion of the probe into the affairs of Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy so that it would not include Don Tyson, the Clinton campaign contributor who was accused of bribing Espy. The investigation of Mike Espy, conducted by independent prosecutor Donald Smaltz, revealed evidence that Don Tyson was involved in drug abuse, drug distribution, money laundering and even murder for hire. Much of the evidence already existed in Arkansas State Police intelligence files. Tyson, owner of Tyson foods, had contributed over $600,000 to Bill Clinton campaigns. Tyson Foods counselor, James Blair, was the individual who turned a $1,000 cattle futures investment into $100,000 for Hillary Clinton. (CITIZENS FOR HONEST GOVERNMENT – CLINTON CHRONICLES)

7. IMPEDING AN INVESTIGATION (Judicial Watch vs. Commerce Dept. 1993-Present)
The Janet Reno led Justice Dept. has repeatedly attempted to stymie Judicial Watch in their freedom of information suit against the Commerce Dept., even though the Justice Dept. role is to make sure that the Commerce Dept. responds properly. The Judicial Watch suit was responsible for the John Huang deposition, which led to the exposure of millions of dollars in illegal contributions to the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaigns. In February 1996, Judicial Watch also subpoenaed Ron Brown who was killed in the plane crash at Croatia during April 1996, while he was preparing for the deposition. An assistant U.S. attorney in the Justice Dept. filed numerous motions to delay the case, made repeated objections that were overruled during testimony and terminated a deposition against orders of the judge, who ruled that his conduct was “totally improper” and “totally scandalous.” (JUDICIAL WATCH, AMERICAN SPECTATOR 10/97)

8. GROSS FBI MISMANAGEMENT (William Sessions replacement with Louis Freeh – 1993)
Janet Reno fired William Sessions and replaced him with Louis Freeh on July 19, 1993, the day before the body of Vince Foster was found in Fort Marcy Park, Under Freeh, the FBI has entered the most incompetent, unaccountable period in its history as shown by these facts: – Louis Freeh promoted his close friend Larry Potts despite the assistant FBI director’s responsibility for both the disastrous Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges – Freeh’s FBI illegally gave Clinton Administration personnel over 900 files, including those on political adversaries. Freeh’s FBI General Counsel, Howard Shapriro, even briefed White House counsel Jack Quinn on the information Freeh ordered agents to illegally read Richard Jewell his miranda rights while Jewell was cooperating to film a training video. The order was issued by phone over the unanimous protest of all involved Atlanta FBI agents – Freeh’s FBI failed to process criminal background checks on citizenship applications resulting in over 70,000 criminals being granted U.S. citizenship in time for the 1996 elections – Freeh’s FBI has been cited along with the ATF by 13,500 Oklahomans who were granted a new grand jury investigation into the alleged government cover-up involving the Oklahoma City bombing – Freeh’s FBI crime labs were accused by agent Fredric Whitehurst of tainting evidence in high profile cases including the Oklahoma City bombing case – Freeh’s FBI agents interrogated agent Gary Aldrich about his book, Unlimited Access, as well as agent Dennis Sculimbrene about his Craig Livingstone background inquiry that linked the Livingstone hiring to Hillary Clinton. (WASHINGTON TIMES NATIONAL WEEKLY 3/23/97)

9. AIDING & ABETTING ORGANIZED CRIME (Laborers International Union of North America – 1996)
Janet Reno shut down the prosecution of Arthur Coia, the head of Laborers International Union of North America, who was investigated by the Justice Dept. over several years for corrupt labor union practices such as extortion, conspiring to prevent free elections and even death by fire bombing. They concluded in their 1994 complaint that he was “associated with, influenced from and controlled by” organized crime. His union political action committee, Laborers’ Political League, contributed over 4.5 million dollars to the Democrat National Committee and its candidates. In February of 1995, Coia also helped Hillary Clinton raise millions more dollars in a Miami Beach fund raiser at the Fountainbleau hotel for the top officials of his union. Also in February of 1995, the Justice Dept. dropped the complaint against Coia, signed a consent decree, withheld his prosecution and told him to clean up his own union. Officials of the Janet Reno led Justice Dept. now say that the consent decree was “the finest most practical resolution that’s ever been reached in a case of alleged mob influence.” Coia thanked them by being vice chairman of a May 1996 gala that raised $12,000,000 for Democrats. (NATIONAL LEGAL & POLICY CENTER, READERS DIGEST 4/96)

10. TREASON (Campaign Fund Raising – 1996)
Janet Reno refused three separate House committee requests in 1997 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Democratic National Committee and presidential fund raising scandal, despite clear evidence of treasonous policies made by Bill Clinton in exchange for contributions. The requests were made by the Judiciary Committee in March and September as well as the Government Reform and Oversight Committee in August. Nearly $1,000,000 in contributions from Charlie Trie were traced by the FBI to Ng Lap Seng who advises both the Chinese government and Communist party on business and economic matters. Bill Clinton helped John Huang get hired at the DNC and Commerce Dept., even though he was a former U.S. president of the Lippo Group, which has a partnership with the Chinese Communist government to run the Hong Kong Chinese bank and its affiliate in China. Even before he was hired, Huang received a top secret military clearance which allowed him to attend over 100 briefings and review dozens of classified documents. Consequently, Bill Clinton relaxed U.S. export restrictions to China for several types of military technology and supported an effort by the Chinese communist controlled China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), to take over the Long Beach military port. COSCO was caught shipping 2000 illegal AK-47s into the Oakland port on route to L.A. street gangs. The weapons came from Poly Technologies, just days before their chairman, Wang Jen, an internationally renowned arms dealer, met with Bill Clinton at the White House. Bill Clinton also ensured Indonesia’s monopoly on new low sulfur, super compliance coal when he declared 1.7 million acres in southern Utah as the Grand Escalante National Monument and made U.S. mining of the world’s largest deposit of that coal there unfeasible. Despite all of this, Reno said she could see no evidence that a special prosecutor was needed and even failed to notify the White House when the FBI informed her of Chinese attempts to influence the 1996 presidential elections. (SENATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMMITTEE, AMERICAN SPECTATOR 3/97, WASHINGTON TIMES 12/26/96 -12/30/96, 04/11/97-04/18/97)

11. VOTER FRAUD (INS Illegal Immigration – 1996)
Under Janet Reno, the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) registered 180,000 illegal immigrants just in time for the 1996 election. The INS typically registers about 300,000 immigrants per year. In 1996, they registered 1.1 million before the election, including 180,000 illegal immigrants and 70,000 criminals. In a House Appropriations Committee meeting, INS head Doris Meissner, confirmed that the INS was working closely with the Vice President and his office to register the immigrants. Meissner and other INS employees also acknowledged the existence of E-Mail messages from the Vice President’s office to the INS stating Bill Clinton’s frustration that the registration process may be going too slowly to be completed in time for the election. (HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUB COMMITTEE MEETING 4/4/97, SENATE ELECTION INVESTIGATION)

12. INCOMPETENCE (Bill Clinton sexual harassment suit – 1997)
Janet Reno filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in an attempt to support the claim by Bill Clinton that he should be shielded from the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit until he leaves office on the grounds that he is the commander and chief of the U.S. armed forces. The Supreme Count ruled unanimously, by a 9-0 count, against him. (WASHINGTON TIMES NATIONAL WEEKLY Vol.4 No.25)

13. TAMPERING (Hillary Clinton privilege claim – 1997)
Janet Reno attempted to compromise the Kenneth Starr investigation by challenging an 8th U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that found the Hillary Clinton personal attorney client privilege claim does not apply to White House lawyers who are paid by American taxpayers. The ruling, which was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, involved Vince Foster and Rose Law firm billing record matters that Hillary Clinton discussed on July 11, 1995 with White House counsels Miriam Nemetz and Jane Sherbourne, lawyers. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. (WASHINGTON TIMES NATIONAL WEEKLY Vol.4 No.25)

14. CONSPIRACY (Immunity refusal for Buddist nuns – 1997)
Janet Reno refused to grant immunity to four nuns who had contributed $5000 apiece to the Democratic National Committee at a fund raiser in the Hsi Lai Buddist temple in Hacienda Heights Cal, during April 1996. The event was attended by Vice President Al Gore who claimed he did not know it was a fund raiser even though evidence showed that virtually everyone on his staff knew it was a fund raiser and dozens of early 1996 documents confirmed it. The nuns, who like Buddist monks, are sworn to poverty, were unwilling to testify as to where they got the money unless granted immunity. Reno, admitted that the Justice Dept. would not prosecute the nuns but refused to grant immunity which helped conceal the illegal foreign source of the contributions. The bi-partisan Senate committee granted immunity to the nuns by votes of 15-1 and 13-3. The nuns testified that the related temple financial documents had been shredded. (SENATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION, AMERICAN SPECTATOR 10/97)
——–
Please Write Your NEWSPAPER about the need to FIRE JANET RENO!!
Write/Fax/Call!! And while you’re sending, you might want to send it to OUR Congress also!!
Thanks Again!!
YOU ARE TRULY GREAT!! Tami Kay Freedman
_____________________

The Konformist
http://www.konformist.com

If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire,
please visit http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist/ and sign up.

Or, e-mail konformist-subscribe@egroups.com with the subject: “I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!”
(Okay, you can use something else, but it’s a kool catch phrase.)

Mena (play /mnə/) mee-nə) is a city in Polk County, Arkansas, United States. It is also the county seat of Polk County.[1] It was founded by Arthur Edward Stilwell during the building of the Kansas City, Pittsburg and Gulf Railroad (now the Kansas City Southern). It was Stilwell who decided Mena would be the name of this new town along the route to Port Arthur, Texas. He named her so in honor of his beloved friend and financier Jan DeGeoijen’s wife, Folmina Margaretha Janssen DeGeoijen, whom Mr. DeGeoijen affectionately called Mena. Mena was settled in 1896.
The population was 5,637 as of 2000 census.
A number of allegations have been written about and several local, state, and federal investigations have taken place related to the notion of Mena as a drop point in large scale cocaine trafficking beginning in the latter part of the 1980s. The topic has received a large degree of its coverage due to the alleged knowledge, participation and/or coverup involvement of figures as powerful and infamous as future presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, as well future Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Saline County prosecutor Dan Harmon, who was convicted of numerous felonies including drug and racketeering charges in 1997.


The Crimes of Mena
By Sally Denton and Roger Morris
From the July 1995 issue of Penthouse Magazine.

This is the story that couldn’t be suppressed.
An investigative report into a scandal that haunts the reputations of three presidents

— Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.

Barry Seal — gunrunner, drug trafficker, and covert C.I.A. operative extraordinaire — is hardly a familiar name in American politics. But nine years after he was murdered in a hail of bullets by Medellin cartel hit men outside a Salvation Army shelter in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, he has come back to haunt the reputations of three American presidents.

Seal’s legacy includes more than 2,000 newly discovered documents that now verify and quantify much of what previously had been only suspicion, conjecture, and legend. The documents confirm that from 1981 to his brutal death in 1986, Barry Seal carried on one of the most lucrative, extensive, and brazen operations in the history of the international drug trade, and that he did it with the evident complicity, if not collusion, of elements of the United States government, apparently with the acquiescence of Ronald Reagan’s administration, impunity from any subsequent exposure by George Bush’s administration, and under the usually acute political nose of then Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.

The newly unearthed papers show the real Seal as far more impressive and well-connected than the character played by Dennis Hopper in a made-for-TV movie some years ago, loosely based on the smuggler’s life. The film portrayed the pudgy pilot as a hapless victim, caught in a cross fire between bungling but benign government agencies and Latin drug lords. The truth sprinkled through the documents is a richer — and altogether more sinister — matter of national and individual corruption. It is a tale of massive, socially devastating crime, of what seems to have been an official cover-up to match, and, not least, of the strange reluctance of so-called mainstream American journalism to come to grips with the phenomenon and its ominous implications — even when the documentary evidence had appeared.

The trail winds back to another slightly bruited but obscure name — a small place in western Arkansas called Mena.

Of the many stories emerging from the Arkansas of the 1980s that was crucible to the Clinton presidency, none has been more elusive than the charges surrounding Mena. Nestled in the dense pine and hardwood forests of the Oachita Mountains, some 160 miles west of Little Rock, once thought a refuge for nineteenth-century border outlaws and even a hotbed of Depression-era anarchists, the tiny town has been the locale for persistent reports of drug smuggling, gunrunning, and money laundering tracing to the early eighties, when Seal based his aircraft at Mena’s Intermountain Regional Airport.

From first accounts circulating locally in Arkansas, the story surfaced nationally as early as 1989 in a Penthouse article called “Snowbound,” written by the investigative reporter John Cummings, and in a Jack Anderson column, but was never advanced at the time by other media. Few reporters covering Clinton in the 1992 campaign missed hearing at least something about Mena. But it was obviously a serious and demanding subject — the specter of vast drug smuggling with C.I.A. involvement — and none of the major media pursued it seriously During 1992, the story was kept alive by Sarah McClendon, The Nation, and The Village Voice.

Then, after Clinton became president, Mena began to reappear. Over the past year, CBS News and The Wall Street Journal have reported the original, unquieted charges surrounding Mena, including the shadow of some C.I.A. (or “national security”) involvement in the gun and drug traffic, and the apparent failure of then governor Clinton to pursue evidence of such international crime so close to home.

“Seal was smuggling drugs and kept his planes at Mena,” The Wall Street Journal reported in 1994. “He also acted as an agent for the D.E.A. In one of these missions, he flew the plane that produced photographs of Sandinistas loading drugs in Nicaragua. He was killed by a drug gang [Medellin cartel hit men] in Baton Rouge. The cargo plane he flew was the same one later flown by Eugene Hasenfus when he was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of contra supplies.

In a mix of wild rumor and random fact, Mena has also been a topic of ubiquitous anti-Clinton diatribes circulated by right-wing extremists — an irony in that the Mena operation was the apparent brainchild of the two previous and Republican administrations.

Still, most of the larger American media have continued to ignore, if not ridicule, the Mena accusations. Finding no conspiracy in the Oachitas last July, a Washington Post reporter typically scoffed at the “alleged dark deeds,” contrasting Mena with an image as “Clandestination, Arkansas … Cloak and Dagger Capital of America.” Noting that The New York Times had “mentioned Mena primarily as the headquarters of the American Rock Garden Society,” the Columbia Journalism Review in a recent issue dismissed “the conspiracy theories” as of “dubious relevance.”

A former Little Rock businessman, Terry Reed, has coauthored with John Cummings a highly controversial book, Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the C.I.A., which describes a number of covert activities around Mena, including a C.I.A. operation to train pilots and troops for the Nicaraguan Contras, and the collusion of local officials. Both the book and its authors were greeted with derision.

Now, however, a new mass of documentary evidence has come to light regarding just such “dark deeds” — previously private and secret records that substantiate as never before some of the worst and most portentous suspicions about what went on at Mena, Arkansas, a decade ago.

Given the scope and implications of the Mena story, it may be easy to understand the media’s initial skepticism and reluctance. But it was never so easy to dismiss the testimony arid suspicions of some of those close to the matter: Internal Revenue Service Agent Bill Duncan, Arkansas State Police investigator Russell Welch, Arkansas Attorney General J. Winston Bryant, Congressman Bill Alexander, and various other local law-enforcement officials and citizens.

All of these people were convinced by the late eighties that there existed what Bryant termed “credible evidence” of the most serious criminal activity involving Mena between 1981 and 1986. They also believed that the crimes were committed with the acquiescence, if not the complicity, of elements of the U.S. government. But they couldn’t seem to get the national media to pay attention.

During the 1992 campaign, outside advisers and aides urged former California governor Jerry Brown to raise the Mena issue against Clinton — at least to ask why the Arkansas governor had not done more about such serious international crime so close to home. But Brown, too, backed away from the subject. I’ll raise it if the major media break it first,” he told aides. “The media will do it, Governor,” one of them replied in frustration, “if only you’ll raise it.”

Mena’s obscure airport was thought by the I.R.S., the F.B.I., U.S. Customs, and the Arkansas State Police to be a base for Adler Berriman “Barry” Seal, a self-confessed, convicted smuggler whose operations had been linked to the intelligence community. Duncan and Welch both spent years building cases against Seal and others for drug smuggling and money laundering around Mena, only to see their own law-enforcement careers damaged in the process.

What evidence they gathered, they have said in testimony and other public statements, was not sufficiently pursued by the then U.S. attorney for the region, J. Michael Fitzhugh, or by the I.R.S., Arkansas State Police, and other agencies. Duncan, testifying before the joint investigation by the Arkansas state attorney general’s office and the United States Congress in June 1991, said that 29 federal indictments drafted in a Mena-based money-laundering scheme had gone unexplored. Fitzhugh, responding at the time to Duncan’s charges, said, “This office has not slowed up any investigation … [and] has never been under any pressure in any investigation.”

By 1992, to Duncan’s and Welch’s mounting dismay, several other official inquiries into the alleged Mena connection were similarly ineffectual or were stifled altogether, furthering their suspicions of government collusion and cover-up. In his testimony before Congress, Duncan said the I.R.S. “withdrew support for the operations” and further directed him to “withhold information from Congress and perjure myself.”

Duncan later testified that he had never before experienced “anything remotely akin to this type of interference…. Alarms were going off,” he continued, “and as soon as Mr. Fitzhugh got involved, he was more aggressive in not allowing the subpoenas and in interfering in the investigative process.”

State policeman Russell Welch felt he was “probably the most knowledgeable person” regarding the activities at Mena, yet he was not initially subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. Welch testified later that the only reason he was ultimately subpoenaed at all was because one of the grand jurors was from Mena and “told the others that if they wanted to know something about the Mena airport, they ought to ask that guy [Welch] out there in the hall.”

State Attorney General Bryant, in a 1991 letter to the office of Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation, wondered “why no one was prosecuted in Arkansas despite a mountain of evidence that Seal was using Arkansas as his principal staging area during the years 1982 through 1985.”

What actually went on in the woods of western Arkansas? The question is still relevant for what it may reveal about certain government operations during the time that Reagan and Bush were in the White House and Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

In a mass of startling new documentation — the more than 2,000 papers gathered by the authors from private and law-enforcement sources in a year-long nationwide search — answers are found and serious questions are posed.

These newly unearthed documents — the veritable private papers of Barry Seal — substantiate at least part of what went on at Mena.

What might be called the Seal archive dates back to 1981, when Seal began his operations at the Intermountain Regional Airport in Mena. The archive, all of it now in our possession, continues beyond February 1986, when Seal was murdered by Colombian assassins after he had testified in federal court in Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami for the U.S. government against leaders of the Medellin drug cartel.

The papers include such seemingly innocuous material as Seal’s bank and telephone records; negotiable instruments, promissory notes, and invoices; personal correspondence address and appointment books; bills of sale for aircraft and boats; aircraft registration, and modification work orders.

In addition, the archive also contains personal diaries; handwritten to-do lists and other private notes; secretly tape-recorded conversations; and cryptographic keys and legends for codes used in the Seal operation.

Finally, there are extensive official records: federal investigative and surveillance reports, accounting assessments by the I.R.S. and the D.E.A., and court proceedings not previously reported in the press — testimony as well as confidential pre-sentencing memoranda in federal narcotics-trafficking trials in Florida and Nevada — numerous depositions, and other sworn statements.

The archive paints a vivid portrait not only of a major criminal conspiracy around Mena, but also of the unmistakable shadow of government complicity. Among the new revelations:

Mena, from 1981 to 1985, was indeed one of the centers for international smuggling traffic. According to official I.R.S. and D.E.A. calculations, sworn court testimony, and other corroborative records, the traffic amounted to thousands of kilos of cocaine and heroin and literally hundreds of millions of dollars in drug profits. According to a 1986 letter from the Louisiana attorney general to then U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese, Seal “smuggled between $3 billion and $5 billion of drugs into the U.S.”

Seal himself spent considerable sums to land, base, maintain, and specially equip or refit his aircraft for smuggling. According to personal and business records, he had extensive associations at Mena and in Little Rock, and was in nearly constant telephone contact with Mena when he was not there himself. Phone records indicate Seal made repeated calls to Mena the day before his murder. This was long after Seal, according to his own testimony, was working as an $800,000-a-year informant for the federal government.

A former member of the Army Special Forces, Seal had ties to the Central Intelligence Agency dating to the early 1970s. He had confided to relatives and others, according to their sworn statements, that he was a C.I.A. operative before and during the period when he established his operations at Mena. In one statement to Louisiana State Police, a Seal relative said, “Barry was into gunrunning and drug smuggling in Central and South America … and he had done some time in El Salvadore [sic].” Another then added, “lt was true, but at the time Barry was working for the C.I.A.”

In a posthumous jeopardy-assessment case against Seal — also documented in the archive — the I.R.S. determined that money earned by Seal between 1984 and 1986 was not illegal because of his “C.I.A.-D.E.A. employment.” The only public official acknowledgment of Seal’s relationship to the C.I.A. has been in court and congressional testimony, and in various published accounts describing the C.I.A.’s installation of cameras in Seal’s C-123K transport plane, used in a highly celebrated 1984 sting operation against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

Robert Joura, the assistant special agent in charge of the D.E.A.’s Houston office and the agent who coordinated Seal’s undercover work, told The Washington Post last year that Seal was enlisted by the C.I.A. for one sensitive mission — providing photographic evidence that the Sandinistas were letting cocaine from Colombia move through Nicaragua. A spokesman for then Senate candidate Oliver North told The Post that North had been kept aware of Seal’s work through “intelligence sources.”

Federal Aviation Administration registration records contained in the archive confirm that aircraft identified by federal and state narcotics agents as in the Seal smuggling operation were previously owned by Air America, Inc., widely reported to have been a C.I.A. proprietary company. Emile Camp, one of Seal’s pilots and a witness to some of his most significant dealings, was killed on a mountainside near Mena in 1985 in the unexplained crash of one of those planes that had once belonged to Air America.

According to still other Seal records, at least some of the aircraft in his smuggling fleet, which included a Lear jet, helicopters, and former U.S. military transports, were also outfitted with avionics and other equipment by yet another company in turn linked to Air America.

Among the aircraft flown in and out of Mena was Seal’s C-123K cargo plane, christened Fat Lady. The records show that Fat Lady, serial number 54-0679, was sold by Seal months before his death. According to other files, the plane soon found its way to a phantom company of what became known in the Iran-Contra scandal as “the Enterprise,” the C.I.A.-related secret entity managed by Oliver North and others to smuggle illegal weapons to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. According to former D.E.A. agent Celerino Castillo and others, the aircraft was allegedly involved in a return traffic in cocaine, profits from which were then used to finance more clandestine gunrunning.

F.A.A. records show that in October 1986, the same Fat Lady was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of arms destined for the Contras. Documents found on board the aircraft and seized by the Sandinistas included logs linking the plane with Area 51 — the nation’s top-secret nuclear-weapons facility at the Nevada Test Site. The doomed aircraft was co-piloted by Wallace Blaine “Buzz” Sawyer, a native of western Arkansas, who died in the crash. The admissions of the surviving crew member, Eugene Hasenfus, began a public unraveling of the Iran-Contra episode.

An Arkansas gun manufacturer testified in 1993 in federal court in Fayetteville that the C.I.A. contracted with him to build 250 automatic pistols for the Mena operation. William Holmes testified that he had been introduced to Seal in Mena by a C.I.A. operative, and that he then sold weapons to Seal. Even though he was given a Department of Defense purchase order for guns fitted with silencers, Holmes testified that he was never paid the $140,000 the government owed him. “After the Hasenfus plane was shot down,” Holmes said, “you couldn’t find a soul around Mena.”

Meanwhile, there was still more evidence that Seal’s massive smuggling operation based in Arkansas had been part of a C.I.A. operation, and that the crimes were continuing well after Seal’s murder. In 1991 sworn testimony to both Congressman Alexander and Attorney General Bryant, state police investigator Welch recorded that in 1987 he had documented “new activity at the [Mena] airport with the appearance of … an Australian business [a company linked with the C.I.A.], and C-130s had appeared….”

At the same time, according to Welch, two F.B.I. agents officially informed him that the C.I.A. “had something going on at the Mena Airport involving Southern Air Transport [another company linked with the C.I.A.] … and they didn’t want us [the Arkansas State Police] to sc


Mena links (Courtesy of “Uncle Bill” at Free Republic)


A MENA BIBLIOGRAPHY

SUGGESTED BOOKS

Castillo, Celerino III and Harmon, Dave, POWDERBURNS, Oakville, Ont., Mosaic Press, 1994 Head of DEA in El Salvador discovered that the Contras were smuggling cocaine into the United States. Castillo’s superiors reacted to his reports by burying them. This book is too controversial for an American publisher to print.
Cockburn, Leslie, OUT OF CONTROL, New York, Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987 Early account of the of the Reagan Administration’s secret war in Nicaragua, the illegal arms pipeline and the Contra drug connection.
Johnson, Haynes, SLEEPWALKING THROUGH HISTORY, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 1991. Pg. 261-274, 292-293 History of the Reagan years traces the relationships of William Casey, Manuel Noriega and the Medellin cocaine cartel.
Levine, Michael, THE BIG WHITE LIE, New York, Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1993 DEA undercover investigator learns that the biggest deterrent to stopping the drug epidemic is the Central Intelligence Agency.
Levine, Michael, DEEP COVER, New York, Dell Publishing, 1990 DEA undercover operative penetrates the leadership of the Bolivian cocaine cartel, Panamanian money-launderers and Mexican military middle-men. But it is all for nought, as interference from the CIA and Attorney General Meese, along with DEA infighting, sabotage the investigation.
McCoy, Alfred, THE POLITICS OF HEROIN, Brooklyn, NY, Lawrence Hill Books, 1991 Excellent history about CIA complicity in the global drug trade, from the French Connection, to Southeast Asia and onward into the Afghanistan and Latin America. A must read.
Parry, Robert, FOOLING AMERICA, New York, William Morrow and Company, 1992 Several sections discuss Contra cocaine smuggling in this book which describes how Washington insiders twist the truth and manufacture the Conventional Wisdom.
Persico, Joseph E., CASEY, New York, Viking Penguin, 1990, pg..478-481 Biography on former CIA director William Casey briefly explores the relationships between the CIA and drug traffickers, as well as the protection of narco-CIA assets.
Reed, Terry and Cummings, John, COMPROMISED, New York, S.P.I. Books, 1994 The definitive book on Mena, Reed’s first person account of his CIA service on behalf of the Contras opens eyes as to the relationships between the CIA, drug trafficking and recent occupants of the White House. A second edition is in bookstores, however not from bankrupt S.P.I. Books. [I highly recommend this book]
Terrell, Jack with Martz, Ron, DISPOSABLE PATRIOT: REVELATIONS OF A SOLDIER IN AMERICA’S SECRET WARS, Washington, DC, National Press Books, 1992 ISBN 0-915765-38-1 An American soldier goes to fight the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But he discovers that the most dangerous war is the political infighting of Washington as politicians and covert operatives fight to save their political skins ans stay out of jail.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Adams, Lorraine, “North Didn’t Relay Drug Tips; DEA Says It Finds No Evidence Reagan Aide Talked to Agency,” WASHINGTON POST, October 22, 1994, pg A1 Oliver North knew his Contra network was smuggling cocaine, but he did not inform the DEA as required by law.
Anderson, Jack and Van Atta, Dale, “Drug Runner’s Legacy,” February 28, 1989 Federal authorities stonewall investigations into Barry Seal’s drug-trafficking.
Anderson, Jack and Van Atta, Dale, “Small Town for Smuggling,” March 1, 1989 Suspects say they worked for the CIA to turn back investigations into the cocaine of Mena.
Arbanas, Michael, “Hutchinson knew in 83 of Seal probe, ex-IRS agent says,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, September 19, 1990 IRS agent William Duncan claimed Asa Hutchinson knew about allegations of drug trafficking at Mena when he was US Attorney.
Arbanas, Michael, “Truth on Mena, Seal shrouded in shady allegations; Drug smuggling rumors just won’t die,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, December 22, 1990 Long overview of Mena evidence.
Arbanas, Michael, “FBI apparently investigating Mena, Seal,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, May 24, 1991
Bowers, Rodney, “Slain smuggler used airport,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, December 14, 1987 Evidence showing drug smuggler Barry Seal used Mena airport, and that federal Justice officials interfered in local law enforcement investigating the narcotics.
Bowers, Rodney, “House investigators opens Mena probe,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, December 17, 1987 Aide to Congressman William Hughes (D-NJ) visited Mena to gather evidence and testimony.
Brown, Chip, “Former DEA agent: North knew of cocaine shipments to US,” ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 17, 1994 DEA agent Celerino Castillo tells of his knowledge regarding drug smuggling through the Contra resupply network.
“Co-pilot held answers sought in investigation; But he died in plane crash in 1985,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 27, 1988, pg 6A
Cockburn, Alexander, “Chapters in the Recent History of Arkansas,” THE NATION, February 24, 1992 Describes what was revealed in court papers filed by Terry Reed in his case against Clinton aide Buddy Young regarding CIA Contra cocaine smuggling out of Mena.
Crudele, John, “Drugs and the CIA — A Scandal Unravels in Arkansas,” NEW YORK POST, April 21, 1995 Report that special prosecutor Kenneth Starr is investigating the CIA guns-for-drugs operations at Mena.
Crudele, John, “Bombshell in Arkansas Investigations Brings Both Parties the Jitters,” NEW YORK POST, August 14, 1995 Congressman Jim Leach’s Banking Committee and the House Judiciciary Committee investigate allegations of cocaine trafficking at Mena that point responsibility at the Clinton, Bush and Reagan administrations.
“Demo Says IRS Blocked Probe Of Drugs, Arms,” SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (ASSOCIATED PRESS), July 28, 1989 Rep. Alexander (D-Ark.) Charges the IRS with blocking investigations into cocaine of Mena.
“Deposition summarizes rumors about Seal,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 26, 1988, pg. 18A Former military investigator Gary Wheaton gave a sworn deposition claiming that Barry Seal engaged in gun-running and drug smuggling with the consent of the Drug Enforcement Administration and Central Intelligence Agency.
editorial, “Investigate Mena,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, July 10, 1995, pg A12
Epstein, Edward Jay, “On the Mena Trail,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, April 20, 1994 The Journal warns that beneath Clinton’s crimes, lie the crimes of Reagan and Bush.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Cocaine and Toga Parties,” SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, July 17, 1994 Describes evidence that Bill Clinton enjoyed drugs and young women.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “International Smugglers linked to Contra arms deals,” SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, October 9, 1994 Links Contra cocaine smuggling with Bill Clinton associate, Dan Lasater.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Airport scandal set to crash into White House,” DAILY TELEGRAPH, March 27, 1995 Recounts evidence provided by Terry Reed and William Duncan regarding cocaine trafficking through Arkansas.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Clinton Involved in CIA Arms and Drugs Racket,” SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, July 9, 1995 Reveals that AMERICAN SPECTATOR was about to publish and interview with former Clinton bodyguard, L.D. Brown. Conservative editor R. Emmett Tyrrell remarked how shocked he was to uncover CIA skullduggery involving the secret was against the Sandinistas.
Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Embattled Clinton falls back on Nixon’s Watergate defence,” ELECTRONIC TELEGRAPH, December 18, 1995
Haddigan, Michael, ” Fat Man’ key to mystery,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 26, 1988, pg. A1 Overview of the investigations and obstructions to uncovering the truth behind the cocaine of Mena.
Haddigan, Michael, “The Kingpin and his many connections,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 27, 1988, pg. 1A Explores the career of Barry Seal.
Haddigan, Michael, “Mena tires of rumors,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, June 28, 1988, pg. 1A Remote Mena airport does special refittings for planes from around the world.
Hanchette, John, “House Banking Committee Probing Tangles Tale of Mena, Ark.,” GANNETT NEWS SERVICE, January 25, 1996 House Banking Chairman Jim Leach is investigating Mena.
Harmon, Dave, “Ex-agent: Drug sales aided contras; Retired DEA man says smuggling, North venture linked,” CHICAGO TRIBUNE, January 26, 1993 Celerino Castillo describes the frustration in prosecuting cocaine smugglers involved with the Contra resupply network.
Henson, Maria, “Testimony reveals leak in drug probe: Cost Seal his life, witness says,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, July 29, 1988 House Judiciary subcommittee on crime hears DEA officials tell how a White House leak revealing Barry Seal’s undercover work ruined a major drug investigation.
Henson, Maria, “Alexander threatens budget ax to get agency’s cooperation; He pledges to continue investigation into drug trafficking,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, October 5, 1988 Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.) tries to force the Reagan administration to allow a General Accounting Office investigation into drug-trafficking around Mena.
“IRS says smuggler owes $29 million, seizes his property,” BATON ROUGE STATE TIMES, February 5, 1986, pg. 1-A Some of Barry Seal’s assets are listed.
“Judge set to rule in dispute over Seal’s tax assessment,” BATON ROUGE STATE TIMES, March 28, 1986
Kwitny, Jonathan, “Dope Story: Doubts Rise on Report Reagan Cited in Tying Sandinistas to Cocaine,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, April 22, 1987 Account of Barry Seal’s activities in Mena and his attempt as a DEA informant to connect the Sandinistas with cocaine trafficking.
Lemons, Terry and Fullerton, Jane, “Perot Called Clinton About Mena Inquiry,” ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE, April 19, 1992 In 1988, Ross Perot called Gov. Bill Clinton to discuss the allegations of cocaine trafficking on behalf of the Contras in Mena.
Lemons, Terry and Fullerton, Jane, “Perot Vows Mena Airport Won’t Be Issue If He Runs,” ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE, April 26, 1992. Perot confirms that he discussed Mena with Gov. Bill Clinton in 1988.
Morris, Scott, “Clinton: State did all it could in Mena case,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, September 11, 1991 Gov. Bill Clinton claims the Arkansas State Police conducted a “very vigorous” investigation into allegations of drugs and money-laundering around Mena.
Morrison, Micah, “Mena Coverup? Razorback Columbo to Retire,” WALL STREET JOURNAL May 10, 1995, pg. A18 Recounts the efforts of Arkansas State Policeman Russell Welch to investigate Mena, and the career troubles which ensued.
Morrison, Micah, “Mysterious Mena,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, June 29, 1994 Recounts the stories about allegations of U.S. government-protected drug-running in Arkansas.
Morrison, Micah, “The Mena Coverup” WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 18, 1994 IRS investigator William Duncan developed documentation proving the money-laundering of cocaine profits through Arkansas.
Nabbefeld, Joe, “Evidence on Mena-CIA ties to go to Walsh; Airport’s inclusion in Contra probe urged,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, September 10, 1991 Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh is given evidence on drug money-laundering involving CIA-Contra activities at Mena.
Norman, Jane, “Arkansas Airstrip Under Investigation,” DES MOINES REGISTER, January 26, 1996, pg. 3 House Banking Chairman Jim Leach is investigating Mena.
“Panel investigating slain informant’s activities,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, April 11, 1988 House investigators continue probing allegations of Contra cocaine smuggling.
Rafinski, Karen, “North gets boosters, protesters; Controversial Iran-Contra figure campaigns for Hayes,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, September 23, 1990 Oliver North visits Arkansas to support Republican Terry Hayes running against Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.).
Scarborough, Rowan, “House Panel Takes a Long Look at Mena,” WASHINGTON TIMES, January 18, 1996 House Banking Committee is investigating the cocaine trafficking at Mena.
Semien, John, “Agent says Seal trafficked drugs while an informant,” BATON ROUGE MORNING ADVOCATE, March 28, 1986 Louisiana state police describe their evidence that Barry Seal was a drug trafficker.
Semien, John, “Plane downed in Nicaragua once owned by Adler Barry Seal,” BATON ROUGE MORNING ADVOCATE, March 10, 1986 The plane shot down over Nicaragua, revealing the Iran-contra affair, was owned by drug smuggler Barry Seal.
Semien, John, “Congress investigating Barry Seal’s activities,” BATON ROUGE SUNDAY ADVOCATE, April 10, 1988 Investigators for the House Subcommittee on Crime visited Louisiana to develop evidence regarding cocaine smuggling and the Contra resupply network.
Stewart, Julie, “Contras, Drug Smuggling Questions Remain Abut Arkansas Airport, ASSOCIATED PRESS, September 24, 1991
Stinson, Jeffrey, “Alexander vows to find answers to Seal story,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, December 22, 1990 Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.) Renews his efforts for a federal investigation of Mena.
Stinson, Jeffrey, “House panel hears tales of illegal activities at Mena airport,” ARKANSAS GAZETTE, July 25, 1991 IRS investigator William Duncan describes the evidence he collected on drug trafficking at Mena and how the Justice Department asked him to perjure himself before a grand jury.
Tyrrell, R. Emmett Jr., “Furtive Drug Flights,” August 25, 1995 Former Clinton bodyguard L.D. Brown reveals that apparently both Bill Clinton and George Bush knew about the Contra cocaine flights into Mena.
Walker, Martin, “Conspiracy theorists let imagination run riot over Whitewater scandal; Murder, arson, burglary, drug trafficking . . . they’re all part of he plot, if the Clintons’ accusers in the press are to be believed,” THE GUARDIAN, March 24, 1994 Recounts the darkest allegations against Bill Clinton.
Weiner, Tim, “Suit by Drug Agent Says U.S. Subverted His Burmese Efforts,” NEW YORK TIMES, October 27, 1994 Top DEA official in Burma describes how the State Department and CIA jeopardized his heroin investigations and put his life in danger.
MAGAZINE ARTICLES

Chua-Eoan, Howard G. and Shannon, Elaine, “Confidence Games,” TIME, November 29, 1993, pg.35 CIA facilities in Venezuela are used to store 1,000 kilos of cocaine that is shipped to Miami.
Corn, David, “The C.I.A. and the Cocaine Coup,” THE NATION, October 7, 1991, pg.404 Tells of CIA assistance in 1980 Bolivian coup that put cocaine cartel leaders into power.
COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN, “The CIA and Drugs” edition, Number 28 (Summer 1987) 8 articles on the history of CIA drug trafficking and money laundering. Ordering information at http://www.worldmedia.com/caq
Dettmer, Jamie and Rodriguez, Paul M., “Starr Investigation Targets Law-Enforcement Complicity,” INSIGHT, May 29, 1995 Report that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was investigating the shredding by Arkansas law enforcement of documents related to Iran-contra drug smuggling.
“Ghosts of carelessness past,” ECONOMIST, May 7, 1994, pg. 30 Summary of allegations regarding cocaine smuggling at Mena.
Robinson, Deborah, “Unsolved mysteries in Clinton country,” IN THESE TIMES, February 12-18, 1992 As Bill Clinton moved to gain the Democratic nomination for President, allegations surfaced that he ignored local law enforcement officials’ pleas for assistance to investigate Mena.
Robinson, Linda and Duffy, Brian, “At play in the field of the spies; A primer: How not to fight the war on drugs,” U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, November 29, 1993 CIA operatives in Venezuela were involved in or had known about drug shipments in the United States, but did nothing to stop them.
Tyrrell, R. Emmett Jr., “The Arkansas Drug Shuttle,” THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, August, 1995, pg.16 Story of former Clinton bodyguard, L.D. Brown, and his experiences in the Contra resupply operation
Wheeler, Scott L., “Dateline Mena: New Evidence, Rumored Congressional Inquiry Redirect Attention Toward Lingering Scandal,” MEDIA BYPASS, January, 1996, pg. 60 More allegations rise to surface regarding cocaine trafficking at Mena, including evidence that the drug smuggling continues unabated.
“Whitewater Ad Nauseam?” BUSINESSWEEK, February 26, 1996, pg.45 House Banking Chairman James Leach is investigating Mena.
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS

CONTINUED INVESTIGATION OF SENIOR-LEVEL EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT AND MISMANAGEMENT AT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Hearing before the Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, First Session, July 24, 1991, GOV DOC # Y 4.G 74/7:Em 7/16 House probe into why IRS investigator William Duncan faced a career crisis for documenting the money-laundering through Arkansas in the 1980s.
DRUGS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FOREIGN POLICY, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 1989, S. Prt. 100-165 Chaired by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the subcommittee heard abundant testimony by drug dealers and pilots about CIA connections to the smuggling.
ENFORCEMENT OF NARCOTICS, FIREARMS, AND MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS, Oversight Hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, Second Session, July 28, September 23, 29, and October 5, 1988, GOV DOC # Y 4.J 89/1:100/138 Investigation of connections between cocaine smuggler Barry Seal and the Contra resupply network.
IRS SENIOR EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT PROBLEMS, Hearings before the Commerce Consumer and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, July 25, 26 and 27, 1989, GOV DOC # Y 4.G 74/7:Em 7/11 Congressional hearings discover that IRS employee problems are due to employees investigating money-laundering of cocaine through Arkansas.
SYRIA, PRESIDENT BUSH AND DRUGS, Subcommittee Staff Report, House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, October 28, 1992 Reports that Bekaa Valley heroin traffickers have close ties to the Syrian government and Army, and that President Bush ignores this problem in his policy towards Syria.


SUMMARY OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JANET RENO

by Tami Kay Freedman
TamKay24@aol.com

We the people, present these charges against Attorney General Janet Reno:

1. DERILICTION OF DUTY (Ruby Ridge, Idaho – 1992)
Janet Reno refused to support the conclusion of a Justice Dept. investigation that found an FBI sniper shot which killed Vicki Weaver was unconstitutional. Senate testimony showed that an FBI sniper killed Vicki Weaver by shooting her in the head as she held her baby while standing with the door open on her front porch. The FBI snipers were shooting at the Weavers from over 200 yards away using rifles with 10 power scopes. The snipers and assistant FBI director Larry Potts, testified that they had the right to shoot and kill anyone if that person was holding a gun. Chairman Spector pointed out that such a situation did not warrant the use of deadly force according to FBI policy. On the House floor, Idaho representative, Helen Chenoweth, called for the resignation of Potts who was also responsible for the WACO disaster and a personal friend of FBI Director Freeh, the Reno appointee. Randy Weaver’s attorney called for Lon Horiuchi, the sniper, to be tried for murder based on the Justice Dept. investigation. Instead Horiuchi and Potts received paid leave for over two years. (SENATE RUBY RIDGE SIEGE INVESTIGATION)

2. FAILURE TO UPHOLD THE 4TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (Waco, Texas – 1993)
Janet Reno approved the CS military gas attack that led to the deaths of over 80 men, women and children who had never been charged with any crime. She also stated that she “could not find anything wrong” with FBI actions in Waco despite overwhelming video based evidence that the FBI was responsible for the deaths of the Davidians. An aerial video tape shows a tank destroying a Davidian building while people were still inside. Autopsy reports indicate that six bodies found in the rubble of that building were crushed to death. The Forward Looking Infared (FLIR) tape clearly shows heat images from bullets being fired at the Davidians as they tried to escape from the burning buildings. Janet Reno also could find no violation of the Posse Comitatus act which expressly prohibits the use of military equipment and personnel to enforce laws against American citizens unless authorized by the U.S. Constitution or act of Congress. (HOUSE BRANCH DAVIDIAN INCIDENT INVESTIGATION, RULES OF ENGAGEMENT – WILLIAM GAZECKI)

3. ABUSE OF POWER (Firing of all U.S. Attorneys – 1993)
Janet Reno fired all 94 United States Attorneys, a move unprecedented in American history, shortly after her appointment in March 1993. She stated that the replacement of all U.S. Attorneys was a “joint decision” with the White House. The liaison with the White House was the third highest ranking Justice Dept. official, associate attorney general, Webster Hubbell, who is now a convicted felon.

4. WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE (Fiske Appointment – 1993)
Janet Reno appointed Robert Fiske as a special independent prosecutor to investigate the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings even though Fiske was a lawyer for International Paper Inc., the company that had sold land to the Whitewater partnership of Clinton and McDougal. Fiske was also a lawyer for the Bank of Commerce and Credit, which received laundered drug money transfers from the Arkansas Development Finance Authority, (ADFA) as explained by ADFA marketing director Larry Nichols. Bank records show that the laundering abruptly ended when Barry Seal, who ran a Mena Arkansas drug trafficking ring was assassinated in 1986 just before he was to testify before a grand jury. ADFA was created by Bill Clinton, who was the only authorized payer. BCCI created one of the worst scandals in savings & loan history when it collapsed in 1985 and was shut down in July 1991. As president, Clinton dismissed charges against the head of BCCI, Clark Clifford, who was the former LBJ defense secretary. (CITIZENS FOR HONEST GOVERNMENT – CLINTON CHRONICLES)

5. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (Arkansas U.S. Attorney – 1993-present)
Janet Reno has refused a 1993 FBI investigation recommendation to prosecute Chuck Banks, the former Arkansas U.S. attorney who was to be tried for obstruction of justice for shutting down a federal drug investigation that implicated many people within the state and local governments. The investigation found compromised local judges and prosecutors, drug trafficking at Mena, money laundering through ADFA, suppression and distortion by the media and information about the murder of Kevin Ives and Don Henry as well as five other subsequent deaths. Assistant U.S. attorney Bob Govar, who resigned in protest, received much information from Jean Duffey, the head of a drug task force investigation that was shut down by Judge John Cole. Duffey was attacked with 200 false press articles, threatened with imprisonment on an illegal warrant issued by the same judge, pressured to turn over her investigation to the people she was investigating and forced to temporarily flee the state when her mother received a tip from a police dispatcher that she would be killed if imprisoned. Despite confiscation of task force evidence, Dan Harmon, a prosecutor that she implicated, was tried and convicted in June of 1997 on five drug related felony counts, each carrying a maximum of 20 years in jail and a $150,000 fine. Harmon was convicted in 1990 on tax evasion but had his suspended law license reinstated after Winston Bryant, the Arkansas attorney general under Governor Clinton, testified on his behalf. To date, no one has been charged in any of the murders, despite contentions of the task force undercover agents that the murders were easily solvable. (CITIZENS FOR HONEST GOVERNMENT – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE)

6. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE (Tyson / Espy Investigation – 1994)
Janet Reno barred expansion of the probe into the affairs of Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy so that it would not include Don Tyson, the Clinton campaign contributor who was accused of bribing Espy. The investigation of Mike Espy, conducted by independent prosecutor Donald Smaltz, revealed evidence that Don Tyson was involved in drug abuse, drug distribution, money laundering and even murder for hire. Much of the evidence already existed in Arkansas State Police intelligence files. Tyson, owner of Tyson foods, had contributed over $600,000 to Bill Clinton campaigns. Tyson Foods counselor, James Blair, was the individual who turned a $1,000 cattle futures investment into $100,000 for Hillary Clinton. (CITIZENS FOR HONEST GOVERNMENT – CLINTON CHRONICLES)

7. IMPEDING AN INVESTIGATION (Judicial Watch vs. Commerce Dept. 1993-Present)
The Janet Reno led Justice Dept. has repeatedly attempted to stymie Judicial Watch in their freedom of information suit against the Commerce Dept., even though the Justice Dept. role is to make sure that the Commerce Dept. responds properly. The Judicial Watch suit was responsible for the John Huang deposition, which led to the exposure of millions of dollars in illegal contributions to the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaigns. In February 1996, Judicial Watch also subpoenaed Ron Brown who was killed in the plane crash at Croatia during April 1996, while he was preparing for the deposition. An assistant U.S. attorney in the Justice Dept. filed numerous motions to delay the case, made repeated objections that were overruled during testimony and terminated a deposition against orders of the judge, who ruled that his conduct was “totally improper” and “totally scandalous.” (JUDICIAL WATCH, AMERICAN SPECTATOR 10/97)

8. GROSS FBI MISMANAGEMENT (William Sessions replacement with Louis Freeh – 1993)
Janet Reno fired William Sessions and replaced him with Louis Freeh on July 19, 1993, the day before the body of Vince Foster was found in Fort Marcy Park, Under Freeh, the FBI has entered the most incompetent, unaccountable period in its history as shown by these facts: – Louis Freeh promoted his close friend Larry Potts despite the assistant FBI director’s responsibility for both the disastrous Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges – Freeh’s FBI illegally gave Clinton Administration personnel over 900 files, including those on political adversaries. Freeh’s FBI General Counsel, Howard Shapriro, even briefed White House counsel Jack Quinn on the information Freeh ordered agents to illegally read Richard Jewell his miranda rights while Jewell was cooperating to film a training video. The order was issued by phone over the unanimous protest of all involved Atlanta FBI agents – Freeh’s FBI failed to process criminal background checks on citizenship applications resulting in over 70,000 criminals being granted U.S. citizenship in time for the 1996 elections – Freeh’s FBI has been cited along with the ATF by 13,500 Oklahomans who were granted a new grand jury investigation into the alleged government cover-up involving the Oklahoma City bombing – Freeh’s FBI crime labs were accused by agent Fredric Whitehurst of tainting evidence in high profile cases including the Oklahoma City bombing case – Freeh’s FBI agents interrogated agent Gary Aldrich about his book, Unlimited Access, as well as agent Dennis Sculimbrene about his Craig Livingstone background inquiry that linked the Livingstone hiring to Hillary Clinton. (WASHINGTON TIMES NATIONAL WEEKLY 3/23/97)

9. AIDING & ABETTING ORGANIZED CRIME (Laborers International Union of North America – 1996)
Janet Reno shut down the prosecution of Arthur Coia, the head of Laborers International Union of North America, who was investigated by the Justice Dept. over several years for corrupt labor union practices such as extortion, conspiring to prevent free elections and even death by fire bombing. They concluded in their 1994 complaint that he was “associated with, influenced from and controlled by” organized crime. His union political action committee, Laborers’ Political League, contributed over 4.5 million dollars to the Democrat National Committee and its candidates. In February of 1995, Coia also helped Hillary Clinton raise millions more dollars in a Miami Beach fund raiser at the Fountainbleau hotel for the top officials of his union. Also in February of 1995, the Justice Dept. dropped the complaint against Coia, signed a consent decree, withheld his prosecution and told him to clean up his own union. Officials of the Janet Reno led Justice Dept. now say that the consent decree was “the finest most practical resolution that’s ever been reached in a case of alleged mob influence.” Coia thanked them by being vice chairman of a May 1996 gala that raised $12,000,000 for Democrats. (NATIONAL LEGAL & POLICY CENTER, READERS DIGEST 4/96)

10. TREASON (Campaign Fund Raising – 1996)
Janet Reno refused three separate House committee requests in 1997 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Democratic National Committee and presidential fund raising scandal, despite clear evidence of treasonous policies made by Bill Clinton in exchange for contributions. The requests were made by the Judiciary Committee in March and September as well as the Government Reform and Oversight Committee in August. Nearly $1,000,000 in contributions from Charlie Trie were traced by the FBI to Ng Lap Seng who advises both the Chinese government and Communist party on business and economic matters. Bill Clinton helped John Huang get hired at the DNC and Commerce Dept., even though he was a former U.S. president of the Lippo Group, which has a partnership with the Chinese Communist government to run the Hong Kong Chinese bank and its affiliate in China. Even before he was hired, Huang received a top secret military clearance which allowed him to attend over 100 briefings and review dozens of classified documents. Consequently, Bill Clinton relaxed U.S. export restrictions to China for several types of military technology and supported an effort by the Chinese communist controlled China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), to take over the Long Beach military port. COSCO was caught shipping 2000 illegal AK-47s into the Oakland port on route to L.A. street gangs. The weapons came from Poly Technologies, just days before their chairman, Wang Jen, an internationally renowned arms dealer, met with Bill Clinton at the White House. Bill Clinton also ensured Indonesia’s monopoly on new low sulfur, super compliance coal when he declared 1.7 million acres in southern Utah as the Grand Escalante National Monument and made U.S. mining of the world’s largest deposit of that coal there unfeasible. Despite all of this, Reno said she could see no evidence that a special prosecutor was needed and even failed to notify the White House when the FBI informed her of Chinese attempts to influence the 1996 presidential elections. (SENATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMMITTEE, AMERICAN SPECTATOR 3/97, WASHINGTON TIMES 12/26/96 -12/30/96, 04/11/97-04/18/97)

11. VOTER FRAUD (INS Illegal Immigration – 1996)
Under Janet Reno, the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) registered 180,000 illegal immigrants just in time for the 1996 election. The INS typically registers about 300,000 immigrants per year. In 1996, they registered 1.1 million before the election, including 180,000 illegal immigrants and 70,000 criminals. In a House Appropriations Committee meeting, INS head Doris Meissner, confirmed that the INS was working closely with the Vice President and his office to register the immigrants. Meissner and other INS employees also acknowledged the existence of E-Mail messages from the Vice President’s office to the INS stating Bill Clinton’s frustration that the registration process may be going too slowly to be completed in time for the election. (HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUB COMMITTEE MEETING 4/4/97, SENATE ELECTION INVESTIGATION)

12. INCOMPETENCE (Bill Clinton sexual harassment suit – 1997)
Janet Reno filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in an attempt to support the claim by Bill Clinton that he should be shielded from the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit until he leaves office on the grounds that he is the commander and chief of the U.S. armed forces. The Supreme Count ruled unanimously, by a 9-0 count, against him. (WASHINGTON TIMES NATIONAL WEEKLY Vol.4 No.25)

13. TAMPERING (Hillary Clinton privilege claim – 1997)
Janet Reno attempted to compromise the Kenneth Starr investigation by challenging an 8th U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that found the Hillary Clinton personal attorney client privilege claim does not apply to White House lawyers who are paid by American taxpayers. The ruling, which was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, involved Vince Foster and Rose Law firm billing record matters that Hillary Clinton discussed on July 11, 1995 with White House counsels Miriam Nemetz and Jane Sherbourne, lawyers. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. (WASHINGTON TIMES NATIONAL WEEKLY Vol.4 No.25)

14. CONSPIRACY (Immunity refusal for Buddist nuns – 1997)
Janet Reno refused to grant immunity to four nuns who had contributed $5000 apiece to the Democratic National Committee at a fund raiser in the Hsi Lai Buddist temple in Hacienda Heights Cal, during April 1996. The event was attended by Vice President Al Gore who claimed he did not know it was a fund raiser even though evidence showed that virtually everyone on his staff knew it was a fund raiser and dozens of early 1996 documents confirmed it. The nuns, who like Buddist monks, are sworn to poverty, were unwilling to testify as to where they got the money unless granted immunity. Reno, admitted that the Justice Dept. would not prosecute the nuns but refused to grant immunity which helped conceal the illegal foreign source of the contributions. The bi-partisan Senate committee granted immunity to the nuns by votes of 15-1 and 13-3. The nuns testified that the related temple financial documents had been shredded. (SENATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION, AMERICAN SPECTATOR 10/97)
——–
Please Write Your NEWSPAPER about the need to FIRE JANET RENO!!
Write/Fax/Call!! And while you’re sending, you might want to send it to OUR Congress also!!
Thanks Again!!
YOU ARE TRULY GREAT!! Tami Kay Freedman
_____________________

The Konformist
http://www.konformist.com

If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire,
please visit http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist/ and sign up.

Or, e-mail konformist-subscribe@egroups.com with the subject: “I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!”
(Okay, you can use something else, but it’s a kool catch phrase.)

Mena (play /mi?n?/) mee-n?) is a city in Polk County, Arkansas, United States. It is also the county seat of Polk County.[1] It was founded by Arthur Edward Stilwell during the building of the Kansas City, Pittsburg and Gulf Railroad (now the Kansas City Southern). It was Stilwell who decided Mena would be the name of this new town along the route to Port Arthur, Texas. He named her so in honor of his beloved friend and financier Jan DeGeoijen’s wife, Folmina Margaretha Janssen DeGeoijen, whom Mr. DeGeoijen affectionately called Mena. Mena was settled in 1896.
The population was 5,637 as of 2000 census.
A number of allegations have been written about and several local, state, and federal investigations have taken place related to the notion of Mena as a drop point in large scale cocaine trafficking beginning in the latter part of the 1980s. The topic has received a large degree of its coverage due to the alleged knowledge, participation and/or coverup involvement of figures as powerful and infamous as future presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, as well future Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Saline County prosecutor Dan Harmon, who was convicted of numerous felonies including drug and racketeering charges in 1997.


The Crimes of Mena
By Sally Denton and Roger Morris
From the July 1995 issue of Penthouse Magazine.

This is the story that couldn’t be suppressed.
An investigative report into a scandal that haunts the reputations of three presidents

— Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.

Barry Seal — gunrunner, drug trafficker, and covert C.I.A. operative extraordinaire — is hardly a familiar name in American politics. But nine years after he was murdered in a hail of bullets by Medellin cartel hit men outside a Salvation Army shelter in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, he has come back to haunt the reputations of three American presidents.

Seal’s legacy includes more than 2,000 newly discovered documents that now verify and quantify much of what previously had been only suspicion, conjecture, and legend. The documents confirm that from 1981 to his brutal death in 1986, Barry Seal carried on one of the most lucrative, extensive, and brazen operations in the history of the international drug trade, and that he did it with the evident complicity, if not collusion, of elements of the United States government, apparently with the acquiescence of Ronald Reagan’s administration, impunity from any subsequent exposure by George Bush’s administration, and under the usually acute political nose of then Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.

The newly unearthed papers show the real Seal as far more impressive and well-connected than the character played by Dennis Hopper in a made-for-TV movie some years ago, loosely based on the smuggler’s life. The film portrayed the pudgy pilot as a hapless victim, caught in a cross fire between bungling but benign government agencies and Latin drug lords. The truth sprinkled through the documents is a richer — and altogether more sinister — matter of national and individual corruption. It is a tale of massive, socially devastating crime, of what seems to have been an official cover-up to match, and, not least, of the strange reluctance of so-called mainstream American journalism to come to grips with the phenomenon and its ominous implications — even when the documentary evidence had appeared.

The trail winds back to another slightly bruited but obscure name — a small place in western Arkansas called Mena.

Of the many stories emerging from the Arkansas of the 1980s that was crucible to the Clinton presidency, none has been more elusive than the charges surrounding Mena. Nestled in the dense pine and hardwood forests of the Oachita Mountains, some 160 miles west of Little Rock, once thought a refuge for nineteenth-century border outlaws and even a hotbed of Depression-era anarchists, the tiny town has been the locale for persistent reports of drug smuggling, gunrunning, and money laundering tracing to the early eighties, when Seal based his aircraft at Mena’s Intermountain Regional Airport.

From first accounts circulating locally in Arkansas, the story surfaced nationally as early as 1989 in a Penthouse article called “Snowbound,” written by the investigative reporter John Cummings, and in a Jack Anderson column, but was never advanced at the time by other media. Few reporters covering Clinton in the 1992 campaign missed hearing at least something about Mena. But it was obviously a serious and demanding subject — the specter of vast drug smuggling with C.I.A. involvement — and none of the major media pursued it seriously During 1992, the story was kept alive by Sarah McClendon, The Nation, and The Village Voice.

Then, after Clinton became president, Mena began to reappear. Over the past year, CBS News and The Wall Street Journal have reported the original, unquieted charges surrounding Mena, including the shadow of some C.I.A. (or “national security”) involvement in the gun and drug traffic, and the apparent failure of then governor Clinton to pursue evidence of such international crime so close to home.

“Seal was smuggling drugs and kept his planes at Mena,” The Wall Street Journal reported in 1994. “He also acted as an agent for the D.E.A. In one of these missions, he flew the plane that produced photographs of Sandinistas loading drugs in Nicaragua. He was killed by a drug gang [Medellin cartel hit men] in Baton Rouge. The cargo plane he flew was the same one later flown by Eugene Hasenfus when he was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of contra supplies.

In a mix of wild rumor and random fact, Mena has also been a topic of ubiquitous anti-Clinton diatribes circulated by right-wing extremists — an irony in that the Mena operation was the apparent brainchild of the two previous and Republican administrations.

Still, most of the larger American media have continued to ignore, if not ridicule, the Mena accusations. Finding no conspiracy in the Oachitas last July, a Washington Post reporter typically scoffed at the “alleged dark deeds,” contrasting Mena with an image as “Clandestination, Arkansas … Cloak and Dagger Capital of America.” Noting that The New York Times had “mentioned Mena primarily as the headquarters of the American Rock Garden Society,” the Columbia Journalism Review in a recent issue dismissed “the conspiracy theories” as of “dubious relevance.”

A former Little Rock businessman, Terry Reed, has coauthored with John Cummings a highly controversial book, Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the C.I.A., which describes a number of covert activities around Mena, including a C.I.A. operation to train pilots and troops for the Nicaraguan Contras, and the collusion of local officials. Both the book and its authors were greeted with derision.

Now, however, a new mass of documentary evidence has come to light regarding just such “dark deeds” — previously private and secret records that substantiate as never before some of the worst and most portentous suspicions about what went on at Mena, Arkansas, a decade ago.

Given the scope and implications of the Mena story, it may be easy to understand the media’s initial skepticism and reluctance. But it was never so easy to dismiss the testimony arid suspicions of some of those close to the matter: Internal Revenue Service Agent Bill Duncan, Arkansas State Police investigator Russell Welch, Arkansas Attorney General J. Winston Bryant, Congressman Bill Alexander, and various other local law-enforcement officials and citizens.

All of these people were convinced by the late eighties that there existed what Bryant termed “credible evidence” of the most serious criminal activity involving Mena between 1981 and 1986. They also believed that the crimes were committed with the acquiescence, if not the complicity, of elements of the U.S. government. But they couldn’t seem to get the national media to pay attention.

During the 1992 campaign, outside advisers and aides urged former California governor Jerry Brown to raise the Mena issue against Clinton — at least to ask why the Arkansas governor had not done more about such serious international crime so close to home. But Brown, too, backed away from the subject. I’ll raise it if the major media break it first,” he told aides. “The media will do it, Governor,” one of them replied in frustration, “if only you’ll raise it.”

Mena’s obscure airport was thought by the I.R.S., the F.B.I., U.S. Customs, and the Arkansas State Police to be a base for Adler Berriman “Barry” Seal, a self-confessed, convicted smuggler whose operations had been linked to the intelligence community. Duncan and Welch both spent years building cases against Seal and others for drug smuggling and money laundering around Mena, only to see their own law-enforcement careers damaged in the process.

What evidence they gathered, they have said in testimony and other public statements, was not sufficiently pursued by the then U.S. attorney for the region, J. Michael Fitzhugh, or by the I.R.S., Arkansas State Police, and other agencies. Duncan, testifying before the joint investigation by the Arkansas state attorney general’s office and the United States Congress in June 1991, said that 29 federal indictments drafted in a Mena-based money-laundering scheme had gone unexplored. Fitzhugh, responding at the time to Duncan’s charges, said, “This office has not slowed up any investigation … [and] has never been under any pressure in any investigation.”

By 1992, to Duncan’s and Welch’s mounting dismay, several other official inquiries into the alleged Mena connection were similarly ineffectual or were stifled altogether, furthering their suspicions of government collusion and cover-up. In his testimony before Congress, Duncan said the I.R.S. “withdrew support for the operations” and further directed him to “withhold information from Congress and perjure myself.”

Duncan later testified that he had never before experienced “anything remotely akin to this type of interference…. Alarms were going off,” he continued, “and as soon as Mr. Fitzhugh got involved, he was more aggressive in not allowing the subpoenas and in interfering in the investigative process.”

State policeman Russell Welch felt he was “probably the most knowledgeable person” regarding the activities at Mena, yet he was not initially subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. Welch testified later that the only reason he was ultimately subpoenaed at all was because one of the grand jurors was from Mena and “told the others that if they wanted to know something about the Mena airport, they ought to ask that guy [Welch] out there in the hall.”

State Attorney General Bryant, in a 1991 letter to the office of Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation, wondered “why no one was prosecuted in Arkansas despite a mountain of evidence that Seal was using Arkansas as his principal staging area during the years 1982 through 1985.”

What actually went on in the woods of western Arkansas? The question is still relevant for what it may reveal about certain government operations during the time that Reagan and Bush were in the White House and Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

In a mass of startling new documentation — the more than 2,000 papers gathered by the authors from private and law-enforcement sources in a year-long nationwide search — answers are found and serious questions are posed.

These newly unearthed documents — the veritable private papers of Barry Seal — substantiate at least part of what went on at Mena.

What might be called the Seal archive dates back to 1981, when Seal began his operations at the Intermountain Regional Airport in Mena. The archive, all of it now in our possession, continues beyond February 1986, when Seal was murdered by Colombian assassins after he had testified in federal court in Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami for the U.S. government against leaders of the Medellin drug cartel.

The papers include such seemingly innocuous material as Seal’s bank and telephone records; negotiable instruments, promissory notes, and invoices; personal correspondence address and appointment books; bills of sale for aircraft and boats; aircraft registration, and modification work orders.

In addition, the archive also contains personal diaries; handwritten to-do lists and other private notes; secretly tape-recorded conversations; and cryptographic keys and legends for codes used in the Seal operation.

Finally, there are extensive official records: federal investigative and surveillance reports, accounting assessments by the I.R.S. and the D.E.A., and court proceedings not previously reported in the press — testimony as well as confidential pre-sentencing memoranda in federal narcotics-trafficking trials in Florida and Nevada — numerous depositions, and other sworn statements.

The archive paints a vivid portrait not only of a major criminal conspiracy around Mena, but also of the unmistakable shadow of government complicity. Among the new revelations:

Mena, from 1981 to 1985, was indeed one of the centers for international smuggling traffic. According to official I.R.S. and D.E.A. calculations, sworn court testimony, and other corroborative records, the traffic amounted to thousands of kilos of cocaine and heroin and literally hundreds of millions of dollars in drug profits. According to a 1986 letter from the Louisiana attorney general to then U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese, Seal “smuggled between $3 billion and $5 billion of drugs into the U.S.”

Seal himself spent considerable sums to land, base, maintain, and specially equip or refit his aircraft for smuggling. According to personal and business records, he had extensive associations at Mena and in Little Rock, and was in nearly constant telephone contact with Mena when he was not there himself. Phone records indicate Seal made repeated calls to Mena the day before his murder. This was long after Seal, according to his own testimony, was working as an $800,000-a-year informant for the federal government.

A former member of the Army Special Forces, Seal had ties to the Central Intelligence Agency dating to the early 1970s. He had confided to relatives and others, according to their sworn statements, that he was a C.I.A. operative before and during the period when he established his operations at Mena. In one statement to Louisiana State Police, a Seal relative said, “Barry was into gunrunning and drug smuggling in Central and South America … and he had done some time in El Salvadore [sic].” Another then added, “lt was true, but at the time Barry was working for the C.I.A.”

In a posthumous jeopardy-assessment case against Seal — also documented in the archive — the I.R.S. determined that money earned by Seal between 1984 and 1986 was not illegal because of his “C.I.A.-D.E.A. employment.” The only public official acknowledgment of Seal’s relationship to the C.I.A. has been in court and congressional testimony, and in various published accounts describing the C.I.A.’s installation of cameras in Seal’s C-123K transport plane, used in a highly celebrated 1984 sting operation against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

Robert Joura, the assistant special agent in charge of the D.E.A.’s Houston office and the agent who coordinated Seal’s undercover work, told The Washington Post last year that Seal was enlisted by the C.I.A. for one sensitive mission — providing photographic evidence that the Sandinistas were letting cocaine from Colombia move through Nicaragua. A spokesman for then Senate candidate Oliver North told The Post that North had been kept aware of Seal’s work through “intelligence sources.”

Federal Aviation Administration registration records contained in the archive confirm that aircraft identified by federal and state narcotics agents as in the Seal smuggling operation were previously owned by Air America, Inc., widely reported to have been a C.I.A. proprietary company. Emile Camp, one of Seal’s pilots and a witness to some of his most significant dealings, was killed on a mountainside near Mena in 1985 in the unexplained crash of one of those planes that had once belonged to Air America.

According to still other Seal records, at least some of the aircraft in his smuggling fleet, which included a Lear jet, helicopters, and former U.S. military transports, were also outfitted with avionics and other equipment by yet another company in turn linked to Air America.

Among the aircraft flown in and out of Mena was Seal’s C-123K cargo plane, christened Fat Lady. The records show that Fat Lady, serial number 54-0679, was sold by Seal months before his death. According to other files, the plane soon found its way to a phantom company of what became known in the Iran-Contra scandal as “the Enterprise,” the C.I.A.-related secret entity managed by Oliver North and others to smuggle illegal weapons to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. According to former D.E.A. agent Celerino Castillo and others, the aircraft was allegedly involved in a return traffic in cocaine, profits from which were then used to finance more clandestine gunrunning.

F.A.A. records show that in October 1986, the same Fat Lady was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of arms destined for the Contras. Documents found on board the aircraft and seized by the Sandinistas included logs linking the plane with Area 51 — the nation’s top-secret nuclear-weapons facility at the Nevada Test Site. The doomed aircraft was co-piloted by Wallace Blaine “Buzz” Sawyer, a native of western Arkansas, who died in the crash. The admissions of the surviving crew member, Eugene Hasenfus, began a public unraveling of the Iran-Contra episode.

An Arkansas gun manufacturer testified in 1993 in federal court in Fayetteville that the C.I.A. contracted with him to build 250 automatic pistols for the Mena operation. William Holmes testified that he had been introduced to Seal in Mena by a C.I.A. operative, and that he then sold weapons to Seal. Even though he was given a Department of Defense purchase order for guns fitted with silencers, Holmes testified that he was never paid the $140,000 the government owed him. “After the Hasenfus plane was shot down,” Holmes said, “you couldn’t find a soul around Mena.”

Meanwhile, there was still more evidence that Seal’s massive smuggling operation based in Arkansas had been part of a C.I.A. operation, and that the crimes were continuing well after Seal’s murder. In 1991 sworn testimony to both Congressman Alexander and Attorney General Bryant, state police investigator Welch recorded that in 1987 he had documented “new activity at the [Mena] airport with the appearance of … an Australian business [a company linked with the C.I.A.], and C-130s had appeared….”

At the same time, according to Welch, two F.B.I. agents officially informed him that the C.I.A. “had something going on at the Mena Airport involving Southern Air Transport [another company linked with the C.I.A.] … and they didn’t want us [the Arkansas State Police] to screw it up like we had the last one.”

The hundreds of millions in profits generated by the Seal trafficking via Mena and other outposts resulted in extraordinary banking and business practices in apparent efforts to launder or disperse the vast amounts of illicit money in Arkansas and elsewhere. Seal’s financial records show from the early eighties, for example, instances of daily deposits of $50,000 or more, and extensive use of an offshore foreign bank in the Caribbean, as well as financial institutions in Arkansas and Florida.

According to I.R.S. criminal investigator Duncan, secretaries at the Mena Airport told him that when Seal flew into Mena, “there would be stacks of cash to be taken to the bank and laundered.” One secretary told him that she was ordered to obtain numerous cashier’s checks, each in an amount just under $10,000, at various banks in Mena and surrounding communities, to avoid filing the federal Currency Transaction Reports required for all bank transactions that exceed that limit.

Bank tellers testified before a federal grand jury that in November 1982, a Mena airport employee carried a suitcase containing more than $70,000 into a bank. “The bank officer went down the teller lines handing out the stacks of $1,000 bills and got the cashier’s checks.”

Law-enforcement sources confirmed that hundreds of thousands of dollars were laundered from 1981 to 1983 just in a few small banks near Mena, and that millions more from Seal’s operation were laundered elsewhere in Arkansas and the nation.

Spanish-language documents in Seal’s possession at the time of his murder also indicate that he had accounts throughout Central America and was planning to set up his own bank in the Caribbean.

Additionally, Seal’s files suggest a grandiose scheme for building an empire. Papers in his office at the time of his death include references to dozens of companies, all of which had names that began with Royale. Among them: Royale Sports, Royale Television Network, Royale Liquors, Royale Casino, S.A., Royale Pharmaceuticals, Royale Arabians, Royale Seafood, Royale Security, Royale Resorts … and on and on.

Seal was scarcely alone in his extensive smuggling operation based in Mena from 1981 to 1986, commonly described in both federal and state law-enforcement files as one of the largest drug-trafficking operations in the United States at the time, if not in the history of the drug trade. Documents show Seal confiding on one occasion that he was “only the transport,” pointing to an extensive network of narcotics distribution and finance in Arkansas and other states. After drugs were smuggled across the border, the duffel bags of cocaine would be retrieved by helicopters and dropped onto flatbed trucks destined for various American cities.

In recognition of Seal’s significance in the drug trade, government prosecutors made him their chief witness in various cases, including a 1985 Miami trial in absentia of Medellln drug lords; in another 1985 trial of what federal officials regarded as the largest narcotics-trafficking case to date in Las Vegas; and in still a third prosecution of corrupt officials in the Turks and Caicos Islands. At the same time, court records and other documents reveal a studied indifference by government prosecutors to Seal’s earlier and ongoing operations at Mena.

In the end, the Seal documents are vindication for dedicated officials in Arkansas like agents Duncan and Welch and local citizens’ groups like the Arkansas Committee, whose own evidence and charges take on new gravity — and also for The Nation, The Village Voice, the Association of National Security Alumni, the venerable Washington journalists Sarah McClendon and Jack Anderson, Arkansas reporters Rodney Bowers and Mara Leveritt, and others who kept an all-too-authentic story alive amid wider indifference.

But now the larger implications of the newly exposed evidence seem as disturbing as the criminal enormity it silhouettes. Like his modern freebooter’s life, Seal’s documents leave the political and legal landscape littered with stark questions.

What, for example, happened to some nine different official investigations into Mena after 1987, from allegedly compromised federal grand juries to congressional inquiries suppressed by the National Security Council in 1988 under Ronald Reagan to still later Justice Department inaction under George Bush?

Officials repeatedly invoked national security to quash most of the investigations. Court documents do show clearly that the C.I.A. and the D.E.A. employed Seal during 1984 and 1985 for the Reagan administration’s celebrated sting attempt to implicate the Nicaraguan Sandinista regime in cocaine trafficking.

According to a December 1988 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, “cases were dropped. The apparent reason was that the prosecution might have revealed national-security information, even though all of the crimes which were the focus of the investigation occurred before Seal became a federal informant.”

Tax records show that, having assessed Seal posthumously for some $86 million in back taxes on his earnings from Mena and elsewhere between 1981 and 1983, even the I.R.S. forgave the taxes on hundreds of millions in known drug and gun profits over the ensuing two-year period when Seal was officially admitted to be employed by the government.

To follow the I.R.S. logic, what of the years, crimes, and profits at Mena in the early eighties, before Barry Seal became an acknowledged federal operative, as well as the subsequently reported drug-trafficking activities at Mena even after his murder — crimes far removed from his admitted cooperation as government informant and witness?

“Joe [name deleted] works for Seal and cannot be touched because Seal works for the C.I.A.,” a Customs official said in an Arkansas investigation into drug trafficking during the early eighties. “A C.I.A. or D.E.A. operation is taking place at the Mena airport,” an F.B.I. telex advised the Arkansas State Police in August 1987, 18 months after Seal’s murder. Welch later testified that a Customs agent told him, “Look, we’ve been told not to touch anything that has Barry Seal’s name on it, just to let it go.”

The London Sunday Telegraph recently reported new evidence, including a secret code number, that Seal was also working as an operative of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the period of the gunrunning and drug smuggling.

Perhaps most telling is what is so visibly missing from the voluminous files. In thousands of pages reflecting a man of meticulous organization and planning, Barry Seal seems to have felt singularly and utterly secure — if not somehow invulnerable — at least in the ceaseless air transport and delivery into the United States of tons of cocaine for more than five years. In a 1986 letter to the D.E.A., the commander and deputy commander of narcotics for the Louisiana State Police say that Seal “was being given apparent free rein to import drugs in conjunction with D.E.A. investigations with so little restraint and control on his actions as to allow him the opportunity to import drugs for himself should he have been so disposed.”

Seal’s personal videotapes, in the authors’ possession, show one scene in which he used U.S. Army paratroop equipment, as well as militarylike precision, in his drug-transporting operation. Then, in the middle of the afternoon after a number of dry runs, one of his airplanes dropped a load of several duffel bags attached to a parachute. Within seconds, the cargo sitting on the remote grass landing strip was retrieved by Seal and loaded onto a helicopter that had followed the low-flying aircraft. “This is the first daylight cocaine drop in the history of the state of Louisiana,” Seal narrates on the tape. If the duffel bags seen in the smuggler’s home movies were filled with cocaine — as Seal himself states on tape — that single load would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Perhaps the videos were not of an actual cocaine drop, but merely the drug trafficker’s training video for his smuggling organization, or even a test maneuver. Regardless, the films show a remarkable, fearless invincibility. Barry Seal was not expecting apprehension.

His most personal papers show him all but unconcerned about the very flights and drops that would indeed have been protected or “fixed,” according to law-enforcement sources, by the collusion of U.S. intelligence.

In an interview with agent Duncan, Seal brazenly “admitted that he had been a drug smuggler.”

If the Seal documents show anything, an attentive reader might conclude, it is that ominous implication of some official sanction. Over the entire episode looms the unmistakable shape of government collaboration in vast drug trafficking and gunrunning, and in a decade-long cover-up of criminality.

Government investigators apparently had no doubt about the magnitude of those crimes. According to Customs sources, Seal’s operations at Mena and other bases were involved in the export of guns to Bolivia, Argentina, Peru, and Brazil, as well as to the Contras, and the importation of cocaine from Colombia to be sold in New York, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and other cities, as well as in Arkansas itself.

Duncan and his colleagues knew that Seal’s modus operandi included dumping most of the drugs in other southern states, so that what Arkansas agents witnessed in Mena was but a tiny fragment of an operation staggering in its magnitude. Yet none of the putative inquiries seems to have made a serious effort to gather even a fraction of the available Seal documents now assembled and studied by the authors.

Finally, of course, there are somber questions about then governor Clinton’s own role vis-a-vis the crimes of Mena.

Clinton has acknowledged learning officially about Mena only in April 1988, though a state police investigation had been in progress for several years. As the state’s chief executive, Clinton often claimed to be fully abreast of such inquiries. In his one public statement on the matter as governor, in September 1991 he spoke of that investigation finding “linkages to the federal government,” and “all kinds of questions about whether he [Seal] had any links to the C.I.A…. and if that backed into the Iran-Contra deal.”

But then Clinton did not offer further support for any inquiry, “despite the fact,” as Bill Plante and Michael Singer of CBS News have written, “that a Republican administration was apparently sponsoring a Contra-aid operation in his state and protecting a smuggling ring that flew tons of cocaine through Arkansas.”

As recently as March 1995, Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson testified under oath, according to The London Sunday Telegraph, that he and other officers “discussed repeatedly in Clinton’s presence” the “large quantities of drugs being flown into the Mena airport, large quantities of money, large quantities of guns,” indicating that Clinton may have known much more about Seal’s activities than he has admitted.

Moreover, what of the hundreds of millions generated by Seal’s Mena contraband? The Seal records reveal his dealings with at least one major Little Rock bank. How much drug money from him or his associates made its way into criminal laundering in Arkansas’s notoriously freewheeling financial institutions and bond houses, some of which are reportedly under investigation by the Whitewater special prosecutor for just such large, unaccountable infusions of cash and unexplained transactions?

“The state offers an enticing climate for traffickers,” I.R.S. agents had concluded by the end of the eighties, documenting a “major increase” in the amount of large cash and bank transactions in Arkansas after 1985, despite a struggling local economy.

Meanwhile, prominent backers of Clinton’s over the same years — including bond broker and convicted drug dealer Dan Lasater and chicken tycoon Don Tyson — have themselves been subjects of extensive investigative and surveillance files by the D.E.A. or the F.B.I. similar to those relating to Seal, including allegations of illegal drug activity that Tyson has recently acknowledged publicly and denounced as “totally false.” “This may be the first president in history with such close buddies who have NADDIS numbers,” says one concerned law-enforcement official, referring to the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Intelligence System numbers assigned those under protracted investigation for possible drug crimes.

The Seal documents are still more proof that for Clinton, the Arkansas of the eighties and the company he kept there will not soon disappear as a political or even constitutional liability.

“I’ve always felt we never got the whole story there,” Clinton said in 1991.

Indeed. But as president of the United States, he need no longer wonder — and neither should the nation. On the basis of the Seal documents (copies of which are being given to the Whitewater special prosecutor in any case), the president should ask immediately for a full report on the matter from the C.I.A., the D.E.A., the F.B.I., the Justice Department, and other relevant agencies of his own administration — including the long-buried evidence gathered by I.R.S. agent Duncan and Arkansas state police investigator Welch. President Clinton should also offer full executive-branch cooperation with a reopened congressional inquiry, and expose the subject fully for what it says of both the American past and future.

Seal saw himself as a patriot to the end. He had dictated his own epitaph for his grave in Baton Rouge: “A rebel adventurer the likes of whom in previous days made America great.” In a sense his documents may now render that claim less ironic than it seems.

The tons of drugs that Seal and his associates brought into the country, officials agree, affected tens of thousands of lives at the least, and exacted an incalculable toll on American society. And for the three presidents, the enduring questions of political scandal are once again apt: What did they know about Mena? When did they know it? Why didn’t they do anything to stop it?

The crimes of Mena were real. That much is now documented beyond doubt. The only remaining issues are how far they extended, and who was responsible.


This is a documentary series that was never aired where an investigative journalist uncovers truth to the rumors about Iran-Contra during the Reagan years, CIA drug trafficking, CIA drug operations in Mena, Arkansas during the Clinton governorship and presidency. It also implies that former president George H.W. Bush, who was vice president during the Reagan years, and was also former head of the CIA was also involved. This documentary to my knowledge was recorded from a hacked satellite tuned to an “edit” channel which was feeding coast to coast “preview programming” to network executives in NYC. Apparently the decision was made against running this program due to its content and the “heat” that it would generate. The CIA poses as FBI more often than not, so perhaps the “FBI” stated this would interfere with their investigation……

This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder. It is a fair use under copyright law.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

The media material presented in this production is protected by the FAIR USE CLAUSE of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, which allows for the rebroadcast of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and education.

if all of this so called evidence is so true, how is Clinton not behind bars? Its public enough to get to the answers.

the politics of drugs

For more than a year the CIA has been trafficking 300 kilos of cocaine a month from Ecuador to Chile for export on to Europe, according to recent  media reports from Santiago, the Chilean capital.

Proceeds from the 300 kilo-a-month business have been used to create a war-chest to finance a Cocaine Coup in Ecuador that was scheduled to be “green-lighted” after the expected win in the just-concluded U.S. Presidential election—expected, at least, by some Agency officials—of Mitt Romney.


Fifty Years of CIA Drug Trafficking



RAND studies released in the mid-1990s found that using drug user treatment to reduce drug consumption in the United States is seven times more cost effective than law enforcement efforts alone, and it could potentially cut consumption by a third.[244]
In FY2011, the Obama Administration requests approximately $5.6 billion to support demand reduction. This includes a 13% increase for prevention and a nearly 4% increase for treatment. The overall FY 2011 counter-drug request for supply reduction and domestic law enforcement is $15.5 billion with $521.1 million in new funding.



ALLEGATIONS OF CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CIA AND THE CONTRAS IN COCAINE TRAFFICKING TO THE UNITED STATES
(96-0143-IG)
Volume II: The Contra Story


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

EXHIBITS
    March 2, 1982 DoJ-CIA Memorandum of Understanding regarding “Reporting and Use of Information Concerning Federal Crimes”  [1] – [2] – [3] – [4] – [5] – [6] – [7] – [8] – [9] – [10] – [11] – [12]February 11, 1982 Letter to DCI William Casey from Attorney General William French Smith regarding DoJ-CIA Memorandum of Understanding  [1] February 8, 1985 DoJ Memorandum to Mark Richard from A. R. Cinquegrana, “CIA Reporting of Drug Offenses”  [1]

“If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched.”

George Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter

“The Subcommittee found that the Contra drug links included:

  • Involvement in narcotics trafficking by individuals associated with the Contra movement. 
  • Participation of narcotics traffickers in Contra supply operations through business relationships with Contra organizations. 
  • Provision of assistance to the Contras by narcotics traffickers, including cash, weapons, planes, pilots, air supply services and other materials, on a voluntary basis by the traffickers. 
  • Payments to drug traffickers by the US State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies.”

Senate Committee Report on Drugs,
Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy
chaired by Senator John F. Kerry


Washington and the politics of drugs
Peter Dale Scott 

Those struggling to solve America’s drug problems are accustomed to talk of “demand side” and “supply side” solutions. This language reflects a bureaucratic perspective: it tends to project the problem, and focus alleged “solutions”, on to others, often on to remote and deprived populations. On the supply side, eradication programs are designed for the mountains of Burma or the Andes. On the demand side, increasing funds are allocated for the arrest and imprisonment (and less often, the treatment) of the substance abusers, often ethnic and from the inner cities.
Increasingly, however, researchers are becoming aware of a third aspect to the problem: protected intelligence-drug connections. Within the U.S. governmental bureaucracy itself, intelligence agencies and special warfare elements have recurringly exploited drug traffickers and their corrupt political allies for anti-Communist and anti-subversive operations, often but not always covert, in other parts of the world. History suggests that this third aspect of the drug problem, the protected intelligence-drug connection, or what I call government-drug symbiosis, has been responsible for the biggest changes in the patterns and level of drug-trafficking. Thus, at least in theory, it also presents the most hopeful target for improvement.
No one now disputes that in the immediate post-war period CIA assistance to the Sicilian mafia in Italy, and the Corsican mafia in Marseille, helped consolidate and protect the vast upsurge of drug trafficking through those two areas. No one disputes either that a heroin epidemic in the U.S. surged and then subsided with our Vietnamese involvement and disengagement.
But the same upsurge of protected drug-trafficking was visible in the 1980s, when the United States received more than half of its heroin from a new area: the Afghan-Pakistan border, from drug-trafficking mujaheddin who were the backbone of the CIA’s covert operations in Afghanistan. Published U.S. statistics estimate that heroin imports from the Afghan-Pakistan border, which had been insignificant before 1979, accounted for 52 percent of U.S. imported heroin by 1984.1
In the same period, at least a fifth of America’s cocaine, probably more, was imported via Honduras, where local drug-traffickers, and their allies in the corrupt Honduran armed forces, were the backbone of the infra-structure for Reagan’s covert support of the contra forces in that country.2
These specific facts are not contested by historians, and even CIA veterans have conceded their agency’s role in the genesis of the post-war problem. Nevertheless, there is an on-going and steadfast denial on the part of U.S. administrations, the press, and the public. The public’s denial is psychologically understandable: it is disconcerting to contemplate that our government, which we expect to protect us from such a grave social crisis, is actually contributing to it.
This denial is sustained by the general silence, and the occasional uncritical transmission of government lies, in our most responsible newspapers of record.3
It is further reinforced by a small army of propagandists, who hasten to assure us that today “the CIA’s part in the world drug trade seems irrelevant”; and that to argue otherwise is “absurd.”4
Because of such resolute denial, this most serious of public crises is barely talked about. Yet the problem of a U.S.-protected drug traffic endures. Today the United States, in the name of fighting drugs, has entered into alliances with the police and armed forces of Colombia and Peru, forces conspicuous by their alliances with drug-traffickers in counterinsurgency operations. It is now clear that at least some of the U.S. military efforts and assistance to these countries has been deflected into counterinsurgency campaigns, where the biggest drug traffickers are not the enemy, but allies.
Realists object that it is not the business of the U.S. to reform drug-corrupted regimes in other countries, such as Pakistan or Peru. Unfortunately U.S. overt and covert programs in such countries are usually large enough to change these societies anyway, if only to reinforce and harden the status quo. At the same time they affect the size and structure of the drug traffic itself. In the post-war years, when the drug-financed China Lobby was strong in Washington, and the U.S. shipped arms and Chinese Nationalist troops into eastern Burma, opium production in that remote region increased almost fivefold in fifteen years, from less than 80 to 300-400 tons a year. Production doubled again in the 1960s, the heyday of the Kuomintang-CIA alliance in Southeast Asia.5
Drug alliances confer protection upon designated traffickers, and such conferred protection centralizes, rationalizes, and further empowers the traffic. When one American representative of the CIA-linked Cali cartel was arrested in 1992, the DEA said that this man alone had been responsible for from 70 to 80% of U.S. cocaine imports (an estimate probably exaggerated but nonetheless instructive).6
It is true that this man, like many others, was ultimately arrested by the U.S. Government. But in many if not most such cases, key men like General Noriega are only arrested after U.S. policy priorities have changed, and de facto alliances made with new drug figures. In short, up to now the U.S. Government, along with other governments, has done far more to increase the global drug traffic, than it has to diminish it.

The U.S., Drug-Trafficking and Counterinsurgency in Peru
Today one of the most glaring and dangerous examples of a CIA-drug alliance is in Peru. Behind Peru’s president, Alberto Fujimori, is his chief adviser Vladimiro Montesinos, the effective head of the National Intelligence Service or SIN, an agency created and trained by the CIA in the 1960s.7
Through the SIN, Montesinos played a central role in Fujimori’s “auto-coup”, or suspension of the constitution, in April 1992, an event which (according to Knight-Ridder correspondent Sam Dillon) raised “the specter of drug cartels exercising powerful influence at the top of Peru’s government.”8
Recently Montesinos has been accused of arranging for the bombing of an opposition television station, while in August 1996 an accused drug trafficker claimed that Montesinos had accepted tens of thousands of dollars in payoffs.9
In the New York Review of Books, Mr. Gorriti spelled out this CIA-drug collaboration more fully.
“In late 1990, Montesinos also began close co-operation with the CIA, and in 1991 the National Intelligence Service began to organize a secret anti-drug outfit with funding, training, and equipment provided by the CIA. This, by the way, made the DEA…furious. Montesinos apparently suspected that the DEA had been investigating his connection to the most important Peruvian drug cartel in the 1980s, the Rodr’iguez-L’opez organization, and also links to some Colombian traffickers. Perhaps not coincidentally, Fujimori made a point of denouncing the DEA as corrupt at least twice, once in Peru in 1991, and the second time at the Presidential summit in San Antonio, Texas, in February [1992]. As far as I know, the secret intelligence outfit never carried out anti-drug operations. It was used for other things, such as my arrest.”
New York Review of Books, June 25, 1992, 20.
Others have pointed to the drug corruption of Peru’s government, naming not only Montesinos, but the military establishment receiving U.S. anti-drug funding.10
Charges that the Peruvian army and security forces were continuing to take payoffs, to protect the cocaine traffickers that they were supposed to be fighting, have led at times to a withholding of U.S. aid.11
Such charges against Fujimori, Montesinos, and the Peruvian military are completely in line with what we know about Peru over the last two decades. In the 1980s the same Peruvian drug-trafficking organization, that of Reynaldo Rodr’iguez L’opez, incorporated into itself several generals of the Peruvian Investigative Police (PIP), at whose headquarters Rodr’iguez L’opez maintained an office, and also the private secretary to the Peruvian Minister of the Interior.12
Before that senior PIP officials and Army generals were controlled by the Paredes family organization, described by a DEA analyst as then “the biggest smuggling organization in Peru and possibly in the world.”13
In the words of James Mills, the Paredes were part of the established Peruvian oligarchy that goes back to the Spanish vice-royalty, an oligarchy which “controlled not only the roots of the cocaine industry but, to a large extent, the country itself.”14
Other observers have given a much more marginal account of cocaine’s role in Peruvian society. Patrick Clawson and Rensselaer Lee estimated that “nearly all Peruvian cocaine base and hydrochloride is sold to Colombians who fly in payments and fly out product.” In their words, “As a $1.3 billion industry, coca accounted for 3.9% of the 1992 $33 billion GNP”; and furthermore was “of shrinking importance.”15
But at about the time this book was published, it was reported that Peruvian police had seized a single shipment of 3.5 tons of pure cocaine belonging to the Lopez-Paredes branch of the family. This single shipment was worth $600 million; and members of this cartel later admitted to having shipped more than ten tons (worth about $1.8 billion) to Mexico in the previous year.16
The San Francisco Chronicle also reported from Mexican officials that “Vladimiro Montesinos… and Santiago Fujimori, the president’s brother, were responsible for covering up connections between the Mexican and Peruvian drug mafias.”17
It is evident that Clawson and Lee had seriously underestimated the role of cocaine in the Peruvian economy and polity.
The response of many Americans to the CIA’s drug-symbiosis in Peru is to object that the alternative power base, the revolutionary Sendero Luminoso, is even more ruthless and bloodthirsty. Such would-be realists should listen to the arguments of Gorùriti and others that what the U.S. is doing now in Peru, as earlier in China, Laos, and Vietnam, only plays into the revolutionaries’ hands.18

The CIA-Government-Drug Symbiosis in Mexico, Colombia, and Elsewhere
It is important to stress that the CIA-drug symbiosis described by Gustavo Gorriti is not anomalous, but paradigmatic of the way the U.S. is consolidating its power and its allies in parts of the Third World where drugs are a part of the de facto political power structure. In the name of law and freedom, alliances have been made for decades with criminals and dictators. Now, in the name of fighting drugs, U.S. funds are channelled to those whose political fates are allied with those of the drug traffickers. These funds will, paradoxically, strengthen the status both of these traffickers and of the social systems in which they form a constituent element.
In Mexico, for example, the CIA’s closest government allies were for years in the DFS or Direcci’on Federal de Seguridad, whose badges, handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual “license to traffic.”19
Like the SIN in Peru, the DFS was in part a CIA creation; and the CIA presence in the DFS became so dominant that some of its intelligence, according to the famous Mexican journalist Manuel Buend’ia, was seen only by American eyes.20
The Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico’s most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nassar (or Nazar) Haro, a CIA asset.21
Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that members of the Guadalajara Cartel became prominent among the drug-trafficking supporters of the CIA’s Contra operation.22
Throughout Central America, and most notoriously in Panama, Honduras, and Guatemala, the CIA recruited assets from the local Army G-2 intelligence apparatus, who recurringly were also involved in drug-trafficking. Manuel Noriega, the most famous example, was already a CIA asset when he was promoted to become Panama G-2 Chief, as the result of a military coup assisted by the U.S. Army.23
Later, when Noriega became Panama’s effective ruler, his drug networks doubled as Contra support operations, while Noriega himself was shielded for years by the CIA from DEA investigations.24
In Honduras in 1981, the CIA similarly exploited the drug contacts of the Honduran G-2 Chief, Leonidas Torres Arias. (The most notorious of these, the Honduran Juan Ramon Matta Ballesteros, was simultaneously a member of Mexico’s Guadalajara Cartel. His airline SETCO, under investigation by DEA and Customs for drug-trafficking, was chartered by first CIA and then the State Department to fly supplies to the main Contra camps in Honduras.)25

The CIA was able to recruit both assets and Contra supporters from the drug-tainted Guatemalan G-2 as well.26

One sees elsewhere this recurring pattern of CIA collaboration with intelligence and security networks who are allied with the biggest drug-traffickers, not opposed to them. In Colombia, U.S. funds have gone to the Colombian Army and National Police, both of which forces have collaborated with paramilitary death squads financed by the drug cartels, against their mutual enemy, the left-wing guerrillas.27

In Colombia and in Guatemala as in Peru and Mexico, U.S.-assisted campaigns of repression, nominally against drugs, have in fact been deflected into counterinsurgency operations, mis-named as anti-drug operations to secure the support of the U.S. Congress.

In Colombia, according to authors Andrew and Leslie Cockburn,
“U.S. officials…knew that millions of dollars of U.S. aid money, earmarked for the war on drugs, was being used instead to fight leftist guerrillas and their supporters. When [drug] cartel-financed paramilitary forces entered the town of Segovia in November 1988, the military stood by and watched. As Colombian Professor Alejandro Reyes remembered, “They killed forty-three people, just at the center of town. Anybody who was close to that place was shot. They were defenceless people, common people of the town….[I]t was a kind of sanction against the whole town for their political vote…” Forty-three people had been killed for voting the wrong way….In 1989…the U.S. shipped $65 million of military equipment to Colombia. The Colombian chief of police politely pointed out that the items received were totally unsuitable for a war against the traffickers. They were, however, suitable for counterinsurgency. U.S. military equipment turned up in…Puerto Boyaca. [This was a region irrelevant to the drug traffic, but where the drug cartels’ death squads were being trained]…. U.S. helicopters were used in anti-guerrilla bombing campaigns, where, unfortunately, many of the victims were civilians. The State Department knew that too.”28

This hypocrisy of “anti-drug campaigns” dates back to 1974, the year when Congress cut back U.S. aid programs to repressive Latin American police forces, and then beefed up so-called anti-narcotics aid to the same forces by about the same amount.29

To keep the aid coming, corrupt Latin American politicians helped to invent the spectre of the drug-financed “narco-guerrilla”, a myth discounted by careful and dispassionate researchers like Rensselaer Lee.30

U.S. military officers were equally cynical. Col. John D. Waghelstein, writing in the Military Review, argued that the way to counter “those church and academic groups that have slavishly supported insurgency in Latin America” was to put them “on the wrong side of the moral issue”, by creating “a melding in the American public’s mind and in Congress” of the alleged narco-guerrilla connection.31

The actual result of such propagandizing is to sanction the role of drug traffickers and their allies in U.S. counterinsurgency efforts, and thus further to strengthen the status of the drug cartels in the countries they terrorize.

Two recent indictments by the U.S. Department of Justice reinforce the general paradigm of CIA-created intelligence networks that reinforce their local power and influence by major involvement in drug trafficking. In March 1997 Michel-Joseph Francois, the CIA-backed police chief in Haiti, was indicted in Miami for having helped to smuggle 33 tons of Colombian cocaine and heroin into the United States. The Haitian National Intelligence Service (SIN), which the CIA helped to create, was also a target of the Justice Department investigation which led to the indictment.32
A few months earlier, General Ramon Guillen Davila, chief of a CIA-created anti-drug unit in Venezuela, was indicted in Miami for smuggling a ton of cocaine into the United States. According to the New York Times, “The CIA, over the objections of the Drug Enforcement Administration, approved the shipment of at least one ton of pure cocaine to Miami International Airpost as a way of gathering information about the Colombian drug cartels.” One official said that the total amount might have been much more than one ton.33
The information about the drug activities of Guillen Davila and Francois had been published in the U.S. press years before the indictments. It is possible that, had it not been for the controversy aroused by the Contra-cocaine stories in the August 1996 San Jose Mercury, these two men and their networks might have been as untouchable as Miguel Nassar Haro and the DFS in Mexico, or Montesinos and the Peruvian SIN in Peru.

The U.S. and Drug Traffickers in Asia: Washington, Afghanistan, and BCCI
The same U.S.-right wing-drug symbiosis has prevailed for decades in Asia. Former top DEA investigator in the Middle East, Dennis Dayle, told an anti-drug conference that “in my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA.”34
The biggest recent CIA-drug story in Asia has centered on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, or BCCI. The President until 1993 of America’s traditional ally Pakistan, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, was the man who as finance minister granted special tax status for the CIA and drug-linked BCCI, the bank of his close friend Agha Hasan Abedi. Ghulam Ishaq Khan also served as Chairman of Abedi’s BCCI Foundation, an ostensible charity that in fact fronted for BCCI’s concerted efforts to make Pakistan a nuclear power.35
BCCI’s involvement in drug money-laundering, drug-trafficking, and related arms deals is now common knowledge; but the U.S. Government has yet to admit and explain why BCCI’s owner Abedi met repeatedly, as reported by Time and NBC, with CIA officials William Casey and Robert Gates.36
BCCI became close to the CIA through its deep involvement in the CIA-Pakistan operation in Afghanistan.37
This in itself was a drug story: by their aid in the 1980s Pakistan and the CIA built up their previously insignificant client, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to a position where he could become, “with the full support of ISI [Pakistani intelligence] and the tacit tolerance of the CIA…Afghanistan’s leading drug lord.”38
BCCI was in a position to launder much of the drug proceeds.39
Inside Pakistan in the 1980s, the CIA’s man for the Afghan arms-and-drugs support operation, banked and even staffed through BCCI, was the North-West Frontier Provincial Governor, General Fazle el-Haq (or Huq), who continued to run the local drug trade with ISI.40
Haq and BCCI President Abedi met regularly with the then President of Pakistan, General Zia; Zia and Abedi in turn would meet regularly to discuss Afghanistan with CIA Chief William Casey.41
BCCI corruption was not confined to Asia. It extended also to the notorious CIA-Noriega alliance in Panama, and in the 1990s to the drug-corrupted military leaders in Guatemala that the U.S. turned to lead the war on drugs in that country.42
BCCI, along with the United States Government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), even played a role in the supply of arms and trainers to the Colombian drug cartels’ death squads in Puerto Boyaca, mentioned above.43
It would be wrong to blame this pervasive drug corruption on BCCI alone, or to expect that the exposure in 1991 of BCCI, which was only achieved after great opposition and obstruction in Washington, will make the problem go away. BCCI was just one major player in a complex multinational intelligence game of drug-trafficking, arms sales, banking, and corruption. Other CIA-linked and drug-linked banks, to which BCCI can be connected, such as the Castle Bank in the Bahamas, the World Finance Corporation in Miami, and the Nugan Hand Bank in Australia, have risen and fallen before BCCI’s spectacular demise, and we should expect more such scandals in the future.44
It is the same with the drug traffic itself. As long as we do not address the root problem of governmental drug connections that make and break the kingpins, traditional law enforcement will continue to be ineffective. The kingpin is dead; long live the kingpin.

Protection for Drug Traffickers in the United States
These gray alliances between law enforcement and criminal elements lead to protection for drug-traffickers, not just abroad, but at home. Drug-traffickers who are used as covert assets abroad also are likely to be recruited as informants or other assets in the U.S. Thus for example, a syndicate headed by Bay of Pigs veteran Guillermo Tabraue was able to earn $80 million from marijuana and cocaine trafficking from 1976 to 1987, while Tabraue simultaneously earned up to $1,400 a week as a DEA informant.
Vastly under-reported in the U.S. press are the number of cases where indicted drug-traffickers, because of their intelligence connections, are allowed to escape trial in U.S. courts, or else have their charges or sentences reduced. Usually the public learns of these cases only by accident. In one case a U.S. Attorney in San Diego protested publicly when he was ordered by the CIA to drop charges against a drug-trafficking CIA client in Mexico (the head of the corrupt DFS mentioned earlier), who had been indicted for his role in what was described as America’s largest stolen-car ring. Despite public support for his honesty, the U.S. Attorney was fired.45
After a DEA undercover agent retired and went public, he revealed that in 1980 a top Bolivian trafficker arrested by him was almost immediately released by the Miami U.S. Attorney’s office, without the case being presented to the grand jury. This was two weeks before the infamous Cocaine Coup in Bolivia, financed by the trafficker’s family and organization, which briefly installed the drug-traffickers themselves in charge of law enforcement in that country.46
These anecdotal stories, which are numerous, are tiny when compared to the U.S. governmental protection and cover-up of BCCI’s involvement in drug-trafficking and money-laundering.47
To its credit, the CIA knew of BCCI’s illegal activities as early as 1979, and started distributing information to the Justice Department and other agencies in 1983. After an unrelated investigation in Florida, two of BCCI’s units pleaded guilty to drug money-laundering in 1990, and five of its executives went to jail. But a senior Justice Department official took the unusual step of requesting the Florida Banking Commissioner to allow BCCI to stay open.48
For over three years between 1988 and 1991, the Justice Department “repeatedly requested delays or halts to action by the Senate concerning BCCI, refused to provide assistance to the [Kerry] Subcommittee concerning BCCI, and, on occasion, made misleading statements to the Subcommittee concerning the status of investigative efforts concerning BCCI.”49
New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in this period was also openly critical of the pointed lack of co-operation from the Justice Department.50
BCCI’s drug-related crimes cannot be separated from its other illegal activities, notably arms-trafficking and the corruption of public officials. For years the CIA has used corruption of foreign officials to further its aims; and this has fostered a climate of corruption by other entities, such as BCCI. The size of the BCCI scandal and cover-up raises questions as to whether (with or without CIA connivance) BCCI, having corrupted senior public figures in such countries as Argentina, Brazil, the Congo, Guatemala, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, and Peru (to name only a few), may not have also managed to corrupt major figures in the U.S. as well.
As noted by many observers, BCCI and its American allies have prospered through strong financial and other connections to Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. Many of these were orchestrated for BCCI by the Arkansas investment banker Jackson Stephens, a backer in turn of Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton.51
The CIA’s world-wide penchant for political influence may help explain why it “seems to have protected BCCI and its backers for well over a decade.”52
Since the demise of BCCI, such influential connections to Clinton have been continued by Stephens and his close investment allies Mochtar and James Riady. In addition the Riadys’ Lippo Bank in Hong Kong was at one point scheduled to buy out the bankrupt BCCI branch in Hong Kong, where the Burma drug lord Khun Sa was rumoured to have deposited hundreds of millions of dollars. The deal went sour, and the BCCI branch was bought instead by the Australian Alan Bond. After Bond in turn went bankrupt, the Lippo Bank bought from him the old Hong Kong BCCI bank building, which it now occupies.53
The root problem however is the U.S. decision to play Realpolitik in regions where the reality of right-wing power is its grounding in the resources of the drug traffic. Alternatives to this easy route of drug traffic symbiosis and co-dependency are not easy, but they must be turned to. The government strategy of global Realpolitik has helped to expand the global drug traffic to the point where the strategy itself, strengthening the flow of drugs from one CIA-protected network to another around the world, has become a more genuine threat to the real security of the domestic United States, than the enemies it allegedly opposes. The United States certainly does not control these dangerous allies it has strengthened and in some cases invented. The problem of disengagement from such world-wide alliances is complex, and disengagement by itself will not bring an end to the traffic which U.S. policies have fostered. But it is clearly time, with a new Administration and a new post-Cold War global environment, for a decisive repudiation to drug alliances, and a move towards new global strategies.

What Can Be Done?
What can be done to stop this governmental protection of drug-traffickers? In the short run we need an explicit repudiation of former drug-linked strategies, and an admission that they have been counter-productive. This might take the form of an explicit directive from the Clinton Administration, that old strategies to shore up corrupt right-wing governments abroad, like Peru’s, must be clearly subordinated to the new domestic priority of reducing this nation’s drug problems.
More specifically, the misnamed “War on Drugs”, a pernicious and misleading military metaphor, should be replaced by a medically and scientifically oriented campaign towards healing this country’s drug sickness. The billions that have been wasted in military anti-drug campaigns, efforts which have ranged from the futile to the counter-productive, should be re-channelled into a public health paradigm, emphasizing prevention, maintenance, and rehabilitation programs. The experiments in controlled de-criminalization which have been initiated in Europe should be closely studied and emulated here.54
The root cause of the governmental drug problem in this country is the National Security Act of 1947, and subsequent orders based on it. These in effect have exempted intelligence agencies and their personnel from the rule of law, an exemption which in the course of time has been extended from the agencies themselves to their drug-trafficking clients. This must cease. Either the President or Congress must proclaim that national security cannot be invoked to protect drug-traffickers. This must be accompanied by clarifying orders or legislation, discouraging the conscious collaboration with, or protection of, criminal drug-traffickers, by making it clear that such acts will themselves normally constitute grounds for prosecution.
Clearly a campaign to restore sanity to our prevailing drug policies will remain utopian, if it does not contemplate a struggle to realign the power priorities of our political system. Such a struggle will be difficult and painful. For those who believe in an open and decent America, the results will also be rewarding.

Notes
1. U.S., General Accounting Office, Drug Control: U.S. Supported Efforts in Burma, Pakistan, and Thailand, GAO/NSIAD-88-94, February 1988, 12; cited in Peter Dale Scott, “Cocaine, the Contras, and the United States: How the U.S. government has augmented America’s drug crisis”, Crime, Law and Social Change, 16 (1991), 97-131 (98). (In 1979, the first year of the CIA’s Afghan operation, the number of drug-related deaths in New York City rose by 77 percent.) New York Times, May 22, 1980; Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade (New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1991), 437.
2. Scott, “Cocaine”, 99.
3. Discussion, with examples of such lies, in Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991), 172-85, especially at 177-78; cf. 179-81; see also Joel Millman, “Narco-Terrorism: A Tale of Two Stories”, Columbia Journalism Review, (September-October 1986), 50-51; Rolling Stone, September 10, 1987; Mark Hertsgaard, On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1988), 314-15, etc.
4. Michael Massing, New York Review of Books, December 3, 1992, 10; Nation, December 2, 1991.
5. Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin (New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1991), 162; Alfred W. McCoy, with Cathleen B. Read and Leonard P. Adams II, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 12 H6; both citing New York Times, September 17, 1963, 45.
6. San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 1993, A14. For the links between the Cali cartel, the Colombian, and the U.S. Government, see Scott and Marshall, 79-103, especially 81-94.
7. Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1997 (Montesinos); James Mills, The Underground Empire (New York: Dell, 1986), 809 (CIA).
8. San Jose Mercury News, April 19, 1992.
9. Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1997. The trafficker, detained in prison, later recanted his story. According to an Op-ed in the New York Times by Gustavo Gorriti, a leader among the Peruvian intellectuals forced into exile, “Mr. Montesinos built a power base and fortune mainly as a legal strategist for drug traffickers. He has had a close relationship with the C.I.A., and controls the intelligence services, and, through them, the military.” New York Times, December 27, 1992.
10. Washington Post, May 10, 1992, A32 (Montesinos); Jonathan Marshall, Drug Wars (Berkeley: Eclipse Books, 1991), 24-26; Wall Street Journal, November 29, 1991; Washington Post, February 28, 1993 (military).
11. New York Times, November 11, 1991, A6; September 28, 1993.
12. Scott and Marshall, 191.
13. Mills, The Underground Empire, 877.
14. Mills, The Underground Empire, 585; Scott and Marshall, 83-84.
15. Patrick L. Clawson and Rensselaer W. Lee III, The Andean Cocaine Industry (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), 31, 181.
16. Economist, May 13, 1995, 44; San Francisco Chronicle, August 17, 1996; cf. Mills, 877-79.
17. San Francisco Chronicle, August 17, 1996.
18. New York Times, December 27, 1992. See also Progressive, May 1992, 25; Nation, March 30, 1992, 401.
19. Scott and Marshall, 34-39, quoting Elaine Shannon, Desperados, 179.
20. Manuel Buend’ia, La CIA en Mexico (Mexico City: Oceano, 1983), 24.
21. Scott and Marshall, Cocaine Politics, 35-41.
22. Scott and Marshall, 41; Peter Dale Scott, “Letter to the ARRB [Assassination Records Review Board].” Prevailing Winds (Santa Barbara, CA), 3 [Spring 1996], 40-43.
23. Scott and Marshall, 65.
24. Scott and Marshall, 68-72.
25. Scott and Marshall, 55-58.
26. Celerino Castillo, Powderburns: Cocaine, Contras, and the Drug War (Oakville, Ont.: Mosaic Press, 1994), 126, etc.
27. Peter Dale Scott, “Colombia: America’s Dirtiest War on Drugs”, Tikkun (May June 1997), 27-31; Jonathan Marshall, Drug Wars (Forestville, CA: Cohan and Cohen, 1991), 17-21; Scott and Marshall, 89; Rensselaer Lee, White Labyrinth, 117-18.
28. Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 268-69. See also Marshall, 17-21. For the covert assistance of the Israel and U.S. governments, see Cockburn and Cockburn, 212-13, 264-79.
29. Michael Klare and Cynthia Arnson, Supplying Repression (Washington: Institute for Policy Studies, 1981), 23; Marshall, 13-15.
30. Scott and Marshall, 83-84, 95-98; Rensselaer Lee, The White Labyrinth, 106, 172-77, 218, and passim. One passionate advocate of the “narco-guerrilla” hypothesis, the Peruvian Minister of the Interior in 1985, had a private secretary who was a member of the Rodr’iguez-L’opez cartel.
31. Col. John. D. Waghelstein, Military Review, February 1987, 46-47; quoted in Scott and Marshall, 198n; Marshall, 13.
32. San Francisco Chronicle, March 8, 1997, A10. Francois allegedly controlled the capital, Port-au-Prince, with a network of hirelings who profited on the side from drug-trafficking.
33. New York Times, November 23, 1996; see also Wall Street Journal, November 22, 1996. The total amount of drugs smuggled by Gen. Guillen may have been more than 22 tons.
34. Scott and Marshall (paperback edition), x-xi.
35. Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne, The Outlaw Bank (New York: Random House, 1993), 287-91; U.S. Cong., Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, The BCCI Affair, Report to the Committee by Senator John Kerry and Senator Hank Brown, December 1992; 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate Print 102-140 (Washington: GPO, 1993; henceforth cited as Kerry-Brown Report), 67, 104-07.
36. Beaty and Gwynne, 306-08, 315-17, etc.; Kerry-Brown Report, 306-08.
37. Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin, False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World’s Most Corrupt Financial Empire (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 131-34, 159-60, 430-31.
38. Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin (New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1991), 449-50, etc. See also Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1992; Marshall, 47-53.
39. Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 160.
40. Beaty and Gwynne, 48-52, 294-95, 313-17. See also Marshall, 51-52.
41. Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 133-34, 160.
42. Beaty and Gwynne, 208; Scott and Marshall, 188; see also Los Angeles Times, September 19, 1991, A22.
43. Kerry-Brown Report, 69-70; Cockburn and Cockburn, 271-73.
44. For some of the links between Castle, WFC, Nugan Hand, and BCCI, too complex to explore here, see Scott and Marshall, 92-93 (Castle/Nugan Hand); Pete Brewton, The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush, 185 (WFC/BCCI); Kerry-Brown Report, 127-31; Alan A. Block, Masters of Paradise (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1991), 171, 191; Penny Lernoux, In Banks We Trust (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1984), 87; James Ring Adams and Douglas Frantz, The Full Service Bank (New York: Pocket Books, 1992), 55 (Castle/Mercantile Bank and Trust/ International Bank/ BCCI).
45. Scott and Marshall, 36. Other drug-traffickers who were also linked to international smuggling of stolen cars include Norwin Meneses in Nicaragua and Carlos Lehder in Colombia.
46. Michael Levine, Deep Cover (New York: Delacorte Press, 1990; Scott and Marshall, 219).
47. Beaty and Gwynne, 323-44; Kerry-Brown Report, 185-239.
48. Beaty and Gwynne, 336-37; Kerry-Brown Report, 216-17; cf. 235.
49. Kerry-Brown Report, 237.
50. Beaty and Gwynne, 338.
51. Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 365-67, 427-29; Beaty and Gwynne, 148-53 (Carter), 227-30 (Reagan-Bush). See also James Ring Adams and Douglas Frantz, A Full Service Bank (New York: Pocket Books, 1992), 55-59 (for BCCI’s involvement with a major Clinton supporter). BCCI also had links to the family of one Clinton Cabinet member, and the law firm of another (Beaty and Gwynne, 227, 73).
52. Truell and Gurwin, 429.
53. Truell and Gurwin, 210, 365-66.
54. Eva Bertram, Morris Blachman, Kenneth Sharpe, Peter Andreas, Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996), 204-27. See also Marshall, 63-67.


http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/01/cias-drugs-gangs.html

AL QAEDA ARE MERCENARIES, LINKED TO DRUGS

Robin Cook, who died rather suddenly. 

The mainstream media is controlled by the bad guys.

But, the alternative media can tell the truth – that Al Qaeda are mercenaries, linked to the drugs trade.

Robin Cook was the UK government minister in charge of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6.

Robin Cook revealed that ‘al Qaeda’ was ‘a list of people working for the CIA’.

What happened to Robin Cook?

Robin Cook’s affair with a young lady was splashed across the newspaper front pages.

Robin Cook then died rather suddenly.

Al Qaeda-linked Abdulhakim Belhaj, aka Abdel- Hakim al-Hasidi, who has been put into power in Libya by NATO
On 7 September 2011, French academic Thierry Meyssan tells us more about Al Qaeda, and their use by the CIA in Libya and elsewhere. (www.voltairenet.org/a171328)

We paraphrase and summarise Meyssan’s report, using our own words.

According to Meyssan:

1. Al Qaeda is a bunch of mercenaries used by the USA to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Iraq, and now Libya, Syria and Yemen.

2. The boss of Al Qaeda in Libya, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, is now the military boss in Tripoli and is now in charge of organizing Libya’s army.

3. In the 1980s, the CIA began recruiting mercenaries in Libya.

These mercenaries were trained in Pakistan by the billionaire Osama bin Laden.

4. In 1994, Osama bin Laden sent his Libyan mercenaries to kill Gaddafi.

5. On 1995, Osama’s Libyan mercenaries were given the name Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

6. According to former UK spy David Shayler, Osama’s LIFG was funded by the UK spy service MI6.

Panetta’s family reportedly come from a town in Italy linked to organised crime.

7. Osama’s Libyans moved to Afghanistan.

8. People linked to Osama’s Libyan LIFG continue to operate on UK territory under MI6 protection.

9. On 6 March 2004, the LIFG leader Abdel Hakim Belhadj, who had fought alongside Osama bin Laden, was arrested in Malaysia.

Reportedly he was handed over to Gaddafi’s Libya.

10. In 2005, Western spooks organised a meeting of anti-Gaddafi Libyans in London.

These included the Muslim Brotherhood and Osama’s LIFG.

11. In 2005, a Libyan called Abu al-Laith al-Liby was able to ‘escape’ from the maximum security prison in Bagram (Afghanistan) and became one of the leaders of al-Qaeda.

Large numbers of Osama’s Libyan LIFG fought in Iraq.

12. In 2007, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu al-Laith al-Liby announced that LIFG was part of Al-Qaeda.

Abu al-Laith al-Liby became Al-Qaeda’s No 2 man.

Prince Bandar Bin Sultan with Bush.
13. In 2008-2010 Gaddafi’s Libya negotiated a truce with the LIFG. All members of Al-Qaeda were pardoned and released on condition they renounced violence.

14. Abdel Hakim Belhadj moved to Qatar.

15. In early 2011, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar Bin Sultan made a series of trips with the aim of revitalizing al Qaeda.

16. Recruitment offices were opened in Malaysia.

In Mazar-i-Sharif, more than 1,500 Afghans signed up for al Qaeda work in Libya, Syria and Yemen.

Reportedly, the Hebrew speaking Mohamed Atta flew drugs out of Venice, Florida, for the CIA.
17. On 17 February 2011, the “National Libyan Opposition Conference” organized a “day of anger” in Benghazi, which sparked the beginning of the recent war against Gaddafi.

On 23 February, LIFG’s Imam Abdelkarim al-Hasadi proclaimed the creation of an Islamic Emirate in Derna, the most fundamentalist city in Libya.

The burqa was made mandatory and corporal punishment reinstated. Emir al-Hasidi has his own army.

18. All across “liberated” Cyrenaica, Al-Qaeda men have gone in for massacre and torture; they have specialized in slitting the throats of Gaddafi sympathizers, eye-plucking and cutting off the breasts of immodest women.


The following people have reportedly been:

(A) CIA assets

(B) involved in the drugs trade:
1. Osama bin Laden

2. David Headley, planner of the 2008 Mumbai attacks

3. Dawood Ibrahim, drug lord

4. Pakistan’s president Zia ul Haq

5. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, drug lord from Afghanistan

6. Monzer al Kassar, drug lord linked to Lockerbie.

How might the CIA be financing al Qaeda?

By involvement with drugs gangs?

At the time of Iran-Contra, Monzer al Kassar reportedly helped the CIA smuggle drugs out of Lebanon. (LOCKERBIE AND THE FINANCING OF 9 11)In Pakistan the CIA worked with President Zia-ul-Haq, who “was running the drug trade.”

In Afghanistan the CIA worked with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was the top figure running the drug trade. (The Imperial Anatomy of

For more than a year the CIA has been trafficking 300 kilos of cocaine a month from Ecuador to Chile for export on to Europe, according to recent  media reports from Santiago, the Chilean capital.

Proceeds from the 300 kilo-a-month business have been used to create a war-chest to finance a Cocaine Coup in Ecuador that was scheduled to be “green-lighted” after the expected win in the just-concluded U.S. Presidential election—expected, at least, by some Agency officials—of Mitt Romney.


Fifty Years of CIA Drug Trafficking



RAND studies released in the mid-1990s found that using drug user treatment to reduce drug consumption in the United States is seven times more cost effective than law enforcement efforts alone, and it could potentially cut consumption by a third.[244]
In FY2011, the Obama Administration requests approximately $5.6 billion to support demand reduction. This includes a 13% increase for prevention and a nearly 4% increase for treatment. The overall FY 2011 counter-drug request for supply reduction and domestic law enforcement is $15.5 billion with $521.1 million in new funding.



ALLEGATIONS OF CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CIA AND THE CONTRAS IN COCAINE TRAFFICKING TO THE UNITED STATES
(96-0143-IG)
Volume II: The Contra Story


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

EXHIBITS
    March 2, 1982 DoJ-CIA Memorandum of Understanding regarding “Reporting and Use of Information Concerning Federal Crimes”  [1] – [2] – [3] – [4] – [5] – [6] – [7] – [8] – [9] – [10] – [11] – [12]February 11, 1982 Letter to DCI William Casey from Attorney General William French Smith regarding DoJ-CIA Memorandum of Understanding  [1] February 8, 1985 DoJ Memorandum to Mark Richard from A. R. Cinquegrana, “CIA Reporting of Drug Offenses”  [1]

“If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched.”

George Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter

“The Subcommittee found that the Contra drug links included:

  • Involvement in narcotics trafficking by individuals associated with the Contra movement. 
  • Participation of narcotics traffickers in Contra supply operations through business relationships with Contra organizations. 
  • Provision of assistance to the Contras by narcotics traffickers, including cash, weapons, planes, pilots, air supply services and other materials, on a voluntary basis by the traffickers. 
  • Payments to drug traffickers by the US State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies.”

Senate Committee Report on Drugs,
Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy
chaired by Senator John F. Kerry


Washington and the politics of drugs
Peter Dale Scott 

Those struggling to solve America’s drug problems are accustomed to talk of “demand side” and “supply side” solutions. This language reflects a bureaucratic perspective: it tends to project the problem, and focus alleged “solutions”, on to others, often on to remote and deprived populations. On the supply side, eradication programs are designed for the mountains of Burma or the Andes. On the demand side, increasing funds are allocated for the arrest and imprisonment (and less often, the treatment) of the substance abusers, often ethnic and from the inner cities.
Increasingly, however, researchers are becoming aware of a third aspect to the problem: protected intelligence-drug connections. Within the U.S. governmental bureaucracy itself, intelligence agencies and special warfare elements have recurringly exploited drug traffickers and their corrupt political allies for anti-Communist and anti-subversive operations, often but not always covert, in other parts of the world. History suggests that this third aspect of the drug problem, the protected intelligence-drug connection, or what I call government-drug symbiosis, has been responsible for the biggest changes in the patterns and level of drug-trafficking. Thus, at least in theory, it also presents the most hopeful target for improvement.
No one now disputes that in the immediate post-war period CIA assistance to the Sicilian mafia in Italy, and the Corsican mafia in Marseille, helped consolidate and protect the vast upsurge of drug trafficking through those two areas. No one disputes either that a heroin epidemic in the U.S. surged and then subsided with our Vietnamese involvement and disengagement.
But the same upsurge of protected drug-trafficking was visible in the 1980s, when the United States received more than half of its heroin from a new area: the Afghan-Pakistan border, from drug-trafficking mujaheddin who were the backbone of the CIA’s covert operations in Afghanistan. Published U.S. statistics estimate that heroin imports from the Afghan-Pakistan border, which had been insignificant before 1979, accounted for 52 percent of U.S. imported heroin by 1984.1
In the same period, at least a fifth of America’s cocaine, probably more, was imported via Honduras, where local drug-traffickers, and their allies in the corrupt Honduran armed forces, were the backbone of the infra-structure for Reagan’s covert support of the contra forces in that country.2
These specific facts are not contested by historians, and even CIA veterans have conceded their agency’s role in the genesis of the post-war problem. Nevertheless, there is an on-going and steadfast denial on the part of U.S. administrations, the press, and the public. The public’s denial is psychologically understandable: it is disconcerting to contemplate that our government, which we expect to protect us from such a grave social crisis, is actually contributing to it.
This denial is sustained by the general silence, and the occasional uncritical transmission of government lies, in our most responsible newspapers of record.3
It is further reinforced by a small army of propagandists, who hasten to assure us that today “the CIA’s part in the world drug trade seems irrelevant”; and that to argue otherwise is “absurd.”4
Because of such resolute denial, this most serious of public crises is barely talked about. Yet the problem of a U.S.-protected drug traffic endures. Today the United States, in the name of fighting drugs, has entered into alliances with the police and armed forces of Colombia and Peru, forces conspicuous by their alliances with drug-traffickers in counterinsurgency operations. It is now clear that at least some of the U.S. military efforts and assistance to these countries has been deflected into counterinsurgency campaigns, where the biggest drug traffickers are not the enemy, but allies.
Realists object that it is not the business of the U.S. to reform drug-corrupted regimes in other countries, such as Pakistan or Peru. Unfortunately U.S. overt and covert programs in such countries are usually large enough to change these societies anyway, if only to reinforce and harden the status quo. At the same time they affect the size and structure of the drug traffic itself. In the post-war years, when the drug-financed China Lobby was strong in Washington, and the U.S. shipped arms and Chinese Nationalist troops into eastern Burma, opium production in that remote region increased almost fivefold in fifteen years, from less than 80 to 300-400 tons a year. Production doubled again in the 1960s, the heyday of the Kuomintang-CIA alliance in Southeast Asia.5
Drug alliances confer protection upon designated traffickers, and such conferred protection centralizes, rationalizes, and further empowers the traffic. When one American representative of the CIA-linked Cali cartel was arrested in 1992, the DEA said that this man alone had been responsible for from 70 to 80% of U.S. cocaine imports (an estimate probably exaggerated but nonetheless instructive).6
It is true that this man, like many others, was ultimately arrested by the U.S. Government. But in many if not most such cases, key men like General Noriega are only arrested after U.S. policy priorities have changed, and de facto alliances made with new drug figures. In short, up to now the U.S. Government, along with other governments, has done far more to increase the global drug traffic, than it has to diminish it.

The U.S., Drug-Trafficking and Counterinsurgency in Peru
Today one of the most glaring and dangerous examples of a CIA-drug alliance is in Peru. Behind Peru’s president, Alberto Fujimori, is his chief adviser Vladimiro Montesinos, the effective head of the National Intelligence Service or SIN, an agency created and trained by the CIA in the 1960s.7
Through the SIN, Montesinos played a central role in Fujimori’s “auto-coup”, or suspension of the constitution, in April 1992, an event which (according to Knight-Ridder correspondent Sam Dillon) raised “the specter of drug cartels exercising powerful influence at the top of Peru’s government.”8
Recently Montesinos has been accused of arranging for the bombing of an opposition television station, while in August 1996 an accused drug trafficker claimed that Montesinos had accepted tens of thousands of dollars in payoffs.9
In the New York Review of Books, Mr. Gorriti spelled out this CIA-drug collaboration more fully.
“In late 1990, Montesinos also began close co-operation with the CIA, and in 1991 the National Intelligence Service began to organize a secret anti-drug outfit with funding, training, and equipment provided by the CIA. This, by the way, made the DEA…furious. Montesinos apparently suspected that the DEA had been investigating his connection to the most important Peruvian drug cartel in the 1980s, the Rodr’iguez-L’opez organization, and also links to some Colombian traffickers. Perhaps not coincidentally, Fujimori made a point of denouncing the DEA as corrupt at least twice, once in Peru in 1991, and the second time at the Presidential summit in San Antonio, Texas, in February [1992]. As far as I know, the secret intelligence outfit never carried out anti-drug operations. It was used for other things, such as my arrest.”
New York Review of Books, June 25, 1992, 20.
Others have pointed to the drug corruption of Peru’s government, naming not only Montesinos, but the military establishment receiving U.S. anti-drug funding.10
Charges that the Peruvian army and security forces were continuing to take payoffs, to protect the cocaine traffickers that they were supposed to be fighting, have led at times to a withholding of U.S. aid.11
Such charges against Fujimori, Montesinos, and the Peruvian military are completely in line with what we know about Peru over the last two decades. In the 1980s the same Peruvian drug-trafficking organization, that of Reynaldo Rodr’iguez L’opez, incorporated into itself several generals of the Peruvian Investigative Police (PIP), at whose headquarters Rodr’iguez L’opez maintained an office, and also the private secretary to the Peruvian Minister of the Interior.12
Before that senior PIP officials and Army generals were controlled by the Paredes family organization, described by a DEA analyst as then “the biggest smuggling organization in Peru and possibly in the world.”13
In the words of James Mills, the Paredes were part of the established Peruvian oligarchy that goes back to the Spanish vice-royalty, an oligarchy which “controlled not only the roots of the cocaine industry but, to a large extent, the country itself.”14
Other observers have given a much more marginal account of cocaine’s role in Peruvian society. Patrick Clawson and Rensselaer Lee estimated that “nearly all Peruvian cocaine base and hydrochloride is sold to Colombians who fly in payments and fly out product.” In their words, “As a $1.3 billion industry, coca accounted for 3.9% of the 1992 $33 billion GNP”; and furthermore was “of shrinking importance.”15
But at about the time this book was published, it was reported that Peruvian police had seized a single shipment of 3.5 tons of pure cocaine belonging to the Lopez-Paredes branch of the family. This single shipment was worth $600 million; and members of this cartel later admitted to having shipped more than ten tons (worth about $1.8 billion) to Mexico in the previous year.16
The San Francisco Chronicle also reported from Mexican officials that “Vladimiro Montesinos… and Santiago Fujimori, the president’s brother, were responsible for covering up connections between the Mexican and Peruvian drug mafias.”17
It is evident that Clawson and Lee had seriously underestimated the role of cocaine in the Peruvian economy and polity.
The response of many Americans to the CIA’s drug-symbiosis in Peru is to object that the alternative power base, the revolutionary Sendero Luminoso, is even more ruthless and bloodthirsty. Such would-be realists should listen to the arguments of Gorùriti and others that what the U.S. is doing now in Peru, as earlier in China, Laos, and Vietnam, only plays into the revolutionaries’ hands.18

The CIA-Government-Drug Symbiosis in Mexico, Colombia, and Elsewhere
It is important to stress that the CIA-drug symbiosis described by Gustavo Gorriti is not anomalous, but paradigmatic of the way the U.S. is consolidating its power and its allies in parts of the Third World where drugs are a part of the de facto political power structure. In the name of law and freedom, alliances have been made for decades with criminals and dictators. Now, in the name of fighting drugs, U.S. funds are channelled to those whose political fates are allied with those of the drug traffickers. These funds will, paradoxically, strengthen the status both of these traffickers and of the social systems in which they form a constituent element.
In Mexico, for example, the CIA’s closest government allies were for years in the DFS or Direcci’on Federal de Seguridad, whose badges, handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual “license to traffic.”19
Like the SIN in Peru, the DFS was in part a CIA creation; and the CIA presence in the DFS became so dominant that some of its intelligence, according to the famous Mexican journalist Manuel Buend’ia, was seen only by American eyes.20
The Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico’s most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nassar (or Nazar) Haro, a CIA asset.21
Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that members of the Guadalajara Cartel became prominent among the drug-trafficking supporters of the CIA’s Contra operation.22
Throughout Central America, and most notoriously in Panama, Honduras, and Guatemala, the CIA recruited assets from the local Army G-2 intelligence apparatus, who recurringly were also involved in drug-trafficking. Manuel Noriega, the most famous example, was already a CIA asset when he was promoted to become Panama G-2 Chief, as the result of a military coup assisted by the U.S. Army.23
Later, when Noriega became Panama’s effective ruler, his drug networks doubled as Contra support operations, while Noriega himself was shielded for years by the CIA from DEA investigations.24
In Honduras in 1981, the CIA similarly exploited the drug contacts of the Honduran G-2 Chief, Leonidas Torres Arias. (The most notorious of these, the Honduran Juan Ramon Matta Ballesteros, was simultaneously a member of Mexico’s Guadalajara Cartel. His airline SETCO, under investigation by DEA and Customs for drug-trafficking, was chartered by first CIA and then the State Department to fly supplies to the main Contra camps in Honduras.)25

The CIA was able to recruit both assets and Contra supporters from the drug-tainted Guatemalan G-2 as well.26

One sees elsewhere this recurring pattern of CIA collaboration with intelligence and security networks who are allied with the biggest drug-traffickers, not opposed to them. In Colombia, U.S. funds have gone to the Colombian Army and National Police, both of which forces have collaborated with paramilitary death squads financed by the drug cartels, against their mutual enemy, the left-wing guerrillas.27

In Colombia and in Guatemala as in Peru and Mexico, U.S.-assisted campaigns of repression, nominally against drugs, have in fact been deflected into counterinsurgency operations, mis-named as anti-drug operations to secure the support of the U.S. Congress.

In Colombia, according to authors Andrew and Leslie Cockburn,
“U.S. officials…knew that millions of dollars of U.S. aid money, earmarked for the war on drugs, was being used instead to fight leftist guerrillas and their supporters. When [drug] cartel-financed paramilitary forces entered the town of Segovia in November 1988, the military stood by and watched. As Colombian Professor Alejandro Reyes remembered, “They killed forty-three people, just at the center of town. Anybody who was close to that place was shot. They were defenceless people, common people of the town….[I]t was a kind of sanction against the whole town for their political vote…” Forty-three people had been killed for voting the wrong way….In 1989…the U.S. shipped $65 million of military equipment to Colombia. The Colombian chief of police politely pointed out that the items received were totally unsuitable for a war against the traffickers. They were, however, suitable for counterinsurgency. U.S. military equipment turned up in…Puerto Boyaca. [This was a region irrelevant to the drug traffic, but where the drug cartels’ death squads were being trained]…. U.S. helicopters were used in anti-guerrilla bombing campaigns, where, unfortunately, many of the victims were civilians. The State Department knew that too.”28

This hypocrisy of “anti-drug campaigns” dates back to 1974, the year when Congress cut back U.S. aid programs to repressive Latin American police forces, and then beefed up so-called anti-narcotics aid to the same forces by about the same amount.29

To keep the aid coming, corrupt Latin American politicians helped to invent the spectre of the drug-financed “narco-guerrilla”, a myth discounted by careful and dispassionate researchers like Rensselaer Lee.30

U.S. military officers were equally cynical. Col. John D. Waghelstein, writing in the Military Review, argued that the way to counter “those church and academic groups that have slavishly supported insurgency in Latin America” was to put them “on the wrong side of the moral issue”, by creating “a melding in the American public’s mind and in Congress” of the alleged narco-guerrilla connection.31

The actual result of such propagandizing is to sanction the role of drug traffickers and their allies in U.S. counterinsurgency efforts, and thus further to strengthen the status of the drug cartels in the countries they terrorize.

Two recent indictments by the U.S. Department of Justice reinforce the general paradigm of CIA-created intelligence networks that reinforce their local power and influence by major involvement in drug trafficking. In March 1997 Michel-Joseph Francois, the CIA-backed police chief in Haiti, was indicted in Miami for having helped to smuggle 33 tons of Colombian cocaine and heroin into the United States. The Haitian National Intelligence Service (SIN), which the CIA helped to create, was also a target of the Justice Department investigation which led to the indictment.32
A few months earlier, General Ramon Guillen Davila, chief of a CIA-created anti-drug unit in Venezuela, was indicted in Miami for smuggling a ton of cocaine into the United States. According to the New York Times, “The CIA, over the objections of the Drug Enforcement Administration, approved the shipment of at least one ton of pure cocaine to Miami International Airpost as a way of gathering information about the Colombian drug cartels.” One official said that the total amount might have been much more than one ton.33
The information about the drug activities of Guillen Davila and Francois had been published in the U.S. press years before the indictments. It is possible that, had it not been for the controversy aroused by the Contra-cocaine stories in the August 1996 San Jose Mercury, these two men and their networks might have been as untouchable as Miguel Nassar Haro and the DFS in Mexico, or Montesinos and the Peruvian SIN in Peru.

The U.S. and Drug Traffickers in Asia: Washington, Afghanistan, and BCCI
The same U.S.-right wing-drug symbiosis has prevailed for decades in Asia. Former top DEA investigator in the Middle East, Dennis Dayle, told an anti-drug conference that “in my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA.”34
The biggest recent CIA-drug story in Asia has centered on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, or BCCI. The President until 1993 of America’s traditional ally Pakistan, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, was the man who as finance minister granted special tax status for the CIA and drug-linked BCCI, the bank of his close friend Agha Hasan Abedi. Ghulam Ishaq Khan also served as Chairman of Abedi’s BCCI Foundation, an ostensible charity that in fact fronted for BCCI’s concerted efforts to make Pakistan a nuclear power.35
BCCI’s involvement in drug money-laundering, drug-trafficking, and related arms deals is now common knowledge; but the U.S. Government has yet to admit and explain why BCCI’s owner Abedi met repeatedly, as reported by Time and NBC, with CIA officials William Casey and Robert Gates.36
BCCI became close to the CIA through its deep involvement in the CIA-Pakistan operation in Afghanistan.37
This in itself was a drug story: by their aid in the 1980s Pakistan and the CIA built up their previously insignificant client, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to a position where he could become, “with the full support of ISI [Pakistani intelligence] and the tacit tolerance of the CIA…Afghanistan’s leading drug lord.”38
BCCI was in a position to launder much of the drug proceeds.39
Inside Pakistan in the 1980s, the CIA’s man for the Afghan arms-and-drugs support operation, banked and even staffed through BCCI, was the North-West Frontier Provincial Governor, General Fazle el-Haq (or Huq), who continued to run the local drug trade with ISI.40
Haq and BCCI President Abedi met regularly with the then President of Pakistan, General Zia; Zia and Abedi in turn would meet regularly to discuss Afghanistan with CIA Chief William Casey.41
BCCI corruption was not confined to Asia. It extended also to the notorious CIA-Noriega alliance in Panama, and in the 1990s to the drug-corrupted military leaders in Guatemala that the U.S. turned to lead the war on drugs in that country.42
BCCI, along with the United States Government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), even played a role in the supply of arms and trainers to the Colombian drug cartels’ death squads in Puerto Boyaca, mentioned above.43
It would be wrong to blame this pervasive drug corruption on BCCI alone, or to expect that the exposure in 1991 of BCCI, which was only achieved after great opposition and obstruction in Washington, will make the problem go away. BCCI was just one major player in a complex multinational intelligence game of drug-trafficking, arms sales, banking, and corruption. Other CIA-linked and drug-linked banks, to which BCCI can be connected, such as the Castle Bank in the Bahamas, the World Finance Corporation in Miami, and the Nugan Hand Bank in Australia, have risen and fallen before BCCI’s spectacular demise, and we should expect more such scandals in the future.44
It is the same with the drug traffic itself. As long as we do not address the root problem of governmental drug connections that make and break the kingpins, traditional law enforcement will continue to be ineffective. The kingpin is dead; long live the kingpin.

Protection for Drug Traffickers in the United States
These gray alliances between law enforcement and criminal elements lead to protection for drug-traffickers, not just abroad, but at home. Drug-traffickers who are used as covert assets abroad also are likely to be recruited as informants or other assets in the U.S. Thus for example, a syndicate headed by Bay of Pigs veteran Guillermo Tabraue was able to earn $80 million from marijuana and cocaine trafficking from 1976 to 1987, while Tabraue simultaneously earned up to $1,400 a week as a DEA informant.
Vastly under-reported in the U.S. press are the number of cases where indicted drug-traffickers, because of their intelligence connections, are allowed to escape trial in U.S. courts, or else have their charges or sentences reduced. Usually the public learns of these cases only by accident. In one case a U.S. Attorney in San Diego protested publicly when he was ordered by the CIA to drop charges against a drug-trafficking CIA client in Mexico (the head of the corrupt DFS mentioned earlier), who had been indicted for his role in what was described as America’s largest stolen-car ring. Despite public support for his honesty, the U.S. Attorney was fired.45
After a DEA undercover agent retired and went public, he revealed that in 1980 a top Bolivian trafficker arrested by him was almost immediately released by the Miami U.S. Attorney’s office, without the case being presented to the grand jury. This was two weeks before the infamous Cocaine Coup in Bolivia, financed by the trafficker’s family and organization, which briefly installed the drug-traffickers themselves in charge of law enforcement in that country.46
These anecdotal stories, which are numerous, are tiny when compared to the U.S. governmental protection and cover-up of BCCI’s involvement in drug-trafficking and money-laundering.47
To its credit, the CIA knew of BCCI’s illegal activities as early as 1979, and started distributing information to the Justice Department and other agencies in 1983. After an unrelated investigation in Florida, two of BCCI’s units pleaded guilty to drug money-laundering in 1990, and five of its executives went to jail. But a senior Justice Department official took the unusual step of requesting the Florida Banking Commissioner to allow BCCI to stay open.48
For over three years between 1988 and 1991, the Justice Department “repeatedly requested delays or halts to action by the Senate concerning BCCI, refused to provide assistance to the [Kerry] Subcommittee concerning BCCI, and, on occasion, made misleading statements to the Subcommittee concerning the status of investigative efforts concerning BCCI.”49
New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in this period was also openly critical of the pointed lack of co-operation from the Justice Department.50
BCCI’s drug-related crimes cannot be separated from its other illegal activities, notably arms-trafficking and the corruption of public officials. For years the CIA has used corruption of foreign officials to further its aims; and this has fostered a climate of corruption by other entities, such as BCCI. The size of the BCCI scandal and cover-up raises questions as to whether (with or without CIA connivance) BCCI, having corrupted senior public figures in such countries as Argentina, Brazil, the Congo, Guatemala, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, and Peru (to name only a few), may not have also managed to corrupt major figures in the U.S. as well.
As noted by many observers, BCCI and its American allies have prospered through strong financial and other connections to Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. Many of these were orchestrated for BCCI by the Arkansas investment banker Jackson Stephens, a backer in turn of Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton.51
The CIA’s world-wide penchant for political influence may help explain why it “seems to have protected BCCI and its backers for well over a decade.”52
Since the demise of BCCI, such influential connections to Clinton have been continued by Stephens and his close investment allies Mochtar and James Riady. In addition the Riadys’ Lippo Bank in Hong Kong was at one point scheduled to buy out the bankrupt BCCI branch in Hong Kong, where the Burma drug lord Khun Sa was rumoured to have deposited hundreds of millions of dollars. The deal went sour, and the BCCI branch was bought instead by the Australian Alan Bond. After Bond in turn went bankrupt, the Lippo Bank bought from him the old Hong Kong BCCI bank building, which it now occupies.53
The root problem however is the U.S. decision to play Realpolitik in regions where the reality of right-wing power is its grounding in the resources of the drug traffic. Alternatives to this easy route of drug traffic symbiosis and co-dependency are not easy, but they must be turned to. The government strategy of global Realpolitik has helped to expand the global drug traffic to the point where the strategy itself, strengthening the flow of drugs from one CIA-protected network to another around the world, has become a more genuine threat to the real security of the domestic United States, than the enemies it allegedly opposes. The United States certainly does not control these dangerous allies it has strengthened and in some cases invented. The problem of disengagement from such world-wide alliances is complex, and disengagement by itself will not bring an end to the traffic which U.S. policies have fostered. But it is clearly time, with a new Administration and a new post-Cold War global environment, for a decisive repudiation to drug alliances, and a move towards new global strategies.

What Can Be Done?
What can be done to stop this governmental protection of drug-traffickers? In the short run we need an explicit repudiation of former drug-linked strategies, and an admission that they have been counter-productive. This might take the form of an explicit directive from the Clinton Administration, that old strategies to shore up corrupt right-wing governments abroad, like Peru’s, must be clearly subordinated to the new domestic priority of reducing this nation’s drug problems.
More specifically, the misnamed “War on Drugs”, a pernicious and misleading military metaphor, should be replaced by a medically and scientifically oriented campaign towards healing this country’s drug sickness. The billions that have been wasted in military anti-drug campaigns, efforts which have ranged from the futile to the counter-productive, should be re-channelled into a public health paradigm, emphasizing prevention, maintenance, and rehabilitation programs. The experiments in controlled de-criminalization which have been initiated in Europe should be closely studied and emulated here.54
The root cause of the governmental drug problem in this country is the National Security Act of 1947, and subsequent orders based on it. These in effect have exempted intelligence agencies and their personnel from the rule of law, an exemption which in the course of time has been extended from the agencies themselves to their drug-trafficking clients. This must cease. Either the President or Congress must proclaim that national security cannot be invoked to protect drug-traffickers. This must be accompanied by clarifying orders or legislation, discouraging the conscious collaboration with, or protection of, criminal drug-traffickers, by making it clear that such acts will themselves normally constitute grounds for prosecution.
Clearly a campaign to restore sanity to our prevailing drug policies will remain utopian, if it does not contemplate a struggle to realign the power priorities of our political system. Such a struggle will be difficult and painful. For those who believe in an open and decent America, the results will also be rewarding.

Notes
1. U.S., General Accounting Office, Drug Control: U.S. Supported Efforts in Burma, Pakistan, and Thailand, GAO/NSIAD-88-94, February 1988, 12; cited in Peter Dale Scott, “Cocaine, the Contras, and the United States: How the U.S. government has augmented America’s drug crisis”, Crime, Law and Social Change, 16 (1991), 97-131 (98). (In 1979, the first year of the CIA’s Afghan operation, the number of drug-related deaths in New York City rose by 77 percent.) New York Times, May 22, 1980; Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade (New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1991), 437.
2. Scott, “Cocaine”, 99.
3. Discussion, with examples of such lies, in Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991), 172-85, especially at 177-78; cf. 179-81; see also Joel Millman, “Narco-Terrorism: A Tale of Two Stories”, Columbia Journalism Review, (September-October 1986), 50-51; Rolling Stone, September 10, 1987; Mark Hertsgaard, On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1988), 314-15, etc.
4. Michael Massing, New York Review of Books, December 3, 1992, 10; Nation, December 2, 1991.
5. Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin (New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1991), 162; Alfred W. McCoy, with Cathleen B. Read and Leonard P. Adams II, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 12 H6; both citing New York Times, September 17, 1963, 45.
6. San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 1993, A14. For the links between the Cali cartel, the Colombian, and the U.S. Government, see Scott and Marshall, 79-103, especially 81-94.
7. Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1997 (Montesinos); James Mills, The Underground Empire (New York: Dell, 1986), 809 (CIA).
8. San Jose Mercury News, April 19, 1992.
9. Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1997. The trafficker, detained in prison, later recanted his story. According to an Op-ed in the New York Times by Gustavo Gorriti, a leader among the Peruvian intellectuals forced into exile, “Mr. Montesinos built a power base and fortune mainly as a legal strategist for drug traffickers. He has had a close relationship with the C.I.A., and controls the intelligence services, and, through them, the military.” New York Times, December 27, 1992.
10. Washington Post, May 10, 1992, A32 (Montesinos); Jonathan Marshall, Drug Wars (Berkeley: Eclipse Books, 1991), 24-26; Wall Street Journal, November 29, 1991; Washington Post, February 28, 1993 (military).
11. New York Times, November 11, 1991, A6; September 28, 1993.
12. Scott and Marshall, 191.
13. Mills, The Underground Empire, 877.
14. Mills, The Underground Empire, 585; Scott and Marshall, 83-84.
15. Patrick L. Clawson and Rensselaer W. Lee III, The Andean Cocaine Industry (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), 31, 181.
16. Economist, May 13, 1995, 44; San Francisco Chronicle, August 17, 1996; cf. Mills, 877-79.
17. San Francisco Chronicle, August 17, 1996.
18. New York Times, December 27, 1992. See also Progressive, May 1992, 25; Nation, March 30, 1992, 401.
19. Scott and Marshall, 34-39, quoting Elaine Shannon, Desperados, 179.
20. Manuel Buend’ia, La CIA en Mexico (Mexico City: Oceano, 1983), 24.
21. Scott and Marshall, Cocaine Politics, 35-41.
22. Scott and Marshall, 41; Peter Dale Scott, “Letter to the ARRB [Assassination Records Review Board].” Prevailing Winds (Santa Barbara, CA), 3 [Spring 1996], 40-43.
23. Scott and Marshall, 65.
24. Scott and Marshall, 68-72.
25. Scott and Marshall, 55-58.
26. Celerino Castillo, Powderburns: Cocaine, Contras, and the Drug War (Oakville, Ont.: Mosaic Press, 1994), 126, etc.
27. Peter Dale Scott, “Colombia: America’s Dirtiest War on Drugs”, Tikkun (May June 1997), 27-31; Jonathan Marshall, Drug Wars (Forestville, CA: Cohan and Cohen, 1991), 17-21; Scott and Marshall, 89; Rensselaer Lee, White Labyrinth, 117-18.
28. Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 268-69. See also Marshall, 17-21. For the covert assistance of the Israel and U.S. governments, see Cockburn and Cockburn, 212-13, 264-79.
29. Michael Klare and Cynthia Arnson, Supplying Repression (Washington: Institute for Policy Studies, 1981), 23; Marshall, 13-15.
30. Scott and Marshall, 83-84, 95-98; Rensselaer Lee, The White Labyrinth, 106, 172-77, 218, and passim. One passionate advocate of the “narco-guerrilla” hypothesis, the Peruvian Minister of the Interior in 1985, had a private secretary who was a member of the Rodr’iguez-L’opez cartel.
31. Col. John. D. Waghelstein, Military Review, February 1987, 46-47; quoted in Scott and Marshall, 198n; Marshall, 13.
32. San Francisco Chronicle, March 8, 1997, A10. Francois allegedly controlled the capital, Port-au-Prince, with a network of hirelings who profited on the side from drug-trafficking.
33. New York Times, November 23, 1996; see also Wall Street Journal, November 22, 1996. The total amount of drugs smuggled by Gen. Guillen may have been more than 22 tons.
34. Scott and Marshall (paperback edition), x-xi.
35. Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne, The Outlaw Bank (New York: Random House, 1993), 287-91; U.S. Cong., Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, The BCCI Affair, Report to the Committee by Senator John Kerry and Senator Hank Brown, December 1992; 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate Print 102-140 (Washington: GPO, 1993; henceforth cited as Kerry-Brown Report), 67, 104-07.
36. Beaty and Gwynne, 306-08, 315-17, etc.; Kerry-Brown Report, 306-08.
37. Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin, False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World’s Most Corrupt Financial Empire (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 131-34, 159-60, 430-31.
38. Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin (New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1991), 449-50, etc. See also Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1992; Marshall, 47-53.
39. Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 160.
40. Beaty and Gwynne, 48-52, 294-95, 313-17. See also Marshall, 51-52.
41. Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 133-34, 160.
42. Beaty and Gwynne, 208; Scott and Marshall, 188; see also Los Angeles Times, September 19, 1991, A22.
43. Kerry-Brown Report, 69-70; Cockburn and Cockburn, 271-73.
44. For some of the links between Castle, WFC, Nugan Hand, and BCCI, too complex to explore here, see Scott and Marshall, 92-93 (Castle/Nugan Hand); Pete Brewton, The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush, 185 (WFC/BCCI); Kerry-Brown Report, 127-31; Alan A. Block, Masters of Paradise (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1991), 171, 191; Penny Lernoux, In Banks We Trust (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1984), 87; James Ring Adams and Douglas Frantz, The Full Service Bank (New York: Pocket Books, 1992), 55 (Castle/Mercantile Bank and Trust/ International Bank/ BCCI).
45. Scott and Marshall, 36. Other drug-traffickers who were also linked to international smuggling of stolen cars include Norwin Meneses in Nicaragua and Carlos Lehder in Colombia.
46. Michael Levine, Deep Cover (New York: Delacorte Press, 1990; Scott and Marshall, 219).
47. Beaty and Gwynne, 323-44; Kerry-Brown Report, 185-239.
48. Beaty and Gwynne, 336-37; Kerry-Brown Report, 216-17; cf. 235.
49. Kerry-Brown Report, 237.
50. Beaty and Gwynne, 338.
51. Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 365-67, 427-29; Beaty and Gwynne, 148-53 (Carter), 227-30 (Reagan-Bush). See also James Ring Adams and Douglas Frantz, A Full Service Bank (New York: Pocket Books, 1992), 55-59 (for BCCI’s involvement with a major Clinton supporter). BCCI also had links to the family of one Clinton Cabinet member, and the law firm of another (Beaty and Gwynne, 227, 73).
52. Truell and Gurwin, 429.
53. Truell and Gurwin, 210, 365-66.
54. Eva Bertram, Morris Blachman, Kenneth Sharpe, Peter Andreas, Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996), 204-27. See also Marshall, 63-67.


http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/01/cias-drugs-gangs.html

AL QAEDA ARE MERCENARIES, LINKED TO DRUGS

Robin Cook, who died rather suddenly. 

The mainstream media is controlled by the bad guys.

But, the alternative media can tell the truth – that Al Qaeda are mercenaries, linked to the drugs trade.

Robin Cook was the UK government minister in charge of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6.

Robin Cook revealed that ‘al Qaeda’ was ‘a list of people working for the CIA’.

What happened to Robin Cook?

Robin Cook’s affair with a young lady was splashed across the newspaper front pages.

Robin Cook then died rather suddenly.

Al Qaeda-linked Abdulhakim Belhaj, aka Abdel- Hakim al-Hasidi, who has been put into power in Libya by NATO
On 7 September 2011, French academic Thierry Meyssan tells us more about Al Qaeda, and their use by the CIA in Libya and elsewhere. (www.voltairenet.org/a171328)

We paraphrase and summarise Meyssan’s report, using our own words.

According to Meyssan:

1. Al Qaeda is a bunch of mercenaries used by the USA to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Iraq, and now Libya, Syria and Yemen.

2. The boss of Al Qaeda in Libya, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, is now the military boss in Tripoli and is now in charge of organizing Libya’s army.

3. In the 1980s, the CIA began recruiting mercenaries in Libya.

These mercenaries were trained in Pakistan by the billionaire Osama bin Laden.

4. In 1994, Osama bin Laden sent his Libyan mercenaries to kill Gaddafi.

5. On 1995, Osama’s Libyan mercenaries were given the name Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

6. According to former UK spy David Shayler, Osama’s LIFG was funded by the UK spy service MI6.

Panetta’s family reportedly come from a town in Italy linked to organised crime.

7. Osama’s Libyans moved to Afghanistan.

8. People linked to Osama’s Libyan LIFG continue to operate on UK territory under MI6 protection.

9. On 6 March 2004, the LIFG leader Abdel Hakim Belhadj, who had fought alongside Osama bin Laden, was arrested in Malaysia.

Reportedly he was handed over to Gaddafi’s Libya.

10. In 2005, Western spooks organised a meeting of anti-Gaddafi Libyans in London.

These included the Muslim Brotherhood and Osama’s LIFG.

11. In 2005, a Libyan called Abu al-Laith al-Liby was able to ‘escape’ from the maximum security prison in Bagram (Afghanistan) and became one of the leaders of al-Qaeda.

Large numbers of Osama’s Libyan LIFG fought in Iraq.

12. In 2007, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu al-Laith al-Liby announced that LIFG was part of Al-Qaeda.

Abu al-Laith al-Liby became Al-Qaeda’s No 2 man.

Prince Bandar Bin Sultan with Bush.
13. In 2008-2010 Gaddafi’s Libya negotiated a truce with the LIFG. All members of Al-Qaeda were pardoned and released on condition they renounced violence.

14. Abdel Hakim Belhadj moved to Qatar.

15. In early 2011, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar Bin Sultan made a series of trips with the aim of revitalizing al Qaeda.

16. Recruitment offices were opened in Malaysia.

In Mazar-i-Sharif, more than 1,500 Afghans signed up for al Qaeda work in Libya, Syria and Yemen.

Reportedly, the Hebrew speaking Mohamed Atta flew drugs out of Venice, Florida, for the CIA.
17. On 17 February 2011, the “National Libyan Opposition Conference” organized a “day of anger” in Benghazi, which sparked the beginning of the recent war against Gaddafi.

On 23 February, LIFG’s Imam Abdelkarim al-Hasadi proclaimed the creation of an Islamic Emirate in Derna, the most fundamentalist city in Libya.

The burqa was made mandatory and corporal punishment reinstated. Emir al-Hasidi has his own army.

18. All across “liberated” Cyrenaica, Al-Qaeda men have gone in for massacre and torture; they have specialized in slitting the throats of Gaddafi sympathizers, eye-plucking and cutting off the breasts of immodest women.


The following people have reportedly been:

(A) CIA assets

(B) involved in the drugs trade:
1. Osama bin Laden

2. David Headley, planner of the 2008 Mumbai attacks

3. Dawood Ibrahim, drug lord

4. Pakistan’s president Zia ul Haq

5. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, drug lord from Afghanistan

6. Monzer al Kassar, drug lord linked to Lockerbie.

How might the CIA be financing al Qaeda?

By involvement with drugs gangs?

At the time of Iran-Contra, Monzer al Kassar reportedly helped the CIA smuggle drugs out of Lebanon. (LOCKERBIE AND THE FINANCING OF 9 11)In Pakistan the CIA worked with President Zia-ul-Haq, who “was running the drug trade.”

In Afghanistan the CIA worked with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was the top figure running the drug trade. (The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running …)

Bin Laden, according to an official source, used profits from the drug trade to finance al Qaeda. (Los Angeles Times, September/15/01)

According to the New York Times, on 12/10/01, al-Qaeda’s mujahedin worked with the US in Bosnia.“Militants linked to Al Qaeda … established connections with Bosnian organized crime figures.

“Officials said Al Qaeda … found a route for the trafficking of heroin from Afghanistan into Europe through the Balkans.”

Thus, the CIA knew that al-Qaeda was involved in heroin-trafficking. (Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, and Drug-Trafficking)

David Headley worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

The “close institutional relationship between the DEA and the CIA continues up to the present day”. (Alfred W. McCoy)According to Daniel Hopsicker: Barry Seal “told investigators that between March 1984, and August 1985, he made a quarter-million dollars smuggling up to 15,000 kilos of cocaine while working for the DEA.” (Barry Seal) 

On 11 February 2010, Forbes reported

1. Al Qaeda (CIA) in North Africa … “appears to be involved in the trafficking of Latin American cocaine through Africa to Spain”.

2. Michael Braun, chief of operations at the DEA until 2008, says “There is more clear evidence showing al Qaeda’s (CIA’s) growing involvement in the Afghan heroin trade on the Pakistan side of the border.”

3. Dawood Ibrahim runs a 5,000 member gang involved in narcotics and operates mostly from Pakistan, India and the United Arab Emirates.

According to the US government, Ibrahim shares smuggling routes with al Qaeda (CIA) and has worked with both al Qaeda and its affiliate, Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Lashkar has been blamed for carrying out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, possibly with Ibrahim’s help.

4. According to a federal indictment, in 2006 a Pakistani financier for Lashkar-e-Taiba handed David Headley of Chicago $25,000 to conduct video surveillance in India in preparation for the Mumbai attack.

“Arif Qasmani, a chief Lashkar coordinator who has raised funds from crime boss Ibrahim, has been providing al Qaeda with supplies and weapons.

“In return al Qaeda loaned to Lashkar operatives who helped carry out the 2006 train bombings in Mumbai.”

“The CIA created a unit in Haiti, whose purported purpose was anti-drug activity, but was in reality ‘used as an instrument of political terror’, and was heavily involved in drug trafficking.

“The members of the unit were known to torture Aristide supporters… According to one U.S. official, the unit was trafficking drugs and never produced any useful drug intelligence” [11]
(CIA drug trafficking – Wikipedia) 

According to Peter Dale Scott, Mexico‘s intelligence agency, the Dirección Federal de Seguridad, was in part a CIA creation.

DFS badges, “handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual ‘license to traffic.'”[7] 

Scott says that “The Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico’s most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nassar (or Nazar) Haro, a CIA asset.”[7] (CIA drug trafficking – Wikipedia)


http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/W_plane.html

the WikiLeaks threat

ReutersBy Mohammed Abbas and Alessandra Prentice | Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) – Britain said on Thursday that any decision by Ecuador to give Julian Assange political asylum wouldn’t change a thing and that it might still revoke the diplomatic status of Quito’s embassy in London to allow the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder.

The high-profile Australian former hacker has been holed up inside the red-brick embassy in central London for eight weeks since he lost a legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over rape allegations.
Britain’s tough talk on the issue takes what has become an international soap opera to new heights since Assange angered the United States by publishing secret U.S. diplomatic cables on his WikiLeaks website. It may also raise difficult questions for London about the sanctity of embassies’ diplomatic status.

The Ecuadorean government, which said it would announce whether it had granted Assange’s asylum request on Thursday at 7 a.m. (1200 GMT), has said any attempt by Britain to remove the diplomatic status of its embassy would be a “hostile and intolerable act”.

“It is too early to say when or if Britain will revoke the Ecuadorean embassy’s diplomatic status,” a Foreign Office spokesman said. “Giving asylum doesn’t fundamentally change anything.”
“We have a legal duty to extradite Mr Assange. There is a law that says we have to extradite him to Sweden. We are going to have to fulfill that law.”
Outside the embassy, British police tussled with protesters chanting slogans in support of Assange and at least three supporters were detained.
Quito bristled at Britain’s warning.

“We want to be very clear, we’re not a British colony. The colonial times are over,” Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said in an angry statement after a meeting with President Rafael Correa.
Britain’s threat to withdraw diplomatic status from the Ecuadorean embassy drew criticism from some former diplomats who said it could lead to similar moves against British embassies.

“I think the Foreign Office have slightly overreached themselves here,” Britain’s former ambassador to Moscow, Tony Brenton, told the BBC.
“If we live in a world where governments can arbitrarily revoke immunity and go into embassies then the life of our diplomats and their ability to conduct normal business in places like Moscow where I was and North Korea becomes close to impossible.”

LONDON EMBASSY

Ecuador’s embassy, near London’s famed Harrods department store, has been under tight surveillance, with police officers manning the entrance and patrolling its perimeter.

A group of pro-Assange protesters gathered outside the building overnight in response to a rallying call by his supporters on social media websites.
Wearing trademark Guy Fawkes masks – to evoke the spirit of the 17th century English plotter – they held banners and blasted out songs by punk group The Jam from a portable speaker.

A Reuters reporter saw at least three protesters being dragged away by police. About 20 officers were outside the embassy trying to push away the crowd of about 15 supporters.

“I am upset that the British government is willing to go in there and take him by force,” said Liliana Calle, 24, an Ecuadorean student waving her country’s flag outside the embassy. “It makes me think they don’t believe in human rights.”
In what appeared to be prank, taxis lined up outside the embassy asking for Julian Assange.

“I’ve lived, worked and traveled in places with proper dictatorships and nowhere have I seen violations of the Vienna convention to this extent,” said Farhan Rasheed, 42, a historian wearing an “I love Occupy” badge, outside the embassy.
“Here we have a government which claims to be a government of law and justice, stretching and possibly about to break a serious binding international agreement.”
Swedish prosecutors have not yet charged Assange, but they believe they have a case to take to trial.

Assange fears Sweden could send him on to the United States, where he believes authorities want to punish him for publishing thousands of diplomatic cables in a major embarrassment for Washington.

Even if he were granted asylum, Assange has little chance of leaving the Ecuadorean embassy in London without being arrested.

There has been speculation he could travel to an airport in a diplomatic car, be smuggled out in a diplomatic bag, or even be appointed an Ecuadorean diplomat to give him immunity.

But lawyers and diplomats see those scenarios as practically unworkable.
Ecuador’s leader Correa is a self-declared enemy of “corrupt” media and U.S. “imperialism”, and apparently hit it off with Assange during a TV interview the Australian did with him in May. Correa joked then with Assange that he had joined “the club of the persecuted”.

The Ecuadorean government has said it wants to avoid Assange’s extradition to Sweden, but if it did decide to grant him asylum it would offer no legal protection in Britain where police will arrest him as soon as they get a chance.
(Reporting by Mohammed Abbas and Alessandra Prentice; Writing by Maria Golovnina and Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Andrew Osborn)


Wikileaks a threat to our soldiers

Published September 8, 2010 

DEBATE. John Daniels, head of the military intelligence Must, warn of attacks by the Taliban and criminals after Wikileaks publishing secret documents. He calls for a “dual” to secure the military’s IT systems with large amounts of secret material.

When Wikileaks publishes secret documents from Afghanistan revealed not only that there are shortcomings in the protection around the secret data, the publication can also create an immediate danger to life of individuals.

Information relating to the Armed Forces’ operations give an opponent a basis for adapting tactics and countermeasures. For protection of personnel to operate and be effective in many cases remain confidential. Divulged our protection and our plans, we become vulnerable to attacks from the Taliban and criminals, who have a different agenda for Afghanistan over the international community.

Especially serious and devastating to the mission in Afghanistan is about secret personal data of persons who are reporting to and cooperating with the international force is running out. In the event that these people’s identities from being disclosed is an obvious risk of deadly reprisals.

If the claim is true that Wikileaks informant is a single person, the men think. Military IT systems that contain large amounts of information requires a special security protection. These systems should be designed so that an individual not on your own can collect large amounts of information. By creating a system of “dual control” prevented this and the risk of large information leakage. A sloppy comparison would be the principle to fire nuclear weapons, which requires two independent persons keys to perform a firing.

In order to obtain the documents that have so far been published on Wikileaks had, before the modern information technology, demanded that a wide range of safes broken open. I? Days is enough to hack an IT system or as an authorized user fill out the entire database.

It previously came across classified documents and wanted to publish them, were first forced to find an interested journalist and then a chief who was willing to take the risk of revealing secret information. With the Internet, the individual has become his own editor with the ability to publish in real time.

Wikileaks disclosure also shows the need for thorough background checks of personnel handling classified information. This would hopefully reveal a disgruntled employee and the leak could have been avoided.

The military intelligence is constantly working to develop methods and mechanisms for the protection of the Armed Forces information and personnel. Security threats are very much alive, especially in operational areas such as Afghanistan. In recent years we have found that social media is used for intelligence gathering and targeting of staff. In 2009, there are also a number of cases in which soldiers in Afghanistan, or closely associated with them, have been subjected to threats, which have been found to be linked to the Swedish troop contribution to Afghanistan.

The incidents have mainly been linked to the employee’s erroneous use of mobile phones and social media. These incidents have in some cases affected the personal safety and in other cases, led to loss of information.

No matter how technically secure IT systems we build, stands or falls on the safety of the individual employee’s safety awareness and behavior. The solution to the problem of leaks can never be reduced to a technical question, but must also be a matter of how well trained our staff are and how we ensure that only persons who are trustworthy and loyal may have access to secret information.

John Daniels

Chief of Military Security


Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.

Mr Assange is in a British jail awaiting extradition proceedings to Sweden after being refused bail at Westminster Magistrates’ Court despite a number of prominent public figures offering to stand as surety.

His arrest in north London yesterday was described by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as “good news”, and may pave the way for extradition to America and a possible lengthy jail sentence.

The US Justice Department is considering charging Mr Assange with espionage offences over his website’s unprecedented release of classified US diplomatic files. Several right-wing American politicians are pressing for his prosecution and even execution, with Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate, saying he should be pursued the same as al-Qa’ida and Taliban leaders.

Mr Assange’s appearance in the London court, the focus of massive international media attention, puts Britain in the centre of the controversy and recrimination over the publishing of thousands of diplomatic cables which have caused acute embarrassment to the administration in Washington. If the man responsible for putting them in the public domain is to be silenced, his supporters say, the process started here.

The Swedish government seeks Mr Assange’s extradition for alleged sexual offences against two women.

Sources stressed that no extradition request would be submitted until and unless the US government laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to take him to America would only take place after legal proceedings are concluded in Sweden.

Mr Assange, 39, had voluntarily gone to a police station accompanied by solicitors after the issuing of an international warrant.

The court heard that Jemima Khan, the sister of the Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, the film director Ken Loach and journalist John Pilger were among those who had offered to stand bail to the sum of £180,000. But District Judge Howard Rule remanded him in custody on the grounds that there was a risk the WikiLeaks founder would fail to surrender.

Mr Loach, who offered £20,000, explained that he did not know Mr Assange other than by reputation, but he said: “I think the work he has done has been a public service. I think we are entitled to know the dealings of those that govern us.” Mr Pilger, who also offered £20,000, said he knew Mr Assange as a journalist and personal friend and had a “very high regard for him”.

“I am aware of the offences and I am also aware of quite a lot of the detail around the offences,” said Mr Pilger. “I am here today because the charges against him in Sweden are absurd and were judged as absurd by the chief prosecutor there when she threw the whole thing out until a senior political figure intervened.” Ms Khan offered a further £20,000 “or more if need be”, although she said she did not know Assange.

Gemma Lindfield, appearing for the Swedish authorities, successfully opposed bail being granted because there was a risk he would fail to surrender – and also for his own protection, she said. She outlined five reasons why there was a risk: his “nomadic” lifestyle, reports that he intended to seek asylum in Switzerland, access to money from donors, his network of international contacts and his Australian nationality.

Mrs Lindfield added: “Any number of people could take it upon themselves to cause him harm. This is someone for whom, simply put, there is no condition, even the most stringent, that would ensure he would surrender to the jurisdiction of this court.”

Ms Lindfield told the court that Mr Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations of sexual offences.She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Mr Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Mr Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used. The third charge claimed Mr Assange “deliberately molested” Miss A on August 18 “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”.

The fourth charge accused Mr Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

District Judge Riddle said: “This case is not, on the face of it, about WikiLeaks. It is an allegation in another European country of serious sexual offences alleged to have occurred on three separate occasions and involving two separate victims. These are extremely serious allegations. From that, it seems to me that if these allegations are true, then no one could argue the defendant should be granted bail.”

However he added: “If they are false, he suffers a great injustice if he is remanded in custody. At this stage in these proceedings, the nature and strength of the allegations is not known.”

Mr Assange’s solicitor, John Jones, said he agreed the case was not about WikiLeaks but was a “simple accusation” case with the right to bail.

He said: “In relation to the state of play in Sweden, it is important for the court to be aware of the background to this. Mr Assange has made repeated requests that the allegations against him be communicated to him in a language he understands. That has been ignored by the Swedish prosecutor. Another Swedish prosecutor dropped this case early on for lack of evidence and it was resurrected in Gothenburg rather than Stockholm.”

Another of Mr Assange’s lawyers, Mark Stephens, said he believed British authorities would go to extreme lengths to ensure his client was “perfectly comfortable” during his time in jail. While he is confident Mr Assange’s time behind bars will be brief, he said he did not want to appear to be “too cocky”.

“I think a lot of people, including the police, thought that he would get bail today. They were very surprised he didn’t,” he said.

Praising District Judge Howard Riddle’s assessment of the case, Mr Stephens said: “We are incredibly grateful to the judge for making it clear to the prosecutor that he thinks he wants to have a look at the evidence, to make assessments as to whether there is a real risk of conviction or not, because that will make a difference as to whether or not he wants to put him out on bail, or not, on the next occasion.”

Criticising Swedish authorities involved with the case, Mr Stephens said: “It’s a persecution, not a prosecution.”.

He maintained that while Mr Assange was not prepared to go to Sweden to face alleged sexual assault claims, his client was prepared to meet the Swedish prosecutor in England.

“That, I think, is a reasonable approach,” he said.

The pressure on WikiLeaks, which relies on online donations from a worldwide network of supporters to fund its work, continued after Visa and Mastercard suspended all payments to the website.

A spokesman for Visa E said: “Visa Europe has taken action to suspend Visa payment acceptance on WikiLeaks’ website pending further investigation into the nature of its business and whether it contravenes Visa operating rules.” A MasterCard spokesman said: “MasterCard is currently in the process of working to suspend the acceptance of MasterCard cards on WikiLeaks until the situation is resolved.”

Kristinn Hrafnsson, a WikiLeaks spokesperson, said: “WikiLeaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before. Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days.”

The legal proceedings

Q Why is Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, facing legal proceedings in the UK when the allegations against him relate to events in Sweden?

A Under the European arrest warrant procedure any EU state can request the legal assistance of another EU country in the detention of a suspect wanted for an offence committed abroad.

Q Mr Assange’s lawyers say he is not on the run and has voluntarily surrendered to police. So why is he being held in prison?

A District Judge Howard Riddle, sitting at the City of Westminster magistrates’ court, refused Mr Assange’s application for bail because he decided there was a danger he might abscond.

Q What happens next?

A First his lawyers will return to court next week to try to secure his release on conditional bail. Eventually there will be an extradition hearing at which the Swedish prosecution authorities will present prima facie evidence to show there is case for Mr Assange to answer.

Q How long will the proceedings last?

A Mr Assange’s legal team are already preparing to challenge the extradition in the High Court in London. If they lose the case there, they can take it all the way to the Supreme Court, a process which could last many months.

Conservative propaganda machine calls for the assassination of the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

What Does it Cost to Change the World? from WikiLeaks on Vimeo.

Companies such as PayPal, MasterCard, Visa and Western Union have not let their customers use their services to donate money to the Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/europe/blocks-on-wikileaks-donations-… Cenk’s interview with Julian Assange: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL8g3vye4xo

LONDON (Reuters) – Britain said on Thursday that any decision by Ecuador to give Julian Assange political asylum wouldn’t change a thing and that it might still revoke the diplomatic status of Quito’s embassy in London to allow the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder.

The high-profile Australian former hacker has been holed up inside the red-brick embassy in central London for eight weeks since he lost a legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over rape allegations.
Britain’s tough talk on the issue takes what has become an international soap opera to new heights since Assange angered the United States by publishing secret U.S. diplomatic cables on his WikiLeaks website. It may also raise difficult questions for London about the sanctity of embassies’ diplomatic status.

The Ecuadorean government, which said it would announce whether it had granted Assange’s asylum request on Thursday at 7 a.m. (1200 GMT), has said any attempt by Britain to remove the diplomatic status of its embassy would be a “hostile and intolerable act”.

“It is too early to say when or if Britain will revoke the Ecuadorean embassy’s diplomatic status,” a Foreign Office spokesman said. “Giving asylum doesn’t fundamentally change anything.”
“We have a legal duty to extradite Mr Assange. There is a law that says we have to extradite him to Sweden. We are going to have to fulfill that law.”
Outside the embassy, British police tussled with protesters chanting slogans in support of Assange and at least three supporters were detained.
Quito bristled at Britain’s warning.

“We want to be very clear, we’re not a British colony. The colonial times are over,” Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said in an angry statement after a meeting with President Rafael Correa.
Britain’s threat to withdraw diplomatic status from the Ecuadorean embassy drew criticism from some former diplomats who said it could lead to similar moves against British embassies.

“I think the Foreign Office have slightly overreached themselves here,” Britain’s former ambassador to Moscow, Tony Brenton, told the BBC.
“If we live in a world where governments can arbitrarily revoke immunity and go into embassies then the life of our diplomats and their ability to conduct normal business in places like Moscow where I was and North Korea becomes close to impossible.”

LONDON EMBASSY

Ecuador’s embassy, near London’s famed Harrods department store, has been under tight surveillance, with police officers manning the entrance and patrolling its perimeter.

A group of pro-Assange protesters gathered outside the building overnight in response to a rallying call by his supporters on social media websites.
Wearing trademark Guy Fawkes masks – to evoke the spirit of the 17th century English plotter – they held banners and blasted out songs by punk group The Jam from a portable speaker.

A Reuters reporter saw at least three protesters being dragged away by police. About 20 officers were outside the embassy trying to push away the crowd of about 15 supporters.

“I am upset that the British government is willing to go in there and take him by force,” said Liliana Calle, 24, an Ecuadorean student waving her country’s flag outside the embassy. “It makes me think they don’t believe in human rights.”
In what appeared to be prank, taxis lined up outside the embassy asking for Julian Assange.

“I’ve lived, worked and traveled in places with proper dictatorships and nowhere have I seen violations of the Vienna convention to this extent,” said Farhan Rasheed, 42, a historian wearing an “I love Occupy” badge, outside the embassy.
“Here we have a government which claims to be a government of law and justice, stretching and possibly about to break a serious binding international agreement.”
Swedish prosecutors have not yet charged Assange, but they believe they have a case to take to trial.

Assange fears Sweden could send him on to the United States, where he believes authorities want to punish him for publishing thousands of diplomatic cables in a major embarrassment for Washington.

Even if he were granted asylum, Assange has little chance of leaving the Ecuadorean embassy in London without being arrested.

There has been speculation he could travel to an airport in a diplomatic car, be smuggled out in a diplomatic bag, or even be appointed an Ecuadorean diplomat to give him immunity.

But lawyers and diplomats see those scenarios as practically unworkable.
Ecuador’s leader Correa is a self-declared enemy of “corrupt” media and U.S. “imperialism”, and apparently hit it off with Assange during a TV interview the Australian did with him in May. Correa joked then with Assange that he had joined “the club of the persecuted”.

The Ecuadorean government has said it wants to avoid Assange’s extradition to Sweden, but if it did decide to grant him asylum it would offer no legal protection in Britain where police will arrest him as soon as they get a chance.
(Reporting by Mohammed Abbas and Alessandra Prentice; Writing by Maria Golovnina and Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Andrew Osborn)


Wikileaks a threat to our soldiers

Published September 8, 2010 

DEBATE. John Daniels, head of the military intelligence Must, warn of attacks by the Taliban and criminals after Wikileaks publishing secret documents. He calls for a “dual” to secure the military’s IT systems with large amounts of secret material.

When Wikileaks publishes secret documents from Afghanistan revealed not only that there are shortcomings in the protection around the secret data, the publication can also create an immediate danger to life of individuals.

Information relating to the Armed Forces’ operations give an opponent a basis for adapting tactics and countermeasures. For protection of personnel to operate and be effective in many cases remain confidential. Divulged our protection and our plans, we become vulnerable to attacks from the Taliban and criminals, who have a different agenda for Afghanistan over the international community.

Especially serious and devastating to the mission in Afghanistan is about secret personal data of persons who are reporting to and cooperating with the international force is running out. In the event that these people’s identities from being disclosed is an obvious risk of deadly reprisals.

If the claim is true that Wikileaks informant is a single person, the men think. Military IT systems that contain large amounts of information requires a special security protection. These systems should be designed so that an individual not on your own can collect large amounts of information. By creating a system of “dual control” prevented this and the risk of large information leakage. A sloppy comparison would be the principle to fire nuclear weapons, which requires two independent persons keys to perform a firing.

In order to obtain the documents that have so far been published on Wikileaks had, before the modern information technology, demanded that a wide range of safes broken open. I? Days is enough to hack an IT system or as an authorized user fill out the entire database.

It previously came across classified documents and wanted to publish them, were first forced to find an interested journalist and then a chief who was willing to take the risk of revealing secret information. With the Internet, the individual has become his own editor with the ability to publish in real time.

Wikileaks disclosure also shows the need for thorough background checks of personnel handling classified information. This would hopefully reveal a disgruntled employee and the leak could have been avoided.

The military intelligence is constantly working to develop methods and mechanisms for the protection of the Armed Forces information and personnel. Security threats are very much alive, especially in operational areas such as Afghanistan. In recent years we have found that social media is used for intelligence gathering and targeting of staff. In 2009, there are also a number of cases in which soldiers in Afghanistan, or closely associated with them, have been subjected to threats, which have been found to be linked to the Swedish troop contribution to Afghanistan.

The incidents have mainly been linked to the employee’s erroneous use of mobile phones and social media. These incidents have in some cases affected the personal safety and in other cases, led to loss of information.

No matter how technically secure IT systems we build, stands or falls on the safety of the individual employee’s safety awareness and behavior. The solution to the problem of leaks can never be reduced to a technical question, but must also be a matter of how well trained our staff are and how we ensure that only persons who are trustworthy and loyal may have access to secret information.

John Daniels

Chief of Military Security


Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.

Mr Assange is in a British jail awaiting extradition proceedings to Sweden after being refused bail at Westminster Magistrates’ Court despite a number of prominent public figures offering to stand as surety.

His arrest in north London yesterday was described by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as “good news”, and may pave the way for extradition to America and a possible lengthy jail sentence.

The US Justice Department is considering charging Mr Assange with espionage offences over his website’s unprecedented release of classified US diplomatic files. Several right-wing American politicians are pressing for his prosecution and even execution, with Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate, saying he should be pursued the same as al-Qa’ida and Taliban leaders.

Mr Assange’s appearance in the London court, the focus of massive international media attention, puts Britain in the centre of the controversy and recrimination over the publishing of thousands of diplomatic cables which have caused acute embarrassment to the administration in Washington. If the man responsible for putting them in the public domain is to be silenced, his supporters say, the process started here.

The Swedish government seeks Mr Assange’s extradition for alleged sexual offences against two women.

Sources stressed that no extradition request would be submitted until and unless the US government laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to take him to America would only take place after legal proceedings are concluded in Sweden.

Mr Assange, 39, had voluntarily gone to a police station accompanied by solicitors after the issuing of an international warrant.

The court heard that Jemima Khan, the sister of the Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, the film director Ken Loach and journalist John Pilger were among those who had offered to stand bail to the sum of £180,000. But District Judge Howard Rule remanded him in custody on the grounds that there was a risk the WikiLeaks founder would fail to surrender.

Mr Loach, who offered £20,000, explained that he did not know Mr Assange other than by reputation, but he said: “I think the work he has done has been a public service. I think we are entitled to know the dealings of those that govern us.” Mr Pilger, who also offered £20,000, said he knew Mr Assange as a journalist and personal friend and had a “very high regard for him”.

“I am aware of the offences and I am also aware of quite a lot of the detail around the offences,” said Mr Pilger. “I am here today because the charges against him in Sweden are absurd and were judged as absurd by the chief prosecutor there when she threw the whole thing out until a senior political figure intervened.” Ms Khan offered a further £20,000 “or more if need be”, although she said she did not know Assange.

Gemma Lindfield, appearing for the Swedish authorities, successfully opposed bail being granted because there was a risk he would fail to surrender – and also for his own protection, she said. She outlined five reasons why there was a risk: his “nomadic” lifestyle, reports that he intended to seek asylum in Switzerland, access to money from donors, his network of international contacts and his Australian nationality.

Mrs Lindfield added: “Any number of people could take it upon themselves to cause him harm. This is someone for whom, simply put, there is no condition, even the most stringent, that would ensure he would surrender to the jurisdiction of this court.”

Ms Lindfield told the court that Mr Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations of sexual offences.She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Mr Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Mr Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used. The third charge claimed Mr Assange “deliberately molested” Miss A on August 18 “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”.

The fourth charge accused Mr Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

District Judge Riddle said: “This case is not, on the face of it, about WikiLeaks. It is an allegation in another European country of serious sexual offences alleged to have occurred on three separate occasions and involving two separate victims. These are extremely serious allegations. From that, it seems to me that if these allegations are true, then no one could argue the defendant should be granted bail.”

However he added: “If they are false, he suffers a great injustice if he is remanded in custody. At this stage in these proceedings, the nature and strength of the allegations is not known.”

Mr Assange’s solicitor, John Jones, said he agreed the case was not about WikiLeaks but was a “simple accusation” case with the right to bail.

He said: “In relation to the state of play in Sweden, it is important for the court to be aware of the background to this. Mr Assange has made repeated requests that the allegations against him be communicated to him in a language he understands. That has been ignored by the Swedish prosecutor. Another Swedish prosecutor dropped this case early on for lack of evidence and it was resurrected in Gothenburg rather than Stockholm.”

Another of Mr Assange’s lawyers, Mark Stephens, said he believed British authorities would go to extreme lengths to ensure his client was “perfectly comfortable” during his time in jail. While he is confident Mr Assange’s time behind bars will be brief, he said he did not want to appear to be “too cocky”.

“I think a lot of people, including the police, thought that he would get bail today. They were very surprised he didn’t,” he said.

Praising District Judge Howard Riddle’s assessment of the case, Mr Stephens said: “We are incredibly grateful to the judge for making it clear to the prosecutor that he thinks he wants to have a look at the evidence, to make assessments as to whether there is a real risk of conviction or not, because that will make a difference as to whether or not he wants to put him out on bail, or not, on the next occasion.”

Criticising Swedish authorities involved with the case, Mr Stephens said: “It’s a persecution, not a prosecution.”.

He maintained that while Mr Assange was not prepared to go to Sweden to face alleged sexual assault claims, his client was prepared to meet the Swedish prosecutor in England.

“That, I think, is a reasonable approach,” he said.

The pressure on WikiLeaks, which relies on online donations from a worldwide network of supporters to fund its work, continued after Visa and Mastercard suspended all payments to the website.

A spokesman for Visa E said: “Visa Europe has taken action to suspend Visa payment acceptance on WikiLeaks’ website pending further investigation into the nature of its business and whether it contravenes Visa operating rules.” A MasterCard spokesman said: “MasterCard is currently in the process of working to suspend the acceptance of MasterCard cards on WikiLeaks until the situation is resolved.”

Kristinn Hrafnsson, a WikiLeaks spokesperson, said: “WikiLeaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before. Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days.”

The legal proceedings

Q Why is Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, facing legal proceedings in the UK when the allegations against him relate to events in Sweden?

A Under the European arrest warrant procedure any EU state can request the legal assistance of another EU country in the detention of a suspect wanted for an offence committed abroad.

Q Mr Assange’s lawyers say he is not on the run and has voluntarily surrendered to police. So why is he being held in prison?

A District Judge Howard Riddle, sitting at the City of Westminster magistrates’ court, refused Mr Assange’s application for bail because he decided there was a danger he might abscond.

Q What happens next?

A First his lawyers will return to court next week to try to secure his release on conditional bail. Eventually there will be an extradition hearing at which the Swedish prosecution authorities will present prima facie evidence to show there is case for Mr Assange to answer.

Q How long will the proceedings last?

A Mr Assange’s legal team are already preparing to challenge the extradition in the High Court in London. If they lose the case there, they can take it all the way to the Supreme Court, a process which could last many months.

Conservative propaganda machine calls for the assassination of the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

What Does it Cost to Change the World? from WikiLeaks on Vimeo.

Companies such as PayPal, MasterCard, Visa and Western Union have not let their customers use their services to donate money to the Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/europe/blocks-on-wikileaks-donations-… Cenk’s interview with Julian Assange: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL8g3vye4xo