10 Years Ago: Contra/CIA/Cocaine hit, buried by MSM

TEN YEARS AGO today, one of the most controversial news articles of the 1990s quietly appeared on the front page of the San Jose Mercury News. Titled "Dark Alliance," the headline ran beneath the provocative image of a man smoking crack — superimposed on the official seal of the CIA.

The three-part series by reporter Gary Webb linked the CIA and Nicaragua's Contras to the crack cocaine epidemic that ripped through South Los Angeles in the 1980s. Most of the nation's elite newspapers at first ignored the story. A public uproar, especially among urban African Americans, forced them to respond. What followed was one of the most bizarre, unseemly and ultimately tragic scandals in the annals of American journalism, one in which top news organizations closed ranks to debunk claims Webb never made, ridicule assertions that turned out to be true and ignore corroborating evidence when it came to light. The whole shameful cycle was repeated when Webb committed suicide in December 2004.

Many reporters besides Webb had sought to uncover the rumored connection between the CIA's anti-communism efforts in Central America and drug trafficking. "Dark Alliance" documented the first solid link between the agency and drug deals inside the U.S. by profiling the relationship between two Nicaraguan Contra sympathizers and narcotics suppliers, Danilo Blandon and Norwin Meneses, and L.A.'s biggest crack dealer, "Freeway" Ricky Ross.

Two years before Webb's series, the Los Angeles Times estimated that at its peak, Ross' "coast-to-coast conglomerate" was selling half a million crack rocks per day. "f there was one outlaw capitalist most responsible for flooding Los Angeles' streets with mass-marketed cocaine," the article stated, "his name was 'Freeway' Rick."

Snip

All three major U.S. dailies, The Times included, debunked a claim that Webb actually never made — that the CIA deliberately unleashed the crack epidemic on black America. The controversy over this non-assertion obscured Webb's substantive points about the CIA knowingly doing business south of the border with Nicaraguans involved in the drug trade up north.


Snip

Great read. A very dark day in journalism.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-schou18aug18,0,2765183.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

for over 10 years, but was dismissed by all in the media as "conspiracy"

funny how things that far out turn out to be true, and the things people believe to be true turn out to be lies, aint it?

They weren't.

(of those who are familiar with the story).

After all, "most people" do believe in a certain other conspiracy: the official reason cited for the production of "JFK - beyond conspiracy" was that at the time (1990's) "most people" (70% of Americans) still believed the government was involved in that assassination. I don't think the docu did much to change peoples minds.

I think the corporate MSM portray public opinion as though people do not believe in such conspiracies.

The CIA-cocaine story that Gary Webb (and John Kerry) uncovered was one of the most sensational in Amerian history., The fact that it was so completely and universally covered up by all the MSM is by itself ample proof that big media is not -- and never has been -- on the side of truth, justice or accountability.

Telling the story cost Gary Webb his career, his future, his familiy, his hope and, eventually, his will to live. Sure, the RW was largely responsible for that. But MORE responsible are the major news outlets which, instead of broadasting Gary's well-documented blockbuster of a story, covered it up and ostracized him.

I'll say it again: America's modern, mainstream, corporate media are a bigger enemy of freedom than the repuglicats are. Until there truly IS a 'liberal' (read, honest) media, we have TWO fights on our hands.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Gary's story was so easy to discredit at the time because the MSM never bothered to differentiate between complicit and complacent (by design?). He was clear, but the MSM spun the machine and destroyed his career, and finally his life.

So, for the record, let me just say this right now. I do not believe--and I have never believed--that the crack-cocaine explosion was a conscious CIA conspiracy, or anybody’s conspiracy, to decimate black America. I’ve never believed that South Central Los Angeles was targeted by the U.S. government to become the crack capital of the world. But that isn’t to say that the CIA’s hands or the U.S. government’s hands are clean in this matter. Actually, far from it. After spending three years of my life looking into this, I am more convinced than ever that the U.S. government’s responsibility for the drug problems in South Central Los Angeles and other inner cities is greater than I ever wrote in the newspaper.

But it’s important to differentiate between malign intent and gross negligence. And that’s an important distinction, because it’s what makes premeditated murder different from manslaughter. That said, it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve got a body on the floor, and that’s what I want to talk about tonight, the body.

What I’ve attempted to demonstrate in my book was how the collapse of a brutal, pro-American dictatorship in Latin America, combined with a decision by corrupt CIA agents to raise money for a resistance movement by any means necessary, led to the formation of the nation’s first major crack market in South Central Los Angeles, which led to the arming and the empowerment of L.A.’s street gangs, which led to the spread of crack to black neighborhoods across the country and to the passage of racially discriminatory sentencing laws that are locking up thousands of young black men today behind bars for most of their lives.

But it’s not so much a conspiracy as a chain reaction. And that’s what the (San Jose Mercury News) series and my whole book Dark Alliance is about, this chain reaction. ...

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A32816

while i take issue with imprisoning people in general for merely being drug USERS... (iow, i am largely against the war on drugs)...

regarding the so-called discriminatory laws that give harsher sentences to crack cocaine dealers/users vs. powder cocaine...

as i as sure you are aware, among the most ardent supporters of harsher penalties for crack cocaine WERE blacks in the very neighborhoods that were most victimized by crack cocaine dealing associated violent crime. these were neighborhoods that saw in excess of 500% (even 1000% in some areas) increase in violent crime, LARGELY associated with violent crack cocaine wars. we did not see violent crime of this magnitude with the dealing of ANY other drug, to include - powder cocaine (cocaine hydrochloride), ecstacy, marijuana, heroin, etc. (but meth was pretty bad and see my below comments. although the meth explosion apart from the earlier biker gang stuff happened in the 90's not the 80's)

while blacks were disproportionately imprisoned for harsh crack cocaine laws, it is ALSO true that the victims of crack associated crime were ALSO disproportionately black. that is why much of the community outrage and push for HARSHER crack cocaine penalties CAME from black communities.

it is true that crack cocaine (dealing especially) was disproportionately associated with young black males. so, in that effect these laws were "discriminatory" in effect

but otoh, many crimes are disproportionately associated with various ethnicities, genders, races, etc.

one could make the argument that social security is similarly "discriminatory" since black males, moreso than white males, white females, etc. pay a far greater %age into the system than they get out of it (since they tend to die younger, among many other factors)

similarly, almost all violent crime laws are "discriminatory" (in effect) against men, since men commit far more violent crimes

violent crime laws are thus similarly "discriminatory" in effect on an

1) age basis (16-30 yr olds commit more violent crime than other age groups
2) gender basis (males far moreso than females)
3) racial basis (blacks commit more violent crimes per capita than whites or asians)

etc.

but my point is that the push for stronger sentencing came very strongly FROM the black community. only a tiny %age of blacks were involved in dealing crack. but a MUCH larger %age were victimized by it. and the community recognized this, and that is why they pushed for harsher penalties.

a comparison could be made to methamphetamine vs. ecstacy, both of which are forms of amphetamine (ecstacy is 3,4 methyldioxymethamphetamine iirc). the former is CLEARLY associated with FAR more violent crime, and property crime, and thus clearly justify harsher sentences for dealing (like i said, i am generally against the drug war in general, but GIVEN the fact we are in a drug war..) meth than dealing ecstacy. this "discriminates" against poorer whites vs. middle-upper class whites and blacks for that matter, since anybody even remotely familiar with the meth trade knows that it is by far disproportionately lower class white males. i've been to dozens of meth labs and have never even SEEN a black or asian at ANY meth lab (not to say it doesn't happen, but its pretty rare), and meth appeals to lower income producers, since it is so easy and cheap to get ingredients (see: beavis and butthead labs). conversely, we see ecstacy usage far more among wealthier people.

i am just trying to draw a distinction between laws that happen to have "discriminatory" effects (iow they disproportionately affect one gender, or certain ethnic/racial groups) vs. laws which are discriminatory in INTENT as regards gender or race.

I don't disagree with your words and thoughts as they have merit and possibly deserve their own thread, but the the OP deals with the The CIA-Contra-Crack Connection that Gary courageously uncovered and exposed at his own peril.

<snip>

History will tell if Webb receives the credit he's due for prodding the CIA to acknowledge its shameful collaboration with drug dealers. Meanwhile, the journalistic establishment is only beginning to recognize that the controversy over "Dark Alliance" had more to do with poor editing than bad reporting.

"In some ways, Gary got too much blame," said L.A. Times Managing Editor Leo Wolinsky. "He did exactly what you expect from a great investigative reporter."

Nick Schou's book, "Kill the Messenger: How the CIA's Crack-Cocaine Controversy Destroyed Journalist Gary Webb," will be published in October and might be worthy of a look-see.

i don't agree or disagree with the validity of the whole CIA connection thang. I am admittedly not informed enough on that topic to form an opinion as to what involvement, if any, they had. So, i remain position neutral on that.

My point was just to clarify an issue regarding the allegedly discriminatory crack cocaine sentencing laws, since it was mentioned by the OP

It wasn't targetted specifically against blacks.
It was targetted against the entire population.
The same forces that are behind bringing in.
are the same forces the run the legal system, property confiscations, And prisons(especially the private subcontracted ones).

they protected BushInc by letting this story drop and probably helped influence the other newspapers to write articles AGAINST Webb's findings.

The only Senator who stood with Webb was Kerry - after BCCI, he knew damn well that the charges were true. Clinton and Gore knew they were true, too - why did they side with protecting BushInc?

EDIT: Getting the NOTE's negative correctly expressed.
(NOTE: I am decidedly not controlled-demolition version of MIHOP. Invite me by PM, I'll gladly argue that elsewhere.)

LIHOPers find ourselves listening to pundits --- debunking a claim that WE actually never made. Like Gary Webb, we cannot argue for nor argue against a point we did not make, leaving the public with the impression that MIHOP is the one and only theory; a theory the swing-voting little-connected public sees as too big of a lie, easily debunked, easily ignored, easily forgotten. Easily, easily, easily, like Gary's story applied to him that it was on purpose, but that being a story that was never his.

Same players. Dark CIA. The ones Senator Church missed.

And when all is said and done, the results are the same, no?

that the central hub for cocaine entrance into the USA (until 1/20/1993) was through Arkansas?

The republicans have been messing up America since Nixon: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/64

FDR forstalled a big chunk of the crap for a long time.

... to get it more attention. Both happened about the same time!

They'd buried it for a decade prior to that, too.

PArt of which consisted of someone going office to office and asking

Do you have any proof that the CIA instigated the crack cocaine epidemic?
Do you think we would do something like that?

and on to the next office.

I remember reading that I guess about 10 years ago and the writer commented that that raised more questions than existed before they did their little investigation.

Oh if you were wondering, about 100% of the CIA employees polled answered NO to both questions on the survey.

It was a typical tactic: refute the wildest accusations, while not addressing wider, more plausible charges.

Most people know there was some squaking about the Contras and drugs, but the accusations never went anyplace. Those people never listened to nor read the testimony of Special Councel Jack A. Blum to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Drug Trafficking and the Contra War:
(Emphasis below mine -- JHB)


------------------------
We found no evidence to suggest that people at the highest level of the United States government adopted a policy of supporting the Contras by encouraging drug sales. For the most part the Contras on the ground were forgotten men, short on both supplies and money. The drug trafficking some Contras engaged in went to line their pockets not to help their political cause. In one case Jorge Morales, a drug trafficker, gave money to the Southern front Contras. They knew that the money was drug money and had no qualms about taking it. On another occasion an emissary for the drug cartel offered the United States government $10,000,000 for the Contras in exchange for amnesty for the Colombian traffickers. The approach, which we investigated to the best of our ability, was turned down. There was, however, plenty of evidence that policy makers closed their eyes to the criminal behavior of some of America's allies and supporters in the Contra war. The policy makers ignored their drug dealing, their stealing, their human rights violations. The policy makers allowed them to compensate themselves for helping us by remaining silent in the face of their impropriety and by quietly undercutting the law enforcement and human right agencies that might have caused them difficulty.

In short, what you say about drugs and the Contras depends totally on the question. If the question is did the CIA sell crack in the inner city to support the contra war, the answer is a categorical no. If you ask whether the United States government ignored the drug problem and subverted law enforcement to prevent embarrassment and to reward our allies in the Contra war, the answer is yes.

We were aware of the Contra connection to the West Coast cocaine trade. When we tried to pursue the investigation, the Justice Department Criminal Division, then headed by Bill Weld, fought giving us access to essential records and to witnesses in government custody. I remember a telephone conversation in which the United States Attorney for Northern California shouted at us and accused us of being subversive for wanting the information. The Blandon-Meneses ring was just part of a larger picture. It was not the sole or even the most import source of cocaine in Los Angeles. I might add that the Justice Department did everything possible to block our investigation. It moved prisoners to make them inaccessable, instructed Justice employees not to talk to us, punished an assistant U.S. Attorney for passing information to the Subcommittee. Since Gary Webb's stories in the San Jose Mercury many people have asked why they never heard about our investigation. The reason is that we were the target of a systematic campaign to discredit our witnesses and the quality of our work. Justice Department officials called the press that covered our hearings and told them our witnesses were lying. The White House staff described our work as a "politically motivated attack." Once we were attacked the press treated the conclusions with caution and downplayed the testimony of our witnesses. Our findings raised issues that needed extensive public discussion. The involvement of the covert operations side of the intelligence community with drug traffickers and criminals is a longstanding problem. The willingness of the foreign policy establishment to subordinate every other priority in international relations to the crusade against Communism was also a longstanding problem. We have lived through a period during which priorities were set on an ideological basis that verged on religious belief rather than on a genuine assessment of threat. During the same period covert actions were taken with an eye to short terms results without regard to long term consequences. We must never let that kind of ideological blindness and short term vision infect intelligence assessments again. During the 1980's, I could count in the hundreds the number of dead from drug overdoses and drug wars on the streets of American cities. I could not find a report of a single death in the United States linked to hostile action by a Sandinista. During that period I often joked that if the packages of cocaine had been marked with a hammer and sickle the drug problem would have been the top priority and might have been solved.

---------------------------
Full text can be found in various places, but I used the copy here:
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/ciacont2.html

Todays CIA is nothing more than a political tool, same as the FBI. Abused tools IMO.

McCoy's book The Politics of Heroin ended up being persecuted by none other than Cord Meyer.

The CIA, Drugs, and the National Press
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/crack5.html

""So, in June 1972, with the book in galleys, the CIA went on the offensive against McCoy's publisher, Harper & Row. The CIA dispatched one of its top officials, Cord Meyer Jr., to visit his old social friend, Cass Canfield Sr., Harper's owner. The CIA wanted to review the manuscript prior to publication and Harper's executives were amenable, McCoy discovered. ""

Review, and bury.

McCoy's finally did get his book into circulation and now it has an even more hard hitting subtitle. "CIA Complicity In The Global Drug Trade"

http://www.gnn.tv/videos/video.php?id=30