CIA and drugs

[TimeTraveler]

Question: Does anyone know anything about the CIA and the drug connection?

[TimeTraveler]

Here is some information I found about it.

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/index.html

[Aardvark]

Question: Does anyone know anything about the CIA and the drug connection?

 

I'd like to call you a paranoid whacko.

 

But i think i'm developing symptoms of paranoia as well.

[ecoli]

Research the Iran-Contra scandal of the 80's.

[TimeTraveler]

I'd like to call you a paranoid whacko.

 

But i think i'm developing symptoms of paranoia as well.

 

I know. At first when I heard about this I said the same thing. But after taking the time to read through this guys work' date=' lets just say, I am convinced.

 

Michael C. Ruppert, who is the owner of From the Wilderness publications, is someone who knows what he is talking about when it comes to drug trafficking. About Michael C. Ruppert

 

I have not read through all of the information on his site, but something I have read really caught my attention.

 

Article: Bill Casey Classified Letter Admits CIA and Drugs

 

You will probably have to enlarge these:

 

Page 1

 

Page 2

 

Page 3

 

Also I read in his book Crossing the Rubicon that $500-600 billion dollars in drug money flows through the US economy per year.

 

How much are we paying the CIA per year for the War on Drugs, well it appears we are throwing the fight.

[ecoli]

Here's a site that may help you

 

http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/contracoke.html

[Phi for All]

Now I'm paranoid as well.

 

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the amount of land (in hectares) devoted to opium (heroin) production in Afghanistan in 2000 was aprox. 82,000. In 2001, the Taliban burned most of the poppy fields and declared war on the opium trade since they are fundamentalists and drugs are not permitted by Islamic law. The land devoted to opium growth plummeted to less than 8000 hectares. The US invaded in November 2001 (opium planting season) and by 2002 the amount of opium land jumped to 74,000 hectares.

 

Shouldn't the US military have been a bit more anti-drug minded? I guess not since the figures jumped to 80,000 hectares in 2003 and a whopping 131,000 hectares in 2004. Drug money laundering, it turns out, is a trillion-dollar business worldwide.

 

UNODC Afghanistan Poppy Fields Report 2004

[Pangloss]

They weren't there for drug interdiction. That's like asking why we couldn't set up a permanent moon base while we were there in 1969. Sure you could have the soldiers run around and burn some poppey fields, but what difference is that going to make after they leave the area?

 

There are only three things that will stop the opium trade in Afghanistan:

1) The use of a permanent, established, resident force (what the Taliban did)

2) Build a socio-economic structure that offers better alternatives

3) Stop the demand for opium

[Phi for All]

Freeing all those former opium warlords to help us fight the Taliban and find Bin Laden turned out to be a pretty smart move then I guess.

 

Sorry, cynical mood today.

[husmusen]

Freeing all those former opium warlords to help us fight the Taliban and find Bin Laden turned out to be a pretty smart move then I guess.

 

But what do you suppose the odds are that all the Americans who

will die from overdoses as a direct consequence of this wont be

counted as casualties of the war? Not to mention those of other

nationalities.

 

The 'rehabilitation' of the N.A. would be funny if it wasm't for real.

While I hold no cards for the Taliban, the N.A. are a bunch of thugs

and IIRC were such a pain, that several villages welcomed the taliban

because they were sick of all their women and girls getting raped all

the time. Welcoming the Taliban, that speaks volumes.

 

I actually heard the N.A. refered to as "Noble freedom fighters fighting for

their countries future." on the commercial news once, nearly made me puke.

[husmusen]

Oh since we are no doubt aware that the CIA shipped drugs in several wars

previously, such that this is a repeated behaviour, can anyone demonstrate

anything that has changed in the organisation that would prevent this from happeneing again? Especially with all that temptation lying around in

Afghanistan?

 

Cheers.

[Pangloss]

Nope.

 

But let's be fair -- either Americans die from an overdose because of "personal choice" or they die of an overdose because of the war -- not both. If it's the latter, then they were forced to use those drugs and had no choice whatsoever, in which case drugs are wrong and need to be stopped. (That seems a little ridiculous to me, but at least it would be consistent.) OTOH, if it's a personal choice, then the source is irrelevent to the cause of death.

[budullewraagh]

has anybody realized that the war on drugs is completely futile?

 

production doesnt matter; if there is ever a supply shortage, normal people will set up labs. it's very easy to produce many drugs, namely amphetamines, lysergic acid and its derivitives and various alkaloids.

 

so yes, if you catch a few bees, some more will come about. it's such a profitable business that there will be dealers to replace the dead/imprisoned ones.

 

meanwhile, people die not so much because of the drugs, but generally because of impurities and contaminants.

 

so, is it a better idea to sell illegal drugs otc?

[Pangloss]

Spoken like a true capitalist!

[budullewraagh]

ah, you got me there. well done

[Phi for All]

They'll never be made legal, because it's not only the drugs that are profitable, it's laundering the hundreds of billions annually in drug money as well. Many US banks have been caught, but realistically, if they keep books like Enron did, the paper trail is a labyrinth.

 

What better way to capitalize any business than with the cheapest money there is! How's that for "pop"?

[Phi for All]

The War on Drugs is the perfect way to keep them illegal. It can never be won, which keeps ongoing efforts escalating. More drugs available illegally means more money changes hands to be skimmed without official records, more prisons need to be built, more law enforcement hired, more research funded by taxpayers, more congressional junkets overseas, more political clout by being seen as hard on drug use, and on and on.

 

And playing the religious angle insures its longevity.

[budullewraagh]

very insightful.

 

i am completely sure that drug production is currently enough to fit the demand without driving prices absurdly low. there is by no means a shortage, and never can or will be one.

[LoneStranger]

They'll never be made legal' date=' because it's not only the drugs that are profitable, it's laundering the hundreds of billions annually in drug money as well. Many US banks have been caught, but realistically, if they keep books like Enron did, the paper trail is a labyrinth.

 

What better way to capitalize any business than with the cheapest money there is! How's that for "pop"?[/quote']

 

 

Many US banks were caught laundering drug money?

 

Which banks were those?

[Phi for All]

Many US banks were caught laundering drug money?

 

Which banks were those?

Here's one, syntax. Citibank. I'll look up the Chase Manhattan and BankAmerica links later.

http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/citibank0930.php

[LoneStranger]

Here's one' date=' syntax. Citibank. I'll look up the Chase Manhattan and BankAmerica links later.

http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/citibank0930.php[/quote']

 

I guess I missed the part where it reported that there had been a trial and this bank was found guilty of laundering drug money in a US court.

 

Until then, wouldn't it be an allegation rather than a fact?

 

Or is this a "strawman?"

 

Edited:

 

By the way---Workers of the World? Is this some kind of Communust publication?

[Pangloss]

Lol, is that you Syntax?

 

Yes, if you're saying that there's no evidence of a government drug war conspiracy because you see no evidence that any bank has been convicted of laundering, that would be a straw man fallacy, because the bank conviction issue is peripheral to the main point. The polite thing to do would be to say something along the lines of "well I'd like to see evidence of those alleged banking convictions, but let me get back to your main point..." and proceed to refute him on substance from there.

 

Personally I would just call it "nit picking", but either way I'm left at a loss for what your (LongStranger's) point is at the moment. I don't happen to agree with Phi's conspriatorial leanings, but I don't see any eggregious wrongs in his statements that need addressing (much less sniping about). He's just expressing his opinion. (shrug)

[TimeTraveler]

The war on drugs really doesn't exist. The 700 or so billion dollars of drug money that flows through our country is vital to our economy. Originally the CIA probably only had intentions of hurting the black communities back in the day, but they created a monster and instead of slowly killing it they keep feeding it because it helps keep our economy strong. I mean who cares about kids ODing or so many addicted to drugs, I mean at least we still have the most important thing..... money. /Sarcasm off

 

Just another case and point on how the poor and middle class suffer to keep the upper class strong, with the coordination of the government of course.

 

/Ducks the flame fest that is incoming.

[Phi for All]

I guess I missed the part where it reported that there had been a trial and this bank was found guilty of laundering drug money in a US court.

I guess I missed the part where I said there was a conviction in a US court. I said they were caught for laundering drug money, in this case by the Financial Services Agency. Several offices were shut down.

Or is this a "strawman?"

Now you're catching on. You're adding a misleading vividness to my argument and refuting that as opposed to refuting my original argument.

By the way---Workers of the World? Is this some kind of Communust publication?

Why, does that make them liars? Does their state-control bias make what they print unworthy of reading?

 

Careful now, this one comes from BlackElectorate.com, but I made sure it included a clip from a Reuters news story (you trust Reuters' integrity, don't you?) about the Senate Investigations subcommittee's year-long probe where they found that "U.S. banks' complacency and lax controls of so-called correspondent accounts provided a significant gateway for money launderers to move their ill-gotten gains into the U.S. financial system."

 

Among those criticized were Citigroup, Bank of America, First Union, and Chase Manhattan.

http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=310

 

I'm somewhere between Pangloss and TimeTraveler on this issue. I'm not into the Illuminati conspiracies, nor do I beleive the government is coordinating efforts to oppress the middle class. But I definitely believe people who deal in billions of dollars annually will see very little as being beneath them when it comes to keeping the $ flowing.

[zenx]

Funny how there's a huge war on SOME drugs, while other drugs are perfectly legal to buy, and take! (ie. Alcohol, Nicotine {Ciagrettes})

 

The problem with drugs is not that they are inherently evil, and from Satan (1930's anti-marijuana and heroin campaign anyone?), but that there is a lot of dodgy business and dodgy product out there.

Funnily enough, it is people who have created a drug problem, not the drug itself!

The drug subculture, based around dealers, gangs, swindling, dodgy business, corrupt authorities and products filled with all kinds of impurities is the problem.

Funnily enough it proves something - capitalism doesn't work! Business overrides ethics, money overrides quality of product and corruption runs free.

 

I believe that Marijuana should be legalized, and that a better education system be in place about Marijuana, the history behind it and all the scandal it has suffered, the warnings about it, and what good it does for some health conditions.

I don't know too much about many of the other drugs, but i do know that marijuana is realtively harmless in comparison with many other illicit drugs, and does less damage than alcohol, and is not physically addictive like tobacco products.

The reasons for its prohibition in the first place were for all the wrong reasons, and these reasons should be looked at when thinking of new marijuana legislation.