The New York Times
Reports That The CIA Admits
It Worked With "Suspected Drug Traffickers" But...
(Ed. note:
The CIA seems to be admitting that it worked with cocaine smugglers, but not the ones in
the San Jose Mercury News reports. The important thing is to discredit any critics who
could do it damage in the future. Of course, they also admit that they havent
investigated everything, and they have classified key parts of the report, etc.
If you cant convince the people, you can at least try
to confuse them, and it does seem to be working. Everyone knows what they have been doing,
but the only people who really care are anti-prohibitionists and some black politicians,
who are mostly prohibitionist. Stall and stonewall, and it will all go away. Besides, what
are you going to do about?)
C.I.A. Worked With Suspected Drug Traffickers, Report Admits
By JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTONThe Central Intelligence Agency continued to work with about two
dozen Nicaraguan rebels and their supporters during the 1980s despite allegations that
they were trafficking in drugs, according to a classified study by the CIA.
The new study has found that the CIAs decision to keep these paid agents, or to
continue dealing with them in some less-formal relationship, was made by top officials at
the agencys headquarters in Langley, Va., in the midst of the war waged by the
CIA-backed Contras against Nicaraguas leftist Sandinista government.
The new report by the CIAs inspector general criticizes agency officials
actions at the time for the inconsistent and sometimes sloppy manner in which they
investigatedor chose not to investigatethe allegations, which were never
substantiated by the CIA.
The inspector generals report, which has not yet been publicly released, also
concludes that there is no evidence that any CIA officials were involved in drug
trafficking with Contra figures.
"The fundamental finding of the report is that there is no
information that the CIA or CIA employees ever conspired with any Contra organizations or
individuals involved with the Contras for purposes of drug trafficking," one
U.S. intelligence official said.
The new report is the long-delayed second volume of the CIAs internal
investigation into possible connections between the Contras and Central American drug
traffickers. The investigation was originally prompted by a
controversial 1996 series in The San Jose Mercury-News, which asserted that a "dark
alliance" among the CIA, the Contras and drug traffickers had helped finance the
Contra war with millions of dollars in profits from drug smuggling.
The second volume of the report dismisses those specific charges, as did the first
volume.
The Mercury-News series alleged that this alliance created a drug trafficking
network that was the first to introduce crack cocaine into South Central Los Angeles. The
series prompted an enormous outcry, especially among blacks, many of whom said they saw it
as confirmation of a government-backed conspiracy to keep blacks dependent and
impoverished.
The Mercury-News subsequently admitted that the series was flawed and reassigned the
reporter.
In the declassified version of the CIAs first volume, the agency said the
Mercury-News charges were baseless and mentioned drug dealers who had nothing to do with
the CIA.
But John Deutch, the director of central intelligence at the time, had also asked the
inspector general to conduct a broader inquiry to answer unresolved questions about the
Contra program and drug trafficking that had not been raised in the Mercury-News series.
Frederick Hitz, then the CIAs inspector general, decided to issue a second, much
larger report to deal with those broader issues.
Many of the allegations in the second volume parallel charges that first surfaced in a
1987 Senate investigation. The CIA is much more reluctant to
publicly release the complete text of the approximately 500-page second volume than it was
of the first, because it deals directly with Contras the CIA did work with.
According to the report, CIA officials involved in the Contra program were so
focused on the fight against the leftist Sandinista regime that they gave relatively low
priority to collecting information about the possible drug involvement of individuals in
the Contra army. The report concluded that CIA officers did report
on drug trafficking by the Contras, but that there were no clear guidelines given to CIA
officers in the field about how intensively they should investigate or act upon the
allegations.
In all, the CIA received allegations of drug involvement against about 50 figures in
the Contra movement over the course of the war against the Sandinistas, according to the
report. Those allegations were leveled against members of the Contra army as well as its
air transport and support networks. Some of the allegations may have been specious, the
result of Sandinista propaganda, while other charges may have been more substantive, U.S.
intelligence officials said.
It could not be determined from the CIAs records how many of those 50
cases were fully investigated by the agency. But of those, the
CIA continued to work with about two dozen figures alleged to be involved in the drug
trade, according to U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the report. They said the
report found that the agency was unable to either prove or disprove the charges, or did
not conduct adequate investigations into the allegations.
U.S. intelligence officials, who provided information about the report,
declined to identify the individual Contras who were the targets of the drug allegations.
But they did say that while most of the charges were leveled against individuals, the
report found that drug allegations had been made against one Contra organization, a group
known as 15th of September. That group was formed in 1980 and was disbanded in
January 1982, in the early stages of the Contra war.
The CIAs decision to classify this second volume has already been met with
criticism on Capitol Hill. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who led a 1987 congressional inquiry
into allegations of Contra drug connections, wrote a letter Thursday to CIA Director
George Tenet asking that the report be immediately declassified.
Kerry, who has reviewed the second volume of the inspector
generals report, added that he believes CIA officials involved in the Contra program
did not make a serious effort to fully investigate the allegations of drug involvement by
the Contras.
"Some of us in Congress at the time, in 1985, 1986, were calling for a
serious investigation of the charges, and CIA officials did not join in that effort,"
Kerry said. "There was a significant amount of stonewalling. Im afraid that
what I read in the report documents the degree to which there was a lack of interest in
making sure the laws were being upheld."
CIA officials notified Congress at the time of most of the "significant"
cases in which the agency decided to continue doing business with those Contras accused of
dealing in drugs, the report states, but it does not detail the exact nature of the
Congressional notification.
One former CIA official familiar with the Contra program disputed the notion that
agency officials did not take the drug charges seriously at the time.
"You investigate all of them, and when they were credible, and when we could
substantiate them, we would certainly take action," the former official said.
"But wild or unproven allegations would not by themselves be enough to displace
someone from the organization. Otherwise, we would have had no discipline or morale in
these organizations."
Allegations of drug involvement on the part of the Contras was
hardly the only time that a group connected to the CIA has been accused of dealing in
narcotics. The agencys local allies in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, and in
Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion of 1979, also were accused of drug trafficking.
|