Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
OverSword

Secret ties between CIA, drugs revealed

60 posts in this topic

Even the author of the Mercury News piece claims that his allegations were blown out of context by certain folks with an agenda (black leaders looking to bolster their own coffers and power). The piece received little attention from other media outlets when it was published and the US' 3 major newspapers reviewed the allegations and found the evidence lacking.

The Washington Post weighed in first on October 2, 1996, with a short analysis -- "Running with the CIA Story: Reporter Says Series Didn't Go as Far as Readers Took It" -- noting that the allegation of CIA involvement in drug trafficking in the United States had not actually been made in the article. The Washington Post followed-up two days later, on October 4, 1996, with a story entitled, "The CIA and Crack: Evidence Is Lacking of Alleged Plot." The Washington Post piece concluded that "available information does not support the conclusion that the CIA-backed Contras -- or Nicaraguans in general -- played a major role in the emergence of crack as a narcotic in widespread use across the United States." The Washington Post article mainly addressed the Mercury News series' claims about Ross' and Blandon's roles in the growth of crack cocaine. It did not, for the most part, wrestle with the series' claims about drug dealing by the Contras. The Washington Post noted that the series had been selective in its use of Blandon's testimony to support its claims:

The
Mercury News
uses testimony from Blandon in establishing that Nicaraguans selling drugs in California sent profits to the Contras. But if the whole of Blandon's testimony is to be believed, then the connection is not made between Contras and African American drug dealers because Blandon said he had stopped sending money to the contras by [the time he began selling to Ross].

And if Blandon is to be believed, there is no connection between Contras and the cause of the crack epidemic because Blandon said Ross was already a well-established dealer with several ready sources of supply by the time he started buying cocaine from Blandon.

The Washington Post piece also emphasized apparent contradictions between Ross' and Blandon's accounts. For example, while Blandon claimed to have been a used car salesman in 1982 who on the side sold two kilograms of cocaine for Meneses, Ross said Blandon was instead handling bulk sales of 100 kilograms of cocaine for Meneses at the time. The article did not seek to resolve these issues and merely noted the conflicts.

The Washington Post piece was followed on October 20 and 21, 1996, by two New York Times articles that also found fault with the Mercury News series. One article, "Though Evidence Thin, Tale of CIA and Drugs Has Life of Its Own," primarily reported on the reactions within the black community to the series. The other article, "Pivotal Figure of Newspaper Series May Be Only Bit Player," noted problems with the series' portrayal of Blandon and Meneses. It concluded, after conducting interviews of various unnamed sources:

[W]hile there are indications in American intelligence files and elsewhere that Mr. Meneses and Mr. Blandon may indeed have provided modest support for the rebels, including perhaps some weapons, there is no evidence that either man was a rebel official or had anything to do with the C.I.A. Nor is there proof that the relatively small amounts of cocaine they sometimes claimed to have brokered on behalf of the insurgents had a remotely significant role in the explosion of crack that began around the same time.

After reportedly assigning three editors and fourteen reporters to the story, the Los Angeles Times published its own three-part analysis of the Mercury News piece, which ran from October 20 to October 22, 1996. The Los Angeles Times concentrated on three claims raised by the Mercury News series: 1) that a drug ring related to the CIA had sent millions of dollars to the Contras; 2) that the same drug ring had created a cocaine epidemic in South Central Los Angeles and other United States cities, and 3) that the CIA had approved a plan for the ring to raise money for the Contras through drug trafficking or had deliberately turned a blind eye to the drug ring's activities. The Los Angeles Times found that "the available evidence, based on an extensive review of court documents and more than 100 interviews in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington and Managua, fails to support any of those allegations."

Read more here: http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/ch01p1.htm

Well that´s what the CIA does. They cover their tracks very well and avoid being able to be directly linked to crimes by using "contract" agents and intermediaries with shady backgrounds who are easy to discredit if/when TSHF. The fact that the L:A Times dedicated 17 reporters and 20,000 words to a three-day rebuttal to " sounds to me like they were trying pretty hard to discredit the story. They were also inconsistent in their reporting of the players involved.

From your link:

It is undisputed that individuals like Meneses and Blandon, who had ties to the Contras or were Contra sympathizers, were convicted of drug trafficking, either in the United States or Central America. There is also undeniable evidence that certain groups associated with the Contras engaged in drug trafficking. The pervasiveness of such activities within the Contra movement and the United States government's knowledge of those activities, however, are still the subject of debate, and it is beyond the scope of the OIG's investigation,

Meanwhile, spurred on by Webb's story, the CIA conducted an internal investigation that acknowledged in March 1998 that the agency had covered up Contra drug trafficking for more than a decade. Although the Washington Post and New York Times covered the report -- which confirmed key chunks of Webb's allegations -- the L.A. Times ignored it for four months, and largely portrayed it as disproving the "Dark Alliance" series. "We dropped the ball on that story," said Doyle McManus, the paper's Washington bureau chief, who helped supervise its response to "Dark Alliance."

The fact that the CIA covered up the Contra drug-trafficking for more than a decade and the fact that field officers and agents were instructed to turn a blind eye towards drug-trafficking whilst required to report many other crimes is also suspicious IMO. It is also documented that many of the field officers were operating with very little supervision of activities. There also seem to be some credible witnesses that offered first-hand testimony as to CIA operative involvement with bringing drugs into the country. How much money ended up supporting the Contras will forever remain unknown?

I´d just like to say that blaming the CIA for the crack epidemic is really a stretch. They certainly didn´t invent it and in no way held a monopoly on it. That being said, I don´t believe we will ever truly know how complicit they were in the bigger picture of bringing in big cocaine shipments and the amount of money funneled back to the contras.

Edited by jugoso
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, sure, and cartels in mexico make toys, and don't smuggle drugs, get real,

crack is made on the spot by dealers from coke. google it.

lol, sure, and cartels in mexico make toys, and don't smuggle drugs, get real,

crack is made on the spot by dealers from coke. google it.

Aztec, you claimed that Mexico cartels make (which means manufacture the cocaine). That to me seemed to imply that they import the raw product and manufacture it in Mexico. This is simply not tthe case. They move the finished product and distribute it. Mexico acts primarily as a transshipment and financial center rather than a huge manufacturer of coke. You google it.

Now Meth..... that is a completely different story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy Cow, Rafterman, I'm amazed to discover that the mainstream media would do the bidding of the CIA or any other government branch! :w00t:

So when the media reports something you like, it's to be believed and worshiped. But when the same media doesn't support your worldview then they are shills for Big Whatever. Fairly typical for around here.

Find me one reporter at any of those agencies who wouldn't sell their first born for a chance to nail the Feds, especially the CIA (and REAGAN'S CIA at that), on anything and I'll eat your shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that´s what the CIA does. They cover their tracks very well and avoid being able to be directly linked to crimes by using "contract" agents and intermediaries with shady backgrounds who are easy to discredit if/when TSHF. The fact that the L:A Times dedicated 17 reporters and 20,000 words to a three-day rebuttal to " sounds to me like they were trying pretty hard to discredit the story. They were also inconsistent in their reporting of the players involved.

From your link:

The fact that the CIA covered up the Contra drug-trafficking for more than a decade and the fact that field officers and agents were instructed to turn a blind eye towards drug-trafficking whilst required to report many other crimes is also suspicious IMO. It is also documented that many of the field officers were operating with very little supervision of activities. There also seem to be some credible witnesses that offered first-hand testimony as to CIA operative involvement with bringing drugs into the country. How much money ended up supporting the Contras will forever remain unknown?

I´d just like to say that blaming the CIA for the crack epidemic is really a stretch. They certainly didn´t invent it and in no way held a monopoly on it. That being said, I don´t believe we will ever truly know how complicit they were in the bigger picture of bringing in big cocaine shipments and the amount of money funneled back to the contras.

Was there involvement? It does seem likely, but certainly not to the extent that is being claimed by certain individuals - the Mercury News writer even says this.

A lot of this is simply black inner-city mythology and if we say it long enough and loud enough, it will become true. Evidence be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there involvement? It does seem likely, but certainly not to the extent that is being claimed by certain individuals - the Mercury News writer even says this.

A lot of this is simply black inner-city mythology and if we say it long enough and loud enough, it will become true. Evidence be damned.

It certainly does. To what extent......only the CIA operatives involved really know. Really not surprised that irrefutable evidence didn´t surface. As mentioned above, the CIA cover their tracks well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aztec, you claimed that Mexico cartels make (which means manufacture the cocaine). That to me seemed to imply that they import the raw product and manufacture it in Mexico. This is simply not tthe case. They move the finished product and distribute it. Mexico acts primarily as a transshipment and financial center rather than a huge manufacturer of coke. You google it.

Now Meth..... that is a completely different story

i guess those coke labs in mexico that dea destroys every week is not there either.

turns out i was wrong about meth, maxican cartels make it in labs in maxico. since usa pharmacys would not sell ingredients in large amounts.

http://boingboing.net/2011/09/23/inside-a-clandestine-mexican-meth-lab-big-photo-gallery.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Meth-Labs-No-Longer-the-Norm-Due-to-Mexican-Drug-Cartels&id=4235725

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/updmexico.html

coke.

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20051212-1157-mexico-drugbust.html

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess those coke labs in mexico that dea destroys every week is not there either.

Again Aztec, you are confusing cocaine and meth production. What coke labs are you talking about? Please provide links of DEA coke lab busts in Mexico if they occur so often. Sorry but you are wrong on this one

Edited by jugoso
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, i edited previos post, turns our you were right, there are more meth labs in mexico than cocaine. honduras supplys mexico, with most coke, than in mexico they either ship coke to usa or turn it into meth.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, i edited previos post, turns our you were right, there are more meth labs in mexico than cocaine. honduras supplys mexico, with most coke, than in mexico they either ship coke to usa or turn it into meth.

No doubt a drug gateway, that's for sure.

But I have a statement(not to be picky and I won't hold it against you). Cocaine can not be turned into METH (to my knowledge anyway). They are entirely different drugs, and cocaine is much more valuable, so even IF it could be converted to METH it would be financially negative.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there involvement? It does seem likely, but certainly not to the extent that is being claimed by certain individuals - the Mercury News writer even says this.

A lot of this is simply black inner-city mythology and if we say it long enough and loud enough, it will become true. Evidence be damned.

If you're interested in this subject try looking up Air America. One of my friends fathers was a pilot for this CIA organization and I've been assured that what we know is the tip of the iceberg. Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing that gets me is that over a half century of "the war on drugs": we know have legalization is on the horizon and the Government thinks its ok too swoop in and label a tax on the very same product they outlaid. It might likely be the best Id say if they need to take a 50 year hiatus before applying said taxation. We have lost there has been 1000's of human life lost behind bars because og this ****ed up p[political stance. I doubt a tax is going to be popular to that same underground culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt a drug gateway, that's for sure.

But I have a statement(not to be picky and I won't hold it against you). Cocaine can not be turned into METH (to my knowledge anyway). They are entirely different drugs, and cocaine is much more valuable, so even IF it could be converted to METH it would be financially negative.

yea, crack is made from cocaine, meth is different. my mistake, glad you cought it.

.meth labs are a lot more dagerous than coke, not just to who works there, but to enviroment especially, i don't care much about drug addicts, natiral selection at work.but for destroying ecosystem, . they deserve to be shot on the spot.

Edited by aztek
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, i edited previos post, turns our you were right, there are more meth labs in mexico than cocaine. honduras supplys mexico, with most coke, than in mexico they either ship coke to usa or turn it into meth.

As pallidin said and he is right, coke cannot be turned into Methamphetamine. You must be thinking of Crack, cocaine can be turned into crack (feebase) cocaine, but it CANNOT be turned into meth nor would you want to turn it into meth, because it is extremely profitable as it is already. Even if you could turn it into meth, it would be a very long, very involved chemistry procedure that would involve the use of many expensive chemicals which makes no sense as it already is extremely profitable as cocaine. Obviously you don't know your drugs ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i know, it was my mistke, coke is not an ingredient for meth. it is for crack,

i know my drug, it comes in a bottle, ususally clear, and almost always 40% by volume.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea, crack is made from cocaine, meth is different. my mistake, glad you cought it.

.meth labs are a lot more dagerous than coke, not just to who works there, but to enviroment especially, i don't care much about drug addicts, natiral selection at work.but for destroying ecosystem, . they deserve to be shot on the spot.

FYI meth labs are dangerous because they often do not follow proper procedure, and do not follow proper disposal of chemical waste. The big pharma prescription drug manufacturing labs are just as dangerous, produce just as much toxic waste and use all kinds of dangerous and deadly chemicals as well, but because they follow regulations and proper procedure for disposal of waste they are not nearly as dangerous or as bad for the environment.

Sorry I was posted that last post before I saw the post you made right before I posted :innocent:

Edited by Einsteinium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.meth labs are a lot more dagerous than coke, not just to who works there, but to enviroment especially, i don't care much about drug addicts, natiral selection at work.but for destroying ecosystem, . they deserve to be shot on the spot.

Meth Labs are alot more dangerous because they are illegal. This drug has never lived under a free enterprise market therefore is has always been a dangerous one to turn out. In a legalized setting it would be much safer both for human consumption and the environment. Thats why its so hated by the Govmnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI meth labs are dangerous because they often do not follow proper procedure, and do not follow proper disposal of chemical waste.

yea that is exactly the problem, they dump toxic s..t anywhere they want, polluting ground waters, streams, rivers, killing fish, plants and desroying food chain. it is only a matter of time before it gets to water supply humans use, if it didn't already

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yea that is exactly the problem, they dump toxic s..t anywhere they want, polluting ground waters, streams, rivers, killing fish, plants and desroying food chain. it is only a matter of time before it gets to water supply humans use, if it didn't already

That is why it is called a war on drugs. You want it to stop. Legalize it.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i know, it was my mistke, coke is not an ingredient for meth. it is for crack,

i know my drug, it comes in a bottle, ususally clear, and almost always 40% by volume.

Ah, vodka! Wish I could drink that again. I have to stick to just two or three 8.5% hard beers now.(had a pacreatitis attack, or whatever it's called.)

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why it is called a war on drugs. You want it to stop. Legalize it.

I say just legalize all drugs and get it over with. Like heroin, cocaine, meth, pcp, LSD, etc...

Put them in vending machines at schools too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why it is called a war on drugs. You want it to stop. Legalize it.

hey, I'm all for it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say just legalize all drugs and get it over with. Like heroin, cocaine, meth, pcp, LSD, etc...

Put them in vending machines at schools too.

put video of addics od and die in agony, in schools, show kids things they don't normally see, that should lessen their desire to snort, smoke or shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

put video of addics od and die in agony, in schools, show kids things they don't normally see, that should lessen their desire to snort, smoke or shoot.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the vending machines should have needles as well. Starting with elementary school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when the media reports something you like, it's to be believed and worshiped. But when the same media doesn't support your worldview then they are shills for Big Whatever. Fairly typical for around here.

Find me one reporter at any of those agencies who wouldn't sell their first born for a chance to nail the Feds, especially the CIA (and REAGAN'S CIA at that), on anything and I'll eat your shoes.

Explain to me how and why that hated 'liberal rag' NYT concealed what they knew to be crimes committed by Bush and his NSA regarding illegal wire intercepts, for a year or more, until after the 2004 election was won by Bush?

If every MSM editor wants to "nail" a big politician, why did they cover up those crimes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, we already have, legally, coffee(caffeine is a potent CNS stimulant), alcohol(a powerful CNS depressant), and cigs (which have potent neuorologic/heart/vascular effects)

For those whom don't know, CNS stands for "central nervous system" It's really bad to mess with that. All in moderation.

Sudden cardiac arrest and/or respiratory failure are not uncommon with abuse.(abuse= abnormal use)

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.