USA - Is the CIA running drugs?

[beentheredonethatagain]

CIA-Homeland Security: Cocaine Trafficking Again?
by CONSPIRACY PLANET

In a jumbled and hard to follow story in NarcoNews.com,Bill Conroy
reports that DEA sources tell him that the "Gulfstream II jet that crash landed in the Mexican Yucatan in late September carrying close to four tons of cocaine was part of an operation being carried out by a Department of Homeland Security agency."

(Cocaine Jet That Crashed in Mexico Part of Cowboy Government Operation, DEA Sources Claim
http://www.narconews.com/Issue48/article2941.html)

("Cowboy government"? Is that like not to be confused with "Indian" government?")

"The operation, codenamed 'Mayan Express,' is an ongoing effort spearheaded by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the sources claim."

Does this mean that Homeland Security's ICE agency has been caught trafficking in cocaine? Or was it an alleged sting operation gone bad? Or just another instance of government narcotics trafficking as usual?

It should be remembered that in the John Gotti trial, he was asked whether his Mafia Family still dealt in drugs and he answered -- No, we can't compete with the government.

Conroy then claims that the "operation also appears to be badly flawed, the sources say, because it is being carried out unilaterally, (Rambo-style), by ICE and without the knowledge of the Mexican government..."

(So if the Mexican government knew about it, they would do more to protect the narco-trafficking operation? Or what?)

(Also it must be "badly flawed" since which CIA narco-traffickers really want to "lose" 4 tons of cocaine?)

The spurious sources in the DEA that NarcoNews is quoting must be laughing out loud after reading this account.

The "limited hangout" really must be working -- especially when you have clueless writers like Conroy repeating half-baked hardly believable rationales for crashing cocaine planes.

"One proposition that all of the law enforcers who spoke with Narco News agreed on with respect to the Mayan Express is that even if DEA was precluded from participating in the effort, the CIA almost certainly was involved on some level.

They say no law enforcement operation is carried out overseas without the CIA lurking in the background," -- and at least taking a piece of the profits.

"Attorney Mark Conrad, a former high-level supervisory Customs agent who has an extensive background in the intelligence world, has no problem entertaining a CIA scenario in the Gulfstream II narco-world saga," Conroy continues.

"Though he stresses that he has no knowledge of the Mayan Express operation, Conrad says based on its description, he suspects the CIA could even be running the show.

Conrad says: "It [the Mayan Express] makes no sense and it makes perfect sense. There probably aren’t six people left at ICE who could put an operation like this together. It could well be a CIA operation working under ICE cover."

Conrad says such a “cover” approach is not a crazy conspiracy theory.

(Uh, uh, watch out -- it's "not a crazy conspiracy theory.")

"He adds that when he was with U.S. Customs — which has since become part of ICE — the CIA placed one of its agents in Japan with Customs credentials as a cover."

"Though speculation, such a structure could provide the Agency with the clearance it needed to carry out the operation stateside and a convenient scapegoat if the operation imploded — along with plenty of plausible deniability."

Caveat lector. The fact that NarcoNews gives air time to anonymous DEA sources with implausible cover stories is not good news for its readers.

[Coconut]

I really wouldn't be surprised if this story were completely true.

Whether it's cocaine or opium, US intelligence has been involved in its trafficking. Combined with regulation of alcohol and tobacco, all they have to do now is start trafficking methamphetamine and they have all of the most addictive and destructive substances covered.

[Panthers007]

I only wish people had better access to the truth.

We knew this during the Vietnam War - body bags of American soldiers filled with heroin and shipped back to the rightous and holy US 0' A.

Hassenfuss crashed in Nicaragua running a shipment of cocaine during the Reagan Regime's illegal funding of the new "our founding fathers" Contras. That was Ollie North's operation run out of the White House basement. The Congress cut all funding to Reagan's Contras - so they needed cash - cocaine worked.

The stories - which have been proven so many times that it sickens me.

I was sitting in the meeting with Senators and Congress during the Ollie's Funhouse Caper in 1985. In Washington - and we laid it all out on the table. The people we worked with tried hard to throw a spotlight on this to the American people - but they were silenced real fast. Hard to carry on when goons break through your windowns on ropes from the roof toting machine-guns. It happened. Often.

Look up "The American Drug War - the last white hope." Here and Google. Finally it has come out as legitimate news. Get the DVD. It's a very well done documentary. No screaming Hippies or left-wing patrons howling. It's polished and ready for Buddy & Sis to talk about at Ward Cleaver's dinner table. Use it to organize people in your communities by making them aware of what the fuck we've been trying to tell you for years: Yes it is for real.

After you run down the lead I am giving you here - I will bang my head on a table at a press-conference if you need to ask if this is some far-fetched 'conspiracy theory.'

Reagan called us "Looney-Tunes." Watch!


Addendum:
Please post replies for organizing methods & questions regarding to this forum: Drug Policy Reform & Politics. I'll be glad to enjoin and give you some tips I've honed for 30 years. It's already going on. Wouldn't it be nice to see the "Drug Warriors" doing 20 to life in a privatized jail?

Panthers007 added 121 Minutes and 7 Seconds later..

[Nature Boy]

"The Last White Hope" covered this area very well indeed. The CIA has been doing this for years. Whether it was cocaine from Nicaragua in the 80's or the opium coming from Afghanistan today. Plotted drug epidemics are used routinely in order to ethnically cleanse entire communities by driving land value down and relocating nearly the entire population. When the land value hits zero, in come the companies who build the place up and miraculously the land is worth millions of dollars again. Socio-economic engineering at its slimy best.

[Panthers007]

We have a name for this: Planned Gentrification. Did it with the Native Americans. Now we moving lower-income African-American families into abandoned cars under ready-to-collapse bridges. High times.

[Heretic.Ape.]

here we go again, weee

Originally Posted by Panthers007

Addendum:
Please post replies for organizing methods & questions regarding to this forum: Drug Policy Reform & Politics. I'll be glad to enjoin and give you some tips I've honed for 30 years. It's already going on. Wouldn't it be nice to see the "Drug Warriors" doing 20 to life in a privatized jail?

Panthers007 added 121 Minutes and 7 Seconds later..

Please take up this offer. Consider posting in thread:

So, you want to end the drug war?

or, of course feel free to start new threads on the matter. Talking about how lame the drug war is is fine and dandy... talking about what we can do about it and how to carry off the caper is another, far superior thing.
I personally will whore out big gooey gobs of reputation to good posts / threads dealing with this.

[Powder_Reality]

We have a name for this: Planned Gentrification. Did it with the Native Americans. Now we moving lower-income African-American families into abandoned cars under ready-to-collapse bridges. High times.

I never made that connection before, but that comparison makes the whole CIA drug trafficking "theory" even more plausible (on top of the evidence already available). WASP whiskey traders and colonizers made many crooked deals with the Native Americans to acquire land, the only real difference was that they were using a legal substance to grease the wheels. This is a historical fact that nobody denies, but of course there's going to be well planned cover-ups and denials when it comes to using illegal substances for the same purpose (especially in these drug war hardened times).

[Ididnotinhale]

Swim had a teacher who worked with the CIA during vietnam and his sole job during the end of his career was trafficking opium. He gave a seminar about his experience that and explained how the U.S. could move narcotics in larger quantities and cheaper than any competitors and with this money they could "bring peace" to vietnam.

I guess if they move enough narcotics maybe they can stop the drug problem in the U.S.

[Heretic.Ape.]

^ nah, they'll sell drugs to the poor to fund their war on drugs / the poor... think of it like Robin Hood in reverse...

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by Panthers007

We have a name for this: Planned Gentrification. Did it with the Native Americans. Now we moving lower-income African-American families into abandoned cars under ready-to-collapse bridges. High times.

please give reference

[Panthers007]

One example of gentrification is going on currently on a massive scale - Hurricane Katrina and other storms that lately have ravaged the southern coastal USA. Here's how it works:

There is a neighborhood of houses that didn't get flooded out. Only minor, easy-to-repair damage. But these houses are in an African-American neighborhood. So city/county - funded inspectors are dispatched to the neighborhood. Perhaps knock a hole in the roof of a house. Or disconnect the wiring. Voila! Condemned. Now the neighborhood can be razed and new, expensive luxury townhouses built for the wealthy.

There are a number of organizations that are devoted to stopping this sort of (widespread) social injustice. One of the best known is here:

http://www.acorn.org/

They are a good resource and clearinghouse of information on issues that include the above. An old friend of Bongo is one of the directors.

[jux]

the no child left behind act is another example gentrification. while it may not be an issue of land, the spirit of gentrification....taking assets from the poor to give to the rich....is embodied by the law. by making schools funding reliant on test scores, schools in urban areas that are primarily black (ie: detroit) which are in desperate need of more funding will have more money pulled away from them and handed drectly to the overly funded schools in upper class white areas (ie: farifax)....nice. equal shot at education (and therefore future)? not in this country....

[cosmicruler]

"is the CIA running drugs"?

YES!


..and they have been doing this for years and years and will continue to do this for years and years!!

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by jux

the no child left behind act is another example gentrification. while it may not be an issue of land, the spirit of gentrification....taking assets from the poor to give to the rich....is embodied by the law. by making schools funding reliant on test scores, schools in urban areas that are primarily black (ie: detroit) which are in desperate need of more funding will have more money pulled away from them and handed drectly to the overly funded schools in upper class white areas (ie: farifax)....nice. equal shot at education (and therefore future)? not in this country....

who do you feel is responsible for the No Child Left Behind Act?

[jux]

i hold both the legislative and executive branches responsible. anyone who is involved has thier hands dirty...it would be easy to just to blame bush here, but there were more people than just him who got the act passed.

Reputation Comments on this post:

points yea!

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by jux

...it would be easy to just to blame bush here, but there were more people than just him who got the act passed.

thank you. I agree . It is a piece of legislation authored by Ted kennedy and passed by both parties, yes bush brought the issue to the table , but he had the senator from Mass. a democrat , write it .

jux , I like the fact that you look at it without being basis .

[Panthers007]

Are you aware what "Writing a law" and getting it approved means in US government? I doubt it. You can write a wonderful bill. Then you get it through congress and senate.

Then to change the law - you tag it onto another piece of legislation that nobody could vote against: Let's say Raping-Nuns Act 2047. If you don't vote to outlaw Raping Nuns, you are screwed.

But on (literally page 755*) is tagged a Legislative Bill that changes the original act you are refering to. And we will de-fund education where poor people live and give it to the wealthy elite...unless they peepull dose we say!"

Now, if it doesn't work, you blame it on the other party. Don't believe me? Go study. This is EXACTLY how it works.


* the usual load of riders on bills in Congress is between 800 and 2000 pages. One for what you want - and the rest written-in by the enemy camp.

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by Panthers007

Are you aware what "Writing a law" and getting it approved means in US government? I doubt it. You can write a wonderful bill. Then you get it through congress and senate.

Then to change the law - you tag it onto another piece of legislation that nobody could vote against: Let's say Raping-Nuns Act 2047. If you don't vote to outlaw Raping Nuns, you are screwed.

But on (literally page 755*) is tagged a Legislative Bill that changes the original act you are refering to. And we will de-fund education where poor people live and give it to the wealthy elite...unless they peepull dose we say!"

Now, if it doesn't work, you blame it on the other party. Don't believe me? Go study. This is EXACTLY how it works.


* the usual load of riders on bills in Congress is between 800 and 2000 pages. One for what you want - and the rest written-in by the enemy camp.

I think the term for that is "pork" , yeah I understand. but it doesnt prove the point .

[Panthers007]

First off - and we went through this before - Bush & Co. took full credit for this "No Child Left Behind Act."

Second: You claim all the problems belong in the lap of Ted Kennedy.

Now prove - and I mean PROVE - that it's the Democrats' fault. Enough. Prove it -and admit "No Child Left Behind" is a success. Give it to Bush. Or prove it's all the Democrats' fault. Do it. Prove it.

Specious rhetoric fails on it's face.

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by Panthers007

First off - and we went through this before - Bush & Co. took full credit for this "No Child Left Behind Act."

Second: You claim all the problems belong in the lap of Ted Kennedy.

Now prove - and I mean PROVE - that it's the Democrats' fault. Enough. Prove it -and admit "No Child Left Behind" is a success. Give it to Bush. Or prove it's all the Democrats' fault. Do it. Prove it.

Specious rhetoric fails on it's face.

sir, please dont get the wrong idea, I don't have all the answers. I do try to stay objective, I know the Bush administration in far from perfect .

[katukulysm]

the DEA runs everything now, CIA has bigger fish to fry than running cociane back and forth from here to there, the DEA is in charge now. They'll release like 500 pounds of a variety of diffrent kinds of drugs to the public ( its better to say that its like fishing ) and these drugs will make their way to somebody who can get rid of drugs quick and then the DEA will watch where these drugs go till everything is sold and the money is running wild, and a FAT, NEW RE'UP then !BAM! the dealers, the costumers, the ring and everything else gets fucked right in the ass! just like that! many get extracted of their money and other things ( usually alittle jail time, some fines and what not ) but the BIG DOGS get ass fucked the worst! they dont get charged with 500 pounds of this, they get a bunch of drug court BS and get charged with CONSPIRACY! conspiracy can be up to 30 years of time, its like an alternative to being charged with 500 pounds of that, but the DEA dont just lock away 500 pounds in a safe, instead, after all the BS is done and everyone is caught, its time for a new ring! the previous drugs however busted in the last ring usually end up in the hands of dealers and hustlers of the new ring. same drugs new people, if the feds want the drugs on the street then they'll put them there ( the worm on the hook ) and when the drugs are dry in the area then sombody got caught ( the fish in the bucket ), and then the process just starts over again.

[Mr. Giraffe]

Originally Posted by katukulysm

the DEA runs everything now, CIA has bigger fish to fry than running cociane back and forth from here to there.

Dude, if you think the CIA has bigger fish to fry, then you must not be aware of how profitable the drug fish are right now. On the few occasions when CIA drug running has been exposed, the DEA has generally been portrayed as the pretty useless little brother, who isn't told anything and, if he does find something out, finds that the investigation suddenly gets dropped/ agents get re-located/ people get killed.

[katukulysm]

[QUOTE=Mr. Giraffe;415121]Dude, if you think the CIA has bigger fish to fry, then you must not be aware of how profitable the drug fish are right now. QUOTE]



thats the DEA! thats what im talking about, i didnt say that the CIA wasnt doing anything relating to drugs, i just meant that they leave MOST of the drug dealing up to the DEA, like i said-the DEA are the ones who redistribute the drugs back out on the street so they can watch where it goes so they can bust another ring, why wouldent they do it acrost seas?

[Expat98]

Originally Posted by Panthers007

Are you aware what "Writing a law" and getting it approved means in US government? I doubt it. You can write a wonderful bill. Then you get it through congress and senate.

Then to change the law - you tag it onto another piece of legislation that nobody could vote against: Let's say Raping-Nuns Act 2047. If you don't vote to outlaw Raping Nuns, you are screwed.

But on (literally page 755*) is tagged a Legislative Bill that changes the original act you are refering to. And we will de-fund education where poor people live and give it to the wealthy elite...unless they peepull dose we say!"

Now, if it doesn't work, you blame it on the other party. Don't believe me? Go study. This is EXACTLY how it works.

What better way to illustrate this than an actual example of how a drug policy budget submitted to Congress was changed before it passed? The excerpt below is from the Rolling Stone article, "How America Lost the War on Drugs", which is posted in another thread. It refers to Lee Brown (the new drug czar appointed by Clinton in 1993) and his efforts to change drug policy to focus more on drug treatment instead of punishment.

The federal budget that Brown's office submitted in 1994 remains a kind of fetish object for certain liberals in the field, the moment when their own ideas came close to making it into law. The budget sought to cut overseas interdiction, beef up community policing, funnel low-level drug criminals into treatment programs instead of prison, and devote $355 million to treating hardcore addicts, the drug users responsible for much of the illegal-drug market and most of the crime associated with it. White House political handlers, wary of appearing soft on crime, were skeptical of even this limited commitment, but Brown persuaded the president to offer his support, and the plan stayed.

Still, the politics of the issue were difficult. Convincing Congress to dramatically alter the direction of America's drug war required a brilliant sales job. "And Lee Brown," says Bergman, his former legislative liaison, "was not an effective salesman." With a kind of loving earnestness, the drug czar arranged tours of treatment centers for congressmen to show them the kinds of programs whose funding his bill would increase. Few legislators came. Most politicians were skeptical about such a radical departure from the mainstream consensus on crime. Congress rewrote the budget, slashing the $355 million for treatment programs by more than eighty percent. "There were too many of us who had a strong law-and-order focus," says Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican who *opposed the reform bill and serves as co-chair of the Senate's drug-policy caucus.

For some veteran drug warriors, Brown's tenure as drug czar still lingers as the last moment when federal drug policy really made sense. "Lee Brown came the closest of anyone to really getting it," says Carnevale, the longtime budget director of the drug-control office. "But the bottom line was, the drug issue and Lee Brown were largely ignored by the Clinton administration." When Brown tried to repeat his treatment-centered initiative in 1995, it was poorly timed: Newt Gingrich and the Republicans had seized control of the House after portraying Clinton as soft on crime. The authority to oversee the War on Drugs passed from Rep. John Conyers, the Detroit liberal, to a retired wrestling coach from Illinois who was tired of drugs in the schools ? a rising Republican star named Dennis Hastert. Reeling from the defeat at the polls, Clinton decided to give up on drug reform and get tough on crime. "The feeling was that the drug czar's office was one of the weak areas when it came to the administration's efforts to confront crime," recalls Leon Panetta, then Clinton's chief of staff.