Cómo se engendró el Estado Islámico

Contra lo que pueda parecer, para buscar al culpable de la existencia del Estado Islámico no hay que seguir una pista religiosa, sino ideológica. En 1973 el rey de Afganistán fue derrocado y en 1978 triunfó una revolución marxista, que instauró la separación Religión-Estado, eliminó el cultivo de opio, despojó a las mujeres de la burka y permitió que se educaran. Esta modernización generó entre

Contra lo que pueda parecer, para buscar al culpable de la existencia del Estado Islámico no hay que seguir una pista religiosa, sino ideológica. En 1973 el rey de Afganistán fue derrocado y en 1978 triunfó una revolución marxista, que instauró la separación Religión-Estado, eliminó el cultivo de opio, despojó a las mujeres de la burka y permitió que se educaran. Esta modernización generó entre

los tambores de la guerra en Europa

jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2015
Europa ante la guerra

Resuenan con fuerza los tambores de la guerra en Europa, y los ciudadanos europeos, amedrentados por la omnipresente amenaza del terror integrista, se unen fervorosos al clamor contra el yihadismo, o bien callan por temor a ser tachados de blandos, cuando no de estúpidos.

Europa está condenada a decrecer energéticamente, simplemente, porque no hay para todos, porque, según reconocía la AIE en ese mismo informe de 2015, la producción de carbón y petróleo va a decaer a partir de 2020 (disfrazada, a su decir, de pico de demanda). Europa no necesita que se lo diga la AIE; en la Comisión Europea ya saben que actualmente el nivel de consumo de energía primaria de todo tipo está a niveles de principios de los años 90 del siglo XX, y ya saben que de seguir así en pocas décadas estará en niveles de los años 70. Pero Europa se resiste a agonizar energéticamente. Y se resiste porque no hay plan B. No hay alternativa al crecentismo. Y no las hay porque no existan propuestas (y algunas de una gran calidad); no las hay, simplemente, porque es políticamente inaceptable.

Muchos de los grandes imperios de la Historia colapsaron al ser incapaces de sostener sus últimas aventuras militares, a veces un tanto esperpénticas. La lógica subyacente de muchas guerras de conquista era que la economía se había vuelto dependiente de la expoliación de recursos en los territorios conquistados. Esta es una situación en mucho análoga a la que tenemos actualmente. Los lugares en disputa son aún hoy atractivos desde el punto de vista de los recursos, pero el inevitable declive de la producción mundial de hidrocarburos llevará a países cada vez más remotos, más poblados, mejor defendidos y con menos recursos. Al final, exhaustos por el esfuerzo e incapaz de sostenerse con los magros frutos de las últimas guerras, todas las potencias occidentales irán colapsando. 

Digámoslo alto y claro: el colapso de la sociedad europea es inevitable si continuamos por la vía militar. Será un colapso económico, sí, pero también, y mucho antes, moral, si por mor de mantenir unos pocos años más un sistema insostenible renunciamos a los valores fundamentales en los que hace tiempo decidimos creer.  

 


¿Preparando terreno para conflictos?: EE.UU. inicia la “profesionalización” del Ejército ucraniano

Publicado: 24 nov 2015 03:40 GMT

jueves, 26 de noviembre de 2015
Europa ante la guerra

Resuenan con fuerza los tambores de la guerra en Europa, y los ciudadanos europeos, amedrentados por la omnipresente amenaza del terror integrista, se unen fervorosos al clamor contra el yihadismo, o bien callan por temor a ser tachados de blandos, cuando no de estúpidos.

Europa está condenada a decrecer energéticamente, simplemente, porque no hay para todos, porque, según reconocía la AIE en ese mismo informe de 2015, la producción de carbón y petróleo va a decaer a partir de 2020 (disfrazada, a su decir, de pico de demanda). Europa no necesita que se lo diga la AIE; en la Comisión Europea ya saben que actualmente el nivel de consumo de energía primaria de todo tipo está a niveles de principios de los años 90 del siglo XX, y ya saben que de seguir así en pocas décadas estará en niveles de los años 70. Pero Europa se resiste a agonizar energéticamente. Y se resiste porque no hay plan B. No hay alternativa al crecentismo. Y no las hay porque no existan propuestas (y algunas de una gran calidad); no las hay, simplemente, porque es políticamente inaceptable.

Muchos de los grandes imperios de la Historia colapsaron al ser incapaces de sostener sus últimas aventuras militares, a veces un tanto esperpénticas. La lógica subyacente de muchas guerras de conquista era que la economía se había vuelto dependiente de la expoliación de recursos en los territorios conquistados. Esta es una situación en mucho análoga a la que tenemos actualmente. Los lugares en disputa son aún hoy atractivos desde el punto de vista de los recursos, pero el inevitable declive de la producción mundial de hidrocarburos llevará a países cada vez más remotos, más poblados, mejor defendidos y con menos recursos. Al final, exhaustos por el esfuerzo e incapaz de sostenerse con los magros frutos de las últimas guerras, todas las potencias occidentales irán colapsando. 

Digámoslo alto y claro: el colapso de la sociedad europea es inevitable si continuamos por la vía militar. Será un colapso económico, sí, pero también, y mucho antes, moral, si por mor de mantenir unos pocos años más un sistema insostenible renunciamos a los valores fundamentales en los que hace tiempo decidimos creer.  


 


¿Preparando terreno para conflictos?: EE.UU. inicia la “profesionalización” del Ejército ucraniano

Publicado: 24 nov 2015 03:40 GMT

Terrorismo mexicano

Disparan contra 3 activistas indígenas en Iztapalapa
Los defensores de los derechos humanos vinieron a la ciudad a denunciar un asesinato; no hubo detenidos

08/11/2015 01:23 XIMENA MEJÍA

De acuerdo con la organización, los activistas caminaban por la calle cuando “un hombre vestido de civil con corte de cabello tipo militar, que se encontraba sobre un coche color negro y llevaba un arma en la mano” disparó a los tres defensores de derechos humanos después de gritarles: “por andar de chismosos”.

Disparan contra 3 activistas indígenas en Iztapalapa
Los defensores de los derechos humanos vinieron a la ciudad a denunciar un asesinato; no hubo detenidos

08/11/2015 01:23 XIMENA MEJÍA

De acuerdo con la organización, los activistas caminaban por la calle cuando “un hombre vestido de civil con corte de cabello tipo militar, que se encontraba sobre un coche color negro y llevaba un arma en la mano” disparó a los tres defensores de derechos humanos después de gritarles: “por andar de chismosos”.

Francia y el Líbano

Hoy, Francia y el Líbano están sumidos en las tinieblas de la tragedia. Lo sucedido es más que un monstruoso acto de odio. Estos ataques se diseñaron para hacer temblar los cimientos mismos de nuestras sociedades. Son un asalto a mano armada a nuestro sentido compartido de humanidad, tolerancia, respeto y libertad — los valores que sustentan el mundo que nuestro movimiento ha nacido para crear. 

Hoy, Francia y el Líbano están sumidos en las tinieblas de la tragedia. Lo sucedido es más que un monstruoso acto de odio. Estos ataques se diseñaron para hacer temblar los cimientos mismos de nuestras sociedades. Son un asalto a mano armada a nuestro sentido compartido de humanidad, tolerancia, respeto y libertad — los valores que sustentan el mundo que nuestro movimiento ha nacido para crear. 

Guerra en Siria

Madaya:

‘Los niños están comiendo hojas de los árboles’: el nuevo infierno sirio se llama Madaya (Vice News)
https://news.vice.com/es/article/ninos-estan-comiendo-hojas-arboles-nuevo-infierno-sirio-se-llama-madaya

La cercada ciudad siria de Madaya se muere de hambre (El País)
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2016/01/07/actualidad/1452195548_011239.html

Acuerdo entre régimen y oposición permite evacuar combatientes y civiles en Siria (La Información)
http://noticias.lainformacion.com/disturbios-conflictos-y-guerra/guerra/acuerdo-entre-regimen-y-oposicion-permite-evacuar-combatientes-y-civiles-en-siria_n4ym2mnFkyUQrjMEBT0FP4/

La ayuda humanitaria no llegará a Madaya al menos hasta el lunes (El Correo)
http://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/internacional/oriente-proximo/201601/10/ayuda-humanitaria-llegara-madaya-20160110111425-rc.html

Published on Nov 19, 2015
LA VERDAD SOBRE SIRIA Por BEATRIZ TALEGÓN, expulsada de 13TV por criticar los bombardeos en SIRIA e IRAK y cuestionar la entrada de España en la guerra de Irak. Isabel Duran ha esxpulsado a Beatriz Talegón este miércoles del programa Más Claro Agua, en 13TV, tras una sonora bronca. La directora del programa, Isabel Durán, ha decidido anunciar, en directo, que Talegón no volverá a las tertulias después de un tenso rifirrafe entre la exsocialista, la propia Durán y el resto de contertulios que asistieron atónitos al espectáculo.

La discusión comenzó cuando Durán pidió a Talegón que opinara sobre quienes equiparan el atentado de París con la respuesta de Francia al bombardear posiciones de Estado Islámico en Siria. La exsocialista contestó pidiendo “valorar el tema con el rigor y la información que se merece” y arrancó acusando a Estados Unidos y al propio Gobierno español de “colaborar” con la venta de armas y vinculando a ambos con grupos terroristas.

Exaltada y citando a Putin, Talegón habló de “financiación” occidental a grupos terroristas, citó el 11M para decir que “por la gracia” de Aznar de apoyar a Bush se cometieron los atentados y dijo, en alusión a Hollande, que se están cambiando las leyes en el mundo “para crear un estado de terror”.

Ante la deriva que estaba tomando el debate, Durán interrumpió a Talegón para censurar sus acusaciones y para detener su “mitin” en directo: “El golpe es el de los terroristas: si no estás de acuerdo no tengo nada más que hablar contigo”, le dijo tras apuntar que en su programa “no se hacen acusaciones tan graves” como la de que el gobierno español “financia a los terroristas”.

Lejos de callarse, Talegón continuó atacando al PP y al programa, del que dijo que “sólo da información de un lado”. Durán terminó invitándola a marcharse: “A mí no me das órdenes. Te has equivocado de foro. Me desagrada el espectáculo que estás montando”. Mientras se quitaba el micrófono se escuchaba, fuera de cámara, a Talegón espetándole a Durán que sería “un placer” y diciendo que la echaban por dar su “opinión”.

El espectáculo continuó después en Twitter, donde Talegón anunció a sus seguidores que le “acababan de echar de 13TV por dar mi opinión y defender la paz”.

Putin ordena derribar los aviones de EEUU que suministran armas al Estado Islámico

Por Enrique_MONTÁNCHEZ

jueves 15 de octubre del 2015, 21:23h

En apenas dos semanas de bombardeos, la fuerza aérea rusa ha destruido el 40% de las infraestructuras y puestos de mando del Estado Islámico y del Frente Al-Nusra, algo que en año y medio no había logrado Estados Unidos.

Los pilotos norteamericanos y aliados recibieron la orden de no atacar al Frente Al-Nusra

Poco a poco trasciende que, en realidad, el Pentágono ha retrasado la derrota del Estado Islámico al tiempo que difundía una versiónmanipulada de la campaña militar ocultando que apoyaba a los combatientes yihadistas para que dirigiesen sus ataques contra el ejército de Damasco y facilitar así la caída del dictador Al-Asad.


Por: Ps José Linares Cerón

https://www.facebook.com/psjoselinares.ceron

La persecución religiosa en Irak empezó hace doce años, con la caída de Saddam Hussein. Los cristianos no podían ni regalar ejemplares del Nuevo Testamento, pero cuando llegan al poder grupos islamistas cada vez más radicales, como Al Qeda, comienza una sangrienta persecución, que ahora, con el Estado Islámico, es un genocidio criminal contra la humanidad que asesina a niños

¿Qué está pasando ahora?
El Estado Islámico está crucificando, decapitando y enterrando vivos a los niños cristianos y a otras minorías. Muchas familias han sido expulsadas de sus pueblos y han tenido que refugiarse en Jordania, Líbano o el Norte de Irán. En el Kurdistán iraquí ahora hay más de 120.000 cristianos que cruzaron la frontera con lo que llevaban puesto. Además, saquean las iglesias.

También secuestran a las mujeres y piden rescates tan altos que a veces las familias no logran pagarlos. Hace poco leí en un medio de comunicación, que los islámicos le dijeron a la familia de una niña de 17 años: ‘No queremos dinero, lo único que queremos es romper tu corazón, que sufras’, y luego fue hallada muerta y con signos de múltiples violaciones”.

Es una historia entre centenares. Cada familia de Irak ya tiene un mártir. Cada familia lleva una historia de un éxodo muy doloroso, que es abandonar la casa en cinco minutos para salvar su vida, dejando negocio, escuela de los niños, iglesia.

Los yihadistas, cuando llegan a los pueblos les dan dos opciones a los cristianos: que se conviertan al Islam o que paguen 300 dólares en oro, que para ellos es imposible. Entonces la tercera opción es irse, pero a veces los matan.

La persecución
El primer objetivo del Estado Islámico y de Boko Haram, otro grupo terrorista, según dijo su portavoz oficial, es convocar la guerra santa contra los cristianos. Un clérigo de nivel muy alto de Arabia Saudí acaba de decir que tienen que quemar todas las iglesias cristianas de la Península Arábica, declaración que no apareció en los medios de comunicación internacional.

¿Por qué tanto odio?
Lo primero es que los islamistas creen que esa es su tierra, la de sus antepasados y la del islam, y quieren hacer un gran califato desde India hasta España, y crear un estado islámico puro.
Pero se equivocan porque Irak y Siria fue la tierra de los primeros profetas, de Abraham, esa es la antigua Mesopotamia, la presencia de los cristianos es bimilenaria, mientras que los musulmanes llegaron en el Siglo VII, pero con la espada han matado a muchos para conquistar esas tierras.

Detrás de esta persecución hay muchísimos intereses que no tienen nada qué ver con la religión: venta de droga, de armas, de seres humanos, influencia de poderes económicos, territoriales. Hace poco el Gobierno iraquí pidió a la ONU investigar una fosa común con centenares de cadáveres porque descubrieron que ninguno tenía órganos internos, o sea que antes de matarlos o después sacaban los órganos para el tráfico ilegal.

En Siria se vive un genocidio criminal
En Siria se habla de 250.000 víctimas mortales y de 180.000 desaparecidos, lo cierto es que en ese país había 22 millones de habitantes y ahora la mitad ya no viven en sus hogares. Se han refugiado en Europa o en otra parte de Siria, pero la gran mayoría de ellos son musulmanes, no cristianos. Se sabe que el Estado Islámico robó 3800 pasaportes en blanco y que la Policía búlgara detuvo cinco yihadistas camuflados entre los refugiados, lo que significa que esto puede ser el Caballo de Troya para Europa, porque los yihadistas amenazaron con mandar allá a medio millón de refugiados para provocar un caos e islamizar el continente.

Conclusión
La salida tiene que ser una intervención internacional. Los gobernantes tienen que tomar decisiones muy concretas. Así que esa intervención internacional es muy importante para establecer la paz en Oriente Medio. Nosotros no podemos esperar a que los políticos tomen sus decisiones mientras que la gente es perseguida, se muere de hambre y vive en centros de refugiados. Debemos orar y presionar a las autoridades diplomáticas de nuestros países. América latina cristiana debe tener presencia en centros de refugios y ayudar con los recursos que podamos dar a nuestro prójimo y hermanos en la fe.

Madaya:

‘Los niños están comiendo hojas de los árboles’: el nuevo infierno sirio se llama Madaya (Vice News)
https://news.vice.com/es/article/ninos-estan-comiendo-hojas-arboles-nuevo-infierno-sirio-se-llama-madaya

La cercada ciudad siria de Madaya se muere de hambre (El País)
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2016/01/07/actualidad/1452195548_011239.html

Acuerdo entre régimen y oposición permite evacuar combatientes y civiles en Siria (La Información)
http://noticias.lainformacion.com/disturbios-conflictos-y-guerra/guerra/acuerdo-entre-regimen-y-oposicion-permite-evacuar-combatientes-y-civiles-en-siria_n4ym2mnFkyUQrjMEBT0FP4/

La ayuda humanitaria no llegará a Madaya al menos hasta el lunes (El Correo)
http://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/internacional/oriente-proximo/201601/10/ayuda-humanitaria-llegara-madaya-20160110111425-rc.html


Published on Nov 19, 2015
LA VERDAD SOBRE SIRIA Por BEATRIZ TALEGÓN, expulsada de 13TV por criticar los bombardeos en SIRIA e IRAK y cuestionar la entrada de España en la guerra de Irak. Isabel Duran ha esxpulsado a Beatriz Talegón este miércoles del programa Más Claro Agua, en 13TV, tras una sonora bronca. La directora del programa, Isabel Durán, ha decidido anunciar, en directo, que Talegón no volverá a las tertulias después de un tenso rifirrafe entre la exsocialista, la propia Durán y el resto de contertulios que asistieron atónitos al espectáculo.

La discusión comenzó cuando Durán pidió a Talegón que opinara sobre quienes equiparan el atentado de París con la respuesta de Francia al bombardear posiciones de Estado Islámico en Siria. La exsocialista contestó pidiendo “valorar el tema con el rigor y la información que se merece” y arrancó acusando a Estados Unidos y al propio Gobierno español de “colaborar” con la venta de armas y vinculando a ambos con grupos terroristas.

Exaltada y citando a Putin, Talegón habló de “financiación” occidental a grupos terroristas, citó el 11M para decir que “por la gracia” de Aznar de apoyar a Bush se cometieron los atentados y dijo, en alusión a Hollande, que se están cambiando las leyes en el mundo “para crear un estado de terror”.

Ante la deriva que estaba tomando el debate, Durán interrumpió a Talegón para censurar sus acusaciones y para detener su “mitin” en directo: “El golpe es el de los terroristas: si no estás de acuerdo no tengo nada más que hablar contigo”, le dijo tras apuntar que en su programa “no se hacen acusaciones tan graves” como la de que el gobierno español “financia a los terroristas”.

Lejos de callarse, Talegón continuó atacando al PP y al programa, del que dijo que “sólo da información de un lado”. Durán terminó invitándola a marcharse: “A mí no me das órdenes. Te has equivocado de foro. Me desagrada el espectáculo que estás montando”. Mientras se quitaba el micrófono se escuchaba, fuera de cámara, a Talegón espetándole a Durán que sería “un placer” y diciendo que la echaban por dar su “opinión”.

El espectáculo continuó después en Twitter, donde Talegón anunció a sus seguidores que le “acababan de echar de 13TV por dar mi opinión y defender la paz”.

Putin ordena derribar los aviones de EEUU que suministran armas al Estado Islámico

Por Enrique_MONTÁNCHEZ

jueves 15 de octubre del 2015, 21:23h

En apenas dos semanas de bombardeos, la fuerza aérea rusa ha destruido el 40% de las infraestructuras y puestos de mando del Estado Islámico y del Frente Al-Nusra, algo que en año y medio no había logrado Estados Unidos.

Los pilotos norteamericanos y aliados recibieron la orden de no atacar al Frente Al-Nusra

Poco a poco trasciende que, en realidad, el Pentágono ha retrasado la derrota del Estado Islámico al tiempo que difundía una versiónmanipulada de la campaña militar ocultando que apoyaba a los combatientes yihadistas para que dirigiesen sus ataques contra el ejército de Damasco y facilitar así la caída del dictador Al-Asad.



Por: Ps José Linares Cerón

https://www.facebook.com/psjoselinares.ceron

La persecución religiosa en Irak empezó hace doce años, con la caída de Saddam Hussein. Los cristianos no podían ni regalar ejemplares del Nuevo Testamento, pero cuando llegan al poder grupos islamistas cada vez más radicales, como Al Qeda, comienza una sangrienta persecución, que ahora, con el Estado Islámico, es un genocidio criminal contra la humanidad que asesina a niños

¿Qué está pasando ahora?
El Estado Islámico está crucificando, decapitando y enterrando vivos a los niños cristianos y a otras minorías. Muchas familias han sido expulsadas de sus pueblos y han tenido que refugiarse en Jordania, Líbano o el Norte de Irán. En el Kurdistán iraquí ahora hay más de 120.000 cristianos que cruzaron la frontera con lo que llevaban puesto. Además, saquean las iglesias.

También secuestran a las mujeres y piden rescates tan altos que a veces las familias no logran pagarlos. Hace poco leí en un medio de comunicación, que los islámicos le dijeron a la familia de una niña de 17 años: ‘No queremos dinero, lo único que queremos es romper tu corazón, que sufras’, y luego fue hallada muerta y con signos de múltiples violaciones”.

Es una historia entre centenares. Cada familia de Irak ya tiene un mártir. Cada familia lleva una historia de un éxodo muy doloroso, que es abandonar la casa en cinco minutos para salvar su vida, dejando negocio, escuela de los niños, iglesia.

Los yihadistas, cuando llegan a los pueblos les dan dos opciones a los cristianos: que se conviertan al Islam o que paguen 300 dólares en oro, que para ellos es imposible. Entonces la tercera opción es irse, pero a veces los matan.

La persecución
El primer objetivo del Estado Islámico y de Boko Haram, otro grupo terrorista, según dijo su portavoz oficial, es convocar la guerra santa contra los cristianos. Un clérigo de nivel muy alto de Arabia Saudí acaba de decir que tienen que quemar todas las iglesias cristianas de la Península Arábica, declaración que no apareció en los medios de comunicación internacional.

¿Por qué tanto odio?
Lo primero es que los islamistas creen que esa es su tierra, la de sus antepasados y la del islam, y quieren hacer un gran califato desde India hasta España, y crear un estado islámico puro.
Pero se equivocan porque Irak y Siria fue la tierra de los primeros profetas, de Abraham, esa es la antigua Mesopotamia, la presencia de los cristianos es bimilenaria, mientras que los musulmanes llegaron en el Siglo VII, pero con la espada han matado a muchos para conquistar esas tierras.

Detrás de esta persecución hay muchísimos intereses que no tienen nada qué ver con la religión: venta de droga, de armas, de seres humanos, influencia de poderes económicos, territoriales. Hace poco el Gobierno iraquí pidió a la ONU investigar una fosa común con centenares de cadáveres porque descubrieron que ninguno tenía órganos internos, o sea que antes de matarlos o después sacaban los órganos para el tráfico ilegal.

En Siria se vive un genocidio criminal
En Siria se habla de 250.000 víctimas mortales y de 180.000 desaparecidos, lo cierto es que en ese país había 22 millones de habitantes y ahora la mitad ya no viven en sus hogares. Se han refugiado en Europa o en otra parte de Siria, pero la gran mayoría de ellos son musulmanes, no cristianos. Se sabe que el Estado Islámico robó 3800 pasaportes en blanco y que la Policía búlgara detuvo cinco yihadistas camuflados entre los refugiados, lo que significa que esto puede ser el Caballo de Troya para Europa, porque los yihadistas amenazaron con mandar allá a medio millón de refugiados para provocar un caos e islamizar el continente.

Conclusión
La salida tiene que ser una intervención internacional. Los gobernantes tienen que tomar decisiones muy concretas. Así que esa intervención internacional es muy importante para establecer la paz en Oriente Medio. Nosotros no podemos esperar a que los políticos tomen sus decisiones mientras que la gente es perseguida, se muere de hambre y vive en centros de refugiados. Debemos orar y presionar a las autoridades diplomáticas de nuestros países. América latina cristiana debe tener presencia en centros de refugios y ayudar con los recursos que podamos dar a nuestro prójimo y hermanos en la fe.

Monseñor Oscar Arnulfo Romero

Ultima homilia de Monseñor Romero (audio original)

“Si me matan resucitaré en el pueblo salvadoreño”

Palabras proféticas pronunciadas por monseñor Oscar Arnulfo Romero, arzobispo de San Salvador, asesinado el 24 de marzo de 1980.

Una bala le perforó el corazón mientras elevaba el cáliz consagrado en el altar de la Capilla del Hospitalito donde todos los días celebraba la eucaristía.

Su voz fue también la del movimiento popular salvadoreño que se levantaba contra la opresión y la miseria. Aún es recordado por su incansable lucha por la justicia social.


EN BREVE

Uno de los arquitectos del asesinato del Arzobispo Oscar Romero, el Capitán Álvaro Saravia, encontró un lugar seguro donde vivir en Modesto, California, donde dirigía un negocio de venta de autos. En Septiembre 2003, CJA y la firma de abogados Heller Ehrman ofreciendo sus servicios de manera gratuita interpusieron una demanda contra Saravia por su papel en el asesinato.

Una vez se le hizo entrega de la demanda, Saravia corrió a esconderse. En 2004, un juez federal emitió una sentencia en rebeldía (ya que Saravia no se presento a la vista) encontrando al ex capitán Saravia responsable de asesinato extrajudicial y crímenes contra la humanidad. Se le ordenó pagar $10 millones a nuestro cliente, un familiar de Monseñor Romer. Saravia está en la lista de criminales más buscados por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional.

ANTECEDENTES

“En nombre de aquellos que sufre, cuyos llantos se eleven al cielo cada día más tumultuosos, os suplico, os ruego, os ordeno, en el nombre de Dios, parar esta represión.”

El 23 de Marzo, 1980 Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdamez, Arzobispo de San Salvador y figura líder en la lucha por los derechos humanos en El Salvador dio este sermón a través de la radio nacional. Al día siguiente, el Arzobispo era asesinado mientras celebraba misa en la Capilla del Hospital de la Divina Providencia.

El Arzobispo Romero era la voz de las victimas de la represión gubernamental y de los pobres. A través de sus homilías semanales en la radio que se escuchaban en todo el país, cautivaba las audiencias salvadoreñas y llamaba al fin de la represión militar.

Como remarca la autora y biógrafa de Monseñor Romero Margaret Swedish:

“Esto era algo sorprendente para los pobres de El Salvador – el escuchar a alguien contar su realidad, dar nombre a sus sufrimientos, denunciar la injusticia, hablar de sus esperanzas y ayudarles a creer que estas esperanzas deberían convertirse en realidad en este mundo.”

Obstrucción a la Justicia en los Tribunales de El Salvador

El asesinato fue concebido y coordinado por oficiales del ejército salvadoreño y líderes de grupos paramilitares de extrema derecha, hombres de influencia que fueron capaces de impedir todo intento de hacerles responsables de sus crímenes. En Mayo 1980, una redada efectuada en una reunión de un escuadrón de la muerte produjo documentos implicando al Mayor Roberto D’Aubuisson y su jefe de seguridad, Álvaro Saravia en el asesinato. En las semanas que siguieron, los paramilitares de extrema derecha llevaron a cabo una serie de amenazas y ataques terroristas para asegurar la puesta en libertad de los conspiradores. D’Aubuisson y Saravia fueron puestos en libertad sin cargos. Varios años después, en un giro irónico y cruel, el abogado privado de D’Aubuisson fue nombrado fiscal del caso Romero; poco después este fiscal produjo una confesión grabada en video de un criminal común, quien más tarde admitió haber recibido un soborno de $50,000 por su cooperación.

En 1986, el entonces presidente José Napoleón Duarte, un rival político de D’Aubuisson, reabrió el caso y finalmente se descubrió evidencia que conectaba a Saravia con el crimen. Para cuando un juez pudo emitir una orden de arresto, Saravia había emigrado a Estados Unidos. El Salvador interpuso una petición de extradición con el gobierno Estadounidense, pero un año después la Corte Suprema Salvadoreña rescindió la orden de arresto y retiró la petición de extradición. El Presidente de la Corte Suprema no era otro que el mismo abogado de D’Aubuisson que había producido la confesión falsa previamente.

Saravia se encontraba en una prisión federal bajo cargos de inmigración en el momento de la petición de extradición, pero fue puesto en libertad bajo fianza en 1988 tras la decisión de la Corte Suprema Salvadoreña. Desde entonces ha vivido en California y Florida, donde Amnistía Intenacional y otras ONGs de derechos humanos han denunciado su presencia.

HISTORIA DEL CASO

Demanda

En Septiembre 2003, CJA interpuso una demanda contra Álvaro Rafael Saravia, por su papel en el asesinato del Arzobispo Romero. La demanda fue presentada en nombre un familiar del Arzobispo, cuyo nombre no se ha revelado por razones de seguridad. Saravia fue servido con la demanda en la dirección de su casa, pero falló en responder y desde entonces se encuentra en paradero desconocido.

Sentencia por Rebeldia

En Agosto 2004, el Juez Wanger de la Corte de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito del Este de California mantuvo una vista por daños. CJA presentó evidencia vinculando a Saravia con el asesinato del Arzobispo Romero, incluyendo el testimonio de Armando Antonio Garay, antiguo conductor de Saravia que transporto al asesino a la escena del crimen. Garay testificó que Saravia le dijo al asesino: “…mejor le disparas a la cabeza porque puede que lleve puesto un chaleco anti-balas. Tines que asegurarte que está muerto [sic].”

El 3 de Septiembre, 2004 el Juez Wanger emitió una decisión histórica hacienda a Álvaro Saravia responsable por su papel en el asesinato del Arzobispo Oscar Romero. El Juez Wanger ordenó a Saravia a pagar $10 millones al demandante. Al anuncia la cantidad monetaria, el Juez Wanger afirmó que “los daños son de una magnitud que son difícil de describir, la única cosa que podemos hacer desde una corte civil es requerir al acusado a que pague dinero”.

Anterior a esta decisión, ningún individuo había sido hecho responsable por el asesinato, uno de los más atroces y espeluznantes crimenes de la última parte del Siglo 20.

Ultima homilia de Monseñor Romero (audio original)

“Si me matan resucitaré en el pueblo salvadoreño”

Palabras proféticas pronunciadas por monseñor Oscar Arnulfo Romero, arzobispo de San Salvador, asesinado el 24 de marzo de 1980.

Una bala le perforó el corazón mientras elevaba el cáliz consagrado en el altar de la Capilla del Hospitalito donde todos los días celebraba la eucaristía.

Su voz fue también la del movimiento popular salvadoreño que se levantaba contra la opresión y la miseria. Aún es recordado por su incansable lucha por la justicia social.


EN BREVE

Uno de los arquitectos del asesinato del Arzobispo Oscar Romero, el Capitán Álvaro Saravia, encontró un lugar seguro donde vivir en Modesto, California, donde dirigía un negocio de venta de autos. En Septiembre 2003, CJA y la firma de abogados Heller Ehrman ofreciendo sus servicios de manera gratuita interpusieron una demanda contra Saravia por su papel en el asesinato.

Una vez se le hizo entrega de la demanda, Saravia corrió a esconderse. En 2004, un juez federal emitió una sentencia en rebeldía (ya que Saravia no se presento a la vista) encontrando al ex capitán Saravia responsable de asesinato extrajudicial y crímenes contra la humanidad. Se le ordenó pagar $10 millones a nuestro cliente, un familiar de Monseñor Romer. Saravia está en la lista de criminales más buscados por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional.

ANTECEDENTES

“En nombre de aquellos que sufre, cuyos llantos se eleven al cielo cada día más tumultuosos, os suplico, os ruego, os ordeno, en el nombre de Dios, parar esta represión.”

El 23 de Marzo, 1980 Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdamez, Arzobispo de San Salvador y figura líder en la lucha por los derechos humanos en El Salvador dio este sermón a través de la radio nacional. Al día siguiente, el Arzobispo era asesinado mientras celebraba misa en la Capilla del Hospital de la Divina Providencia.

El Arzobispo Romero era la voz de las victimas de la represión gubernamental y de los pobres. A través de sus homilías semanales en la radio que se escuchaban en todo el país, cautivaba las audiencias salvadoreñas y llamaba al fin de la represión militar.

Como remarca la autora y biógrafa de Monseñor Romero Margaret Swedish:

“Esto era algo sorprendente para los pobres de El Salvador – el escuchar a alguien contar su realidad, dar nombre a sus sufrimientos, denunciar la injusticia, hablar de sus esperanzas y ayudarles a creer que estas esperanzas deberían convertirse en realidad en este mundo.”

Obstrucción a la Justicia en los Tribunales de El Salvador

El asesinato fue concebido y coordinado por oficiales del ejército salvadoreño y líderes de grupos paramilitares de extrema derecha, hombres de influencia que fueron capaces de impedir todo intento de hacerles responsables de sus crímenes. En Mayo 1980, una redada efectuada en una reunión de un escuadrón de la muerte produjo documentos implicando al Mayor Roberto D’Aubuisson y su jefe de seguridad, Álvaro Saravia en el asesinato. En las semanas que siguieron, los paramilitares de extrema derecha llevaron a cabo una serie de amenazas y ataques terroristas para asegurar la puesta en libertad de los conspiradores. D’Aubuisson y Saravia fueron puestos en libertad sin cargos. Varios años después, en un giro irónico y cruel, el abogado privado de D’Aubuisson fue nombrado fiscal del caso Romero; poco después este fiscal produjo una confesión grabada en video de un criminal común, quien más tarde admitió haber recibido un soborno de $50,000 por su cooperación.

En 1986, el entonces presidente José Napoleón Duarte, un rival político de D’Aubuisson, reabrió el caso y finalmente se descubrió evidencia que conectaba a Saravia con el crimen. Para cuando un juez pudo emitir una orden de arresto, Saravia había emigrado a Estados Unidos. El Salvador interpuso una petición de extradición con el gobierno Estadounidense, pero un año después la Corte Suprema Salvadoreña rescindió la orden de arresto y retiró la petición de extradición. El Presidente de la Corte Suprema no era otro que el mismo abogado de D’Aubuisson que había producido la confesión falsa previamente.

Saravia se encontraba en una prisión federal bajo cargos de inmigración en el momento de la petición de extradición, pero fue puesto en libertad bajo fianza en 1988 tras la decisión de la Corte Suprema Salvadoreña. Desde entonces ha vivido en California y Florida, donde Amnistía Intenacional y otras ONGs de derechos humanos han denunciado su presencia.

HISTORIA DEL CASO

Demanda

En Septiembre 2003, CJA interpuso una demanda contra Álvaro Rafael Saravia, por su papel en el asesinato del Arzobispo Romero. La demanda fue presentada en nombre un familiar del Arzobispo, cuyo nombre no se ha revelado por razones de seguridad. Saravia fue servido con la demanda en la dirección de su casa, pero falló en responder y desde entonces se encuentra en paradero desconocido.

Sentencia por Rebeldia

En Agosto 2004, el Juez Wanger de la Corte de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito del Este de California mantuvo una vista por daños. CJA presentó evidencia vinculando a Saravia con el asesinato del Arzobispo Romero, incluyendo el testimonio de Armando Antonio Garay, antiguo conductor de Saravia que transporto al asesino a la escena del crimen. Garay testificó que Saravia le dijo al asesino: “…mejor le disparas a la cabeza porque puede que lleve puesto un chaleco anti-balas. Tines que asegurarte que está muerto [sic].”

El 3 de Septiembre, 2004 el Juez Wanger emitió una decisión histórica hacienda a Álvaro Saravia responsable por su papel en el asesinato del Arzobispo Oscar Romero. El Juez Wanger ordenó a Saravia a pagar $10 millones al demandante. Al anuncia la cantidad monetaria, el Juez Wanger afirmó que “los daños son de una magnitud que son difícil de describir, la única cosa que podemos hacer desde una corte civil es requerir al acusado a que pague dinero”.

Anterior a esta decisión, ningún individuo había sido hecho responsable por el asesinato, uno de los más atroces y espeluznantes crimenes de la última parte del Siglo 20.

the Mexican Dirty War

January 16, 2008by Daniel HopsickerTwo American-registered drug planes busted  in Mexico carrying four and 5.5 tons of cocaine are just the “tip of the iceberg”  in a blockbuster aviation deal which sold 50 American-regist…

January 16, 2008
by Daniel Hopsicker
Two American-registered drug planes busted  in Mexico carrying four and 5.5 tons of cocaine are just the “tip of the iceberg”  in a blockbuster aviation deal which sold 50 American-registered aircraft to the Sinaloa Cartel, the MadCowMorningNews has learned.
According to an indictment released over the holidays by Mexico’s Atty.General, Pedro Alfonso Alatorre, already indicted as the cartel’s chief financier, purchased the DC9 (N900SA) airliner, the Gulfstream II business jet (N987SA), and 48 other planes not yet identified for Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel with laundered drug money, using a company he controls which owns currency exchanges at major airports in Mexico.
Now we know who bought the airplanes. The trickier question is: who sold them?  The answer, normally, would be, “Their local counterparts in international organized crime.”
But these aren’t normal circumstances. Why? Because the U.S. doesn’t even have any Drug Lords. Ask anybody at the DEA. Apparently, we don’t even bother to field a team.

Elusive seldom-photographed American Drug Lords

News of a 50-plane fleet of drug smuggling aircraft being sold to a Mexican Cartel by mysteriously unnamed American owners confirms rumors of a mushrooming scandal, one which may eventually implicate top officials in the U.S., Mexico, and Colombia. 
The reason was left unspoken in the Mexican Atty. General’s statement,  because it lies on the American side of the equation, in the identity of the sellers of the planes…  
The DC9 and the Gulfstream II, the two American jets now known to be part of a 50-plane sale, share interlocking ownership. The stock of two corporations which owned the planes was used in the massive recent Adnan Khashoggi-led stock fraud.
Khashoggi, currently a fugitive from justice in the case, engineered the biggest brokerage bankruptcy in America since the Great Depression, costing investors and taxpayers over $300 million.
With gas prices over $3 a gallon, you wouldn’t think the Saudi billionaire needed the money. So, what did ‘they’ do with the money? 
 

Upcoming Presidential elections, perhaps?

The operation was manned by “retired” CIA and military intelligence personnel, had close ties to major Bush backers and the national Republican Party, (Sen. Mel Martinez, until recently the Chairman of the GOP, flew free on Skyway’s Cocaine One DC9 during the crucial final two weeks of his campaign in Florida for the Senate.)
And with seeming impunity the operationengaged in multi-ton load drug trafficking, as well asmassive financial fraud.
What began as a minor scandal without fanfare in April of 2006 with the bust of an American-registered DC-9 airliner carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula gathered momentum when a Gulfstream business jet flying out of the same airport was busted in the Yucatan 18 months later carrying 4 tons of cocaine. 
The level of citizen outrage increased with the crash-landing of the second American plane. With the news that the number of American planes sold to Mexican drug traffickers was not just one or two planes—but 50—the scandal is now threatening to mushroom into something much larger.

Kingpin Airlines welcomes you aboard

The brazen fleet-sized sale of American planes to Mexican drug traffickers has huge implications. 
“The extraordinary similarity,” to use the phrase used by Mexican newspaper Por Esto, between the DC9 airliner and the Gulfstream II…
The American owners of the drug planes have suffered no adverse consequences whatsoever to date.
If you own an airliner or business jet discovered hauling pure cocaine into the U.S., literally by the ton,  authorities are sympathetic. They know the hazards unauthorized charter flights pose to innocent business owners, and the confusion that can result when you’ve inadvertently purchased an airplane from someone known to be involved with international organized crime.

“Our Story Thus Far”

As this amazing information begins to sink inthat owning a drug plane may have little downside and be a terrific hedge against coming hard timesa brief recap of “Our Story Thus Far” may be in order.
Two American-registered airplanes with clear ties to the U.S. Government—a DC9 airliner (N900SA) painted to resemble an airplane from the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, and a Gulfstream business jet (N987SA) formerly used by the CIA for renditions—were busted in Mexico 18 months apart carrying multi-ton loads of cocaine . 
Both planes flew from St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport to Mexico, then on to Colombia, where they loaded the cocaine, before being caught on their return journey to (supposedly) Fort Lauderdale,  stopping to refuel on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula.  
Just before both plane’s ill-fated final flights, the “ownership” papers were  shuffled around like peas being moved underneath shells on a card table in a billion dollar game of three-card monte by people known as “aircraft brokers.

Bush Rangers, cardboard-thin cutouts

However, the MadCowMorningNewslearned from an FAA official that neither of the two “aircraft brokers”  bought or sold any other planes during the entire year.
They aren’t really “aircraft brokers.” Aircraft brokers buy and sell planes. 
They’re “cut-outs,” a spy trade term for the layers of insulation relied on to provide plausible deniability.  They play a critical role in the cover story, shielding the plane’s true owners from scrutiny.  
Both busted airplanes give every indication of having been involved in a “protected” drug trafficking operation. Imagine the surprise and shock back in the Home Office.  No wonder the cover story is, in many places, exceedingly thin.
A shameless plug:
Almost two weeks before the Mexico’s Atty. General’s announcement in early November that both planes had been used in the same drug smuggling operation,  readers of the MadCowMorningNews already knew of connections between the two downed American drug planes, and their interlocking ownership.

The “W” Connection

Stephen Adams, a secretive Midwestern media baron and Republican fund-raiser, owned the Gulfstream II at the same time he was personally purchasing one million dollars of billboard advertising for George W. Bush during the 2000 Presidential Campaign. 
Adams was also in business, in two separate companies, with Michael Farkas, the man who founded SkyWay Aircraft, which owned the DC9. Both men control companies used in Adnan Khashoggi’s $300 million stock fraud rip-off.   
The multi-ton drug busts, as well as the numerous murders already surrounding the case,  are part of a continuing “Mexican stand-off”between rival Mexican drug cartels allied with dueling factions contesting Mexico’s unsettled political landscape.
The contest has so far resulted in more than 2500 murders in Mexico last year.  Mexico’s internecine drug war is a hotter theater of operations than Iraq. 

Bank robbers for Equal Justice Under Law

When a bank robber steals a few thousand dollars before holing up with a hostage, does the FBI take more than eighteen months before divulging the name of the suspect?
Certain cases involving politically-connected Americans suspected of involvement in drug smuggling, through ownership of drug smuggling aircraft,  seem to be being treated, not as crimes, but as urgent matters of national security.  
But the American owners of the two airplanes busted in Mexico do not look like innocent victims of mean and nasty Mexican drug traffickers, but their  American counterparts... the elusive and almost never-photographedAmerican Drug Lords.
The Gulfstream, for example, picked up its multi-load of cocaine at the international airport in Rio Negro, just outside of Medellin. Although the city became famous as Pablo Escobar’s hometown, today Medellin is known for being current Colombian President Alvaro Uribe’s home turf…
So it wasn’t FARC dope.
And there is no way the shipment can be blamed on the guerrillas, which may yet prove inconvenient if—after all the pieces are fitted into the puzzle—government-to-government drug connections are visible between the U.S. and Colombian governments.  

An official issue get-out-of-jail-free card

The first plane to go down was a DC9 airliner (N900SA) which left Colombia carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine
The DC9’s owner regularly engaged in illegal, and as yet unpunished, activity, as if he had an official issue get-out-of-jail-free card.
One example: Forgetting legal niceties–like “don’t sell a plane you don’t own, dude”– the DC9 was passed from “Skyway Aircraft” to a company controlled by a company insider, “Royal Sons LLC.
But the real owner of the plane at the time was the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Tampa. And they weren’t even told of the sale.
Maybe it helped their legal cause that Skyway’s Chairman, Glenn Kovar, had been a U.S. Forest Service employee who boasted of long-standing ties to the CIA.
And several of the firm’s top executives, including its President, have backgrounds in U.S. military intelligence.  That probably didn’t hurt either.

Paint your car like a police car! Comes with own siren!

Skyway’s DC9 was painted with the distinctive blue-and-white with gold trim used by  official U.S. Government planes, and an official-looking U.S. Seal, featuring the familiar Federal eagle clutching an olive brand, had been painted alongside the door. 
If you look closely, however,  the legend wrapping around the outer edge of the Seal says “SkyWay Aircraft: Protection of America’s Skies.” 
Still, most who saw the DC9 sitting on the apron of the St-Petersburg Clearwater International Airport figured the aircraft belonged to the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security.
The DC9 was clearly impersonating an aircraft from the Dept of Homeland Security. Yet it sat unmolested by authorities at the St Pete-Clearwater Intl’ Airport, parked less than a hundred yards from the US Coast Guard’s major Caribbean Basin Air Facility.
Skyway’s SUV’s, by contrast, were painted with a bogus U.S. Government Seal were pulled over by local police, and ordered to remove the seals.
 

Pretty lucky? Or pretty well-connected?

Another intriguing fact is that several years ago Skyway’s listed address in plane ads was a hanger at Huffman Aviation at the Venice Fl. Airport.  Huffman trained both pilots who took down the World Trade Center, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, to fly.
The Gulfstream II (N987SA) 
The biggest clue to date to the true identity of the individuals or organization operating behind the scenes is in the name of the dummy front company which was the last registered owner of the Gulfstream business jet that crash-landed with 4 tons of cocaine may lie in the firm’s initials.
Donna Blue Aircraft”  is “DBA,” for “doing business as,” the kind of clever nomenclature “the boys” are fond of.
When we visited the company’s listed address, it was in an empty office suite with a blank sign out front.

What This is Really All About

Mankind’s knowledge about who owns large commercial and business jets which get busted carrying narcotics appears severely limited for several reasons.
1. It is completely governed, like the movement of subatomic quarks, byHeisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, with one teensy change.
2. Ownership Uncertainty fluctuates with the level of influence the plane’s owner is able to exert. 
3. Prospects are especially poor of ever identifying the owners of planes associated with national Republican figures.
The whole business, suggested a story from the Associated Press, ratherquickly moves beyond the realm of human ken.
“How the U.S.-registered Gulfstream ended up in the hands of suspected drug traffickers remains a mystery,” the AP reported.
And not by accident, either. 


On April 23, two patrol cars were ambushed by armed gunman in downtown Ciudad Juarez. In the ensuing firefight, seven policemen were killed as well as a 17-year old boy who was caught in the crossfire. All of the assailants escaped uninjured fleeing the crime-scene in three SUVs. The bold attack was executed in broad daylight in one of the busiest areas of the city. According to the Associated Press:

“Hours after the attack, a painted message directed to top federal police commanders and claiming responsibility for the attack appeared on a wall in downtown Ciudad Juarez. It was apparently signed by La Linea gang, the enforcement arm of the Juarez drug cartel. The Juarez cartel has been locked in a bloody turf battle with the Sinaloa cartel, led by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

“This will happen to you … for being with El Chapo Guzman and to all the dirtbags who support him. Sincerely, La Linea,” the message read.” (“7 Mexican police officers killed in Ciudad Juarez”, Olivia Torres, AP)

The massacre in downtown Juarez is just the latest incident in Mexico’s bloody drug war. Between 5 to 6 more people will be killed on Saturday, and on every day thereafter with no end in sight. It’s a war that cannot be won, but that hasn’t stopped the Mexican government from sticking to its basic game-plan.

The experts and politicians disagree about the origins of the violence in Juarez, but no one disputes that 23,000 people have been killed since 2006 in a largely futile military operation initiated by Mexican president Felipe Calderon. Whether the killing is the result of the ongoing turf-war between the rival drug cartels or not, is irrelevant. The present policy is failing and needs to be changed. The militarization of the war on drugs has been a colossal disaster which has accelerated the pace of social disintegration. Mexico is quickly becoming a failed state, and Washington’s deeply-flawed Merida Initiative, which provides $1.4 billion in aid to the Calderon administration to intensify military operations, is largely to blame.

The surge in narcotics trafficking and drug addiction go hand-in-hand with destructive free trade policies which have fueled their growth. NAFTA, in particular, has triggered a massive migration of people who have been pushed off the land because they couldn’t compete with heavily-subsidized agricultural products from the US. Many of these people drifted north to towns like Juarez which became a manufacturing hub in the 1990s. But Juarez’s fortunes took a turn for the worse a few years later when competition from the Far East grew fiercer. Now most of the plants and factories have been boarded up and the work has been outsourced to China where subsistence wages are the norm. Naturally, young men have turned to the cartels as the only visible means of employment and upward mobility. That means that free trade has not only had a ruinous effect on the economy, but has also created an inexhaustible pool of recruits for the drug trade.

Washington’s Merida Initiative–which provides $1.4 billion in aid to the Calderon administration to intensify military operations–has only made matters worse. The public’s demand for jobs, security and social programs, has been answered with check-points, crackdowns and state repression. The response from Washington hasn’t been much better. Obama hasn’t veered from the policies of the prior administration. He is as committed to a military solution as his predecessor, George W. Bush.

But the need for change is urgent. Mexico is unraveling and, as the oil wells run dry, the prospect of a failed state run by drug kingpins and paramilitaries on US’s southern border becomes more and more probable. The drug war is merely a symptom of deeper social problems; widespread political corruption, grinding poverty, soaring unemployment, and the erosion of confidence in public institutions. But these issues are brushed aside, so the government can pursue its one-size-fits-all military strategy without second-guessing or remorse. Meanwhile, the country continues to fall apart.

THE CLASHING CARTELS

The big cartels are engaged in a ferocious battle for the drug corridors around Juarez. The Sinaloa, Gulf and La Familia cartels have formed an alliance against the upstart Los Zetas gang. Critics allege that the Calderon administration has close ties with the Sinaloa cartel and refuses to arrest its members. Here’s an excerpt from an Al Jazeera video which points to collusion between Sinaloa and the government.

“The US Treasury identifies at least 20 front companies that are laundering drug money for the Sinaloa cartel…There are allegations that the Mexican government is “favoring” the cartel. According to Diego Enrique Osorno, investigative journalist and author of the “The Sinaloa Cartel”:

“There are no important detentions of Sinaloa cartel members. But the government is hunting down adversary groups, new players in the world of drug trafficking.”

International Security Expert, Edgardo Buscaglia, says that “of over 50,000 drug related arrests, only a very small percentage have been Sinaloa cartel members, and no cartel leaders. Dating back to 2003, law enforcement data shows objectively that the government has been hitting the weakest organized crime groups in Mexico, but they have not been hitting the main crime group, the Sinaloa Federation, that’s responsible for 45% of the drug trade in this country.” (Al Jazeera)

There’s no way to verify whether the Calderon administration is in bed with the Sinaloa cartel, but Al Jazeera’s report is pretty damning. A similar report appeared in the Los Angeles Times which revealed that the government had diverted funds that were earmarked for struggling farmers (who’d been hurt by NAFTA) “to the families of notorious drug traffickers and several senior government officials, including the agriculture minister.” Here’s an excerpt from the Los Angeles Times:

“According to several academic studies, as much as 80% of the money went to just 20% of the registered farmers…Among the most eyebrow-raising recipients were three siblings of billionaire drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, head of the powerful Sinaloa cartel, and the brother of Guzman’s onetime partner, Arturo Beltran Leyva”. (“Mexico farm subsidies are going astray”, Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times)

There’s no doubt that if the LA Times knows about the circular flow of state money to drug traffickers, than the Obama administration knows too. So why does the administration persist with the same policy and continue to support the people they pretend to be fighting?

In forty years, US drug policy has never changed. The same “hunt them down, bust them, and lock them up” philosophy continues to this day. That’s why many critics believe that the drug war is really about control, not eradication. It’s a matter of who’s in line to rake in the profits; small-time pushers who run their own operations or politically-connected kingfish who have agents in the banks, the intelligence agencies, the military and the government. Currently, in Juarez, the small fries’ are getting wiped out while the big-players are getting stronger. In a year or so, the Sinaloa cartel will control the streets, the drug corridors, and the border. The violence will die down and the government will proclaim “victory”, but the flow of drugs into the US will increase while the situation for ordinary Mexicans will continue to deteriorate.

Here’s a clip from an article in the Independent by veteran journalist Hugh O’Shaughnessy:

“The outlawing and criminalizing of drugs and consequent surge in prices has produced a bonanza for producers everywhere, from Kabul to Bogota, but, at the Mexican border, where an estimated $39,000m in narcotics enter the rich US market every year, a veritable tsunami of cash has been created. The narcotraficantes, or drug dealers, can buy the murder of many, and the loyalty of nearly everyone. They can acquire whatever weapons they need from the free market in firearms north of the border and bring them into Mexico with appropriate payment to any official who holds his hand out.” (“The US-Mexico border: where the drugs war has soaked the ground blood red”, Hugh O’Shaughnessy The Independent)

It’s no coincidence that Kabul and Bogota are the the de facto capitals of the drug universe. US political support is strong in both places, as is the involvement of US intelligence agencies. But does that suggest that the CIA is at work in Mexico, too? Or, to put it differently: Why is the US supporting a client that appears to be allied to the most powerful drug cartel in Mexico? That’s the question.

THE CHECKERED HISTORY OF THE CIA

In August 1996, investigative journalist Gary Webb released the first installment of Dark Alliance in the San Jose Mercury exposing the CIA’s involvement in the drug trade. The article blew the lid off the murky dealings of the agency’s covert operations. Webb’s words are as riveting today as they were when they first appeared 14 years ago:

“For the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a Mercury News investigation has found.

This drug network opened the first pipeline between Colombia’s cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known as the “crack” capital of the world. The cocaine that flooded in helped spark a crack explosion in urban America

and provided the cash and connections needed for L.A.’s gangs to buy automatic weapons.

It is one of the most bizarre alliances in modern history: the union of a U.S.-backed army attempting to overthrow a revolutionary socialist government and the Uzi-toting “gangstas” of Compton and South-Central Los Angeles.” (“America’s ‘crack’ plague has roots in Nicaragua war”, Gary Webb, San Jose Mercury News)

Counterpunch editor Alexander Cockburn has also done extensive research on the CIA/drug connection. Here’s an excerpt from an article titled “The Government’s Dirty Little Secrets”, which ran in the Los Angeles Times.

“CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz finally conceded to a U.S. congressional committee that the agency had worked with drug traffickers and had obtained a waiver from the Justice Department in 1982 (the beginning of the Contra funding crisis) allowing it not to report drug trafficking by agency contractors. Was the lethal arsenal deployed at Roodeplaat assembled with the advice from the CIA and other U.S. agencies? There were certainly close contacts over the years. It was a CIA tip that led the South African secret police to arrest Nelson Mandela.” (The Government’s Dirty Little Secrets, Los Angeles Times, commentary, 1998)

And then there’s this from independent journalist Zafar Bangash:

“The CIA, as Cockburn and (Jeffrey) St Clair reveal, had been in this business right from the beginning. In fact, even before it came into existence, its predecessors, the OSS and the Office of Naval Intelligence, were involved with criminals. One such criminal was Lucky Luciano, the most notorious gangster and drug trafficker in America in the forties.”

The CIA’s involvement in drug trafficking closely dovetails America’s adventures overseas – from Indo-China in the sixties to Afghanistan in the eighties….As Alfred McCoy states in his book: Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade, beginning with CIA raids from Burma into China in the early fifties, the agency found that ‘ruthless drug lords made effective anti-communists.” (“CIA peddles drugs while US Media act as cheerleaders”, Zafar Bangash, Muslimedia, January 16-31, 1999)

And, this from author William Blum:

“ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels … engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government,” writes historian William Blum. “The Agency’s principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe….”

And, this from Portland Independent Media:

“Before 1980, Afghanistan produced 0% of the world’s opium. But then the CIA moved in, and by 1986 they were producing 40% of the world’s heroin supply. By 1999, they were churning out 3,200 TONS of heroin a year–nearly 80% of the total market supply. But then something unexpected happened. The Taliban rose to power, and by 2000 they had destroyed nearly all of the opium fields. Production dropped from 3,000+ tons to only 185 tons, a 94% reduction! This drop in revenue hurt not only the CIA’s Black Budget projects, but also the free-flow of laundered money in and out of the Controller’s banks.” (Portland Independent Media)

The evidence of CIA involvement in the drug trade is vast, documented and compelling. Still, does that mean that there is some nefarious 3-way connection between the Sinaloa Cartel, the Calderon administration and the CIA? Isn’t it more likely that US policymakers are simply stuck in an ideological rut and are unable to break free from the culture of militarism that has swallowed Washington whole? Author John Ross answers these questions and more in a speech he delivered at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. in April 2009. Here’s an excerpt:

“What does Washington want from Mexico? On the security side, the U.S. seeks total control of Mexico’s security apparatus. With the creation of NORTHCOM (Northern Command) designed to protect the U.S. landmass from terrorist attack, Mexico is designated North America’s southern security perimeter and U.S. military aircraft now has carte blanche to penetrate Mexican airspace. Moreover, the North American Security and Prosperity Agreement (ASPAN in its Mexican initials) seeks to integrate the security apparatuses of the three NAFTA nations under Washington’s command. Now the Merida Initiative signed by Bush II and Calderon in early 2007 allows for the emplacement of armed U.S. security agents – the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, and ICE – on Mexican soil and contractors like the former Blackwater cannot be far behind. Wars are fought for juicy government contracts and $1.3 billion in Merida moneys are going directly to U.S. defense contractors – forget about the Mexican middleman.

On the energy side, the designated target is, of course, the privatization of PEMEX, Mexico’s nationalized oil industry, with a particular eye out for risk contracts on deep sea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico utilizing technology only the EXXONs of this world possess.” (John Ross, “The Big Scam : How and Why Washington Hooked Mexico on the Drug War)

The drug war is the mask behind which the real policy is concealed. The United States is using all the implements in its national security toolbox to integrate Mexico into a North America Uberstate, a hemispheric free trade zone that removes sovereign obstacles to corporate looting and guarantees rich rewards for defense contractors. As Ross notes, all of the usual suspects are involved, including the FBI and CIA. That means the killing in Juarez will continue until Washington’s objectives are achieved.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mike Whitney



Richard Cain, Mexico City, Bill K. Harvey and Staff D

« on: July 19, 2011, 06:45:44 PM »

“Arguments for exclusivity go only so far. The better question is how explain the Kurt Vonnegut Cat’s Cradle line turned to song:

Nice, nice, very nice
so many people in the same device”

~Phil Dragoo

The Mexican Security Police, known as the Dirección Federal de Seguridad, or DFS was a government security agency created in 1947 during the presidency of Miguel Alemán. Organizationally part of the Secretaria de Gobernación, the DFS was assigned the official duty of preserving the internal stability of Mexico against all forms subversion and terrorist threats. Following a drug scandal that concluded with criminal prosecution of its top executives, the DFS was abolished, with operational elements restructured and merged into the Centro de Investigación y Seguridad Nacional (CISEN) in 1985.

Professor Peter Dale Scott has written that the DFS was in part a CIA creation, and “the CIA’s closest government allies were for years in the DFS.” DFS badges, “handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual ‘license to traffic.'” 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.

What is relevant to our interests is the fact that the DFS, in addition to being deeply involved with illicit drug related organized crime, and a corrupt tool of enforcement for the state, staffed and monitored the CIA’s Mexico City telephone intercept program LI/ENVOY, the source of the infamous “Oswald” tapes which were transcribed by husband and wife team, Boris and Anna Tarasoff.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/MoreMexicoMysteries/MoreMexicoMysteries_2.htm

What this means is that the LI/ENVOY operation which produced the original reports (subsequently transcribed) of an Oswald speaking with Soviet and Cuban diplomatic officers was not only technically insecure, it was manned, apparently, by Mexican State Police whose activities were well documented as being open to manipulation by criminal elements.

Which leads to…

Richard Cain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cain

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcainR.ht

Richard Cain (alias Scalzetti) can properly be described as a notorious Chicago mob figure, a veteran who served in the US Army stationed in both Japan and the Virgin Islands, an allegedly crooked Security Officer for UPS, an allegedly corrupt Chicago Police Department detective and employee of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, a lie-detector operator, a Spanish speaking associate of pro-Batista, anti-Castro Cubans, a close personal friend of Chicago mob boss, Sam Giancana (at whose request was allegedly brought into the CIA’s Castro assassination plans), a business operator (Accurate Detective Laboratories), a recruiter for Spanish speaking volunteers sent to South Florida and Central American CIA training camps specializing in guerrilla warfare/commando tactics, an FBI informant, an electronic surveillance expert who specialized in telephone tapping, and, among many other things including being shot in the mouth at point blank range with a shotgun on 20 Dec., 1973, the person identified in official CIA files as having visited the CIA’s Mexico City Station in April of ’62, at which time “he stated he had an investigative agency in Mexico…for the purpose of training Mexican government agents in police methods, in investigative techniques, and in the use of the lie detector.”

During the period of 1950 – 52, Cain had tapped the telephones of Cuban revolutionary leaders on behalf of the US supported Batista regime. In 1960 he was approached to install phone taps on behalf of former Cuban President (and exiled resident of Mexico), Carlos Prio. The Chicago Tribune reported that the CIA had engaged Cain in 1960 because of his Havana mob contacts, and also to wiretap the Czech embassy in Havana.

It seems plausible that “technical assistance” referred to in official CIA reports confirming that the CIA Mexico City Station provided support to the DFS on the LI/ENVOY operation was in the form of a man who was deeply and personally connected with Sam Giancana, Giancana’s anti-Castro CIA intrigues, and the Chicago underworld milieu of Jack Ruby.

A detailed examination of Richard Cain suggests that from 1960 through ’63, he was close to, or possibly deep inside, the connection between the CIA and the Mafia’s recruitment to assassinate Fidel Castro. An HSCA report presents credible arguments that Cain was not only involved (by Giancana) in the plots against Castro, but that he himself may have been the “assassin-to-be” mentioned by his boss, Giancana, on 18 Oct., 1960.

Which leads to…

Bill K. Harvey and Staff D

The most sensitive and restricted operation by the CIA against Castro was run out of CIA’s Staff D (FI/D), headed by William King Harvey. Officially, Staff D was “a small Agency component responsible for communications intercepts.” Quoted from Inspectors General Report, 37. In fact and in practice, the very stringent restrictions on clearances for COMINT (communications intelligence) made FI/D especially well suited to house sensitive operations that CIA officials (such as Agent In Charge, Harvey) wished to conceal from the rest of the Agency. The most notorious of these projects was ZR/RIFLE, Harvey’s program for “Executive Action Capability.”

FI/D was responsible for the LI/ENVOY program in Mexico City. LI/ENVOY reports were filed regularly from Mexico City Station to Harvey at CIA HQS. It is important to know that Ann Goodpasture, Mexico City Station officer responsible for bringing DFS intercept product into the station and who supplied mistaken and misleading identification of Oswald as being “age 35 and balding,” was an FI/D employee.

Harvey’s Staff D controlled the CIA-Mafia assassination plots, and it controlled the LI/ENVOY intercept intake inside the Mexico City Station. If Richard Cain trained and possibly supervised the recruitment of Mexican (DFS) monitors, the CIA-DFS LI/ENVOY collaboration represents a pre-assassination matrix connecting three possible conspirators in operations which would be seen post-assassination to have very great significance in the implication of Lee Harvey Oswald.

This is a model of an ultra-secretive compartment of CIA, elements of the Mafia already associated with the CIA in their Castro assassination plots, and the infiltration of an officially recognized Mexican agency which would have been thought to have acted in the service of the CIA in its reporting of electronic listening posts, working with each other in ways not apparent to any who would have been uninvolved.

For us to truly recognize what this may mean in terms relevant to the hypothesis that LHO was set up to take the blame for an act he did not commit, it’s essential that we fully understand that all of the above should not result in a rush to judgement that these elements at work through the actions and associations of Richard Cain, Sam Giancana, Ann Goodpasture, and Bill K. Harvey represent proof of their collaboration on the incrimination of Oswald as part of a sinister plot to kill President Kennedy.

While exploring the possibility that the incrimination of Oswald was piggy-backed upon authorized counterintelligence operations which employed these resources and was possibly directed by these authorities, we raise more questions than we answer. I’m hopeful that even a modest introduction such as this will be encouragement — especially to those of you whose minds seem to have already been made up — to continue the search for new answers.

My thanks to Phil Dragoo whose contributions here should be required reading for all.

|


The Mexican Drug War is an ongoing armed conflict between rival drug cartels fighting each other for regional control, and Mexican government forces. The government’s principal goal has been to put down the drug-related violence that was raging between different drug cartels before any military intervention was made.[27] In addition, the Mexican government has claimed that their primary focus is on dismantling the powerful drug cartels, rather than on drug trafficking prevention, which is left to U.S. functionaries.[28][29][30]
Although Mexican drug cartels, or drug trafficking organizations, have existed for several decades, they have become more powerful since the demise of Colombia‘s Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s. Mexican drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug market by controlling 90% of the drugs that enter the United States.[31][32] Arrests of key cartel leaders, particularly in the Tijuana and Gulf cartels, have led to increasing drug violence as cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the United States.[33][34][35]
Analysts estimate that wholesale earnings from illicit drug sales range from $13.6 billion[31] to $49.4 billion annually.[31][36][37]


Some sources say that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in several drug trafficking operations. Some of these reports claim that congressional evidence indicates that the CIA worked with groups which it knew were involved in drug trafficking, so that these groups would provide them with useful intelligence and material support, in exchange for allowing their criminal activities to continue,[1] and impeding or preventing their arrest, indictment, and imprisonment by U.S. law enforcement agencies.[2]

According to Peter Dale Scott, the Dirección Federal de Seguridad was in part a CIA creation, and “the CIA’s closest government allies were for years in the DFS”. DFS badges, “handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual ‘license to traffic.'”[21] 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 Nazar Haro, a CIA asset.”[21]
Vicente Zambada Niebla, the son of Ismael Zambada García one of the top druglords in Mexico, claimed after his arrest to his attorneys that he and other top Sinaloa cartel members had received immunity by U.S. agents and a virtual licence to smuggle cocaine over the United States border, in exchange for intelligence about rival cartels engaged in the Mexican Drug War.[22][23]

The Dirección Federal de Seguridad (Federal Security Directorate, DFS) was a Mexican intelligence agency. Created in 1947 under Miguel Alemán Valdés with “the duty of preserving the internal stability of Mexico against all forms subversion and terrorist threats”,[1] it was merged into the Centro de Investigación y Seguridad Nacional (CISEN) in 1985.
According to Peter Dale Scott, the DFS was in part a CIA creation, and “the CIA’s closest government allies were for years in the DFS”. DFS badges, “handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual ‘license to traffic.'”[2] 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 Nazar Haro, a CIA asset.”[2]


  1. ^ Dirección Federal de Seguridad (Mexico) Security Reports, Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection, University of Texas Libraries, the University of Texas at Austin,Dirección Federal de Seguridad (Mexico) Security Reports, 1970-1977
  2. ^ a b Peter Dale Scott (2000), Washington and the politics of drugs, Variant, 2(11)

Mexican Miguel Nazar Haro was protected by the CIA

By Víctor Hugo Michel (Mexico City) and Dora Irene Rivera (Monterrey)

EDITED TRANSLATION OF A FEBRUARY 23, 2004, PIECE FROM MILENIO, MEXICO CITY

Miguel Nassar Haro* (aka Nazar Haro; or Nasar Haro), Mexico’s ex-director of the Federal Security Directorate (DFS), received help from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the U.S. Justice Department to avoid incarceration in the U.S. when he was under investigation for participating in a car theft ring, revealed Peter K. Nuñez, the former U.S. Attorney in charge of the case in San Diego, California.

In an interview with Milenio, Nuñez said that when he tried to arrest and prosecute Nassar Haro in the early 1980s, the “intelligence agencies” in Washington began to meddle in the case and they even pressured him not to pursue the investigations.

“It was a very complicated circumstance. We [in San Diego] had spent considerable time trying to charge him, and the Justice Department in Washington and some of the U.S. intelligence agencies did not want us to go ahead,” Nuñez said.

Asked if he believes the CIA got involved to influence the escape of Nassar Haro from the U.S. — after (he) spent a few hours in a San Diego jail, Nuñez dryly responded “yes.”

The CIA considered Nassar Haro, according to different reports, “the most important source in Mexico and Central America” for the U.S. espionage services.

From the beginning of the call, upon hearing the reporter’s nationality, Nuñez guessed the subject of the interview. “You want to talk about Miguel Nassar Haro,” he anticipated. “Let me tell you: I am not surprised that he has been arrested in Mexico.”

Nuñez, a favorite of Ronald Reagan who was famous for having detained the ex-director of the DFS for a few hours in a San Diego jail, affirmed that he and his team of attorneys had gathered “sufficient information” to link Nassar Haro with car theft in Southern California.

(Reporter:) How was the connection between Nassar Haro and this gang of car thieves discovered, was it through an informant?

(Nuñez:) In part, yes. Many people had already been arrested, and many of them had cooperated with the U.S. government. And among other things, they revealed the role of Nassar Haro in the case.

(The reporter continued with several questions about extradition, then and now. In a concluding comment Nuñez said that) the arrest warrants against Miguel Nassar Haro, for car theft in California, “are still open and they have not expired.” As such, “an eventual extradition request” cannot be dismissed.

Nuñez said, that according to the U.S. justice (system), two decades after being indicted in a federal court for his alleged participation in an organization dedicated to stealing vehicles in San Diego Nassar Haro is still a “fugitive.”

“The statute of limitations would not apply because Nassar Haro had already been processed,” said the ex-U.S. Attorney who was the prosecutor in the case that culminated with the Mexican agent fleeing to Tijuana, from the U.S., after he paid his bail.

Nuñez explained, that in spite of the more than 22 years that have passed, the crimes committed in the U.S. are not yet resolved. “Arrest warrants do not expire,” he said. “He paid his bail but he never returned to face the charges.”

Nuñez said that even without a U.S. extradition proceeding, the Mexican justice (system) could try Nassar Haro for crimes committed in the U.S., according to Article 4 of the Federal Penal Code of Mexico. Article 4 states that crimes committed abroad by a Mexican will be punishable in Mexico, in accordance with federal laws, if the accused is in the country and (if the accused) has yet to be tried abroad.

Nuñez revealed, that as a result of what happened with Nassar Haro, there were political damages in Washington — mostly from friction caused by the involvement of intelligence agencies and the Justice Department in a case that took place on the other side of the country, in California.

According to memory, there was a leak in Washington about the investigations of the U.S. Attorney in San Diego. “Someone leaked the information and made it public, that we were considering the indictment of Nassar Haro,” he recalled. “That was not authorized.”

The leak, that put the name of Nassar Haro in the headlines of the main newspapers in the U.S., brought down a Justice Department official, Bill Kennedy, who the Reagan administration blamed for revealing the “sensitive information.”

“Nassar Haro then came to the U.S., to file suit against the newspapers for printing his name. It was not the best choice he ever made. While he was here we charged and arrested him,” Nuñez said, remembering the moment the ex-director of the DFS was taken into custody.
__________

* Miguel Nazar Haro was recently detained, in Mexico, on an arrest warrant issued by a Monterrey, Nuevo León, judge. The ex-director of the infamous DFS, a now defunct domestic intelligence and security agency, is charged with authorizing the 1975 kidnapping of a youthful leftist — one of Mexico’s “disappeared” who were never to be heard from again. MexiData.info
__________

— MexiData.info translation


The Guadalajara Cartel (Spanish: Cártel de Guadalajara) was a Mexican drug cartel which was formed in the 1980s by Rafael Caro Quintero, Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo and Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo in order to ship heroin and marijuana to the United States. Among the first of the Mexican drug trafficking groups to work with the Colombian cocaine mafias, the Guadalajara cartel prospered from the cocaine trade.

After the arrest of Rafael Caro Quintero and Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, Félix Gallardo kept a low profile and in 1987 he moved with his familyGuadalajara city. Félix Gallardo (“The Godfather”) then decided to divide up the trade he controlled as it would be more efficient and less likely to be brought down in one law enforcement swoop.[1]In a way, he was privatizing the Mexican drug business while sending it back underground, to be run by bosses who were less well known or not yet known by the DEA. Félix Gallardo convened the nation’s top drug narcos at a house in the resort of Acapulco where he designated the plazas or territories. The Tijuana route would go to the Arellano Felix brothers. The Ciudad Juárez routewould go to the Carrillo Fuentes family. Miguel Caro Quintero would run the Sonora corridor. The control of the Matamoros, Tamaulipas corridor – then becoming the Gulf Cartel– would be left undisturbed to Juan García Abrego. Meanwhile, Joaquín Guzmán Loera and Ismael Zambada García would take over Pacific coast operations, becoming the Sinaloa Cartel. Guzmán and Zambada brought veteran Héctor Luis Palma Salazar back into the fold. Félix Gallardo still planned to oversee national operations, he had the contacts so he was still the top man, but he would no longer control all details of the business; he was arrested on April 8, 1989.[2]
According to Peter Dale Scott, the Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico’s most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the Dirección Federal de Seguridad, under its chief Miguel Nazar Haro, a CIA asset.”[3]


Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (born January 8, 1946) is a convicted Mexican drug lord known as “El Padrino” (Spanish: “The Godfather”) who in the 1980s formed the Guadalajara Cartel and became the first drug czar in Mexico to control all illegal drug traffic in Mexico and the corridors along the Mexico-U.S.A. border


The Mexican Drug War is an ongoing armed conflict between rival drug cartels fighting each other for regional control, and Mexican government forces. The government’s principal goal has been to put down the drug-related violence that was raging between different drug cartels before any military intervention was made.[27] In addition, the Mexican government has claimed that their primary focus is on dismantling the powerful drug cartels, rather than on drug trafficking prevention, which is left to U.S. functionaries.[28][29][30]
Although Mexican drug cartels, or drug trafficking organizations, have existed for several decades, they have become more powerful since the demise of Colombia‘s Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s. Mexican drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug market by controlling 90% of the drugs that enter the United States.[31][32] Arrests of key cartel leaders, particularly in the Tijuana and Gulf cartels, have led to increasing drug violence as cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the United States.[33][34][35]
Analysts estimate that wholesale earnings from illicit drug sales range from $13.6 billion[31] to $49.4 billion annually.


The timeline of the most relevant events in the Mexican Drug War

Although violence between drug cartels had been occurring for three decades, the Mexican government held a generally passive stance regarding cartel violence through the 1980s and early 2000s. That changed on December 11, 2006, when the newly elected President Felipe Calderón sent 6,500 Mexican Army soldiers to the state of Michoacán to end drug violence there. This action is regarded as the first major retaliation made against the cartel violence, and is generally viewed as the starting point of the Mexican Drug War between the government and the drug cartels.[1] As time passed, Calderón continued to escalate his anti-drug campaign, in which there are now about 45,000 troops involved along with state and federal police forces.


Arturo Guzmán Decena, a.k.a. Z-1 (January 13, 1976 ? November 21, 2002) was a Mexican Army soldier who defected to become a mercenary and commander of the mercenary gang called Los Zetas at the service of Osiel Cárdenas Guillen, the Gulf Cartel‘s drug lord.[1] Los Zetas are considered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as the most technologically advanced, sophisticated and violent drug cartel in Mexico


A federal judge in Chicago refused Thursday to dismiss charges against a reputed Mexican drug kingpin who claimed he was working as an informant for the government.  Vicente Zambada-Niebla failed to provide evidence to rebut the government’s contention that he was never granted immunity from prosecution on drug-trafficking charges, U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo found.
Zambada-Niebla is the highest-ranking reputed member of the Sinaloa cartel in U.S. custody in a case being tried in Chicago against members of the drug-trafficking organization which authorities say is headed by Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman, described by the U.S. Treasury Department as the “world’s most powerful drug trafficker.”
Castillo’s written ruling offers a glimpse into the secret workings of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Mexico.
According to the judge’s ruling, Sinaloa cartel lawyer Humberto Loya-Castro was a confidant to Guzman and right-hand man Ismael Zambada-Garcia, who is Zambada-Niebla’s father.
After Loya-Castro was charged in a narcotics case in California in 1995, he started providing information to DEA agents about Mexican drug trafficking. The case against Loya-Castro was dismissed in 2008 at the request of prosecutors.
In 2008, he proposed a meeting between his DEA contact and Zambada-Niebla. On March 17, 2009, they met with DEA agents at a hotel in Mexico City. Hours later, Zambada-Niebla was arrested by Mexican officials.
Prosecutors say Loya-Castro brought Zambada-Niebla to meet DEA agents at the hotel against the agents’ instructions.
“According to the government, [Zambada-Niebla] conveyed his interest and willingness to cooperate with the U.S. government, but the DEA agents told him they ‘were not authorized to meet with him, much less have substantive discussions with him,’ ” the judge wrote.
Zambada-Niebla argued that Loya-Castro had negotiated an immunity deal for him; that he provided information to Loya-Castro about rival cartels that was then passed on to the U.S. government; and that he traveled to Mexico City at great risk to himself for the meeting with DEA agents because he was assured he had immunity from prosecution.
The judge said Zambada-Niebla didn’t present enough evidence to refute the government’s position that he was never granted immunity.
Last year, Zambada-Niebla was moved from the federal lockup in Chicago to a prison in Michigan after complaining about conditions in the Chicago lockup. Federal authorities were concerned he was an escape risk and potential assassination target.
In an unrelated drug-trafficking case in Chicago last year, a defendant testified that he met Zambada-Niebla in the federal lockup here and that Zambada-Niebla sought information to have two co-defendants killed. Those defendants — Chicago natives Pedro and Margarito Flores — are cooperating with prosecutors in the case against Zambada-Niebla, court records show.
Guzman and Zambada-Niebla’s father remain fugitives in the case
For Backstory Information read my Borderland Beat Post….Paz, Chivis   link here


The son of a heavy hitter in a powerful Mexican drug trafficking organization has filed explosive legal pleadings in federal court in Chicago accusing the US government of cutting a deal with the the “Sinaloa Cartel” that gave its leadership “carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago and the rest of the United States.”
The source of that allegation is Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the son of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia, one of the purported top leaders of the Sinaloa drug-trafficking organization — a major Mexican-based importer of weapons and exporter of drugs.
The top capo of the Sinaloa drug organization, named after the Pacific Coast Mexican state where it is based, is Joaquin Guzman Loera (El Chapo) — who escaped from a maximum security prison in Mexico in 2001, only days before he was slated to be extradited to the United States. Chapo has since gone on to build one of the most powerful drug “cartels” in Mexico. With the death of Osama Bin Laden in May, Chapo (a Spanish nickname meaning “shorty”) jumped to the top of the FBI’s “Most Wanted” persons list. He also made Forbes Magazine’s 2010 list of “The World’s Most Powerful People.”


Drug War Zone : Frontline Dispatches from the Streets of el Paso and Juárez
Campbell, Howard
Pages: 337
Publisher: University of Texas Press
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Date Published: 10/2009
Language: en


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

(CBS News)
WASHINGTON – Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.
He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?
“Yes ma’am,” Dodson told CBS News. “The agency was.”
An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson’s job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.
Investigators call the tactic letting guns “walk.” In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.

[Blowback] 

Stephen Downing, a retired deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, responds to The Times’ Oct. 5 Op-Ed article, “Prohibition’s real lessons for drug policy.” If you would like to respond to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed in our Blowback forum, here are our FAQs and submission policy.

Drug prohibitionists like former White House drug czar staffer Kevin A. Sabet seem to be in a panic over Ken Burns’ PBS documentary broadcast “Prohibition” because of its clear and convincing parallel to today’s equally disastrous war on drugs. The earlier experiment lasted less than 14 years, but today’s failed prohibition was declared by President Nixon 40 years ago and has cost our country more than $1 trillion  in cash and much more in immeasurable social harm. As a student of history and a retired deputy chief of police with the Los Angeles Police Department, I can attest that the damage that came from the prohibition of alcohol pales in comparison to the harm wrought by drug prohibition. In the last 40 years drug money has fueled the growth of violent street gangs in Los Angeles, from two (Bloods and Crips) with a membership of less than 50 people before the drug war to 20,000 gangs with a membership of about 1 million across the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Justice. These gangs serve as the distributors, collection agents and enforcers for the Mexican cartels that the Justice Department says occupy more than 1,000 U.S. cities.

Sabet, a former advisor to the White House drug policy advisor, ignores these prohibition-created harms, making no mention of the nearly 50,000 people killed in Mexico over the last five years as cartels have battled it out to control drug routes, territories and enforce collections. When one cartel leader is arrested or killed, it makes no impact on the drug trade and only serves to create more violence, as lower-level traffickers fight for the newly open top spot. U.S. law enforcement officials report that as much as 70% of cartel profits come from marijuana alone.  There’s no question that ending today’s prohibition on drugs — starting with marijuana — would do more to hurt the cartels than any level of law enforcement skill or dedication ever can. Worse than being ineffective, though, the war on drugs creates dangerous distractions for police officers who would rather focus on improving public safety. For example, the LAPD announced this week that it will take 150 police officers off the streets to accommodate the state’s shuffling of prisoners to the county level. The state must do this to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s order to cut our drug-war-induced overcrowded prison population by 30,000 — and our state has already laid off thousands of teachers thanks in part to funding diverted to building more prisons and hiring more guards. This follows on the heels of another reallocation of police resources in Los Angeles when the LAPD and the L.A. Sheriff’s Department woke up to a three-year backlog of rape kits. Police labs have only a finite amount of resources, and drug testing often takes priority over other cases that demand attention. Detectives (and victims) waiting for lab results related to rape and other serious crimes stood in line for months while tests for custody-related possession of pot and other drugs took precedence. There’s no doubt that the violence, the growth of cartels and gangs, the overpopulation of our prisons and the squandering of our police resources would not occur if we eliminated illegal drug profits and implemented a non-criminal approach to regulating drugs. We did this once with alcohol, and there’s no reason we can’t do it with other drugs today. 
— Stephen Downing http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/10/end-drug-prohibition-most-commented.html

Prohibition is not the solution
I am totally against the Drug Prohibition Regime and can’t wait to see it thrown away into the dustbin of history greatest inequities humankind has inflicted on itself. I would have thought that any rational, responsible and caring individual could see that drug abuse and its profoundly disruptive consequences calls for enlightened policies where education, health and regulation would play central roles; that it calls for policies where no room is left for the Victorian values Prohibitionists seem so keen on: abstinence or punishment.
One can only assume that something deeply ideological, prejudicial or irrational prevents people from understanding that the problem is prohibition, and not the drugs themselves; that no matter what drug one is considering, prohibition is not the solution … far from it. If anything, what decades of pursuing and enforcing the prohibition regime and its dastardly offshoot, the so-called War on Drugs, have taught us is that it can only make things worse! […]
–GartValenc
The government’s hypocrisy 
It is a stretch to assume that the social and health problems associated with alcohol abuse can in any way be compared to those caused by the use of cannabis.  Alcohol destroys the internal organs of abusers.  Marijuana has no known long-term effects.  Alcohol is highly addictive.  Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.  Cannabis is less addictive than caffeine and withdrawal, at worst, amounts to a few restless nights and a few days of low appetite.  Alcohol is the fuel of all kinds of violence.  Marijuana users tend to be quiet and communal.
What is amazing to me is that our government supports and collects taxes on the two deadliest drugs in our society, alcohol and tobacco, but wants to send people to jail for making the much more rational choice to use marijuana recreationally instead.
 herbalmagick
What would Thomas Jefferson do?
The cruelest irony of this issue is that many far right goons, the so called champions of getting the government out of our lives and expanding freedom, have always been the biggest advocates of this outdated, morally wrong,  government intrusion into our lives and denying us our “right to happiness”, which Thomas Jefferson, the hard drug alcohol drinker, so correctly protected us with.  George Washington gave his troops rum every day to keep them happy.
shndlr
My life, my decision
The overriding question that the Mr Sabet clearly misses is this: Should the government be in the business of telling responsible adults what they can and cannot ingest? Many of us say “no” to that, while many folks who call themselves conservative and say they want less government in their lives nonetheless accept that nanny-state role. What I believe government should do is offer factual education regarding what drugs of all kinds can do to people, regulate the purity of drugs, continue to punish irresponsible behavior that endangers innocent people (such as driving under the influence, etc), and then trust the rest of us grown ups to enjoy life responsibly in whatever way we choose.
–Username99
Nothing will change
This article is a laugher for many reasons:
1. Part of the human condition is to seek mood-altering substances, aka get “buzzed.” Been going on for about 100,000 years or so, live with it.
2. In spite of all the laws that prohibit it, Americans continue to pursue an artificial high, regardless of the consequences. Laws DO NOT have a deterrent effect on consumption.
3. The cost of drug laws on society has been astounding.  We have incarcerated generations of minorities, forced the status of “convicted felon” on hundreds of thousands of people with the attendant impact on society – with no impact on drug consumption.
4. The war on drugs has been an epic failure in every measurable category except one: a growth industry for the criminal justice system.
5. The public is already saturated with the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol.  A change of legalization will not change consumption patterns that much.  Those inclined to use will continue to, those that do not want the risk will refuse.
6. The odds of getting busted for drug possession, unless you are a minority in a gang neighborhood, is virtually non-existent.  Therefore, in practical terms, it’s already available on demand.
7. The impact of alcohol and tobacco dwarfs the impact of drugs, legal or not.  We lose over 400,000 to nicotine addiction, and another 50,000 or so to booze EVERY YEAR.
Secret: nothing will change.
–zgonina1

killing for peace is like fucking for virginity A group of masked men are threatening Mexico’s powerful (and notorious) Zetas drug cartel on the Internet. The Mexican site Blog del Narco posted this video of the group, that appears well-armed and says it’s committed to fighting against the Zetas cartel. Videos with a similar message and style have been posted earlier this year. While no group has formally taken credit for the videos, they are thought to be the work of the Sinaloa-based group called the “Mata Zetas,” or “Zeta Killers.” In their videos they call themselves “anonymous warriors” speaking for the people of Mexico. Authorities say they are investigating the video threats and the Mexican government has condemned vigilante justice. The Mata Zetas claim to adhere to a moral code that prevents them from engaging in kidnappings or extortion—tactics often used by drug cartels, particularly the Zetas. While the Mata Zetas claim to respect law enforcement, they admit they are working beyond the reach of the law to eliminate organised crime. “Armed forces should be aware that our only objective is to get rid of the Zeta cartel,” they said in one recent video. Despite such overtures, Mexican authorities are speculating the group may be responsible for dumping 35 bodies in the middle of rush-hour traffic in Veracruz last week. The murders, which appear to have involved torture, were initially blamed on the Zetas cartel until authorities identified the victims, including 12 women and two minors, as Zetas-affiliated. The bodies were dumped near a building where some of Mexico’s top prosecutors were convening, and the gesture was apparently intended to goad lawyers into pursuing cases more aggressively against drug cartels and narco leaders. The Mata Zetas then issued a sort of apology for their tactics, saying “[i]f society, Mexican populace, and federal authorities feel offended by what we’ve done, on behalf of the group, we apologize. Our intention was to let Veracruz know that this social scourge is not invincible.” Mexico’s drug trade currently represents a multi-billion dollar industry (some estimates claim the total economy of the illicit drug trade in Mexico alone is approaching $50 billion annually), and the reach of drug gangs has been rapidly expanding in recent years, according to U.S. Department of Justice reports.

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/mexican-group-takes-drug-cartels

(CBS News)
WASHINGTON – Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.
He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?
“Yes ma’am,” Dodson told CBS News. “The agency was.”
An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson’s job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.
Investigators call the tactic letting guns “walk.” In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.

  legal pleadings in federal court in Chicago accusing the US government of cutting a deal with the the “Sinaloa Cartel” that gave its leadership “carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago and the rest of the United States.” The source of that allegation is Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the son of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia, one of the purported top leaders of the Sinaloa drug-trafficking organization.  Joaquin Guzman Loera (El Chapo) — who escaped from a maximum security prison in Mexico in 2001, only days before he was slated to be extradited to the United States.  With the death of Osama Bin Laden in May, Chapo  jumped to the top of the FBI’s “Most Wanted” persons list. Zambada Niebla, himself a key player in the Sinaloa organization, was arrested in Mexico City in March 2009 and in February 2010 extradited to the United States to stand trial on narco-trafficking-related charges. The indictment pending against Zambada Niebla claims he served as the “logistical coordinator” for the “cartel,” helping to oversee an operation that imported into the US “multi-ton quantities of cocaine … using various means, including but not limited to, Boeing 747 cargo aircraft, private aircraft … buses, rail cars, tractor-trailers, and automobiles.” Zambada Niebla also claims to be an asset of the US government. His allegation was laid out originally in a two-page court pleading filed in late March with the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. The latest allegations being advanced by Zambada Niebla, who is now being held in solitary confinement in a jail cell in Chicago, are laid out in motions filed late this week in federal court. Those pleadings spell out the supposed cooperative relationship between the US Department of Justice and its various agencies, including DEA and the FBI, and the leaders of the “Sinaloa Cartel” — including Zambada Niebla. That alleged relationship was cultivated through a Mexican attorney, Humberto Loya Castro, whom Zambada Niebla claims is a Sinaloa Cartel member and “a close confidante of Joaquin Guzman Loera (Chapo).” From Zambada Niebla’s court pleadings, filed on July 29: [Humberto] Loya was indicted along with Chapo and Mayo [Zambada Niebla’s father] in 1995 in the Southern District of California and charged with participation in a massive narcotics trafficking conspiracy (Case No. 95CR0973). That case was dismissed on the prosecution’s own motion in 2008 after Loya became an informant for the United States government and had provided information for a period of over ten years. Sometime prior to 2004 [when George W. Bush was president], and continuing through the time period covered in the indictment, the United States government entered into an agreement with Loya and the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, including Mayo and Chapo. Under that agreement, the Sinaloa Cartel, through Loya, was to provide information accumulated by Mayo, Chapo, and others, against rival Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations to the United States government. In return, the United States government agreed to dismiss the prosecution of the pending case against Loya, not to interfere with his drug trafficking activities and those of the Sinaloa Cartel, to not actively prosecute him, Chapo, Mayo, and the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, and to not apprehend them. The protection extended to the Sinaloa leadership, according to the court filings, included being “informed by agents of the DEA through Loya that United States government agents and/or Mexican authorities were conducting investigations near the home territories of cartel leaders so that the cartel leaders could take appropriate actions to evade investigators.” In addition, the pleadings allege, the US government agreed not to “share any of the information they had about the Sinaloa Cartel and/or the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel with the Mexican government in order to better assure that they would not be apprehended and so that their operations would not be interfered with.” More from the July 29 pleadings: Zambada Niebla was a party to the agreement between the United States government and the Sinaloa Cartel and provided information to the United States government through Loya pursuant to the agreement. … Loya arranged for Mr. Zambada Niebla to meet with United States government agents at the Sheraton Hotel in Mexico City in March [17th] of 2009 [after the Obama administration took power] for the purpose of introducing Mr. Zambada Niebla to the agents and for the purpose of his continuing to provide information to the DEA and the United States government personally, rather than through Loya. Loya’s federal case had been dismissed in 2008 [while Bush was still in the White House] and the DEA representative told Mr. Loya-Castro that they wanted to establish a more personal relationship with Mr. Zambada Niebla so that they could deal with him directly under the agreement. Mr. Zambada Niebla believed that under the prior agreement, any activities of the Sinaloa Cartel, including the kind described in the indictment, were covered by the agreement, and that he was immune from arrest or prosecution. Zambada Niebla claims, in the court pleadings, that he attended the meeting in March 2009 at the hotel in Mexico City as scheduled, with Loya present, and while there, even though he was then under indictment in the US, was told by US federal agents that he would not be arrested and that arrangements had been made “at the highest levels of the United States government” to assure his immunity from prosecution in exchange for his cooperation in providing information on rival narco-trafficking groups. However, Zambada Niebla contends he was double-crossed, despite the assurance of the US agents. He alleges in his pleadings that government agents “were satisfied with the information he had provided to them” at the meeting at the Sheraton Hotel on March 17, 2009, and that “arrangements would be made to meet with him again.” “Mr. Zambada Niebla then left the meeting,” the court pleadings assert. “Approximately five hours after the [hotel] meeting, Mr. Zambada-Niebla was arrested by Mexican authorities.”
Fast, Furious and the House of Death
Zambada Niebla’s pleadings also reference the controversial U.S Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) weapons-trafficking interdiction program Fast and Furious — an operation, now the subject of Congressional hearings, that allegedly allowed some 2,000 guns to be smuggled across the US/Mexican border under ATF’s watch. Zambada Niebla contends that Fast and Furious is yet another example of the US government’s complicity in the carnage of the drug war. From Zambada Niebla’s pleadings: The United States government considered the arrangements with the Sinaloa Cartel an acceptable price to pay, because the principal objective was the destruction and dismantling of rival cartels by using the assistance of the Sinaloa Cartel — without regard for the fact that tons of illicit drugs continued to be smuggled into Chicago and other parts of the United States and consumption continued virtually unabated. Essentially, the theory of the United States government in waging its “war on drugs” has been and continues to be that the “end justifies the means” and that it is more important to receive information about rival drug cartels’ activities from the Sinaloa Cartel in return for being allowed to continue their criminal activities, including and not limited to their smuggling of tons of illegal narcotics into the United States. This is confirmed by recent disclosures by the Congressional Committee’s investigation of the latest Department of Justice, DEA, FBI, and ATF’s “war on drugs” operation known as “Fast & Furious.” As a result of Operation Fast and Furious, the pleadings assert, about “three thousand people” in Mexico were killed, “including law enforcement officers in the sate of Sinaloa, Mexico, headquarters of the Sinaloa Cartel.” Among those receiving weapons through the ATF operation, the pleadings continue, were DEA and FBI informants working for drug organizations, including the leadership of those groups. “The evidence seems to indicate that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons, but that tax payers’ dollars in the form of informant payments, may have financed those engaging in such activities,” the pleadings allege. “… It is clear that some of the weapons were deliberately allowed by the FBI and other government representatives to end up in the hands of the Sinaloa Cartel and that among the people killed by those weapons were law enforcement officers. “… Mr. Zambada Niebla believes that the documentation that he requests [from the US government] will confirm that the weapons received by Sinaloa Cartel members and its leaders in Operation ‘Fast & Furious’ were provided under the agreement entered into between the United States government and [Chapo Guzman confidante] Mr. Loya Castro on behalf of the Sinaloa Cartel that is the subject of his [Zambada Niebla’s] defense [regarding] public authority.” The Zambada Niebla pleadings even reference the infamous House of Death case, so named by Narco News, which has published an exhaustive series of investigative stories on the mass-murder case dating back to 2004. From the pleadings: Mr. Zambada Niebla also requests … that the United States government produce material relating to the … “House of Death” murders, which took place in Juarez, Mexico, and were committed by United States government informants. As confirmed in the Joint Assessment Report [JAT] prepared by government authorities investigating those murders, agents of the United States government had prior knowledge that murders were going to be committed by their informants but did not take any measures to either inform the Mexican government or the intended victims, because government representatives determined it was moreimportant to protect the identity of their informants. The informants were assisting the United States government in the investigations of major drug traffickers and the government determined that the killings of over a hundred Mexican citizens was an acceptable price to pay for enabling them to continue their narcotics investigations. The Great Pretense Unmasked In its response to Zambada Niebla’s claim that he was working under “public authority” as an informant or confidential source, US federal prosecutors don’t claim outright that he was not a US government asset. They argue, instead, only that “the government denies that defendant [Zambada Niebla] exercised public authority when he committed the serious crimes charged in the indictment.” In other words, even if Zambada Niebla was offered some type of deal in exchange for his cooperation, that deal did not extend to the specific acts he is accused of in the indictment against him. Federal prosecutors also ask that the court order Zambada Niebla to produce, prior to trial, “evidence that a specific American official or officials with actual or apparent authority expressly authorized [him] to import multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and heroin into the United States, as charged in the indictment, or expressly assured [him] that these acts were not criminal, and that [he] reasonably relied on these communications.” Narco News spoke with several former DEA and FBI agents about Zambada Niebla’s contention that he worked, in essence, as an informant for the US government. Not one of those former agents, who asked that their names not be revealed, considered it out of the realm of possibility that Zambada Niebla might have cut a deal with the US government. In fact, one former DEA agent said that by making such a claim, Zambada Niebla was essentially putting his life in jeopardy by outing himself as an informant, an extreme move that would seem to indicate that at least he believes he had a deal in place. But, in the end, all of the former federal agents agree that unless Zambada Niebla has proof of his allegations that passes legal muster, he has little chance of prevailing — and at least one of those former agents said prosecutors would not likely have challenged him to produce such proof if they did not have a high degree of confidence that it does not exist. A former FBI agent explained it this way: The U. S. Attorney General Guidelines for Informants requires that there be a written document called an “otherwise criminal activities memo” signed by both parties. This document spells out exactly what the informant is authorized to do and tells him that he may be prosecuted for any other illegal activities. This should be provided to the defense in discovery; however, it does not always happen. Some attorneys are not aware of this and do not ask for it in discovery and the government does not willingly give it up. I suspect that the government did not provide this document to the defense and that is why they are demanding that he provide proof of his status. … It would be very easy to prove what he was authorized to do by having the memo. [So] this may be a case of where the memo was never done…. The former DEA agent, who has extensive overseas experience, added: My instincts say he was an informant. It’s [Zambada Niebla’s pleadings are] an effort to “scare” or “frighten” the government to dismiss or reduce charges. Posturing, as it were. But there is a substantial risk for him. It’s pretty much a last ditch effort. Were it otherwise, the defendant would not want to be exposed as having cooperated with the government agents. However, he will have an enormous challenge proving his allegations. … An agent [or US government agency would approve such a cooperative relationship with a narco-trafficker] … so the agent can snag a higher-level trafficker and garner the resulting awards, commendations and promotions. Sometimes, there is outright bribery or gifts of value. It’s a win for the criminal informant because he may earn more money from trafficking and at the same time receive cash payments from the government for arrests he orchestrates. And that isn’t all: the informant’s own fear of arrest is reduced and he has a unique opportunity to effectively destroy his unwanted competition or archenemies. And yet another DEA agent points out that “there is such an animal called an Attorney General-exempt operation, where the Attorney General of the United States [in the Zambada Niebla case, which allegedly dates back to at least 2004, it would have been the Bush administration’s Attorney General] could authorize that laws be violated [by an informant to advance a case].” “This is usually done in money laundering investigations, however,” the DEA source said. The other possibility, the former DEA agent adds, is that Zambada Niebla was tricked on an even deeper level, and was, in fact, not dealing with US law enforcement agencies, but rather a CIA intelligence operation. “This would not be the first time CIA has used an informant and led them to believe it was an FBI, ICE or DEA operation,” the DEA source said. If that is the case, the former DEA agent adds, Zambada Niebla’s case is sunk, since even if documents and other evidence exist to prove his allegations of US government complicity, that evidence would almost certainly be deep-sixed under claims of national security that would be invoked by that very same US government.

Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez

“Si me matan resucitaré en el pueblo salvadoreño” Archbishop of San Salvador, in El Salvador. He was murdered while celebrating Mass at a cancer hospital where he lived. Finishing the homily, a group of military death squad shot Romero. Óscar … Continue reading

“Si me matan resucitaré en el pueblo salvadoreño”

Archbishop of San Salvador, in El Salvador. He was murdered while celebrating Mass at a cancer hospital where he lived. Finishing the homily, a group of military death squad shot Romero.

Click to view slideshow.

Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez (August 15, 1917 – March 24, 1980) was a prominent Roman Catholic priest in El Salvador during the 1960s and 1970s becoming Archbishop of San Salvador in 1977. After witnessing numerous violations of human rights, he began to speak out on behalf of the poor and the victims of repression. This led to numerous conflicts, both with the government in El Salvador and within the Catholic Church. After speaking out against U.S. military support for the government of El Salvador, and calling for soldiers to disobey orders to fire on innocent civilians, Archbishop Romero was shot dead while celebrating Mass at the small chapel of the cancer hospital where he lived. It is believed that those who organised his assassination were members of Salvadoran death squads, including two graduates of the School of the Americas.

Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez was born in Ciudad Barrios, El Salvador, on August 15, 1917. His father apprenticed him to a carpenter when he was 13, but the young Romero felt a vocation for the Catholic priesthood and left home the following year to enter the seminary. He studied in El Salvador and in Rome and was ordained in 1942.

Romero spent the first two and half decades of his ministerial career as a parish priest and diocesan secretary in San Miguel. In 1970 he became auxiliary bishop of San Salvador and served in that position until 1974 when the Vatican named him to the diocese of Santiago de María, a poor, rural region which included his boyhood hometown. In 1977 he returned to the capital to succeed San Salvador’s aged metropolitan archbishop.

Romero’s rise to prominence in the Catholic hierarchy coincided with a period of dramatic change in the Church in Latin America. The region’s bishops, meeting at Medellín, Colombia, in 1967 to discuss local implementation of the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), had resolved to abandon the hierarchy’s traditional role as defender of the status quo and to side, instead, with the continent’s poor in their struggle for social justice. This radical departure divided both the faithful and the clergy.
During this period Oscar Romero’s reputation was as a conservative, and on more than one occasion he showed himself skeptical of both Vatican II reforms and the Medellín pronouncements. For this reason his appointment as archbishop in 1977 was not popular with the socially committed clergy, to whom it appeared to signal the Vatican’s desire to restrain them. To their surprise, Romero emerged almost immediately as an outspoken opponent of injustice and defender of the poor.

By Romero’s own account, he owed his change of attitude to his brief tenure as bishop of Santiago de María, where he witnessed first-hand the suffering of El Salvador’s landless poor. Increasing government violence against socially committed priests and laypersons undermined his trust in the good will of the authorities and led him to fear that the Church and religion themselves were under attack. The assassination on March 12, 1977, of his long-time friend Jesuit Father Rutilio Grande brought a stinging denunciation from Romero, who suspended masses in the capital’s churches the following Sunday and demanded the punishment of the responsible parties.

As Romero spoke out more and more frequently over the following months, he gathered an ever-increasing popular following who crowded into the cathedral to hear him preach or listened to his sermons over YSAX, the archdiocesan radio station. In his youth Romero had been a pioneer of broadcast evangelism in El Salvador, and he now turned the medium to great effect as he denounced both the violence of El Salvador’s incipient civil war and the deeply-rooted patterns of abuse and injustice which bred it. In a country whose rulers regarded dissent as subversion, Romero used the moral authority of his position as archbishop to speak out on behalf of those who could not do so for themselves. He soon came to be known as the “Voice ofthe Voiceless.”

When a coup d’état overthrew the Salvadoran government on October 15, 1979, Romero expressed cautious support for the reformist junta which replaced it. He soon became disenchanted, however, as the persecution of the poor and the Church did not cease. In February 1980 he addressed an open letter to U.S. President Jimmy Carter in which he called upon the United States to discontinue military aid to the regime. “We are fed up with weapons and bullets,”he pleaded.

Romero’s campaign for human rights in ElSalvador won him many national and international admirers as well as a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. It also won him enemies, however. On March 24, 1980, an assassin fired from the door of the chapel where Romero was celebrating mass and shot him dead. The archbishop had foreseen the danger of assassination and had spoken of it often, declaring his willingness to accept martyrdom if his blood might contribute to the solution of the nation’s problems. “As a Christian,” he remarked on one such occasion, “I do not believe in death without resurrection. If they kill me, I shall rise again in the Salvadoran people.”

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 CIA’s use of torture

Message from the Acting Director: “Zero Dark Thirty”

Statement to Employees from Acting Director Michael Morell: “Zero Dark Thirty”

December 21, 2012

I would not normally comment on a Hollywood film, but I think it important to put Zero Dark Thirty, which deals with one of the most significant achievements in our history, into some context. The film, which premiered this week, addresses the successful hunt for Usama Bin Ladin that was the focus of incredibly dedicated men and women across our Agency, Intelligence Community, and military partners for many years. But in doing so, the film takes significant artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate.

What I want you to know is that Zero Dark Thirty is a dramatization, not a realistic portrayal of the facts. CIA interacted with the filmmakers through our Office of Public Affairs but, as is true with any entertainment project with which we interact, we do not control the final product.

It would not be practical for me to walk through all the fiction in the film, but let me highlight a few aspects that particularly underscore the extent to which the film departs from reality.

First, the hunt for Usama Bin Ladin was a decade-long effort that depended on the selfless commitment of hundreds of officers. The filmmakers attributed the actions of our entire Agency—and the broader Intelligence Community—to just a few individuals. This may make for more compelling entertainment, but it does not reflect the facts. The success of the May 1st 2011 operation was a team effort—and a very large team at that.

Second, the film creates the strong impression that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were part of our former detention and interrogation program were the key to finding Bin Ladin. That impression is false. As we have said before, the truth is that multiple streams of intelligence led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was hiding in Abbottabad. Some came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, but there were many other sources as well. And, importantly, whether enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to obtain information from those detainees, as the film suggests, is a matter of debate that cannot and never will be definitively resolved.

Third, the film takes considerable liberties in its depiction of CIA personnel and their actions, including some who died while serving our country. We cannot allow a Hollywood film to cloud our memory of them.

Commentators will have much to say about this film in the weeks ahead. Through it all, I want you to remember that Zero Dark Thirty is not a documentary. What you should also remember is that the Bin Ladin operation was a landmark achievement by our country, by our military, by our Intelligence Community, and by our Agency.

Michael Morell

Posted: Dec 21, 2012 03:08 PM
Last Updated: Dec 21, 2012 03:59 PM
Last Reviewed: Dec 21, 2012 03:08 PM


Dear Friends:

Please ask the President to support adoption of the report on the investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into CIA torture.  This 6,000 page report, the result of a three-year investigation, is said to describe in detail the decisions at all levels that led to the use of torture.  Further, we believe it will provide important evidence showing that torture was not only ineffective, but also made our nation more unsafe.

Many supporters of torture continue to claim that its use made our country safer.  They are wrong, and the report on this investigation could help prove that they are wrong.  Please help us obtain the facts by writing to the President today.

Thank you,

Linda Gustitus, President
Rev. Richard Killmer, Executive Director


Earlier this year, the film “Zero Dark Thirty”, which purports to dramatize the hunt for and killing of Osama bin Laden, generated substantial political controversy. It was discovered that CIA and White House officials had met with its filmmakers and passed non-public information to them – at exactly the same time that DOJ officials were in federal court resisting transparency requests from media outlets and activist groups on the ground that it was all classified.

With its release imminent, the film is now garnering a pile of top awards and virtually uniform rave reviews. What makes this so remarkable is that, by most accounts, the film glorifies torture by claiming – falsely – that waterboarding and other forms of coercive interrogation tactics were crucial, even indispensable in finding bin Laden.


For more than three years, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been conducting an investigation into the CIA’s use of torture between September 11, 2001 and the end of 2008. We have been told that the resulting 6,000 page report will show that torture was not only ineffective, but was harmful to our national security. 

The task before us is to ensure that its findings are approved by the Committee and made public.
NRCAT is working hard to make that happen.

A generous group of NRCAT supporters are helping us advocate for release of the Intelligence Committee’s report — and they are asking you to join them. They are offering a $10,000 challenge grant to encourage you to join them in supporting NRCAT’s effort to advocate for full release of the Committee’s findings.

Thanks to the commitment of these people of faith your impact will double when you make a tax-deductible gift to NRCAT between now and December 31. 

That means that $25 will become $50 and $50 will become $100. That also means your donation will go twice as far to build the faith-based, grassroots call for the Intelligence Committee to share what they know with our country.

Please join this critical work by making a tax-deductible gift to NRCAT today.

We are truly grateful for every donation we receive and gifts of every size make a huge impact on the effectiveness of our work. And when we receive them between now and December 31, they will go twice as far in our efforts to make the results of the SSCI report public. 

When you make your secure online donation, you can also send a message to President Obama urging him to encourage the members of the Committee to make their findings public. 

If you believe that torture is always wrong and that the country deserves the truth about treatment of 9/11 detainees, we hope you will join this very important campaign. Thank you for your commitment to abolishing U.S.-sponsored torture forever. We are truly grateful for your support.

Sincerely,

Linda Gustitus            Rev. Richard Killmer
President                   Executive Director              
              

P.S. Don’t forget to send a message to President Obama when  you make your gift. We have already collected thousands of signatures. As NRCAT’s past successes show, the government takes the religious community seriously, when people of faith advocate with vigor the government listens. Thank you for your support!

If you prefer to support NRCAT by mail, kindly mail a check payable to NRCAT to 110 Maryland Ave NE, Suite 502, Washington, DC 20002.

NRCAT is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to abolishing torture in U.S. policy, practice and culture. Your donation is deductible for income tax purposes to the extent allowed by law. No goods or services are received in exchange for your donations.

Message from the Acting Director: “Zero Dark Thirty”

Statement to Employees from Acting Director Michael Morell: “Zero Dark Thirty”

December 21, 2012

I would not normally comment on a Hollywood film, but I think it important to put Zero Dark Thirty, which deals with one of the most significant achievements in our history, into some context. The film, which premiered this week, addresses the successful hunt for Usama Bin Ladin that was the focus of incredibly dedicated men and women across our Agency, Intelligence Community, and military partners for many years. But in doing so, the film takes significant artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate.

What I want you to know is that Zero Dark Thirty is a dramatization, not a realistic portrayal of the facts. CIA interacted with the filmmakers through our Office of Public Affairs but, as is true with any entertainment project with which we interact, we do not control the final product.

It would not be practical for me to walk through all the fiction in the film, but let me highlight a few aspects that particularly underscore the extent to which the film departs from reality.

First, the hunt for Usama Bin Ladin was a decade-long effort that depended on the selfless commitment of hundreds of officers. The filmmakers attributed the actions of our entire Agency—and the broader Intelligence Community—to just a few individuals. This may make for more compelling entertainment, but it does not reflect the facts. The success of the May 1st 2011 operation was a team effort—and a very large team at that.

Second, the film creates the strong impression that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were part of our former detention and interrogation program were the key to finding Bin Ladin. That impression is false. As we have said before, the truth is that multiple streams of intelligence led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was hiding in Abbottabad. Some came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, but there were many other sources as well. And, importantly, whether enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to obtain information from those detainees, as the film suggests, is a matter of debate that cannot and never will be definitively resolved.

Third, the film takes considerable liberties in its depiction of CIA personnel and their actions, including some who died while serving our country. We cannot allow a Hollywood film to cloud our memory of them.

Commentators will have much to say about this film in the weeks ahead. Through it all, I want you to remember that Zero Dark Thirty is not a documentary. What you should also remember is that the Bin Ladin operation was a landmark achievement by our country, by our military, by our Intelligence Community, and by our Agency.

Michael Morell

Posted: Dec 21, 2012 03:08 PM
Last Updated: Dec 21, 2012 03:59 PM
Last Reviewed: Dec 21, 2012 03:08 PM


Dear Friends:

Please ask the President to support adoption of the report on the investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into CIA torture.  This 6,000 page report, the result of a three-year investigation, is said to describe in detail the decisions at all levels that led to the use of torture.  Further, we believe it will provide important evidence showing that torture was not only ineffective, but also made our nation more unsafe.

Many supporters of torture continue to claim that its use made our country safer.  They are wrong, and the report on this investigation could help prove that they are wrong.  Please help us obtain the facts by writing to the President today.

Thank you,

Linda Gustitus, President
Rev. Richard Killmer, Executive Director


Earlier this year, the film “Zero Dark Thirty”, which purports to dramatize the hunt for and killing of Osama bin Laden, generated substantial political controversy. It was discovered that CIA and White House officials had met with its filmmakers and passed non-public information to them – at exactly the same time that DOJ officials were in federal court resisting transparency requests from media outlets and activist groups on the ground that it was all classified.

With its release imminent, the film is now garnering a pile of top awards and virtually uniform rave reviews. What makes this so remarkable is that, by most accounts, the film glorifies torture by claiming – falsely – that waterboarding and other forms of coercive interrogation tactics were crucial, even indispensable in finding bin Laden.


For more than three years, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been conducting an investigation into the CIA’s use of torture between September 11, 2001 and the end of 2008. We have been told that the resulting 6,000 page report will show that torture was not only ineffective, but was harmful to our national security. 

The task before us is to ensure that its findings are approved by the Committee and made public.
NRCAT is working hard to make that happen.

A generous group of NRCAT supporters are helping us advocate for release of the Intelligence Committee’s report — and they are asking you to join them. They are offering a $10,000 challenge grant to encourage you to join them in supporting NRCAT’s effort to advocate for full release of the Committee’s findings.

Thanks to the commitment of these people of faith your impact will double when you make a tax-deductible gift to NRCAT between now and December 31. 

That means that $25 will become $50 and $50 will become $100. That also means your donation will go twice as far to build the faith-based, grassroots call for the Intelligence Committee to share what they know with our country.

Please join this critical work by making a tax-deductible gift to NRCAT today.

We are truly grateful for every donation we receive and gifts of every size make a huge impact on the effectiveness of our work. And when we receive them between now and December 31, they will go twice as far in our efforts to make the results of the SSCI report public. 

When you make your secure online donation, you can also send a message to President Obama urging him to encourage the members of the Committee to make their findings public. 

If you believe that torture is always wrong and that the country deserves the truth about treatment of 9/11 detainees, we hope you will join this very important campaign. Thank you for your commitment to abolishing U.S.-sponsored torture forever. We are truly grateful for your support.

Sincerely,

Linda Gustitus            Rev. Richard Killmer
President                   Executive Director              
              

P.S. Don’t forget to send a message to President Obama when  you make your gift. We have already collected thousands of signatures. As NRCAT’s past successes show, the government takes the religious community seriously, when people of faith advocate with vigor the government listens. Thank you for your support!

If you prefer to support NRCAT by mail, kindly mail a check payable to NRCAT to 110 Maryland Ave NE, Suite 502, Washington, DC 20002.

NRCAT is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to abolishing torture in U.S. policy, practice and culture. Your donation is deductible for income tax purposes to the extent allowed by law. No goods or services are received in exchange for your donations.