The “CIA trafficked cocaine” CT...

[Allen773]

I don’t get the rationale on this one. Why do some folks insist on believing that the CIA directly trafficked in cocaine?

After all, they certainly had drug traffickers on their payroll (Manuel Noriega being one infamous example), and obviously they funded people like the Contras and other anti-Communist paramilitary groups and corrupt governments in Latin America - many of whom also trafficked drugs. Considering the behavior of those groups and governments, that’s surely scandalous enough!

It’s like the CTs about the CIA supporting Osama bin Laden during the Soviet war Afghanistan - not only did that not happen (his money came from donors in the Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia obviously), but the CIA actually did fund hardline Afghan Islamists like Hektmayar (sp) and Haqqani - in large part because the pro-Islamist Pakistani intelligence was the coordinating agency for American and other countries’s funds (including the Saudis).

And not only did many of the Afghan mujahideen commanders the CIA funded via the ISI commit tons of war crimes (particular during the Afghan Civil War, when they WERE FIGHTING EACH OTHER as the CIA washed its hands of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal), but many of the same people, along with more recent (post-9/11) additions to the roster of US-backed Afghan warlords, have become major players in the Afghan opium drug trade. Again: scandalous enough!

Why make up horrible things that the CIA/US government and/or the individuals and groups they’ve supported over the decades - or indeed, invent direct connections that aren’t there (drug trafficking, Osama bin Laden) - when there are plenty of REAL horrible things that we can and should criticize them for?

Again: I don’t get it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

What is the specific claim? When, where, who and how? What is the evidence being offered?

 

[theprestige]

I always assumed that once a black ops agent reached a certain tier of deniability and/or freedom of action, they'd immediately get into whatever moneymaking schemes their skills and contacts allowed.

For me, it's not even a CT at this point. I take it for granted that at least one CIA agent totally secret-agented themselves into a drug smuggling operation, cashed out when the other shoe dropped, and retired to their own personal safe house.

Similarly:

"Of course I'm a major supplier to the black market in the USSR! How else do you think I earned the trust of my sources inside the regime? How else do you think I get the resources to help them out when things go wrong?"

 

[Axxman300]

Short answer is: No, the CIA did not directly engage in Cocaine trafficking.

The longer answer is: Over it's history, the CIA has made deals with the devil to achieve strategic goals as laid out by Congress and the White House. The CIA's use of private contractors (a condition forced upon them by the government via their budget) has meant that on occasion in the 1980s, planes that carried weapons shipments to anti-Communist guerrillas left those remote jungle airstrips with drugs. In Colombia, the CIA got right-wing paramilitary units together with the Cali Cartel to fight the Medellin Cartel - specifically Pablo Escobar, and in doing so created Los PePes. As part of the deal the Cali Cartel was left unmolested by the Colombian Search Bloc, and the DEA (neither were happy about this).

In Afghansitan, the think was to leave the Opium crop alone to curry favor with the locals, but in the end it just helped fund the Taliban.

Nobody at Langley ever said, "Hey, lets sell Coke!".

Selling Cocaine makes a lot of money, and hiding that money is a chore, which is mostly how we sniff out drug trafficking operations. The CIA already has a black budget, and they might have an off-the-books petty cash fund, the kind of money cocaine would bring in would be impossible to hide...because it is impossible to hide (unless you burn it).

Everyone needs a bogey man, and the CIA is the go-to villain.

 

[bknight]

Short answer is: No, the CIA did not directly engage in Cocaine trafficking.

The longer answer is: Over it's history, the CIA has made deals with the devil to achieve strategic goals as laid out by Congress and the White House. The CIA's use of private contractors (a condition forced upon them by the government via their budget) has meant that on occasion in the 1980s, planes that carried weapons shipments to anti-Communist guerrillas left those remote jungle airstrips with drugs. In Colombia, the CIA got right-wing paramilitary units together with the Cali Cartel to fight the Medellin Cartel - specifically Pablo Escobar, and in doing so created Los PePes. As part of the deal the Cali Cartel was left unmolested by the Colombian Search Bloc, and the DEA (neither were happy about this).

In Afghansitan, the think was to leave the Opium crop alone to curry favor with the locals, but in the end it just helped fund the Taliban.

Nobody at Langley ever said, "Hey, lets sell Coke!".

Selling Cocaine makes a lot of money, and hiding that money is a chore, which is mostly how we sniff out drug trafficking operations. The CIA already has a black budget, and they might have an off-the-books petty cash fund, the kind of money cocaine would bring in would be impossible to hide...because it is impossible to hide (unless you burn it).

Everyone needs a bogey man, and the CIA is the go-to villain.

Always because most of their activities are a secretive nature.

 

[smartcooky]

I don’t get the rationale on this one. Why do some folks insist on believing that the CIA directly trafficked in cocaine?

After all, they certainly had drug traffickers on their payroll (Manuel Noriega being one infamous example), and obviously they funded people like the Contras and other anti-Communist paramilitary groups and corrupt governments in Latin America - many of whom also trafficked drugs. Considering the behavior of those groups and governments, that’s surely scandalous enough!

It’s like the CTs about the CIA supporting Osama bin Laden during the Soviet war Afghanistan - not only did that not happen (his money came from donors in the Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia obviously), but the CIA actually did fund hardline Afghan Islamists like Hektmayar (sp) and Haqqani - in large part because the pro-Islamist Pakistani intelligence was the coordinating agency for American and other countries’s funds (including the Saudis).

And not only did many of the Afghan mujahideen commanders the CIA funded via the ISI commit tons of war crimes (particular during the Afghan Civil War, when they WERE FIGHTING EACH OTHER as the CIA washed its hands of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal), but many of the same people, along with more recent (post-9/11) additions to the roster of US-backed Afghan warlords, have become major players in the Afghan opium drug trade. Again: scandalous enough!

Why make up horrible things that the CIA/US government and/or the individuals and groups they’ve supported over the decades - or indeed, invent direct connections that aren’t there (drug trafficking, Osama bin Laden) - when there are plenty of REAL horrible things that we can and should criticize them for?

Again: I don’t get it.

This looks like a case where the actual truth is itself more damning than the conspiracy theory!

 

[Allen773]

This looks like a case where the actual truth is itself more damning than the conspiracy theory!

You don't say. So why then would people believe the conspiracy theories?

 

[smartcooky]

You don't say. So why then would people believe the conspiracy theories?

Beats me I'm afraid?

 

[Jimmy9]

I don’t get the rationale on this one. Why do some folks insist on believing that the CIA directly trafficked in cocaine?

After all, they certainly had drug traffickers on their payroll (Manuel Noriega being one infamous example), and obviously they funded people like the Contras and other anti-Communist paramilitary groups and corrupt governments in Latin America - many of whom also trafficked drugs. Considering the behavior of those groups and governments, that’s surely scandalous enough! It’s like the CTs about the CIA supporting Osama bin Laden during the Soviet war Afghanistan - not only did that not happen (his money came from donors in the Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia obviously), but the CIA actually did fund hardline Afghan Islamists like Hektmayar (sp) and Haqqani - in large part because the pro-Islamist Pakistani intelligence was the coordinating agency for American and other countries’s funds (including the Saudis). And not only did many of the Afghan mujahideen commanders the CIA funded via the ISI commit tons of war crimes (particular during the Afghan Civil War, when they WERE FIGHTING EACH OTHER as the CIA washed its hands of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal), but many of the same people, along with more recent (post-9/11) additions to the roster of US-backed Afghan warlords, have become major players in the Afghan opium drug trade. Again: scandalous enough!
Why make up horrible things that the CIA/US government and/or the individuals and groups they’ve supported over the decades - or indeed, invent direct connections that aren’t there (drug trafficking, Osama bin Laden) - when there are plenty of REAL horrible things that we can and should criticize them for?

Again: I don’t get it.

Theres your answer, I suppose.

 

[rambaldi]

You don't say. So why then would people believe the conspiracy theories?

The usual. It makes them feel better to "think" they possess some secret knowledge unlike the "sheep" who only know the open and obvious stuff.

 

[tinribmancer]

You don't say. So why then would people believe the conspiracy theories?

Because being paranoid is a Virtue, I think?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For me, it's not even a CT at this point. I take it for granted that at least one CIA agent totally secret-agented themselves into a drug smuggling operation, cashed out when the other shoe dropped, and retired to their own personal safe house.

But 'one CIA agent' isn't the CIA. I read that drug enforcement agents becoming drug smugglers themselves was a huge problem, and I don't doubt it - but that doesn't mean the DEA itself was involved in drug smuggling.

The CT isn't that just a few agents or even a whole office of them were trafficking drugs, but that 'the CIA' was doing it. Without evidence of it being CIA policy, this is just more made up ******** like all the other CTs. To be fair though, a phrase crafted for brevity is often imprecise, so "the CIA trafficked cocaine" may just be shorthand for "the CIA had drug traffickers on their payroll, and funded people like the Contras and other anti-Communist paramilitary groups and corrupt governments in Latin America - many of whom also trafficked drugs".

Why make up horrible things that the CIA/US government and/or the individuals and groups they’ve supported over the decades - or indeed, invent direct connections that aren’t there (drug trafficking, Osama bin Laden) - when there are plenty of REAL horrible things that we can and should criticize them for?

CTs are often an attempt to guess a hidden truth based on slim evidence and/or conjecture. Like putting a dollar on an outsider, this offers great rewards to the CTer if the guess is right, with little risk if it turns out to be false.

If there is plenty of real stuff going on then it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine even more stuff. But why do it? One reason could be that the REAL horrible things are not getting enough attention. When something turns from a CT into fact it often loses its impact, becoming mundane or even minimized and ignored. CTers hate that because they can no longer impress others with their great 'insight'.

 

[Axxman300]

More like this:

It's the mid-1980s, you're a CIA officer tasked with spinning up the Contras to fight the Sandanista movement, and maybe getting arms to right-wing militias fighting communist insurgents in South America.

Many of those counties governments don't want to be seen by their people as working with the Yankees, but they desperately need their help. Congress passes a few laws forbidding direct aid to your CIA project.

So...

You do your homework and learn that the Mexican and Columbian drug cartels are flying tons of their product into the US using a series of small airfields up and down Central America, and the Caribbean islands. You dicover that most of these airfields are protected by legitimate military forces of the local governments, most of which are receiving legitimate US military aid.

So...

You make a few discrete phone calls, and meet the right cartel people to work a deal. Then you meet with key commanders in those airfield countries, and work a deal. And the next thing you know those drug planes fly into an airstrip where their cargo is unloaded, and weapons are loaded onto them for their return trip. The weapons are funneled through those friendly governments so there is rarely an American present. The planes are not US planes, the weapons were paid for by Iran via Saudi Arabia and Israel, so your mission is accomplished. Those drugs were coming into the US anyway, but you got to kill communists - a fair trade off in the 1980s.

Your deal with the devil is that once in a while you call the cartels to let them know of any DEA/Local Government counter-narcotics operations. The cartels already have plenty of internal sources anyway, but that's the deal.

Summed up: The CIA used an existing drug smuggling network to move weapons.

 

[Allen773]

^^^^Good post!

 

[smartcooky]

^^^^Good post!

....and Axxman300's real name is Col. Oliver North

 

[Axxman300]

I'm taller than North.

Should underline that this activity was illegal and unethical. The point is that nobody at Langley convened a meeting wherein they laid out a plan to import cocaine into the US and elsewhere.

The CIA's involvement has been rumored long before it was (somewhat) confirmed, but nobody ever started a boycott of cocaine in protest. Blaming the CIA for victimizing people is easier than accepting responsibility for your own actions, and choices.

 

[Allen773]

I'm taller than North.

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/mefwAfuU28Ypy/giphy.gif[/qimg]

Should underline that this activity was illegal and unethical. The point is that nobody at Langley convened a meeting wherein they laid out a plan to import cocaine into the US and elsewhere.

The CIA's involvement has been rumored long before it was (somewhat) confirmed, but nobody ever started a boycott of cocaine in protest. Blaming the CIA for victimizing people is easier than accepting responsibility for your own actions, and choices.

If you wanna hang out, you gotta take her out...