"Capital is said by a Quarterly Reviewer to fly turbulence and strife, and to be timid, which is very true; but this is very incompletely stating the question. Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. Smuggling and the slave-trade have amply proved all that is here stated."

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/02/socrates-rizzo-pri-presidents-oversaw.html posted:

Sócrates Rizzo: PRI Presidents oversaw drug trafficking
Sunday, February 27, 2011

In a conference with students held on Wednesday, February 23, at the Law School of the Autonomous University of Coauhuila in Saltillo, Socrates Rizzo delivered a bombshell that has rocked Mexico as the campaign for the 2012 presidential election approaches.

During an interview session the former PRI Governor admitted that previous PRI presidents held strong control over drug trafficking routes that prevented the attacks on civilians and the violence that Mexico is undergoing today.

Although an open secret in Mexican society and a charge occasionally leveled publicly by the country’s two other major political parties, the National Action Party (PAN) and the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), this is the first time in recent history that a former or current PRI politician has admitted publicly that this arrangement existed.

"Somehow the problems with drug trafficking were avoided, there was a strong State control and a strong President and a strong Attorney General and a tight control of the Army.”

"Somehow they (drug traffickers) were told: 'You go through here, you here, you there', but do not touch these other places," he said in his speech.

The former Governor added that this strategy allowed the State to ensure the social peace that has been lost in the war on drugs launched by the PAN administration of Felipe Calderon.

"What the old guard says is that we had control by the Government and the Army. The big problem is consumption, and while consumption exists in the U.S. there will be drug trafficking in that direction.”

"What control by the PRI governments guaranteed was that drug trafficking did not disturb the social peace."

Socrates Rizzo, who was the PRI Governor of Nuevo Leon between 1991 and 1996, said the government control ended with the PAN administrations of Presidents Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón, who failed to listen to advice on how things were done in previous years, thus sparking the current violence.

"This dilemma was lost due to problems of professionalism, it is natural that new officials come without experience, they wanted to do things differently and they did not take advice because the last thing they wanted to hear was anything from the PRI, they said that the PRI were the 'snake in the grass’ and with that they refused counsel.”

"Although there was a change of party, you should have had continuity with what the past government was doing, I think not taking advice on past arrangements relaxed discipline and mechanisms of control and now we see the results."

Rizzo denied that the governors were involved in the agreements between the federal government and the drug trade because those were times when the President had broad powers to the extent that the state executives had to obey.

However, the growth that has occurred with drug consumption in Mexico makes it impossible to resume the negotiation schemes between the government and the drug traffickers, said the former governor.

"These are new times, we are in another world. We now have a drug consumption problem and the problem of ‘disorganized’ crime of robberies and extortions.”

"We didn’t have those problems in the past. At that time there was a strong President with an iron grip on the Army that could maintain social peace and with drug trafficking, that demand determined supply."


It is believed that the formalized arrangements with drug traffickers began during the PRI administration of Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado from 1982 to 1988 under the direction of his Interior Minister Gobernacion, Manuel Bartlett Diaz, who used the Interior Ministry police force, the Federal Security Directorate (DFS), to coordinate and control the drug trade, which became a protected activity.

During this period DFS positions and posts were sold to members of drug cartels, in effect granting them the power to operate with impunity.

This protection continued during the PRI presidency of Carlos Salinas de Gortari, who disbanded the DFS and transferred the coordination and protection of drug traffickers to the Army, Federal Judicial Police and prosecutors such as Enrique Alvarez and Javier Coello Trejo.

The belief remains strong that Luis Donaldo Colosio, Carlos Salinas’ handpicked successor to the presidency of Mexico, was assassinated during the presidential campaign of 1994 because of his refusal to deal with the drug trafficking underworld.

The Salinas administration was so corrupt that even De La Madrid regretted his decision to chose Carlos Salinas as his successor. In interview with journalist Carmen Aristegui, De la Madrid said that Raul Salinas, Carlos’ brother, was the link with drug cartels during the Salinas administration between 1988 and 1994, an administration that De La Madrid denounced as marked by "immorality ".

“Raul Salinas was the one who kept contact with the drug cartels and who got the money to accounts in Switzerland and France, through operations with American banks."

"I am very disappointed that I was wrong, but then I had no evidence about the morality of Salinas.”

Previous classified statements that Sócrates Rizzo made to the Monterrey U.S. Consul General in cable 09MONTERREY31 and revealed by Wikileaks show that pacts between political figures of all parties and drug cartels are possible even now,

Organized Crime and the Elections
3. (SBU) Particularly worrisome, Rizzo observed, was the
prospect of the upcoming gubernatorial, state, and municipal
elections, scheduled to take place in Nuevo Leon on July 5.
While the two principal parties - PRI and PAN - had both taken
steps to guard against the infiltration of narco-money in the
campaigns, in practice it would be practically impossible to
prevent organized crime from bankrolling candidates. One way
the cartels could impact the race would be to just bribe
television anchorpersons and the commentators, thereby ensuring
that their particular candidate received favorable coverage.
Alternatively, he said, organized crime could provide a
candidate's staff with walking around money to distribute to
voters. Meanwhile, another contact pointed out that the
applicable campaign finance regulations only cover the
candidate, so that it would be easy to simply funnel the narco
money to a family member.


Damage Control

Hours after Rizzo’s statements were covered in the media, a firestorm of dissent from the PRI establishment rained on the ex-Governor.

Manlio Fabio Beltrones, former governor of the border state of Sonora and current PRI Senator and president of the Senate, labeled the statements by the former governor that the past PRI governments controlled and distributed drug trafficking routes as extremely irresponsible.

"Statements of this nature and superficiality do little to make a true diagnosis of the serious problem we have today, of crime and drug trafficking," said the chairman of the Senate. “We are all accountable for our statements and need to back them up with evidence.”

(In an investigative article on corruption in Mexico published in 1997, the New York Times printed the following: The Governor of the Mexican state that borders Arizona is collaborating with one of the world's most powerful drug traffickers, creating a haven for smugglers who transport vast quantities of narcotics into the United States, according to American officials and intelligence.

Officials said this conclusion was based on a wealth of evidence, including ''highly reliable'' informers' reports that the Governor, Manlio Fabio Beltrones Rivera, took part in meetings in which leading traffickers paid high-level politicians who were protecting their operations.

According to the accounts, Raul Salinas de Gortari, the brother of the former President, received suitcases full of cash and was responsible for distributing the money to those attending.

Present and former officials said the evidence of Mr. Beltrones's role was so detailed and compelling that the United States had included his name on a confidential document provided to the transition team of President Ernesto Zedillo listing more than a dozen officials suspected of corruption. Another Mexican Governor, Jorge Carrillo Olea, was also included on the American blacklist because of reported entanglements with major drug dealers.

While Mr. Zedillo did not name either man to a federal post, both continue to wield considerable power in their states and nationally through their prominence in Mexico's governing party. Both seem to enjoy a tacit immunity from concerted criminal investigation in Mexico and the United States.

Manlio Fabio Beltrones is still in line for the PRI nomination for the presidency of Mexico if the party’s “golden boy”, Enrique Peña Nieto, loses his certain grip on the candidacy)

Fernando Baeza Melendez, PRI Senator from the state of Chihuahua, also demanded that Rizzo show evidence to validate his statements.

"There were never direct or indirect dealings with drug traffickers to give them any support. Domestic consumption has grown in recent years, in the past there were no conflicts because there was no struggle for the domestic market.”

(Baeza Melendez was the Governor of Chihuaua from 1986 to 1992, during the rise to power of Amado Carrillo Fuentes “the Lord of the Skys”. During his term in office the former Governor, Elias Ramirez Ruiz, his director of the state judicial police, and Elias Ramirez jr., the director’s son and representative of the PGR in the state of Chihuahua, were rumored to be the protectors of the then head of the Juarez cartel, Rafael Aguilar Guajardo and his criminal operation.

Amado Carrillo had the backing of the then Secretary of National Defense Juan José Arévalo Gardoqui.

Soon after Baeza Melendez ended his term as Governor, Rafael Aguilar Guajardo was murdered in Cancun and Amado Carrillo assumed control of the Juarez cartel.)

In an interview with Univision news anchorman Jorge Ramos, Enrique Pena Nieto, the former Governor of the state of Mexico (Edomex) and current frontrunner for the PRI candidacy for President of the Republic in 2012, gave a cryptic anwser to the question of whether the PRI had negotiated with drug cartels while in power.

"When the PRI held political hegemony in this country we were not living what we have today, it was another scenario, another reality. But today we are living in a completely different world, not only in Mexico but throught the globe.”

Peña Nieto continued: "these statements are an attempt to discredit the PRI, it seems really absurd and only suitable for some in the mood to disqualify the PRI. There are no negotiations with drug traffickers, there can not be a deal with organized crime, only the law applies. That is final."

(This is not the first occasion that Peña Nieto and the PRI uses the ‘election ploy’ tactic to cloud an issue. In January of this year Edomex state prosecutors downplayed calls to investigate the over 900 femicides that have taken place in the state since Peña Nieto took office in 2006 and the failure of Edomex law enforcement to address the gravity of these crimes.

The Edomex municipalities of Toluca (the state capitol), Naucalpan and Chimahualcán, along with Ciudad Juarez in Chihuahua now constitute Mexico’s epicenter for these hate crimes against women.

The proposal to convene a special investigation was blocked by the PRI and the party dismissed the demand for an investigation as an ‘election ploy’.

This action by the PRI was meant to protect the image of Peña Nieto if he is indeed chosed as the party’s standard bearer in the presidential elections of 2012.)

The National President of the PRI party and former Governor of Coahuila, Humberto Moreira, added his voice to those rejecting the statements of Socrates Rizzo.

Moreira denied that the PRI had ever negotiated with the drug cartels to maintain stability within the borders of Mexico.

“When the PRI was in power we arrested El Chapo Guzman, when the PAN took over he escaped”

(It should be noted that while Moreira was Governor of Coahuila the state became a Los Zetas bastion. His political opponents in the state often referred to him as the Zeta Governor.

At one time Ruben Moreira, Humberto’s brother and candidate for Governor of Coahuila in this year’s elections, was the next door neighbor to “el Canicon”, or Sigifredo Najera Talamantes, a senior member of Los Zetas living in Saltillo who was behind the Zeta takeover of Nuevo Leon and was the head of the Zeta plaza of Monterrey.

El Canicon claimed responsibility for the grenade attack on the U.S. consulate in Monterrey on October 12, 2008 and was responsible for the torture, mutilation and murder of nine Army troops in Monterrey from October 17 to the 22nd, 2008. He is supposed to have co-opted up to 60 percent of all police officers in Nuevo Leon. El Canicon was arrested in Saltillo in March 2009 by the army in a top secret operation designed to prevent any warning by Coahuila’s law enforcement apparatus.

Miguel Angel Treviño Morales, El Z 40, who is one of the top leaders of Los Zetas is reported to own ranches in Coahuila and in a letter sent by a citizen’s group to President Calderon in November of last year, the residents of the border city of Piedras Negras complained of the regular presence of El Z 40 in their city and his protection by local and state police officials. Even the presence of Heriberto Lazcano, the head of Los Zetas, was reported on the letter.

Coahuila is the fourth ranked state in Mexico in the number of kidnappings reported to authorities, and it should be noted that in Mexico the vast majority of kidnappings for ransom are never reported.

A cable released released by Wikileaks, 09Monterry251, even mentions that Moreira was willing to sacrifice the lives of his citizens due to his hatred of the PAN party

(Armed gangs roamed the city of Torreon and its suburbs, with the situation even worse across the river in Gomez Palacios, Durango. The state/local police forces in the Laguna region were of little use as organized crime had either corrupted or intimidated officers there. Note: Moreira is the Governor of a decidedly PRI state; Torreon is the one major municipality governed by the PAN and its leaders continually complain that the state government starves them in terms of security resources).

The security situation in Torreon is so severe due to Moreira’s criminal negligence that the current PRI mayor remains unable to impose control. Recently Torreon was ranked the 19th most dangerous city in the world)

Under the immense pressure unleashed by the PRI hierarchy, Socrates Rizzo recanted his earlier statements in a radio interview the next day, stating that his words had been taken out of context. His new position was that the other parties the PRI negotiated with to maintain stability were other sectors of Mexican society and not the drug cartels.

Of course, politicians and leaders of the PAN and PRD political parties held Rizzo’s statements up as proof of the charges of collusion with organized crime that have circulated for decades.

In the words of one PAN national leader, Gustavo Madero Munoz, “A strong president is not one who strikes a deal with criminals that damage Mexican society, but one that faces them head on.”

“PAN presidents assumed their responsibility and the path of law, combating drug trafficking and organized crime head-on with the all the power of the law.”

Madero Munoz said that the statistics of deaths are higher in states governed by the PRI.

"There is a disturbing correlation between crime rates and PRI governed states. These states have the highest number of killings and the worst problems with their prisons”

This is the legacy of PRI rule in Mexico.

(The other two main political parties would be dishonest in claiming the moral high ground with regards to negotiating pacts with organized crime. There are allegations of links between the Sinaloa Cartel and Felipe Calderon and the PAN, and of La Familia Michoacana’s infiltration of the PRD state and municipal governments in Michoacan.)

Rechazan Priistas habe negociado…….
Presidentes Priistas controlaban al narco…..
Drug ties taint 2 Mexican Governors
En la gestion del huevo de la serpiente…..
El PRI no negocio con el narco
Feminicidio, los Expedientes Ocultos tras la Guerra contra el Narco y la Publicidad de Peña Nieto
Recula Sócrates Rizzo: priistas nunca pactaron con el narco
Tamaulipas encabeza secuestros……
PRI sigue negiciando…..
State Dept cable 09Monterrey251
Carta dirigada a Felipe Calderon
State Dept cable 09MONTERREY31

not sure how ive missed this thread before but this is some extremely good shit
thanks c_man ^_^

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1 posted:

CONFIRMED: The DEA Struck A Deal With Mexico's Most Notorious Drug Cartel
Michael B Kelley Jan. 13, 2014

An investigation by El Universal found that between the years 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an arrangement with Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organization to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs while Sinaloa provided information on rival cartels.

Sinaloa, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S.

There have long been allegations that Guzman, considered to be "the world’s most powerful drug trafficker," coordinates with American authorities.

But the El Universal investigation is the first to publish court documents that include corroborating testimony from a DEA agent and a Justice Department official.

The written statements were made to the U.S. District Court in Chicago in relation to the arrest of Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, the son of Sinaloa leader Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada and allegedly the Sinaloa cartel’s "logistics coordinator."

Here's what DEA agent Manuel Castanon told the Chicago court:

"On March 17, 2009, I met for approximately 30 minutes in a hotel room in Mexico City with Vincente Zambada-Niebla and two other individuals — DEA agent David Herrod and a cooperating source with whom I had worked since 2005. ... I did all of the talking on behalf of DEA."

A few hours later, Mexican Marines arrested Zambada-Niebla (a.k.a. "El Vicentillo") on charges of trafficking more than a billion dollars in cocaine and heroin. Castanon and three other agents then visited Zambada-Niebla in prison, where the Sinaloa officer "reiterated his desire to cooperate," according to Castanon.

El Universal, citing court documents, reports that DEA agents met with high-level Sinaloa officials such as Castro more than 50 times since 2000.

Then-Justice Department prosecutor Patrick Hearn told the Chicago court that, according to DEA special agent Steve Fraga, Castro "provided information leading to a 23-ton cocaine seizure, other seizures related to" various drug trafficking organizations, and that "El Mayo" Zambada wanted his son to cooperate with the U.S.

"The DEA agents met with members of the cartel in Mexico to obtain information about their rivals and simultaneously built a network of informants who sign drug cooperation agreements, subject to results, to enable them to obtain future benefits, including cancellation of charges in the U.S.," reports El Universal, which also interviewed more than one hundred active and retired police officers as well as prisoners and experts.

Zambada-Niebla's lawyer claimed to the court that in the late 1990s, Castro struck a deal with U.S. agents in which Sinaloa would provide information about rival drug trafficking organizations while the U.S. would dismiss its case against the Sinaloa lawyer and refrain from interfering with Sinaloa drug trafficking activities or actively prosecuting Sinaloa leadership.

"The agents stated that this arrangement had been approved by high-ranking officials and federal prosecutors," Zambada-Niebla lawyer wrote.

After being extradited to Chicago in February 2010, Zambada-Niebla argued that he was also "immune from arrest or prosecution" because he actively provided information to U.S. federal agents.

Zambada-Niebla also alleged that Operation Fast and Furious was part of an agreement to finance and arm the cartel in exchange for information used to take down its rivals. (If true, that re-raises the issue regarding what Attorney General Eric Holder knew about the gun-running arrangements.)

A Mexican foreign service officer told Stratfor in April 2010 that the U.S. seemed to have sided with the Sinaloa cartel in an attempt to limit the violence in Mexico.

El Universal reported that the coordination between the U.S. and Sinaloa, as well as other cartels, peaked between 2006 and 2012, which is when drug traffickers consolidated their grip on Mexico. The paper concluded by saying that it is unclear whether the arrangements continue.

The DEA and other U.S. agencies declined to comment to El Universal.

UPDATE 1/14: This post has caused many to interpret that the U.S. government is actively supporting Sinaloa. That has not been established, despite claims by Zambada-Niebla's lawyer and Stratfor's source. What El Universal's investigation and the newly published court documents reveal is that there was a strong correlation from 2005 and 2009 between the rise of the Sinaloa cartel and the DEA's relatively regular contact with a top Sinaloa lawyer.


steve bannon the kind of guy look like he does inhuman amounts of coke but only so he can stay up drinking longer
person turning up at your new house and asking if steve bannon, senior consultant to president donald j trump, is around to sell them some meth is my favorite story

Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A.

ABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.

The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.

The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.

More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.

“If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves,” said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.

Ahmed Wali Karzai said in an interview that he cooperated with American civilian and military officials, but did not engage in the drug trade and did not receive payments from the C.I.A.

The relationship between Mr. Karzai and the C.I.A. is wide ranging, several American officials said. He helps the C.I.A. operate a paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, that is used for raids against suspected insurgents and terrorists. On at least one occasion, the strike force has been accused of mounting an unauthorized operation against an official of the Afghan government, the officials said.

Mr. Karzai is also paid for allowing the C.I.A. and American Special Operations troops to rent a large compound outside the city — the former home of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s founder. The same compound is also the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. “He’s our landlord,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Karzai also helps the C.I.A. communicate with and sometimes meet with Afghans loyal to the Taliban. Mr. Karzai’s role as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban is now regarded as valuable by those who support working with Mr. Karzai, as the Obama administration is placing a greater focus on encouraging Taliban leaders to change sides.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment for this article.

“No intelligence organization worth the name would ever entertain these kind of allegations,” said Paul Gimigliano, the spokesman.

Some American officials said that the allegations of Mr. Karzai’s role in the drug trade were not conclusive.

“There’s no proof of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s involvement in drug trafficking, certainly nothing that would stand up in court,” said one American official familiar with the intelligence. “And you can’t ignore what the Afghan government has done for American counterterrorism efforts.”

At the start of the Afghan war, just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, American officials paid warlords with questionable backgrounds to help topple the Taliban and maintain order with relatively few American troops committed to fight in the country. But as the Taliban has become resurgent and the war has intensified, Americans have increasingly viewed a strong and credible central government as crucial to turning back the Taliban’s advances.

Now, with more American lives on the line, the relationship with Mr. Karzai is setting off anger and frustration among American military officers and other officials in the Obama administration. They say that Mr. Karzai’s suspected role in the drug trade, as well as what they describe as the mafialike way that he lords over southern Afghanistan, makes him a malevolent force.

These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, suggests strongly that Mr. Karzai has enriched himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium to flourish. The assessment of these military and senior officials in the Obama administration dovetails with that of senior officials in the Bush administration.

“Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it,” a senior American military officer in Kabul said. Like most of the officials in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the information.

“If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck,” the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. “Our assumption is that he’s benefiting from the drug trade.”

American officials say that Afghanistan’s opium trade, the largest in the world, directly threatens the stability of the Afghan state, by providing a large percentage of the money the Taliban needs for its operations, and also by corrupting Afghan public officials to help the trade flourish.

The Obama administration has repeatedly vowed to crack down on the drug lords who are believed to permeate the highest levels of President Karzai’s administration. They have pressed him to move his brother out of southern Afghanistan, but he has so far refused to do so.

Other Western officials pointed to evidence that Ahmed Wali Karzai orchestrated the manufacture of hundreds of thousands of phony ballots for his brother’s re-election effort in August. He is also believed to have been responsible for setting up dozens of so-called ghost polling stations — existing only on paper — that were used to manufacture tens of thousands of phony ballots.

“The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone,” General Flynn said.

In the interview in which he denied a role in the drug trade or taking money from the C.I.A., Ahmed Wali Karzai said he received regular payments from his brother, the president, for “expenses,” but said he did not know where the money came from. He has, among other things, introduced Americans to insurgents considering changing sides. And he has given the Americans intelligence, he said. But he said he was not compensated for that assistance.

“I don’t know anyone under the name of the C.I.A.,” Mr. Karzai said. “I have never received any money from any organization. I help, definitely. I help other Americans wherever I can. This is my duty as an Afghan.”

Mr. Karzai acknowledged that the C.I.A. and Special Operations troops stayed at Mullah Omar’s old compound. And he acknowledged that the Kandahar Strike Force was based there. But he said he had no involvement with them.

A former C.I.A. officer with experience in Afghanistan said the agency relied heavily on Ahmed Wali Karzai, and often based covert operatives at compounds he owned. Any connections Mr. Karzai might have had to the drug trade mattered little to C.I.A. officers focused on counterterrorism missions, the officer said.

“Virtually every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade,” he said. “If you are looking for Mother Teresa, she doesn’t live in Afghanistan.”

The debate over Ahmed Wali Karzai, which began when President Obama took office in January, intensified in June, when the C.I.A.’s local paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, shot and killed Kandahar’s provincial police chief, Matiullah Qati, in a still-unexplained shootout at the office of a local prosecutor.

The circumstances surrounding Mr. Qati’s death remain shrouded in mystery. It is unclear, for instance, if any agency operatives were present — but officials say the firefight broke out when Mr. Qati tried to block the strike force from freeing the brother of a task force member who was being held in custody.

“Matiullah was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Mr. Karzai said in the interview.

Counternarcotics officials have repeatedly expressed frustration over the unwillingness of senior policy makers in Washington to take action against Mr. Karzai — or even begin a serious investigation of the allegations against him. In fact, they say that while other Afghans accused of drug involvement are investigated and singled out for raids or even rendition to the United States, Mr. Karzai has seemed immune from similar scrutiny.

For years, first the Bush administration and then the Obama administration have said that the Taliban benefits from the drug trade, and the United States military has recently expanded its target list to include drug traffickers with ties to the insurgency. The military has generated a list of 50 top drug traffickers tied to the Taliban who can now be killed or captured.

Senior Afghan investigators say they know plenty about Mr. Karzai’s involvement in the drug business. In an interview in Kabul this year, a top former Afghan Interior Ministry official familiar with Afghan counternarcotics operations said that a major source of Mr. Karzai’s influence over the drug trade was his control over key bridges crossing the Helmand River on the route between the opium growing regions of Helmand Province and Kandahar.

The former Interior Ministry official said that Mr. Karzai was able to charge huge fees to drug traffickers to allow their drug-laden trucks to cross the bridges.

But the former officials said it was impossible for Afghan counternarcotics officials to investigate Mr. Karzai. “This government has become a factory for the production of Talibs because of corruption and injustice,” the former official said.

Some American counternarcotics officials have said they believe that Mr. Karzai has expanded his influence over the drug trade, thanks in part to American efforts to single out other drug lords.

In debriefing notes from Drug Enforcement Administration interviews in 2006 of Afghan informants obtained by The New York Times, one key informant said that Ahmed Wali Karzai had benefited from the American operation that lured Hajji Bashir Noorzai, a major Afghan drug lord during the time that the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, to New York in 2005. Mr. Noorzai was convicted on drug and conspiracy charges in New York in 2008, and was sentenced to life in prison this year.

Habibullah Jan, a local military commander and later a member of Parliament from Kandahar, told the D.E.A. in 2006 that Mr. Karzai had teamed with Haji Juma Khan to take over a portion of the Noorzai drug business after Mr. Noorzai’s arrest.

Dexter Filkins reported from Kabul, and Mark Mazzetti and James Risen from Washington. Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington.

A version of this article appears in print on October 28, 2009, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A.


The Serbian enclave of Kosovo, which recently declared independence, has turned into a major drug trade centre. According to Interpol, Europol, and the FBI, Kosovo is at the crossroads of global drug smuggling routes.

One of the reports submitted to the US Congress describes Albania and Kosovo as the heart of the Balkan route, which links Pakistan and Afghanistan with Europe. 80 percent of heroin is channelled there via Kosovo. The links between Albanian crime groups and South American drug cartels have acquired dangerous proportions.

According to UN experts, the Albanian drug mafia is the most powerful criminal gang in Europe, controlling heroin trade in many countries of the continent. A Western diplomat working in the Balkans said the territories of Albania, Kosovo, and Western Macedonia are huge drug depots storing tons of drugs. An employee with the Russian Civil Service Academy, Natalia Frolova, said that the forced separation of Kosovo from Serbia in 1999, besides breaching Serbian sovereignty and territorial integrity, also caused chaos, playing into the hands of crime groups.

Sustainable drug traffic has a close connection with trading in weapons and the functioning of terrorist-training centres, which makes it a whole criminal network, she said. For this reason, the world community should repulse the aggressor. The UDI of Kosovo from Serbia has been accompanied by an increase in criminal activities, which is a challenge we all should recognise and set our minds to deal with.

In the estimates of Interpol, Kosovo has long witnessed a link between crime groups and local extremists that hinges on family and social clans. Dmitri Rogozin, the Russian representative to NATO, is convinced that the UDI of Kosovo was, among other things, the result of pressure from criminal groups. In addition, the lobbyists soliciting services from some of the foreign politicians who recognised Kosovo may well have paid the pols off with dirty money from Albanian drug dealers. In any case, Russian special services (intelligence agencies) possess information that Kosovo has grown into a major crossing point for the smuggling of Asian drugs into Europe.

29 March 2008
Vyacheslav Solovyov

Voice of Russia World Service

*taking a long draw on a cigarette* damnit, if only i could work out what the pattern here is, there must be something linking all these events *i jump at the sound of karl marx's capital falling off a shelf behind me*

"as I've said before, every country we touch, turns to shit'
this is on the orginal stratfor leaks in 2012

http://www.narconews.com/Issue67/article4621.html posted:

US, Mexican Officials Brokering Deals with Drug “Cartels,” WikiLeaks Documents Show
Revelation Exposed in Email Correspondence Between Private Intelligence Firm and Mexican Diplomat

By Bill Conroy
Special to The Narco News Bulletin

August 20, 2012

A high-ranking Sinaloa narco-trafficking organization member’s claim that US officials have struck a deal with the leadership of the Mexican “cartel” appears to be corroborated in large part by the statements of a Mexican diplomat in email correspondence made public recently by the nonprofit media group WikiLeaks.

The Mexican diplomat’s assessment of the US and Mexican strategy in the war on drugs, as revealed by the email trail, paints a picture of a “simulated war” in which the Mexican and US governments are willing to show favor to a dominant narco-trafficking organization in order to minimize the violence and business disruption in the major drug plazas, or markets.

A similar quid-pro-quo arrangement is precisely what indicted narco-trafficker Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, who is slated to stand trial in Chicago this fall, alleges was agreed to by the US government and the leaders of the Sinaloa “Cartel” — the dominate narco-trafficking organization in Mexico. The US government, however, denies that any such arrangement exists.

Mexican soldiers arrested Zambada Niebla in late March 2009 after he met with DEA agents in a posh Mexico City hotel, a meeting arranged by a US government informant who also is a close confident of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia (Zambada Niebla’s father) and Chapo Guzman — both top leaders of the Sinaloa drug organization. The US informant, Mexican attorney Humberto Loya Castro, by the US government’s own admission in court pleadings in the Zambada Niebla criminal case, served as an intermediary between the Sinaloa Cartel leadership and US government agencies seeking to obtain information on rival narco-trafficking organizations.

According to Zambada Niebla, he and the rest of the Sinaloa leadership, through the US informant Loya Castro, negotiated an immunity deal with the US government in which they were guaranteed protection from prosecution in exchange for providing US law enforcers and intelligence agencies with information that could be used to compromise rival Mexican cartels and their operations.

“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,” Zambada Niebla’s attorneys argue in pleadings in his case.

Email Trail
The emails, obtained and made public by WikiLeaks, involve correspondence between a Mexican diplomat codenamed MX1 and an Austin, Texas-based intelligence firm called Stratfor— which describes itself as a privately owned, “subscription-based provider of geopolitical analysis.” Stratfor has been billed in some media reports as a “shadow CIA.”

In a Stratfor email dated April 19, 2010, MX1 lays out the Mexican government’s negotiating, or “signaling,” strategy with respect to the major narco-trafficking organizations as follows:

The Mexican strategy is not to negotiate directly.

In any event, “negotiations” would take place as follows:

Assuming a non-disputed plaza {— a major drug market, such as Ciudad Juarez}:

• {If} they {a big narco-trafficking group} bring {in} some drugs, transport some drugs, {and} they are discrete, they don’t bother anyone, {then} no one gets hurt;

• {And the} government turns the other way.

• {If} they {the narco-traffickers} kill someone or do something violent, {then the} government responds by taking down {the} drug network or making arrests.

(Now, assuming a disputed plaza: )

• {A narco-trafficking} group comes {into a plaza}, {then the} government waits to see how dominant cartel responds.

• If {the} dominant cartel fights them {the new narco-trafficking group}, {then the} government takes them down.

• If {the} dominant cartel is allied {with the new group}, no problem.

• If {a new} group comes in and start{s} committing violence, they get taken down: first by the government letting the dominant cartel do their thing, then {by} punishing both cartels.

MX1 then goes on to describe what he interprets as the US strategy in negotiating with the major narco-trafficking players in Ciudad Juarez — a major Mexican narco-trafficking “plaza” located across the border from El Paso, Texas:

… This is how “negotiations” take place with cartels, through signals. There are no meetings, etc….

So, the MX {Mexican} strategy is not to negotiate. However, I think the US {recently} sent a signal that could be construed as follows:

“To the VCF {the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes} and Sinaloa cartels: Thank you for providing our market with drugs over the years. We are now concerned about your perpetration of violence, and would like to see you stop that. In this regard, please know that Sinaloa is bigger and better than {the} VCF. Also note that CDJ {Juarez} is very important to us, as is the whole border. In this light, please talk amongst yourselves and lets all get back to business. Again, we recognize that Sinaloa is bigger and better, so either VCF gets in line or we will mess you up.”

I don’t know what the US strategy is, but I can tell you that if the message was understood by Sinaloa and VCF as I described above, the Mexican government would not be opposed at all.

In sum, I have a gut feeling that the US agencies tried to send a signal telling the cartels to negotiate themselves. They unilaterally declared a winner {the Sinaloa Cartel}, and this is unprecedented, and deserves analysis. If there was no strategy behind this, and it was simply a leaked report, then I will be interested to see how it plays out in the coming months.

In a separate Stratfor email dated April 15, 2010, MX1’s views on the US strategy with respect to the drug organizations in Juarez, essentially favoring the Sinaloa “Cartel,” is referenced yet again:

We believe that when the US made an announcement that was corroborated by several federal spokespersons simultaneously (that Sinaloa controlled CDJ {Juarez}), it was a message that the DEA wanted to send to Sinaloa. The message was that the US recognized Sinaloa’s dominance in the area {Juarez}, although it was not absolute. It was meant to be read by the cartels as a sort of ultimatum: negotiate and put your house in order once and for all.

One dissenting analyst thinks that the message is the opposite, telling Sinaloa to take what it had and to leave what remains of VCF. Regardless, the reports are saying that the US message to the cartels was to negotiate and stop the violence. It says that the US has never before pronounced that a cartel controls a particular plaza, so it is an unusual event.

And in yet a third Stratfor email, dated June 3, 2010, the Mexican diplomat MX1 confirms that a deal was cut between drug organizations in Tijuana, Mexico, just south of San Diego, Calif., with the direct intervention of US and Mexican law enforcers. MX1 then, once again, revisits the alleged quid-pro-quo strategy he believes the US government is seeking to advance in Juarez.

From the June 3, 2010, email:

There have been more developments. I found out that there is a group of US and Mexican LE {law enforcement} that discretely attempted, and succeeded, in brokering a deal in Tijuana. If you notice, Tijuana violence has nearly ceased. There are only minor skirmishes that do not appear to be tied to any major cartel.

It was this same group of guys that presented their “signaling strategy” and attempted it for CDJ {Juarez}.

It is not so much a message for the Mexican government as it is for the Sinaloa cartel and VCF {the Juarez Cartel} themselves. Basically, the message they want to send out is that Sinaloa is winning and that the violence is unacceptable. They want the CARTELS to negotiate with EACH OTHER. The idea is that if they can do this, violence will drop and the governments will allow controlled drug trades. {Emphasis added.}

Unfortunately, CDJ {Juarez} is not ripe for this kind of activity, as the major routes and methods for bulk shipping into the US have already been negotiated with US authorities. In this sense, the message that Sinaloa was winning was, in my view, intended to tell SEDENA {the Mexican military} to stop taking down large trucks full of dope as they made their way to the US. These large shipments were Sinaloa’s, and they are OK with the Americans. The argument is that most of the violence {in Juarez} remains related to the local market, and that SEDENA should focus on smaller gangs and fringe groups that try to cross smaller quantities….

More sources
The description of MX1 in the Stratfor emails matches the publicly available information on Fernando de la Mora Salcedo, a Mexican foreign service officer who studied law at the University of New Mexico, served in the Mexican Consulate in El Paso, Texas, and is currently stationed as a consul in the Mexican Consulate in Phoenix. In one Stratfor email, with the subject line “Fwd: Another question for MX1,” a query from Stratfor analysts is directed to MX1, and his real name is revealed as Fernando de la Mora.

The emails between the MX1 and Stratfor obtained by WikiLeaks were drafted between 2008 and 2011. He is described in one of them, as revealed in a prior Narco News report, as “being molded to be the Mexican ‘tip of the spear’ in the US.”

Narco News has contacted the offices of de la Mora and Stratfor for comment on the email correspondence. To date, they have not responded.

Beyond the deal brokering strategy he outlines in the Stratfor emails, MX1, in a Stratfor email dated April 4, 2010, also makes clear that, at the highest levels of the Mexican government, there is a recognition that the door is wide open to direct US involvement in Mexico’s drug war.

From that email:

Finally, the important observation: We are effectively at the start of a paradigm shift regarding sovereignty and how we see cooperation with the US. When the General in charge of all military education said that Mexico could not do this alone and that US military and LE {law enforcement} assistance was needed, no one shot him down. He was told by the {Mexican} Minister of Defense to say what he did. Everyone in the high levels of government is starting to recognize that more US involvement is necessary. In the mid-levels, it sounds more like a crazed cry for help.

MX1 is not the only “source” providing intelligence to Stratfor’s analysts, according to the email correspondence obtained by WikiLeaks.

Other US and Mexican officials providing information to the private intelligence firm, according to the Stratfor email trail, include MX31 (A CISEN bureau chief; CISEN is Mexico’s equivalent to the CIA); MX301, a former Mexican cop; MX702, a senior Mexican intelligence officer; US706, a US journalist; US711, a US law enforcement agent with border liaison responsibilities; and US714, a US law enforcement officer with direct oversight of border investigations.

Unlike MX1, whose real identity is revealed in the Stratfor emails, information on the other sources’ identities was not available — at least not at this point in Narco News’ investigation.

However, Stratfor emails involving US714 did provide direct corroboration of MX1’s claim that the path has been cleared for direct US involvement in the drug war in Mexico.

In a Stratfor email dated Oct. 28, 2011, with the subject line, “Nuevo Laredo Firefight is Mex Op with US Help-US714,” the following is attributed to the US law enforcement officer overseeing border investigations:

Mx {Mexico} planned {the} ops {operation} with U.S. help.

{The firefight was a} MX PLANNED ops with “some US DOD {Department of Defense} assets {personnel and equipment}.”

In another Stratfor email dated June 15, 2011, titled “Re: Insight-Mexico-US Special Forces in Mexico-US714,” the US law enforcement supervisor is identified as the source for the following information (which Narco News has confirmed previously via other sources}:

U.S. special operations forces are currently in Mexico. Small-scale joint ops {operations} with Mexico’s {special forces}, but they are there.

The Mexican diplomat MX1 also confirmed the same information, according to a separate Stratfor email:

Information about US military involvement in Mexico is provided only as a need to know basis. The Americans have been adamant about this, and we agree even more. Therefore, I can confirm that there is Marine presence, but I don’t know if it is MFR {Marine Force Recon}. {Emphasis added.}

…Furthermore, operational coordination and indeed joint exercises have been conducted, and there are more in the planning stages. We do indeed have US military presence in Mexico as part of the MI {Merida Initiative} coordination office (even though they are sometimes under official cover as DOS {Department of State}, etc….) There are advisors and intelligence operatives that work on the tactical level with their Mexican counterparts….

Another remarkable claim also is attributed to Stratfor source US714 in an email dated April 1, 2011:

Regarding ICE {US Immigration and Customs Enforcement} screwing up informants: They {ICE} were handling big hit men from Juarez and letting them kill in the U.S.

Though Stratfor source US714’s revelation may seem too dark to be true, Narco News has already documented, via the multi-year House of Death investigative series, that ICE, with the approval of US prosecutors, allowed one of its informants to participate in multiple murders inside Mexico in order to make a drug case.

Narco News was provided access to the Stratfor emails through an investigative partnership organized by WikiLeaks that includes journalists, academics and human rights organizations.

original emails are here &c: https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/emailid/1790909

this is some of the stuff on operation fast and furious which was "exposed" as the ATF allowing guns to "walk" across the border in the hope of arresting senior cartel members...but what if actually theywere just providing them to the sinaloa cartel to help them gain control of the drug trade... *40 foot sign saying LIMITED HANGOUT starts flashing in the background*

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/08/09/high-ranking-mexican-drug-cartel-member-makes-explosive-allegation-fast-and-furious-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/ posted:

High-Ranking Mexican Drug Cartel Member Makes Explosive Allegation: ‘Fast and Furious’ Is Not What You Think It Is
Aug 9, 2012 8:00 am
Jason Howerton

A high-ranking Mexican drug cartel operative currently in U.S. custody is making startling allegations that the failed federal gun-walking operation known as “Fast and Furious” isn’t what you think it is.

It wasn’t about tracking guns, it was about supplying them — all part of an elaborate agreement between the U.S. government and Mexico’s powerful Sinaloa Cartel to take down rival cartels.

The explosive allegations are being made by Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, known as the Sinaloa Cartel’s “logistics coordinator.” He was extradited to the Chicago last year to face federal drug charges.

Zambada-Niebla claims that under a “divide and conquer” strategy, the U.S. helped finance and arm the Sinaloa Cartel through Operation Fast and Furious in exchange for information that allowed the DEA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies to take down rival drug cartels. The Sinaloa Cartel was allegedly permitted to traffic massive amounts of drugs across the U.S. border from 2004 to 2009 — during both Fast and Furious and Bush-era gunrunning operations — as long as the intel kept coming.

This pending court case against Zambada-Niebla is being closely monitored by some members of Congress, who expect potential legal ramifications if any of his claims are substantiated. The trial was delayed but is now scheduled to begin on Oct. 9.

Zambada-Niebla is reportedly a close associate of Sinaloa Cartel kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman and the son of Ismael “Mayo” Zambada-Garcia, both of which remain fugitives, likely because of the deal made with the DEA, federal court documents allege.

Based on the alleged agreement “the Sinaloa Cartel under the leadership of defendant’s father, Ismael Zambada-Niebla and ‘Chapo’ Guzman, were given carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago and the rest of the United States and were also protected by the United States government from arrest and prosecution in return for providing information against rival cartels which helped Mexican and United States authorities capture or kill thousands of rival cartel members,” states a motion for discovery filed in U.S. District Court by Zambada-Niebla’s attorney in July 2011.

A source in Congress, who spoke to TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity, said that some top congressional investigators have been keeping “one eye on the case.” Another two members of Congress, both lead Fast and Furious Congressional investigators, told TheBlaze they had never even heard of the case.

One of the Congressmen, who also spoke to TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity because criminal proceedings are still ongoing, called the allegations “disturbing.” He said Congress will likely get involved once Zambada-Niebla’s trial has concluded if any compelling information surfaces.

“Congress won’t get involved in really any criminal case until the trial is over and the smoke has cleared,” he added. “If the allegations prove to hold any truth, there will be some serious legal ramifications.”

Earlier this month, two men in Texas were sentenced to 70 and 80 months in prison after pleading guilty to attempting to export 147 assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition to Mexico’s Los Zetas cartel. Compare that to the roughly 2,000 firearms reportedly “walked” in Fast and Furious, which were used in the murders of hundreds of Mexican citizens and U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry, and some U.S. officials could potentially face jail time if they knowingly armed the Sinaloa Cartel and allowed guns to cross into Mexico.

If proven in court, such an agreement between U.S. law enforcement agencies and a Mexican cartel could potentially mar both the Bush and Obama administrations. The federal government is denying all of Zambada-Niebla’s allegations and contend that no official immunity deal was agreed upon.

To be sure, Zambada-Niebla is a member of one of the most ruthless drug gangs in all of Mexico, so there is a chance that he is saying whatever it takes to reduce his sentence, which will likely be hefty. However, Congress and the media have a duty to prove without a reasonable doubt that there is no truth in his allegations. So far, that has not been achieved.

Zambada-Niebla was reportedly responsible for coordinating all of the Sinaloa Cartel’s multi-ton drug shipments from Central and South American countries, through Mexico, and into the United States. To accomplish this, he used every tool at his disposal: Boeing 747 cargo planes, narco-submarines, container ships, speed boats, fishing vessels, buses, rail cars, tractor trailers and automobiles. But Guzman and Zambada-Niebla’s overwhelming success within the Sinaloa Cartel was largely due to the arrests and dismantling of many of their competitors and their booming businesses in the U.S. from 2004 to 2009 — around the same time ATF’s gun-walking operations were in full swing. Fast and Furious reportedly began in 2009 and continued into early 2011.

According Zambada-Niebla, that was a product of the collusion between the U.S. government and the Sinaloa Cartel.

The claims seem to fall in line with statements made last month by Guillermo Terrazas Villanueva, a spokesman for the Chihuahua state government in northern Mexico who said U.S. agencies “don’t fight drug traffickers,” instead “they try to manage the drug trade.”

Also, U.S. officials have previously acknowledged working with the Sinaloa Cartel through another informant, Humberto Loya-Castro. He is also allegedly a high-ranking member of the Sinaloa Cartel as well as a close confidant and lawyer of “El Chapo” Guzman.

Loya-Castro was indicted along with Chapo and Mayo in 1995 in the Southern District of California in a massive narcotics trafficking conspiracy (Case no. 95CR0973). The case was dismissed in 2008 at the request of prosecutors after Loya became an informant for the United States government and subsequently provided information for years.

In 2005, “the CS (informant Loya-Castro) signed a cooperation agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California,” states an affidavit filed in the Zambada-Niebla case by Loya-Castro’s handler, DEA agent Manuel Castanon.

“Thereafter, I began to work with the CS. Over the years, the CS’ cooperation resulted in the seizure of several significant loads of narcotics and precursor chemicals. The CS’ cooperation also resulted in other real-time intelligence that was very useful to the United States government.”

Under the alleged agreement with U.S. agencies, “the Sinaloa Cartel, through Loya-Castro, was to provide information accumulated by Mayo, Chapo, and others, against rival Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations to the United States government,” a motion for discovery states.

In return, the United States government allegedly agreed to dismiss the charges in the pending case against Loya-Castro (which they did), not to interfere with his drug trafficking activities and those of the Sinaloa Cartel and not actively prosecute him or the Sinaloa Cartel leadership.

Taken directly from the motion filed in federal court:

“This strategy, which he calls ‘Divide & Conquer,’ using one drug organization to help against others, is exactly what the Justice Department and its various agencies have implemented in Mexico. In this case, they entered into an agreement with the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel through, among others, Humberto Loya-Castro, to receive their help in the United States government’s efforts to destroy other cartels.”

“Indeed, United States government agents aided the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel.”

The government has denied this and says the deal did not go past Loya-Castro.

Zambada-Niebla was arrested by Mexican soldiers in late March of 2009 after he met with DEA agents at a Mexico City hotel in a meeting arranged by Loya-Castro, though the U.S. government was not involved in his arrest. He was extradited to Chicago to face federal drug charges on Feb. 18, 2010. He is now being held in a Michigan prison after requesting to be moved from Chicago.

“Classified Materials”
During his initial court proceedings, Zambada-Niebla continually stated that he was granted full immunity by the DEA in exchange for his cooperation. The agency, however, argues that an “official” immunity deal was never established though they admit he may have acted as an informant.

Zambada-Niebla and his legal council also requested records about Operation Fast and Furious, which permitted weapons purchased in the United States to be illegally smuggled into Mexico, sometimes by paid U.S. informants and cartel leaders. Their request was denied. From the defense motion:

“It is estimated that approximately 3,000 people were killed in Mexico as a result of ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ including law enforcement officers in the state of Sinaloa, Mexico, the headquarters of the Sinaloa cartel. The Department of Justice’s leadership apparently saw this as an ingenious way of combating drug cartel activities.”

“It has recently been disclosed that in addition to the above-referenced problems with ‘Operation Fast & Furious,’ the DOJ, DEA, and the FBI knew that some of the people who were receiving the weapons that were being allowed to be transported to Mexico, were in fact informants working for those organizations and included some of the leaders of the cartels.”

Zambada’s attorney has filed several motions for discovery to that effect in Illinois Federal District Court, which were summarily denied by the presiding judge who claimed the defendant failed to make the case that he was actually a DEA informant.

In April, 2012, a federal judge refused to dismiss charges against him.

From a Chicago Sun Times report: “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.

In their official response to Zambada-Niebla’s motion for discovery, the federal government confirmed the existence of “classified materials” regarding the case but argued they “do not support the defendant’s claim that he was promised immunity or public authority for his actions.”

Experts have expressed doubts that Zambada-Niebla had an official agreement with the U.S. government, however, agree Loya Castro probably did. Either way, the defense still wants to obtain DEA reports that detail the agency’s relationship with the Sinaloa Cartel and put the agents on the stand, under oath to testify.

The documents that detail the relationship between the federal government and the Sinaloa Cartel have still not been released or subjected to review — citing matters of national security.

(Editor’s note: The impetus for this article came from author Reed A. Williams, whose upcoming book “The Weed That Just Won’t Die” delves deeply into the Zambada-Niebla court case. Get more details on the book here.)

i love this shit *crushing up and snorting a giant pill stamped "deep state finest oxycodone"*

lmao the AFT got the person who first exposed operation fast and furious convicted and sent to prison on fake charges for exactly the same thing he discovered the ATF were doing; couldnt make it up
on the "Bogota connection" and the "kent memo"; highly recomended reading

http://www.narconews.com/Issue40/article1543.html posted:

Leaked Memo: Corrupt DEA Agents in Colombia Help Narcos and Paramilitaries
Internal Justice Dept. Document Alleges Drug Trafficking Links, Money Laundering and Conspiracy to Murder

By Bill Conroy
Special to The Narco News Bulletin

January 9, 2006

The drug war is supposed to follow a very clear script: According to the official screenwriters, the U.S. justice system is pitted against corrupt players in foreign countries who are trying to flood American streets with illicit drugs. The narco-traffickers, crooked cops, and thieving politicians in the drug war are always over there, in Latin America, and elsewhere, and U.S. law enforcers and government officials are always the good guys battling these forces of evil.

But what happens when evidence surfaces that turns that script on its ear? What happens if proof emerges that it is the U.S. justice system that is corrupt? A document obtained recently by Narco News makes those questions more than hypothetical queries. In this document, Department of Justice attorney Thomas M. Kent claims that federal agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s office in Bogotá, Colombia, are the corrupt players in the war on drugs. (The DEA is part of the larger Justice Department.)

The information in that document is also corroborated by a number of other sources that spoke directly to Narco News, including former government officials who are familiar with the DEA’s Bogotá operations

Kent’s memorandum contains some of the most serious allegations ever raised against U.S. antinarcotics officers: that DEA agents on the front lines of the drug war in Colombia are on drug traffickers’ payrolls, complicit in the murders of informants who knew too much, and, most startlingly, directly involved in helping Colombia’s infamous rightwing paramilitary death squads to launder drug money.

The memo further claims that, rather than being simply a few “bad apples” who need to be reported to their superiors, these allegedly dirty agents are being protected by an ongoing cover-up orchestrated by “watchdog” agencies within the Justice Department.

These charges blow away the smoke concealing the pretense of the war on drugs. If they are true, there will be no brushing them aside at pre-scripted press conferences; everyone who becomes aware of these allegations will be forced to consider where we go from here in that so-called war.

The Kent Memo
On Dec. 19, 2004, Thomas M. Kent, an attorney in the wiretap unit of the Justice Department’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Section (NDDS), sent off a memo to his section chief. Law enforcement sources tell Narco News that a number of other high-level officials within Justice and the DEA soon received copies of the same memo. In it, Kent raised a series of corruption allegations centering on the DEA’s office in Bogotá.

Kent says his claims are supported by a number of DEA agents in Florida who the agency muzzled and retaliated against after they tried to expose the corruption. Specifically, Kent contends that the DEA’s Office of Professional Responsibility (or OPR, essentially the agency’s Internal Affairs department) and elements of DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have worked to keep a lid on the corruption charges. According to Kent, these offices – which are supposed to serve as watchdog agencies that investigate corruption – sabotaged investigations being carried out by the Florida DEA agents and by one of the OIG’s own agents.

From Kent’s memo:

As discussed in my (prior) memorandum dated December 13, 2004, several unrelated investigations, including Operation Snowplow, identified corrupt agents within DEA. As further discussed in my memorandum, OPR’s handling of the investigations into those allegations has come into question and the OIG investigator who was actively looking into the allegations has been removed from the investigation. As discussed in my email, dated December 17, 2004, I want to speak directly with the (DOJ) Public Integrity Section because I want to ensure that the allegations are fully investigated and acted upon if true.

As promised, I am providing you with further information on the allegations and evidence that is already in files at OPR and OIG. Agents I know were able to vouch for my credibility and several individuals close to the prior investigations that uncovered corruption agreed to speak with me. I had a limited time frame in which to speak with them and ask questions. They were able to provide me with some of the highlights, but certainly not all of the information that is sitting at OPR and OIG. Such a debriefing, based on what I learned in a few hours, would take days.

Having been failed by so many before and facing tremendous risks to their careers and their safety and the safety of their families, they were understandably hesitant to reveal the information I requested, including the names of those directly involved in criminal activity in Bogotá and the United States. They agreed to reveal the names to me on the condition that I not further disseminate these for the time being. They are prepared to provide the Public Integrity Section with those names and everything in the files at OPR and OIG, and then some, if called upon to do so.

Why is an attorney within Justice afraid to reveal the names of the DEA whistleblowers out of fear that it might jeopardize their law enforcement careers and the lives of their families? And why, as Kent contends, is it all being covered up?

What do Glenn Fine, the head of the DOJ’s OIG, and Rogelio E. Guevara, who currently oversees the DEA’s OPR, know about Kent’s charges, which were brought forth in his memo more than a year ago?

A look at the nature of the alleged corruption may give us some clues.

(Remember that all of these allegations come strictly from the Kent memo, though law enforcement sources have corroborated much of this information on condition of anonymity.)

Money Laundering and Paramilitaries
Kent alleges that one of the corrupt agents from Bogotá was caught on a wiretap some time in 2004 discussing criminal activity related to the huge right-wing paramilitary group known as the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC in its Spanish initials). The group is widely recognized to be involved in narco-trafficking and arms dealing at the highest levels. Working closely with various sectors of the Colombian military, it has fielded death squads responsible for murdering thousands of Colombians.

The following is from a 2004 report prepared for Congress by the Congressional Research Service:

The AUC targets real and perceived supporters of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), as well as political activists, police officials and judges. The group is known for its brutality and has killed more civilians than the leftist insurgencies have killed: in 2001, the AUC killed at least 1,015 civilians, compared to the 197 civilians killed by the FARC. The AUC also committed over 100 massacres in 2001, a tactic it used to displace large portions of the peasant population in order maintain firmer control over the major coca-growing lands.

Kent contends, in the memorandum, that during the wiretap, the corrupt Bogotá DEA agent “discusses his involvement in laundering money for the AUC.” But despite being caught on tape admitting to helping the most murderous political force in the hemisphere today to launder the money from their extensive drug trafficking operations, the agent faced no punishment. In fact, says Kent, the agent was essentially promoted: “That call has been documented by the DEA and that agent is now in charge of numerous narcotics and money laundering investigations.”

Kent, in the memorandum, also alleges that DOJ officials shut down a money laundering investigation because they discovered that it was linked to the alleged DEA corruption in Bogotá. He claims that the nail in that coffin was driven in by OPR after it discovered that an OIG agent was investigating the Bogotá corruption and related money laundering operation

“In June 2004, OPR and DEA, the two agencies embarrassed by the prior allegations (involving the Bogotá agents) and likely to come under tremendous scrutiny for their own actions in response, demanded that my case agent turn all of the (investigation) information … over to OPR,” Kent states in the memorandum. “One week after submitting the (information) to OPR, the money laundering investigation was shut down.”

Kent details three further cases of extreme corruption in his memo, all involving Bogotá DEA agents persecuting or conspiring to kill Colombian informants who threatened to bring down their activities. Sources told Narco News that these corruption allegations involve cases launched in 1999 or 2000, but which resulted in investigations that carried on for months or years.

(Kent wrote his memo in late 2004 only after he became aware of the alleged corruption and then had exhausted other internal channels within DOJ for addressing the problems.)

Allegation One:
Corrupt DEA Agents In Bogotá Conspired to Murder Informants Who Betrayed Them

During the course of an investigation into a Colombian narco-trafficking operation, a group of DEA agents in Florida had zeroed in on several targets, with the help of several Colombian informants. Once the targets were identified as being part of the drug ring, they began to cooperate with the Florida-based agents.

“… They made startling revelations concerning DEA agents in Bogotá,” Kent writes. “They alleged that they were assisted in their narcotics activities by the agents. Specifically, they alleged that the agents provided them with information on investigations and other law enforcement activities in Colombia.”

The traffickers eventually gave the Florida agents copies of confidential DEA reports, which the Bogotá agents allegedly had handed over to the traffickers. After the Florida agents turned these documents over to the OPR and OIG, one of them was put on “administrative leave” — the first sign that a cover-up was underway.

While the Florida agent was out on leave, the Bogotá agents set up a meeting with one of the informants.

“As the informant left that meeting, he was murdered,” Kent states. “Other informants … who also worked with the DEA group in Florida were also murdered. Each murder was preceded by a request for their identity by an agent in Bogotá.”

Allegation Two:
Bogotá DEA Agents Imprison and Possibly Conspire to Murder Informants to Prevent Their Travel to U.S.

A separate DEA group, also based in Florida, ran into trouble with the same DEA office in Bogotá while investigating another Colombian narco-trafficking operation. Informants tipped off the Florida agents that that this drug ring had developed an ingenious method for smuggling cocaine into the United States, a method that seems to have been lifted right out of the script of the drug-war movie Traffic.

“Specifically, the narcotics traffickers in Colombia were infusing acrylic with cocaine and shaping it into any number of commercial goods,” Kent states. “The acrylic was then shipped to the United States and Europe where, during processing, the cocaine was extracted from the acrylic.”

Informants working for the Florida agents sent samples of the cocaine-laced acrylic to the DEA, but the agency’s chemists couldn’t figure out how to extract the cocaine. As a result, the Florida agents decided to have the informants come to the United States with a sample of the acrylic, so they could walk DEA’s chemists through the extraction process.

“Agents contacted the Bogotá Country Office to discuss the informants’ planned travel and their bringing cocaine out of Colombia infused in acrylic,” writes Kent. “They were advised that the best tact was for the informants to carry it out themselves.”

But when the informants got to the airport to leave for the U.S., they were arrested. A DEA agent in Bogotá, it turns out, had told Colombian officials to “lock them (the informants) up and throw away the key,” according to Kent. The Bogotá agent then claimed that he had no idea the Florida agents had given the informants permission to transport the cocaine.

“His misrepresentations were backed by another agent in Bogotá,” Kent states. “The informants were imprisoned for nine months while the accusations flew back and forth. Once it was determined that the agents in Bogotá were lying, the informants were released. One of the informants was kidnapped and murdered in Bogotá where he had gone into hiding.”

Allegation Three:
Informant Outed by Traffickers with Ties to Bogotá Agents

In yet another case outlined in Kent’s memorandum, the second Florida DEA group was working with an informant in Colombia who claimed to have made contact with a FARC guerilla while in prison. Sources told Narco News that the informant is a wealthy Colombian businessman with investments in high-tech firms and ties to narco-trafficking. The FARC (Spanish initials for Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the largest leftist insurgent group in that country’s civil war, accused by U.S. officials of drug and arms trafficking) was supposedly interested in buying communications equipment from him.

While this investigation eventually ended up in the hands of the National Security Agency, from the beginning it appeared to be related to drug trafficking and the Florida DEA agents decided to investigate. Agents from the Bogotá office promised to help, one of them assuring the Florida agents that the informant’s release from prison could be arranged. But when the Florida agents arrived in Colombia, another Bogotá DEA agent told them that the informant was going to stay in prison.

The Bogotá agents seemed obsessed with stopping the informant from working with the Florida agents, and began doing everything in their power to prevent the investigation from moving forward. “As the two sides argued back and forth, the informant was challenged by the Bogotá agents to prove his allegations,” the memorandum states. “He did so by making a videotape of a conversation he then had with a member of the FARC in jail in which they discussed their desire for him to provide them with communications equipment. When confronted with the actual tape that confirmed the informant’s story, the agents in Bogotá complained that what the informant and DEA group from Florida had done was illegal and they would be unable to obtain the informant’s release (from prison).”

The Florida agents kept trying to revive the investigation, but Bogotá agents continued to thwart it one way or another. Eventually, the informant was released from prison and tried to start working with the Florida agents again, but an agent from the Bogotá office traveled to Washington, D.C., and managed to convince DEA brass to derail the investigation.

When the informant approached the DEA once again with information, writes Kent, “the Bogotá agent that traveled to Washington, D.C., now claimed that the informant was a pedophile. The investigation was halted. The Bogotá agent was called on his claim and could not provide any evidence.” The agent then switched tactics, arguing that the DEA could not work with the informant because the FARC might end up with the communications equipment. He also claimed that one of the targets of the FARC-related investigation was not involved in narco-trafficking — even though the Bogotá office had previously identified that individual as a narco-trafficker.

“The (Bogotá) agent was unable to dissuade those involved in the investigation, and it finally took off with the assistance of the NSA,” the memo states. “The investigation continued until the informant was faxed a document that identified him as a DEA informant on the FARC. The document mirrored information the DEA group in Florida provided the corrupt agents in Bogotá previously.”

In other words, someone outed the Florida group’s informant, making him into a target for many dangerous people including the FARC guerrillas, and the tool used to expose him was proprietary DEA information that appeared to have come out of the Bogotá DEA office. The DEA agents in Florida looked further into the source of that information and followed the trail to several other DEA informants. The Florida agents then set up a wiretap and recorded conversations between their own informants and the other DEA informants who were tied to the leaked DEA information. The recordings revealed that a narco-trafficker had indeed obtained the internal DEA information that was used to expose the Florida group’s informant.

“That person (the narco-trafficker) is also a DEA informant,” the memorandum states, “and is believed to have been controlled by the Bogotá Country Office. Among other things, it was alleged that the informant (the narco-trafficker) had several agents on his payroll who provided him with classified information. The agents were believed to work in Colombia and Washington, D.C.”

The tape recordings that revealed this damning information were turned over to both the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General, Kent states in the memorandum. The agents in the Florida DEA office also tried to set up a sting targeting the allegedly corrupt agents from Bogotá and Washington, D.C.

“The meeting (the sting) was called off when it was learned the agents likely knew of the trap,” the memorandum states. “… The informant who was identified … as the narcotics trafficker with several agents on his payroll was eventually brought to Florida to take a polygraph test on the allegations that he was obtaining classified documents from agents in Bogotá and elsewhere.”

Kent says that the narco-trafficker passed the lie detector test in Florida, at which he was asked whether agents had passed him classified documents and he claimed that they hadn’t. But the OPR mysteriously ordered the polygrapher not to report on the test: “He was instructed (to say) that the test never took place.”

The Deluge

The corruption allegations raised in Kent’s memorandum are startling, but agents in the Bogotá DEA office are not the first to have been accused of participating in a narco-trafficking conspiracy. Similar tales of corruption involving overseas DEA agents have surfaced in the past. And although the charges raised by Kent in his 2004 memorandum have now passed before many eyes, they have still not been addressed in the light of day. Instead, as in similar past cases, they have been buried in the contorted layers of the Justice Department bureaucracy.

Kent is no longer with the Washington, D.C.-based wiretap unit of NDDS. He has been transferred to Nashville, according to sources familiar with the memorandum. Ironically, the NDDS chief to whom Kent addressed the memorandum, Jodi L. Avergun, is now the chief of staff for DEA.

In addition, Kent’s request to send the Bogotá corruption allegations to the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section was denied, and his memorandum deep-sixed — until now.

A full investigation of his allegations may well prove that the DEA’s Bogotá office is clean as a whistle. But if that is indeed the case, then why has Justice chosen to silence and punish the whistleblowers in this case rather than look into their claims?

From Kent’s memorandum:

If we are unable to arrange for a sit-down between the reporting agents and those attorneys within the Department of Justice who are tasked with ensuring that corrupted agents and officials are held accountable, then I firmly believe that we will watch from the sidelines as the allegations play out in a courtroom, on the news, and/or on Capital Hill. The reporting agents have placed their trust in me. … I have assured them that I will lay the issue before you with a much more detailed accounting of the allegations and how the DEA and OPR, and now seemingly OIG, have failed to fully investigate the allegations and hold those responsible accountable.

If we can put them together with the Public Integrity Section, they assured me that other agents who have to this point remained silent for fear of retaliation will come forward. Those agents have additional evidence not in the files maintained by OPR and OIG. I believe, based on their representations, that that new evidence alone would put the corrupt agents in prison.

Given the pretense that defines the war on drugs, Kent’s memorandum (which basically rewrites the script of that war) is not likely to be a hot seller in Washington, D.C., anytime soon—absent pressure from a major media blitz.

And what of the mainstream-media guardians of our liberty? Will they step up to the plate on this story, given their penchant for adhering to the standard drug-war script? The fact that Narco News is breaking this story first may tell us all we need to know on that front.

But the truth, like water, always brings the scum to the surface. And in this case, the dam holding back the truth in the so-called war on drugs may be close to breaking. For how much longer will nations in Latin America and around the world accept U.S. drug warriors’ imposing presence in their lands, when those same agents and bureaucrats get neck-deep in the very drug trade they are supposedly trying to wipe out, with complete impunity and protection from their superiors back home?

“The agents who reported the … allegations (of corruption) did so to correct wrongs committed by other members of the DEA and OPR,” Kent states in the memorandum. “Their attempts to do so led to retaliation. … The cracks in the lid DEA and OPR has attempted to place on this problem are getting bigger.

“It is only a matter of time before this thing explodes. …”

copy of memo: http://www.narconews.com/docs/ThomasKentMemo.pdf

this is a followup piece about the refusal of time magazine to print a story on the "bogota connection"

http://nswbc.org/Op%20Ed/Project%20Expose%20MSM-Report2-DEA%20Scandal-June11-edited.html posted:

Project EXPOSE MSM Reports: Major DEA Scandal & Time Magazine
June 11, 2009

As noted in the announcement, 123 Real Change invites all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and reporters, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored/blacked out, tainted, or otherwise met with a betrayal of trust.

This second project report is based on the first-hand documented experience of Mr. Sandalio Gonzalez, retired Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent in Charge. Time Magazine reporters Tim Burger and Tim Padgett had an opportunity to speak at length with Mr. Gonzalez and several other veteran DEA agents with direct knowledge of a major corruption case involving several DEA agents on drug traffickers’ payrolls in Colombia. The involved corrupt US officers were also directly involved in helping Colombia's paramilitary death squads launder drug proceeds. Further presented was the documented cover up of this major scandal by the DEA and DOJ IG offices. Despite corroboration by a number of other sources, including several veteran DEA agents and other government officials with first-hand knowledge of the case, and documented evidence disclosed and provided, and despite being given an ‘exclusive’ to the story as insisted on by them, Time Magazine never published the story, and no reasons were ever provided.

Name, Title, and /or Background

Name: Sandalio Gonzalez

Title: Special Agent in Charge (Ret.), DEA

Background: Mr. Gonzalez retired from the DEA as Special Agent in Charge of the El Paso, Texas Field Division in January 2005 after 32 years in law enforcement. He began his career in 1972 at the local level in Los Angeles, California and joined the DEA in 1978.

Name of Publication and/or Editor and/or Reporter

Publication: Time Magazine

Reporter: Tim Padgett & Tim Burger

Editor: Unknown


Complete blackout. No reason provided. The disclosure was supported and corroborated by three other highly credible veteran DEA agents, officials, and documents.

Description of Disclosure & Significance

By Sandalio Gonzalez

In late fall of 2005, Time Magazine’s DC Office was provided with detailed information and documents regarding a major story involving the DEA. The story had not been broken publicly before, and several publishers were competing to get what they referred to as an ‘Exclusive Scoop’, since they had been briefed generally and shown sample documents. Time Magazine seemed anxious to see and hear it all, and we were told they’d run it ‘big time’ if they were given documents, provided with access to witnesses, and all this ‘exclusively.’ Well, Time Magazine was in fact given everything they asked for; exclusively.

After Time’s DC office reporter Tim Burger received the initial/sample documents and statements (with NSWBC acting as coordinator and third party), they sat on the story for more than a month. Later we were told that the story was transferred to their Miami Office. After follow ups and pressure by NSWBC on the status of this ‘exclusive story’ with Time, one last meeting was set up with Tim Padgett, Time’s Miami bureau reporter.

The meeting with the Time reporter in Miami was attended by several other current and former DEA agents as sources and witnesses. Some of these witnesses had to travel to attend the meeting and provide the Time reporter with their reports. The three agents disclosed their account and documented information involving the never-public-before scandal and the subsequent cover up by the US government. Sibel Edmonds, Director and Founder of NSWBC, and Professor William Weaver, Senior Advisor for NSWBC, had also flown to Miami to attend and monitor the interview.

The center of the report dealt with ‘never-before-public’ documents and first hand witness statements, the Kent Memo, and related subjects and information. This case and its facts, statements, and documents, given to Time Magazine before and during that meeting, involved one of the most serious allegations ever brought against DEA officers.

On Dec. 19, 2004, Thomas M. Kent, an attorney in the wiretap unit of the Justice Department’s Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs Section (NDDS), submitted his memo to his section chief Jody Avergun, who would soon thereafter leave the DOJ to become the Executive Assistant to DEA Administrator Karen Tandy, with full knowledge of the reported corruption and cover up, and did nothing to correct it. The copies of this memo were forwarded to several high-level officials within DOJ and DEA.

In his memo, Mr. Kent reported several corruption allegations involving the DEA's office in Bogotá, Columbia. The allegations in the memo were supported by several credible DEA agents in Florida with impeccable records. These agents – witnesses - were muzzled and retaliated against after they attempted to expose the corruption. Based on Mr. Kent’s report, supported by other DEA agents, the DEA's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) covered up the report and the corruption charges and sabotaged investigations by the Florida DEA office.

Here are the major points covered by Mr. Kent in the memo:

Several DEA agents in Colombia are in fact on drug traffickers' payrolls.

Some of these corrupt US officers are directly involved in helping Colombia's paramilitary death squads launder drug proceeds.

The implicated agents have been protected by "watchdog" agencies within the Justice Department.

Here is an excerpt from Mr. Kent’s Memo:

“As discussed in my (prior) memorandum dated December 13, 2004, several unrelated investigations, including Operation Snowplow, identified corrupt agents within DEA. As further discussed in my memorandum, OPR's handling of the investigations into those allegations has come into question and the OIG investigator who was actively looking into the allegations has been removed from the investigation.”

And here is another regarding other agents and witnesses who had come forward:

“As promised, I am providing you with further information on the allegations and evidence that is already in files at OPR and OIG. Agents I know were able to vouch for my credibility and several individuals close to the prior investigations that uncovered corruption agreed to speak with me…Having been failed by so many before and facing tremendous risks to their careers and their safety and the safety of their families, they were understandably hesitant to reveal the information I requested, including the names of those directly involved in criminal activity in Bogotá and the United States. They agreed to reveal the names to me on the condition that I not further disseminate these for the time being. They are prepared to provide the Public Integrity Section with those names and everything in the files at OPR and OIG, and then some, if called upon to do so”.

According to the report, one of the corrupt agents from Bogotá was actually caught on a wiretap in 2004 while he was discussing criminal activity related to the paramilitary group called the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). The group is known to be involved in narco-trafficking and arms dealing at the highest levels, and has been involved in death squads responsible for murdering thousands of Colombians. Kent reports that during the wiretap, this DEA agent discusses his involvement in laundering money for the AUC. However, despite being caught on tape the agent faced no reprimand. Just the opposite, according to Kent, the agent was promoted: "That call has been documented by the DEA and that agent is now in charge of numerous narcotics and money laundering investigations."

The memo also alleged that DOJ officials shut down a money laundering investigation because they knew it was connected to the DEA corruption case in Bogotá:

"In June 2004, OPR and DEA, the two agencies embarrassed by the prior allegations (involving the Bogotá agents) and likely to come under tremendous scrutiny for their own actions in response, demanded that my case agent turn all of the (investigation) information ... over to OPR," Kent states in the memorandum. "One week after submitting the (information) to OPR, the money laundering investigation was shut down."

In addition to the facts included in Kent’s reports, Time Magazine was also provided with corroborated reports on related cases, including a case of major leaks from the US Embassy in Bogotá that contained extremely sensitive intelligence.

That meeting gave Time Magazine one last chance, and the benefit of the doubt, to live up to its word given to us previously; to expose this major case and even more serious cover up by the Justice Department’s IG. We made it clear that after waiting for Time Magazine for months they had to give us a response within a day or two as to whether they were running the story, and if so when. The reporter, Tim Padgett, did seem genuinely interested, and made it clear that he had to persuade the editors and magazine management. He appeared to have his reservations as to the magazine’s willingness and or courage to ‘touch’ a story of this magnitude. We never heard back from him, or Tim Burger, or anyone else from the magazine. Time Magazine never delivered the ‘exclusive scoop’ given to them, all packaged with credible DEA witnesses and envelopes containing official documents. In fact, the MSM has never thoroughly covered this story. The only coverage of Kent Memo was given by web-based publisher, Narco News.

Comments in response by Mr. Tim Padgett, reporter, Time Magazine, Miami Office:

I contacted Mr. Padgett twice via e-mail. To my second request he provided me with the following reply:

For the record, I had no reservations about Time Magazine's "willingnessand or courage to 'touch' a story of this magnitude." Time regularly takes on controversial stories; we simply decided in the end, after examining the material at hand, not to pursue this one.

Tim Padgett
Miami & Latin America Bureau Chief
TIME Magazine

Comments in response by Mr. Tim Burger, reporter, Time Magazine, DC Bureau:

Despite several requests for response, Mr. Burger did not reply.

Comments in response by Time Magazine:

Despite several requests for response, Time Magazine editor(s) did not reply.

Statement from Professor William Weaver, Senior Advisor, NSWBC:

This disheartening episode is, unfortunately, very familiar, and the story of DEA corruption and entanglement with Colombian drug cartels appears to have been ignored after initial interest for a variety of reasons. First, it is not easily digestible and therefore runs afoul of editors’ and reporters’ prejudice toward stories that may be quickly and simply related to the public. Emphasis on simplicity instead of on what the public should know about cuts down on research and reporter time, which are expensive, and feeds into the common belief that the public is largely incapable of understanding, or uninterested in, complicated stories. Second, running such a story may anger sources of information from government that reporters have come to rely upon. As great as any one story may be, a reporter’s career in these areas often depends on keeping friendly relations with cultivated sources. Ultimately, sometimes these sources end up dictating what shall and shall not be published. Finally, a story must make it past editors and staff who have interests that conflict with the goal of getting important news to the public. Considerations of effects on advertisers, sources of information, how shareholders and management will view decisions to publish particular stories, and other matters unrelated to “newsworthiness” affect a potential story’s fate. We need only look to The New York Times’ decision to delay reporting the existence of the probably unconstitutional Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) for an example of how forces inside MSM may outflank the newsworthy nature of a story. The story concerning the Bush Administration TSP was set to break just before the presidential election in 2004, but apparent appeals by Bush Administration officials and President Bush himself to The New York Times delayed publication until December 2005. And the story only came to light because of a whistleblower and the fact that the matter appeared destined to emerge in other forums. The refusal of The New York Times to publish the story in 2004 very possibly is the only reason that Bush prevailed over John Kerry. Time magazine’s failure to investigate the events outlined in the Kent Memo and by veteran, decorated DEA agents concerning wide-ranging government corruption is another abysmal example of how the public is ill-served by the MSM.

Statement from Sibel Edmonds, Founder and Director, NSWBC:

Our organization, NSWBC, persuaded these government sources and witnesses to come forward and provide the American people with this major report exposing corruption and cover-ups - which sheds light on the ‘real’ story of our government’s so-called ‘War on Drugs.’ Despite their reservations and the risks they faced, these witnesses agreed to disclose their first-hand accounts and documented facts, and to do so only once through what they considered to be a ‘major publication.’ During the interview, while listening to these agents and reviewing the sets of documents put in front of him, Time reporter, Tim Padgett, appeared flabbergasted and excited. At the end of the meeting he expressed it verbally and concluded that the story was incredible and highly explosive. This was a journalist’s dream: to have four veteran agents with impeccable career records as sources, to have tons of printed documents (official letters, IG reports, and more), and a major scandal contradicting the illusion of the War on Drugs - which has been costing lives and billions of dollars. I also have to add: Mr. Padgett expressed his reservations and pessimism regarding his editor(s) and Time’s management having the resolve and or willingness to run this ‘explosive’ story.

Project Expose MSM is an experimental project created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on the documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers. I encourage those of you with direct knowledge and experience to join this project by sharing your experiences. Please E-mail me with your report, following the format described in the introductory announcement.

Thanks for all the work you put into this, thread continues to be amazing
thanks; if ever theres anything anyone wants to know more about let me know
One thing that has been striking me is the constant underestimation of the importance of the illegal drug industry for "the economy". I think this might be due to the conflation of real (cash) money and credit/bank/monopoly money. As we know bank money isn't actually real money, and secondly the drug industry is a cash buisiness. So its interesting to compare the total cash flow of the drug industry with the total volume of currency in circulation, which would give a better estimate of the importance of the drug industry in propping up the global economic system.

There's about $1.2 trillion (1200 billion) dollars in circulation. I've seen figures for banks laundering $350 -500 billion of drug cash per year globally and that was 17 years ago; other estimates of $400 billion globally. some stupid back of an envelope guessing of a US drug market of $200 billion/year would be about 16.5% of all US dollars in circulation... these figures are bullshit, but basically its massive.

This is an extract from a bigger peice from April 2000: Thick as thieves by Christian de Brie in Le monde diplomatique; it owns

https://mondediplo.com/2000/04/05debrie#nb4 posted:

The annual profits from drug trafficking (cannabis, cocaine, heroin) are estimated at $300-500bn (not to mention the rapidly mushrooming synthetic drugs), that is 8% to 10% of world trade (4). Computer piracy has a turnover in excess of $200bn, counterfeit goods $100bn, European Community budget fraud $10-15bn, animal smuggling $20bn, etc. In all, and counting only activities with a transnational dimension, including the white slave trade, the world’s gross criminal product totals far above $1,000bn a year, nearly 20% of world trade.

Even allowing for overheads (production and suppliers, intermediaries and corruption, investment expenditure, management costs, losses from seizures and crackdowns) amounting to roughly 50% of turnover, that still leaves annual profits of $500bn. Over ten years that makes $5,000bn, more than three times the foreign currency reserves of all the central banks (5), one quarter of the capitalisation of the world’s top five stock markets and ten times that of Paris (6).

All that remains is for this fantastic wealth to be managed, impossible as it is to dispose of in small denomination notes (7). It is enough to set the world’s financial brains spinning. But these are the people whose help the criminal organisations need if they are to launder all this money and recycle it through legal channels. They are willing to pay the price, and they do. The cost is about one third, $150bn shared between banking networks and intermediaries: lawyers, brokers and trust managers. The upshot is that over $350bn are laundered and reinvested annually, that is $1bn a day.

No sector of activity comes anywhere near these figures and none can match that capacity, representing as it does between one half and two thirds of direct foreign investment (DFI) (8). Close watchers of the markets and of globalisation which they understand perfectly, the multinational criminal organisations have no time for savings banks. They go for the highest gains: hedge funds, inflating the bubble of financial speculation, emerging markets, property, new technologies. At the same time, they secure for themselves a solid return from the finest of industry and commerce. In permanent partnership with the transnationals in which they invest and the banks that manage their investments, they are the oil in the wheels of the extraordinary expansion of modern capitalism. And they still have enough money left over to maintain their lifestyle and help to fund and corrupt the political parties and leaders that are best placed to preserve the system that serves them so well.

That is precisely the service that the third partner, political power and bureaucracy, renders in exchange for the financial assistance that allows it to stay in place, to recover from every setback and to get richer in the process. It gives the illusion of a permanent struggle, constantly stepped up and internationally coordinated, by governments, police and judiciary against financial crime (bribery, trafficking, laundering) while not affecting the system’s operation. Changing everything so that everything stays the same.

wondering what proportion of US treasury bonds have been purchased using drug industry profits
This article says a marijuana black market of $46 billion last year. Humorouse obsevation that the legal weed market is growing exactly like the broadband internet market did - jajajajaja

On the Wachovia case, one of my favorite bits of absurdity

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35914759/ns/business-world_business/t/wachovia-settle-drug-money-laundering-case posted:

Wachovia to settle drug-money laundering case
Bank agrees to pay out $160 million, institute better prevention controls

By Curt Anderson, 17/03/2010

MIAMI — Banking giant Wachovia Corp. will pay $160 million to settle a federal investigation into laundering of illegal drug profits through Mexican exchange houses in the largest case of its kind ever brought against a U.S. bank, prosecutors said Wednesday.

"This is historic," acting U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman said. "There is no other case like this one anywhere."

The probe, which began in 2005 when a Drug Enforcement Administration narcotics dog in Florida detected cocaine traces in an airplane, ultimately uncovered at least $110 million in drug profits laundered from Mexico through Wachovia. The total settlement includes forfeiture in that amount plus a $50 million fine.

"DEA will follow drug money wherever it leads us," said Mark R. Trouville, chief of the DEA's Miami office.

The agreement means Wachovia and its executives will avoid criminal prosecution in return for the $160 million payment and significant improvements in its anti-money laundering program. If those and other conditions are met within one year, potential criminal charges for failure to maintain a system to detect money launderers will be dropped.

Wachovia, now a unit of San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co., said in a statement that Wells Fargo had already set aside money to pay the settlement. The statement said Wachovia, based in Charlotte, ended its relationships with foreign currency exchange houses in 2008.

"Wachovia Bank has fully cooperated with the federal government throughout the course of its investigation," the statement said.

The $160 million fine and forfeiture represents the biggest penalty ever imposed under the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires financial institutions to keep close tabs on suspicious transactions that could indicate money is being laundered from criminal enterprises. According to prosecutors, Wachovia's program was woefully inadequate and bank executives knew it, meaning that numerous red flags were missed over a three-year period.

In fact, officials said Wachovia had no way of checking some $420 billion in transactions from Mexican exchange houses for possible money-laundering activity. That means investigators didn't get potentially key information on drug cartels, terrorist financing networks and other organized crime enterprises.

"The integrity of our financial system is at stake," said Charles Steele, deputy director of the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. "It poses a very serious problem, a very serious threat for law enforcement."

Beginning with that DEA drug-sniffing dog in June 2005, investigators began tracing the source of money for airplanes being used to ferry cocaine in Colombia and Mexico that was ultimately destined for the U.S. Those initial money transfers were overseen by a Wachovia office in Miami.

Ultimately at least $13 million from the Mexican exchanges went through Wachovia for the purchase of aircraft, according to court documents. Four of them were seized by investigators, along with more than 22 tons of cocaine.

From there, investigators from the DEA, Internal Revenue Service and other agencies tracked billions of dollars in wire transfers, bulk cash shipments and other transactions from the Mexican exchanges through Wachovia. Many were considered suspicious, including such tactics as multiple round-number wire transfers on the same day for a single account; deposits of traveler's checks with sequential numbers that contain unusual markings; and bulk cash transfers up to 50 percent larger than a customer had led Wachovia to expect.

Under the agreement, Wells Fargo cannot use taxpayer money provided under the federal financial bailout program — known as TARP — to pay its fine and forfeiture amounts. A Wachovia spokewoman said Wells Fargo fully repaid its TARP money to the government in late 2009, before the money-laundering settlement was finalized.

If you're going to launder drug money, you damn well better pay for the privilege. They don't call the DEA an enforcement agency for nothing!!
i update ed the op with a contents list because i was begining to forget what i had posted

mediumpig posted:


Australian bank charged with failing to report $77m of suspicious transactions. What was broken was an "Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act", and so far it just seems like money laundering from drug trade in Australia/SEA but I'm hoping ISIS was funded somehow from this.

theres some good stuff from this, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-03/cba-risks-massive-fines-over-law-breaches/8770992

Extracts from Fedral COurt of Australia Filling, NSD1305/2017, chief executive officer of the australian transaction reports and analysis centre v. commonwealth bank of australia limited ACN 123 123 124

Updates on HSBC drug-money laudering

https://www.courthousenews.com/court-hides-monitors-hand-hsbc-drug-money-deal/ posted:

Court Hides Monitor’s Hand in HSBC Drug-Money Deal
July 12, 2017 ADAM KLASFELD

MANHATTAN (CN) — When HSBC paid $1.92 billion in 2012 to settle a civil case over money laundering for drug cartels, the fine was widely viewed as a slap on the wrist to avoid criminal prosecution.

HSBC’s compliance with the deferred prosecution agreement has remained under wraps, however, and will stay that way following a reversal Wednesday by the Second Circuit.

The bank had sought relief from the appeals court after a federal judge sided with mortgage holder Hubert Dean Moore Jr., who had been fighting to unveil a 1,000-page report compiled by a court-appointed monitor on HSBC’s reforms.

Even though the monitor’s report was filed in a court, the government argued that it did not qualify as a judicial document. The Second Circuit endorsed that view, prompting dismay from Levin Sullivan Koch & Schulz attorney David Schulz.

“Since the financial collapse in 2008, the use of these agreements has exploded,” Schulz said of deferred prosecution agreements. “They have become widely used have let corporations and their responsible officers off the hook for criminal violations, while creating a shadow system of Wall Street regulation by prosecutors operating with no oversight from the courts or expert bank regulators.”

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a Washington-based media advocacy group, had supported the effort to disclose the monitor’s report with a friend-of-the-court brief.

In a phone interview, the committee’s legal defense director Gregg Leslie expressed his disappointment in the ruling, but predicted that its fallout would be limited. Today’s precedent will apply only to monitor’s reports filed pursuant to deferred prosecution agreements.

“It’s a very bad decision for a very narrow class of documents,” Leslie said.

“It’s disturbing, but at least it’s limited to that class of cases,” Leslie added.

In the lower-court ruling that favored transparency last year, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson had called it “easy to imagine circumstances in which a deferred prosecution agreement, or the implementation of such an agreement, so transgresses the bounds of lawfulness or propriety as to warrant judicial intervention to protect the integrity of the court.”

The Second Circuit countered Thursday, however, that courts must presume the government’s good faith.

“We agree that it is not difficult to imagine such circumstances,” U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Katzmann wrote for a three-person panel. “But the problem with this reasoning is that it runs headlong into the presumption of regularity that federal courts are obliged to ascribe to prosecutorial conduct and decision-making.”

That presumption could change if a whistleblower shows malfeasance between the U.S. government and the megabank.

“To be sure, in its history, this nation has not been free of executive misconduct and abuse of power,” the 40-page ruling states. “And if misconduct in the implementation of a DPA came to a district court’s attention (for example, through a whistle-blower filing a letter with the court), the district court might very well be justified in invoking its supervisory power sua sponte to monitor the implementation of the DPA or to take other appropriate action.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch concurred, as did U.S. Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler, who penned a concurring opinion that calls for Congress to make the laws governing deferred prosecution agreements tougher.

Pooler said DPAs were crafted to keep flesh-and-blood defendants on pretrial probation but have become more helpful in recent years to corporations than to individual defendants. “Unlike individuals, corporations are not diverted into probation‐like programs supervised by paraprofessionals,” Pooler wrote. “Rather, they enter into negotiated agreements with prosecutors that set forth the facts to which the corporation admits and a remedy that typically includes both a fine and an agreement for the corporation to make structural changes.”

Partially defending the system, Pooler wrote: “Using DPAs in this manner is neither improper nor undesirable.”

“An indictment alone can deal a death blow to a corporation, with severe collateral consequences for blameless employees and shareholders,” she added. “As the law governing DPAs stands now, however, the prosecution exercises the core judicial functions of adjudicating guilt and imposing sentence with no meaningful oversight from the courts.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., sponsored legislation in 2014 called the Accountability in Deferred Prosecution Agreement that would have increased court oversight.

Pooler urged legislators to revisit that bill, or something like it.

Adding his voice to the chorus, Schulz seconded the call for legislative action.

“As Judge Pooler stressed in a separate opinion, Congress needs to address this unintended and unfortunate development,” the attorney said said.

As part of its 2012 DPA, HSBC admitted it had helped funnel at least $881 million in drug money, including from the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico and the Norte del Valle Cartel in Colombia.

The British bank also copped to violations of multiple U.S. laws and sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma, including the Bank Secrecy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act.

By one estimate, HSBC’s cash settlement for this conduct represented only five weeks of the bank’s income, and the deal kept its executives out of prison. Prosecutors justified the deal by pointing out that it included a consent decree forcing the bank to institute reforms and tighten internal controls.

and an earlier piece about the govt role in blocking the report

https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-help-shield-drug-money-bank-scrutiny/ posted:

Feds Help HSBC Block Scrutiny on Drug Money
ADAM KLASFELD March 2, 2017

MANHATTAN (CN) — The federal government’s current and former top legal muscle on Wednesday helped HSBC Bank try to avoid scrutiny of its compliance with a $1.92 billion money-laundering settlement for jaw-dropping misconduct involving drug cartels.

In 2012, HSBC entered into a five-year deferred prosecution agreement after admitting it had helped launder at least $881 million in drug money, including from the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico and the Norte del Valle Cartel in Colombia.

The British bank also broke multiple U.S. laws and sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma, racking up violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act.

The Department of Justice’s settlement was slammed as a slap on the wrist, showing stunning hypocrisy in the so-called war on drugs. Not a single HSBC executive faced jail, and what prosecutors touted as an historic fine constituted about five weeks income for the bank.

Early last year, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson granted a public records request by one mortgage-holder — Hubert Dean Moore Jr. — to shine light on a court-appointed monitor’s 1,000-page report on the bank’s compliance with the settlement.

Moore’s attorney laid the timeline bare in a brief to the Second Circuit. “The DPA at issue was agreed to by federal prosecutors after they caught HSBC assisting criminal drug cartels launder their profits and helping state sponsors of terrorism evade international sanctions on a massive scale,” wrote David Schulz of the firm Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz. “In exchange for admitting its misconduct and paying a fine, committing to future reforms, and accepting the oversight of a compliance monitor, HSBC was allowed to avoid a trial on the pending criminal charges; its executives avoided charges altogether.”

The British bank and U.S. prosecutors joined forces Wednesday to try to overturn the public records ruling, saying the report in question is not a “judicial document.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler noted that the government’s actions suggest otherwise.

“They could have done a private agreement with HSBC without holding out the stick of prosecution,” Pooler said. “So, didn’t the government make an affirmative choice to enter into the judicial system?”

After the case went before Judge Gleeson, Pooler noted: “The court said, quoting a famous turn, that it’s not a potted plant.”

“What is the court’s role once you get on the court’s docket?” she asked.

Department of Justice attorney Jenny Ellickson replied that a judge had “little to no role” in overseeing compliance with the settlement, likening it to plea discussions with a criminal.

Rejecting that analogy, Pooler said: “That makes sense when you’re dealing with an individual defendant, giving that defendant time to rehabilitate him- or herself, but here we’re dealing with a public institution. Doesn’t the public have any interest?”

Though the government insisted the report need be confidential to protect sources, and Gleeson granted the government’s requests to shield those sources, prosecutors wanted more categories of redactions than Gleeson allowed.

Poking a hole in the government’s secrecy argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch noted Wednesday that HSBC itself would receive a copy of that report.

HSBC attorney Paul Clement, a former solicitor general of the United States, argued that Gleeson’s decision to release the document rests on the assumption that the government is hiding unethical conduct about the bank’s compliance with the settlement.

“I can imagine that at least there’s a supervisory authority to make sure that there’s no fraud upon the court, but, boy, one would not want to assume that lightly,” Clement said. He added later: “The way the district court proceeded here was a very large cart before the horse.”

But Moore’s attorney Schulz said that prosecutors accused Gleeson of the very sin they were committing.

“The appellants in this case try to argue that this is judicial overreach into a realm that’s exclusively left to prosecutors, and the fact is, just the opposite is true,” Schulz said.

“What is going on here is not judicial overreach. It’s prosecutorial, executive branch overreach.”

In his legal brief, Schulz noted the wide public interest in the document’s disclosure.

“Disclosing the report serves the important interest of informing the public about any substantive reforms actually being made by HSBC, and is needed for meaningful analysis of the propriety of the government’s decision to enter into the DPA,” he wrote in the 67-page brief to the Second Circuit. “Access will reveal important information about the wisdom of the Justice Department’s decision to take the potential economic impact of a criminal prosecution of HSBC into account in deciding to proceed with a DPA {deferred prosecution agreement} instead.”

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and dozens of news outlets have filed friend-of-the-court briefs, keeping a close eye on the case.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Katzmann, the final member of the panel, concluded the hearing without a ruling.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The firm Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz represents Courthouse News reporter Adam Klasfeld pro bono in an unrelated Freedom of Information Act matter.

Every time the US invades another of the mysterious, jungled mystery-lands of the far Orient the powers that b come up with a new, suitably exotic "combat drug" so that amerikkkan journalist lackeys can write hundreds of bizarre, fear mongering articles about how ISIS fighters become cannibalistic and incredibly strong because of captagon, or like Russian dissidents are using their krokodile fueled combat rage to ravage the maiden Ukraine. They cooked this stuff up back in Vietnam too, easy to find tons of old articles about Ho Chi Minh's alleged fields of poppy. Anyway I think it's funny that the US public needs to envision enemy combatants as especially virulent versions of of the addicts that pigs beat up on C.O.P.S so that people won't humanize them too much. Even funnier when you think about the thorazine + amphetamine stuffed foie gras livers of amerikkkan vets.

Also I'm curious about the current state of combat drugs in the US army. Gotta still be in use but what cocktails, etc etc? Would be cool if anyone had any insight on this.
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
crosspost from the LSD-Mindcontrol thread

Act 1.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/11/prweb11372789.htm posted:

Brook Forest Voices (BFV), audiobook producer and publisher, has just completed “Stories from the Secret War: CIA Special Ops in Laos” written by Terrence M. Burke, a former CIA intelligence operations officer, recipient of the Agency’s Intelligence Star for Valor and former Deputy Director and Acting Director of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Narrated by Michael Pearl, “Stories from the Secret War” provides a riveting account of the events in the mountains of Laos before the actual start of the Vietnam War. In the early 1960s, Terrence Burke, along with a handful of fellow CIA paramilitary officers, led a secret war in the mountains of Laos against North Vietnamese and Lao Communist forces. Burke’s recollections include deadly hit and run missions against the North Vietnamese (who were purportedly not even in Laos), attempted rescues of downed pilots and the challenge of daily survival while far from American support.

Regarding his survival instincts Terry points out, “I had slept, as usual, in my fatigue jacket and trousers with my jungle boots on and laced. I pulled several bandoleers of ammunition over my shoulder, shoved grenades in my jacket pocket, and checked the .38 caliber Smith & Wesson that rested in the shoulder holster I had also worn while sleeping. There is something to be said for being paranoid when you are the lone CIA paramilitary officer behind enemy lines within a few miles of both the Chinese and North Vietnamese borders.” In fact,Terry proved such a nuisance that he was actually the target of a North Vietnamese kidnapping attempt.

When he reported back to the CIA headquarters at Langley, he was awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for Valor presented by then Agency Director Admiral Raborn and Deputy Richard Helms. At that time only 16 medals had been given out since the Agency’s inception in 1948 and the previous medal had been awarded to U-2 spy plane pilot, Gary Frances Powers, after his return from captivity in the Soviet Union. Terry currently resides in Durango, Colorado.


http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/03/opinion/03iht-edlarry.html posted:

During the Vietnam War, operations in Laos were largely a CIA responsibility. The agency's surrogate there was a Laotian general, Vang Pao, who commanded Military Region 2 in northern Laos. He enlisted 30,000 Hmong tribesmen in the service of the CIA.

These tribesmen continued to grow, as they had for generations, the opium poppy. Before long, someone - there were unproven allegations that it was a Mafia family from Florida - had established a heroin refining lab in Region Two. The lab's production was soon being ferried out on the planes of the CIA's front airline, Air America. A pair of BNDD agents tried to seize an Air America.

Act 2.

(Timothy Leary: A Biography By Robert Greenfield)

Abbott Laboratories r-r-roundup (its all crossposts from here on in)


http://web.archive.org/web/19991009005322/http://boston.com:80/globe/nation/packages/doing_harm/day3.htm posted:

Lure of riches fuels testing
'To wash people out from their medication, to take away at kind of treatment, that to me is inhumane.'

By Robert Whitaker, Globe Correspondent, 11/17/98

Third of four parts

During the first three weeks she spent in Fairview Riverside Hospital in Minneapolis, Susan Endersbe, a 41-year-old woman struggling with schizophrenia and suicidal impulses, obtained care and medication that made her feel much better.

Her mood lightened. By May 26, 1994, she was telling nurses that she felt she'd be ready to leave soon.

But the very next day, she was referred to psychiatrist Faruk Abuzzahab, an encounter that put her on a path that led to her death.

Abuzzahab, a past president of the Minnesota Psychiatric Society and onetime chairman of its ethics committee, had a contract with Abbott Laboratories to test the experimental antipsychotic drug Sertindole. What he earned has not been disclosed, but such contracts typically pay physicians much more than regular health insurance reimbursement, creating a powerful incentive to put patients into commercial research trials.

Endersbe's death offers a peek into the financial side of corporate-funded research of new drugs for the mentally ill. While the development of new antipsychotic drugs has brought new hope for schizophrenic patients and allowed many to live successfully in the community, the clinical testing of these medications is also big business, with the pursuit of money often in conflict with good patient care. The result, in schizophrenia research, is a landscape tarnished by the greed of some rogue investigators and repeated instances of patients being harmed.

''The abuses are there,'' said Dr. Morris Goldman, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Chicago School of Medicine, who investigated Abuzzahab's transgressions. ''A big part is the dollars involved. ''

There are ''people drawn into this field because they are interested in dollars,'' Goldman added. ''They are very profit-conscious. And that combination of a lot of money, plus the added ethical dilemma you face in human research, that is a bad combination. And there are particular risks with psychiatric patients, with the whole issue of informed consent. It can really go wrong.''

When Abuzzahab enrolled Endersbe into his drug trial, he later admitted to state investigators, he ignored study criteria that excluded patients who were suicidal. And as soon as she stopped taking the venlaxafine that had controlled her symptoms, she quickly worsened, state investigators reported.

Endersbe repeatedly told nurses that she intended to kill herself. Devils were now struggling for her mind, her brother said. Her complaints were recorded in nurses' notes, but Abuzzahab presented a rosy picture in his research records for Abbott. Endersbe was experiencing no side effects from the drug, he wrote, so he kept her in the trial.

For nearly two weeks, until June 8, Endersbe received no antipsychotic medication. Then, on June 11, when she had been on the experimental drug for three days, Abuzzahab granted her a day pass to leave the hospital unaccompanied. She went to her apartment to gather some keepsakes, slipped the key back under the door, and walked straight to the Franklin Avenue Bridge. Just as she had said she would, Endersbe clambered over the railing and leapt to her death in the Mississippi River.

''For nearly 20 years, my sister was managing to win the battle for her survival, and when she went on a drug study, there were supposed to be safeguards in place to protect her,'' said her brother, Edward Endersbe. ''Not only were they not in place, they neglected to have the usual safeguards that she would have had if she stayed on as an inpatient'' outside the drug trial.

''And to wash people out from their medication, to take away any kind of treatment, that to me is inhumane,'' he added. ''If they did that to someone with a physical illness, I would think it would be criminal.''


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/abbott-labs-pay-15-billion-resolve-criminal-civil-investigations-label-promotion-depakote posted:

Abbott Labs to Pay $1.5 Billion to Resolve Criminal & Civil Investigations of Off-label Promotion of Depakote
Company Maintained Specialized Sales Force to Market Drug for Off Label Purposes; Targeted Elderly Dementia Patients in Nursing Homes

Global Health Care Company Abbott Laboratories Inc. has pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Justice Department announced today. The resolution – the second largest payment by a drug company – includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling $700 million and civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling $800 million. Abbott also will be subject to court-supervised probation and reporting obligations for Abbott’s CEO and Board of Directors.

“Today’s settlement shows further evidence of our deep commitment to public health and our determination to hold accountable those who commit fraud,” said James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General. “We are resolute in stopping this type of activity and today’s settlement sends a strong message to other companies.”

The FDA is responsible for approving drugs as safe and effective for specified uses. Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a company in its application to the FDA must specify each intended use of a drug. A company’s promotional activities must be limited to only the intended uses that FDA approved. In fact, promotion by the manufacturer for other uses – known as “off-label” uses – renders the product misbranded.

Abbott has pleaded guilty to misbranding Depakote by promoting the drug to control agitation and aggression in elderly dementia patients and to treat schizophrenia when neither of these uses was FDA approved. In an agreed statement of facts filed in the criminal action, Abbott admits that from 1998 through 2006, the company maintained a specialized sales force trained to market Depakote in nursing homes for the control of agitation and aggression in elderly dementia patients, despite the absence of credible scientific evidence that Depakote was safe and effective for that use. In addition, from 2001 through 2006, the company marketed Depakote in combination with atypical antipsychotic drugs to treat schizophrenia, even after its clinical trials failed to demonstrate that adding Depakote was any more effective than an atypical antipsychotic alone for that use.


(The Speed Culture: Amphetamine Use and Abuse in America by Lester Grinspoon, Peter Hedblom)

linkin thread

You will all be on ketamine all the time, soon
hell yeah
Im predicting that LSD is gonna come back en vogue massively very suddenly by 2018/2019 and all these sexless celibate millennial will finally have grand epiphanies and start eventually procreating
cant wait for acid rap tbh
Acid rap came out like 4 years ago.
[account deactivated]

AZ_IZ_OT posted:

there are tons of libertarian technofascists who love acid and idgi.

it's because the drop out pastoral romanticist new age ethos are foundational principles of libertarian technofascism, not somehow opposed to them

[account deactivated]

AZ_IZ_OT posted:

Cuntessa_Markievicz posted:

I thought that was going to happen this year and lost a good deal of money because of it, but whatever, I’ll still buy some again by summer. LSD/psilocybin are the only things that reliably lift brain fog and depression for me, for about a month at a time. makes them personally valuable, but other people seem more interested in coke. if I’d put that acid money into coke I’d uh... be a coke dealer now I guess.

imo widespread use of hallucinogens would maybe make more people willing to start organizing and living in actual communal situations instead of just being salarymen with divergent political views. but really my highest aspiration in life is to live on a farm and smoke lots of weed. so this is definitely an idealist tangent and I’m projecting potential value onto others experiences of these drugs. there are tons of libertarian technofascists who love acid and idgi. usually when I trip I just end up thinking about that brutal live version of Money Is Flesh by Swans.

the last time a bunch of guys lived communally and did drugs it lead to like the manson family and some really annoying rock bands that beardy people still go mad over to this day

i mean i dont mind a bit of beardy commune rock myself sometimes but im not sure that lifestyle is likely to produce social or economic change