WAR ON DRUGS or is it a WAR ON US???

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Its good to look back and see this slow burn in action!!


THE POLICE STATE IN REVIEW, 2013


While some would have you believe the biggest stories of 2013 were about twerking celebrities and over-hyped real-life courtroom sagas, much bigger events were happening with far more lasting national significance. The foundation of an American police state is already laid and coming into full bloom, while most of the country remains blissfully focused on sports, reality shows, establishment pseudo-news, and other distractions.

While all of the injustices that took place in 2013 would require an encyclopedia to cover adequately, this list is designed to illustrate certain trends and significant stories from the past year. If Americans don’t fix their apathy and disengagement toward causes that matter, we can expect these trends to continue toward their logical conclusions: an increasingly repressive police state dominating the lives people inside these borders and beyond.

CHECKPOINTS, WARRANTLESS SEARCHES BECOME A WAY OF LIFE

(Source: AP/The Sacramento Bee, Randall Benton)

The state of the 4th amendment is in truly bad shape, given the prevalence of warrantless checkpoints and warrantless bag searches being used all around the country for various reasons. No longer restricted to airport terminals, the unconstitutional tactics are now being used in subways, bus stations, on bridges, at parades, and anywhere else the government can get away with them. This is facilitated by the palpable fear of terrorism and with financial incentives from the federal government.

In what was dubbed “Operation Independence,” the federal government along with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department staged a high-visibility terror drill in the LA subway this July. Deputies dressed in paramilitary garbteamed up with agents from the TSA and DHS to require travelers to open up their bags and prove their innocence before being allowed to commute. These tactics have sadly become commonplace in many major cities.

Security measures at major events have gotten increasingly invasive. At the annual ‘Mackinac Bridge Walk’ in St. Ignace, Michigan, up to 40,000 walkers were subjected to warrantless bag searches in the interest of event security. In Chicago, warrantless bag searches were performed on public sidewalks during a celebratory parade for the Blackhawks’ hockey championship, and were again performed along the 26-mile track of the Chicago Marathon. A famous parade in Pasadena, California, is used as an excuse to search the interiors of hundreds of vehicles who wish to park on public streets.

The “stop and frisk” phenomenon was alive and well in 2013. The appalling practice involves police stopping pedestrians, usually pushing them up against a wall and then patting them down, searching their pockets, and opening up their purses and bags. The practice has been notorious in New York City, which not only has aggressive enforcement on the streets but also allows cops to roam around inside private apartment buildings and search tenants. Stop and frisk is also work in Philadelphia, Detroit, northwest Indiana, and other areas.

Sobriety checkpoints have been around a long time, but are increasing in offensiveness. Checks for sobriety have turned into opportunities to search people’s vehicles. People are sometimes being forced off the roads into parking lots and sniffed with dogs in order to be permitted to continue driving down public streets. Some sobriety checkpoints are being dubbed “no refusal” because anyone who refuses to prove their innocence through a breath test will be strapped down to a table and have their blood forcibly taken from them. New saliva swab analyzers now allows police to detect and arrest people based on on them having things like marijuana and prescription drugs in their systems while driving.

Not to be outdone by local cops, the federal government is setting up checkpoints in reportedly 60 communities to take blood and saliva samples from drivers in a multi-million dollar “survey.”

The reasons for warrantless searches is only limited by the imaginations of the police. There are now regular license and vehicle inspection checkpoints, fruit possession checkpoints, firework possession checkpoints, tampon possession searches, searches for canned beverages, roadside smog checkpoints, and more.

DOD PROGRAM 1033 MILITARIZING LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS

MRAP vehicles

Those who are paying attention are seeing the constant notices of military equipment from overseas war-zones being dispersed to domestic police departments. These giveaways are usually in the form of armored vehicles (as far as the public knows). This is all made possible by the Defense Department’s Program 1033. In place since 1997, the program allows the DOD to give away the equipment — often free of charge — to local police departments who apply for the equipment grants.

This year has been the year of the MRAP, or Mine Resistant Armor Protected vehicle. For the first time these fighting vehicles, costing an upwards of $600,000 each, are being sent out to American cops, and in rapid fashion. The hulking trucks, which come with armor plating, gun ports, bullet-proof glass, and a gun turret on top, end up being used on SWAT raids in residential America.

The program dispersed more than half a billion dollars worth of equipment in 2012, and 2013 is expected to keep that pace, if not exceed it. There is no oversight over Program 1033 and the Department of Defense has never been audited, meaning there is overwhelming room for fraud and abuse. The U.S. taxpayers have been burdened with purchasing this equipment and now it is being given away without compensation; without auction. And no one really knows the full scope of the project.

One does not have to look far for examples of local departments becoming militarized. MRAP acquisitions have taken place in every state, the latest including Alabama, Indiana, Texas, Idaho, California, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, and Nevada.

To understand the implications of what a militarized police force is capable of, consider the extravagant anti-terror drill performed by LAPD this year at the National Homeland Security Association’s conference in June. Gunfire echoed through downtown Los Angeles, bombs exploded, and helicopters swooped low among tall office buildings in a demonstrated response to two terrorists in a pickup truck. Paramilitary police pulled up in a bomb-dropping armored vehicle, and engaged in a mock firefight. Guests from around the nation and world attended the conference to marvel at militarized law enforcement in action. The performance was funded by the federal government and was designed to inspire more departments to become militarized.

THE TSA CONTINUES TO EXPAND ITS REACH


The Transportation Security Administration had another year characterized by abuse, theft, and violations of civil rights. There was a steady stream of children being tormented, property being stolen, and genitals being grabbedthis year, as usual. Americans are being searched without probable cause or warrants while being threatened with arrest over loudspeakers if they talk back to the checkpoint agents. There are too many of these stories to count and this behavior has been standard operating procedure since the TSA was created. Some of the agency’s recent advancements deserve to be mentioned, however.

Checkpoints are now involving a much deeper look into traveler’s private personal information. Nothing short of a criminal background check will allow a person to fly in America anymore. The new security program involves gaining access to travelers’ private employment information, vehicle registrations, travel history, property ownership records, physical characteristics, tax identification numbers, past travel itineraries, law enforcement information, “intelligence” information, passport numbers, frequent flier information, and other “identifiers” linked to DHS databases. The TSA is allowing people to purchase the title of “trusted traveler” if they willingly submit their biometric fingerprint scans into a FBI database, submit to a criminal background check, and pay the TSA a fee of $85.00 for a five-year PreCheck membership.

The TSA has evidently expanded its reach to parking lots this year, after encouraging and overseeing airport security plans that involve opening up parked cars and performing warrantless searches on their interiors. Although the TSA may not be directly involved with performing these searches, they are approved by the TSA and some airports claim they are mandated by the TSA.

The response of may Americans is to avoid the TSA by ceasing air travel. This is a shortsighted solution, as the TSA has never been bound to airports. As one TSA official pointed out, “We are not the Airport Security Administration.” Indeed, avoiding the TSA became more challenging in 2013, and is bound to become more difficult in the future.

TSA agents are not making regular appearances on other modes of transportation. Special armed TSA units — known as VIPR teams — are showing up at public venues, sporting events, train terminals, music festivals, rodeos, highway weigh stations in order to “surprise” the terrorists with “suspicionless” searches. “The security at airports has increased so the bad guys are now traveling on the trains and buses,” said TSA agent George Robinson at a surprise TSA “Spot Checks” at an Austin railway. The TSA was active in and around the Superbowl this year, one of many places many never expected to see the TSA operating.

To soften their villainous image, the TSA has been spending taxpayer money to produce cartoons designed to propagandize children into accepting warrantless checkpoints. Getting searched by strangers in uniformed is presented as fun and exciting — and vital to safety.

THE SURVEILLANCE STATE, REVEALED

(Warner Brothers)

This year we experienced a lot of mainstream discussion about the breadth of the Federal Government’s domestic surveillance grid, in large part due to the revelations from NSA contractor-gone-rogue, Edward Snowden. Snowden discovered over the course of his employment with the NSA that the American public was completely unaware of the extent of spying being performed by the government on its own people, and felt compelled to go public. In June, Snowden went to journalist Glenn Greenwald with up to 200,000 NSA documents to prove what the government was up to. Greenwald has since released a series of damning articles exposing the NSA spy grid, which have received international attention.

Now officially charged by the U.S. government with espionage, Snowden has been in hiding overseas for over 6 months. But his leaks have provided valuable insight into the operation of the government. Its a bit ironic that the man exposing the spy program is labeled the spy, but I digress.

Greenwald’s articles have revealed that the NSA’s modus operandi is to “collect it all,” meaning every collectible form of communication or data. To this end, the NSA has been utilizing what it calls the Prism program, under which the agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants. With this access to internet traffic, the NSA uses a program called XKeyscore, which is surveillance tool that collects “nearly everything a user does on the internet.” One presentation of XKeyscore claims the program collects the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata.

“I, sitting at my desk,” Snowden said, could “wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email”.

Another recent leak revealed that the NSA is “getting vast volumes” of records of individual’s physical locations from their cell phones — faster than it can process and store — as the agency surveils the nation’s mobile phone networks. It goes deeper than that though. Greenwald reported that the NSA is collecting information about phone calls from millions of Americans daily. Such information includes the numbers of both parties on the call, their locations, the time, and the duration of all calls made on the network.

BORDER SECURITY AS OPPRESSIVE AS EVER

Vehicles are searched indiscriminately at a border checkpoint. (Source: Eric Gay/AP Photo)

A constant barrage of stories of abuse from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol have arisen in 2013. These did not only occur at the physical borders, but at the numerous domestic checkpoints that appear all over U.S. roadways across the southwest. Up to 100 miles into the country, permanent roadblocks exist where travelers are asked by federal agents to prove their citizenship and often subjected to searches and other harassment.

At one such internal checkpoint in California, a man named Robert Trudell decided he was going to remain silent in his car until the agents let him continue traveling down the roadway. As he calmly sat in his car and photographed the scene, agents bashed in his window with a club and extracted him from his car. Police State USA has viewed numerous other videos of harassment at border patrol checkpoints, and find their prominent existence on U.S. highways to be very disconcerting.

Earlier this year, the official watchdog over civil rights for the Department of Homeland Security gave the green light for “suspicionless” seizure of any electronics they encounter from travelers crossing the border. Thousands of laptops, cell phones, and other personal property has been confiscated by customs agents, forcing the owner to spend lots of time and money to attempt to reclaim the items — not to mention the loss of privacy suffered by the owners.

Border Patrol and DHS has taken an interest in harassing small aircraft pilots as well, as we have seen multiple such stories this year. Reports follow a pattern: CBP agents approach pilots, request aviation paperwork, and conduct an extensive searches of their aircraft, often including removal of all contents. Agents have been tight-lipped about the reason or justification for these warrantless searches. Taking the harassment up a notch, DHS ordered one hobbyist glider pilot named Robin Fleming to the ground for a search. He says he was threatened with being shot down from the sky.

THE DESTRUCTIVE DRUG WAR WAGES ON

DEA agents (Source: Mark Wilson/AP Photo)

The War on Drugs has been the source of incomprehensible levels of injustice, government corruption, brutality, and abuse for decades in the United States. Although year 2013 represents no marked difference from the status quo, these Drug War abuses constitute far too great a threat to go unmentioned in this list.

We saw countless people imprisoned for non-violent, victimless crimes. I say countless because the numbers are truly unknown when considering all of the federal, state, county, and city-level jails housing inmates for drugs. What we do know is that there 1,571,013 prisoners in state and federal prisons in 2012, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of the federal inmates, around half of the prisoners are being locked up because of the War on Drugs. The number of lives ruined in the name of prohibition cannot possibly be tallied. Many are going to prison for decades — even life imprisonment — without ever having committed a violent offense. One such example was the case of Jerry Duval, a farmer who was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for growing marijuana for medicinal use in the manner he was licensed to in the state of Michigan.

The Drug War gives the government the perfect vehicle for expanding its ability to legally steal from citizens, and this year has been no exception. Thanks to a legal maneuver known as Civil Asset Forfeiture, government agents can confiscate property and cash from anyone that they merely “suspect” of being involved in the drug trade. Thanks to recent advancements in domestic spying capabilities, the DEA has managed to double its amount of seizures since 2001. The owners of the seized property don’t even have to be charged with a crime, but often have to spend a small fortune in court to prove their innocence and get their possessions back. This practice varies across the country, but the prospect of keeping seized property provides a direct incentive for confiscation in any agency where it is used. For Darren Kent, a disabled widower in New Jersey, Drug War forfeiture could allow police to confiscate his house, his bank account, his 2 vehicles, and other property — all because of illegal plants he allegedly grew in his basement.



The enforcement of these silly drug laws has become increasingly aggressive and brutal. When someone is suspected of committing a non-violent drug offense, there is often a team of masked, paramilitary SWAT agents sent in the middle of the night to break down the doors and windows of their home, hold the occupants at gunpoint, and shoot any family pets that dare to challenge their presence. As one could imagine, this insane policy of “no-knock raids” over drugs leads to an unending torrent of violence and bloodshed inside people’s homes. In 2013, Los Angeles Sheriff’s deputies gunned down 80-year-old Eugene Mallory in his bed during a legal home-invasion to investigate if he was making meth. Earlier this month, police negligently shot Krystal Barrows, mother of three, in the head during a drug raid in Chillicothe, Ohio.

In case its not obvious, prohibition laws leave open the legal doorways for many innocent people to feel the brunt of the police state. In 2013, a family of maple syrup farmers in Illinois was raided on suspicion of making meth. TheHarte family of Kansas says that after buying hydroponics equipment for their indoor garden, police stormed their house in a manner that reminded them of Navy SEALs storming the bin Laden residence. Urban garden advocate John Kohler, of GrowingYourGreens.com, had his home searched because police thought he might be growing illegal plants in his house. One does not have to look far for more examples of drug raids gone bad.

Not even the elderly can escape from the harassment of strident drug enforcers have. Tennessee police pulled over and harassed an elderly couple because their car had a Ohio State University bumper sticker that the police officer thought might represent a marijuana leaf. A Utah man’s final moments with his recently-deceased wife were rudely interrupted when police barged into his home to confiscate her prescription painkillers.

It should be obvious that drug prohibition gives perverts and sexual predators a convenient place to legally abuse citizens while getting paid to do so. In June, a story broke about a female driver being asked to lift her shirt and shake her bra multiple times for a police officer who wanted her to prove she didn’t have drugs packed in it. In Texas, two bikini-clad women were given cavity searches on the side of the highway. “You’re going to go up my private parts?” Brandy Hamilton asked the officer. “Yes, ma’am,” the officer responded, before jamming a finger into each of their crotches with the same glove.

These forced cavity searches were a regular occurrence in 2013, in what can only be described as cases of legal rape. After rolling a stop sign, David Eckert of Deming, Utah, was detained and taken to a hospital, and for hours he was subjected to manual finger probes of his anus, forced to take an enema and defecate in front of police officers, forcibly X-rayed, and ultimately given a full-blown colonoscopy to attempt to find drugs in his colon. And this case is not unique. An American woman returning to the United States from Mexico was detained at the border near El Paso, chained to a hospital bed and given a forcible gynecological exam, involving finger penetration, forced defecation, and X-rays and a CT-scan. A 26-year-old Oregon man named Jason Barnes was forcibly catheterized by police after he was stopped by police for riding a bicycle without lights.

Stories from 2013 also should have made it glaringly obvious how easy it is to wrongly convict people and ruin innocent lives. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “a court can presume” an alert by a drug-sniffing dog provides probable cause for a search, even if the dot is not fully trained and lacks any documentation of its accuracy record. If animals deciding your fate is not disconcerting enough, consider what happens when the government agents decide to say you possessed contraband when you actually didn’t. Tens of thousands of drug cases may have been corrupted by a Massachusetts crime-lab chemist named Annie Dookhanwho collaborated with prosecutors to achieve more convictions. A Georgia judge ordered police officers to frame a woman with drugs after she refused to have sex with him. The potential for abusing “possession” laws are endless.

SCHOOLS GROOM CHILDREN FOR LIFE IN POLICE STATE USA

(Source: Yuma Sun / AP)

Government schools have always been the source of indoctrination and inadequate education, but the rise of security hysteria and zero-tolerance policies has made them into veritable conditioning centers for life in the American police state.

As a matter of policy in most compulsory government schools, students are subjected to warrantless searches of their bags and lockers, dog sniffs, and are even being forced to give urine samples without probable cause. Drug enforcement and education takes on a variety of different forms. In Indiana, police officers subjected a class of 5th graders to a “simulated drug raid” in a “drug awareness” event that resulted in one student getting attacked by the police dog that was demonstrating how it might children for drugs if the police were crashing a party at someone’s home.

With modern technology, they are being watched and listened under sophisticated surveillance systems, sometimes which are fed directly to police departments. Some schools are making students are having to carry RFID badges or use biometric scanners to track attendance and movement. Their bodies are forced to endure mass-medication at earlier and earlier ages.

Many schools use what have been known as “isolation booths” for children who misbehave, which in practice are tantamount to solitary confinement in a dark closet.

Parking lots are subject to warrantless searches; some so draconian that high school students are getting felonies for leaving pocket knives locked in their cars. In fact, it is common to have police officers regularly in school so administrators can outsource discipline to courts and jails. An undercover cop disguised as a high-schooler in Temecula, California, befriended an autistic boy and convinced him to purchase marijuana in order to arrest him.

The curriculum is unsurprisingly pro-statism, with recent (and glaring) examples involving students being asked to justify repealing amendments out of the Bill of Rights and being taught that government is like “family” and should be obeyed.

In addition, schools are being locked down at every possible opportunity. A school in Idaho went into “full prison mode” when a student brought a folding shovel. A Long Island school went into lockdown when a child had a lime green Nerf toy.

The lockdowns are becoming so routine that police departments and schools are running terror drills to make sure they run smoothly. The El Paso SWAT team staged a “surprise” terror drill in a school in which police charged into the school, used simulated gunfire, and detonated concussion grenades while they took over the school — to the surprise of everyone except for the principal. A similar terror drill was conducted in a Chicago school “in an effort to provide our teachers and students some familiarity with the sound of gunfire.” An Oregon school hired a man to wear a mask and carry a realistic gun into a faculty meeting and surprise teachers with realistic sounding gunfire in order to test their “readiness.” In Ohio, a mock hijacking was staged on a school bus containing children so that the SWAT team could practice its explosive rescue techniques.

MORE DANGEROUS DECISIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court

SCOTUS made a few rulings in 2013 regarding the police state. While certainly not the worst court decisions we’ve endured, they can be added to a long list of bad ones.

In Salinas v. Texas, the court ruled 5-4 that when a suspect doesn’t answer a question during an interrogation, his silence can be used as evidence in court to demonstrate guilt. Genovevo Salinas was convicted of a 1992 murder. Salinas cooperated with detectives in answering some questions, but refrained from answering others. He remained silent when questioned about the murder weapon. Prosecutors used his silence as evidence of guilt during trial, which has now been upheld by both Texas courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Critics say that this decision has compromised a person’s right to remain silent.

The second case being called to attention is Bowman v. Monsanto. An Indiana farmer named Vernon Bowman was sued by agri-giant and seed-modifier Monsanto for purchasing seeds from a grain elevator and planting them in his fields. Monsanto claimed that planting those seeds violated the corporation’s patent rights over them, since they were genetically-modified and considered Monsanto’s intellectual property. Since Bowman “replicated” the company’s intellectual property, he was sued for nearly $85,000.00 in damages. Bowman contended that existing patent law did not cover life forms, and that he had broken no laws. “If they don’t want me to go to the elevator and buy that grain, then Congress should pass a law saying you can’t do it,” said Bowman.

The Supreme Court took up the Bowman case, and disappointingly sided 9-0 with Monsanto. Rather than accurately declaring that the 120-year-old patent law did not offer any legal coverage of self-replicating seeds as they reproduce in perpetuity, the court made a landmark decision and changed the mechanics of patent law forever without an act of Congress. This was the very definition of legislating from the bench, and corporations the leverage they need to punish consumers for “breaking” laws that don’t really accurately cover modern technologies like genetically-modified lifeforms and computer software.

Lastly was the Maryland v. King case, in which the Supreme Court affirmed that a police department may seize DNA as a part of a standard booking procedure — like fingerprinting — for people arrested and accused of a crime. The DNA may then be put into a database, stored indefinitely, and compared to existing cases, despite the fact that the accused person had not yet been convicted of any crimes.

HEALTH CARE LAW THREATENS INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & PRIVACY

The Obamacare logo

There are a lot of reasons to object to the mandatory imposition of purchasing corporate services — also known as the “Affordable Care Act.” For brevity and relevance, we will focus here on the aspects that increase the power of the police state.

2013 was the last year that Americans could live and breathe in the United States legally without being compelled to insurance packages from private corporations. Should a person fail or refuse to purchase insurance, he will be subjected to some hefty fines from the federal government, enforced by the IRS.

The fines have been subject to quite a bit of disinformation, and are more significant than most people realize. A common talking point is that the fines are “only” $95, being spread by disinfo agents on the internet and even official radio ads released by the government. The part that is being omitted by these people is that the $95 fine is only valid for a small group of low-income taxpayers, for the first year (2014) only. The fines increase dramatically if the person has an average income or has a family, as well as increasing in stages in 2015 and 2016.

Police State USA discussed the details of the fines in a previous article. We consider the mandates to be a very serious breach of liberty that come with widespread implications.

We also learned this year that the upcoming health care law will include a considerable amount of privacy concerns. With the creation of the “Federal Data Services Hub,” a trove of personal information will be collected on all customers and shared among several agencies. The information “includes, but may not be limited to”: Social Security numbers, income, family size, citizenship and immigration status, gender, ethnicity, email addresses, incarceration records, enrollment status in other health plans, tax information, employment information, patient medical records, pregnancy status, list of disabilities, welfare information, and demographic data (e.g. address, birthdate, physical description…).

All this personal information will be accessible by bureaucrats ranging from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Veterans Administration, Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense and the Peace Corps. And that is in addition to the Medicaid databases linked to the Hub. To be forced into a system such as this by is indeed a great detriment to personal freedom.

THE DORNER MANHUNT

A SWAT team searches a vehicle for Chris Dorner at a roadblock along Highway 38. (Source: Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

One of the most significant stories of 2013 in was the 9-day manhunt for an ex-LAPD officer, Christopher Dorner. After 2 people related to a Los Angeles Police Department captain were shot to death, a manifesto was published online — purportedly by Chris Dorner — claiming responsibility for the acts and threatening more violence against the department. In a city that experiences hundreds of murders per year, this incident would be treated much differently because the targets were police officers. What followed was a horrifying and shameful display of violence and disregard for civil liberties.


A SWAT team searches a home for Chris Dorner in Big Bear Lake. (Source: Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

The manhunt that ensued spanned from oceans to mountains, involving participation from local, state, and federal agents. Roadblocks were set up and vehicles were searched without probable cause; some at gunpoint. When police narrowed their search to the mountain community of Big Bear Lake, California, they began performing house-to-house searches. Some 400-600 homes were searched, as reported by CNN and the Los Angeles Times. The town was blocked off and all vehicles entering and leaving were searched.


The vehicle that contained 2 innocent Latino women delivering newspapers in Torrance, CA. (Source: LA Times)

Four days into the manhunt, with tensions high and paranoia abound, police opened fire on innocent people in two separate incidents; both in the LA suburb of Torrance. The shootings took place minutes apart at separate locations, involving different sets of officers.

The first incident occurred when two newspaper couriers performed their regular delivery route during the early morning hours of February 7th. Unbeknownst to the two delivery women, their route took them directly past the home of one of the VIPs of the Los Angeles Police Department, which was surrounded by police officers as a preemptive security measure. Police watched as the truck made drops along the street. As it drove away from the VIP’s home — making no threat to anyone — eight police officers opened fire at the rear of the truck. The two terrified women huddled up as over 100 rounds riddled their vehicle; popping the tires, shattering the windows, mangling the steel, and hitting both of their bodies. Miraculously, both women survived their wounds.

The incident was a breathtaking display of incompetence and unprovoked aggression. Police had absolutely no idea who they were shooting at. They were seeking a suspect driving a black Nissan Titan. The victims were in a blue Toyota Tacoma. The fugitive was a large, muscular black man with a shaved head. The victims were two Hispanic women; one of them 71-years-old. A total of 102 rounds struck the truck, not counting the other stray shots that whizzed through the residential neighborhood.


(Source: Brad Graverson)

The second incident of unprovoked violence occurred 25 minutes later the same morning. Around 5:45 a.m., a man driving a black truck was on his way to do some early morning surfing before work. He was flagged down by two police officers staking out the neighborhood for Dorner. The officers questioned him, searched his truck, and told him to turn around and head the other direction. He complied.

Moments later, as he traveled the opposite direction on the same road, another police car approached him from ahead. He slowed his truck to the side of the road and expected them to pass. Instead, the police car went into rapid acceleration directly toward him, striking his truck so violently that it knocked one of his wheels off. Police officers then leapt from their car and opened fire on the truck, riddling the windshield with bullets. Miraculously, the man survived.

Again, police had no idea who they were attacking. The victim in this case was a Caucasian man with a small build, and drove a Honda Ridgeline. None of this matched the description of the suspect, and even if it did match, it would not be justifiable cause to immediately attack.

In both cases, the department defended the actions of the officers, kept them on duty, and concealed their identities from the public. At least nine officers were involved in the two incidents of unprovoked aggression, and none of them have been held to any semblance of accountability to the public.

The manhunt concluded with Dorner being surrounded in a cabin in Big Bear, California. Negotiations failed, and gunfire was exchanged. Police quickly resorted to deliberately burning down the cabin in a Waco-style burn out. Pyrotechnic teargas was deployed into the structure and set ablaze with the purpose of burning the suspect alive. Although the sheriff would go on to deny the fire was set intentionally, audio from the incident clearly shows the fire was premeditated and the police had no interest in taking the suspect alive.

THE BOSTON / WATERTOWN LOCKDOWN

Police and National Guard helped to lock down Watertown. (Source: EPA / CJ Gunther)

The incidents that transpired after the attack at the Boston Marathon were nothing short of egregious with respect to civil liberties. On April 15th, two small devices made from pressure cookers exploded at the race, killing 3 and wounding hundreds. An incredible show of force followed, with a deployment of National Guard soldiers all over Boston and rifle-toting police officers standing guard on city streets. Governor Deval Patrick said that Bostonians should expect random checks of their bags and backpacks while in public. The governor said that the “enhanced” police presence and warrantless searches would be an “inconvenience” to residents. Pedestrians were forced to show their identifications to soldiers, bags were searched, and civil rights were generally discarded for the days that followed.

“They can give me a cavity search right now and I’d be perfectly happy,” said one man as he waited for a train.

Police suspected two Chechen brothers as being responsible. On Friday, April 19th, police encountered one of the suspects and engaged him in a firefight. The suspect was killed, but his brother remained at large in the Boston suburb of Watertown, Massachusetts. With this information, over 9,000 police, federal agents, and military personnel from around the country descended upon the the town and put it into complete lock down. Public transportation was suspended. Residents were ordered to stay home and “shelter in place.” Businesses were ordered to remain closed. Roads were barricaded and no one was allowed to leave the town.


A Watertown family is ordered out of their home for a warrantless search. (Source: AP / Reuters

Dramatic photographs began to hit the internet as people remained trapped inside their homes with mobs of police and military filling the streets. Armored vehicles and military Humvees patrolled the town and enforced the lockdown. Agents began performing warrantless house-to-house searches. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform full home searches. While it was unclear initially if the searches were voluntary, videos of the searches and interviews with the residents make it absolutely clear that some of the searches were absolutely NOT voluntary.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
6 WAYS YOUR LIFE IS PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY THE WAR ON DRUGS

US drug policy has unequivocally curtailed your basic civil rights, regardless of whether you're a user


Many Americans who do not use illegal “drugs” assume exemption from drug war policies. But regardless of how much marijuana you do or don’t smoke, the U.S. war on drugs affects nearly everyone. While some prohibition tactics are more obvious than others, the drug war has slyly pushed its way into many corners of American life. Be it at the post office, in the workspace, or behind the counter at Walgreens, the war on drugs has established a nagging presence in the everyday lives of Americans, even those who do not get high illegally. We can no longer come down with a cold, for example, without the medication we take to treat it being tracked and monitored by the government. A national database collects information on every person who buys cold medication containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.

Whether or not you are aware that the drug war is behind these creeping invasions, our drug policy has unequivocally curtailed basic civil rights and eviscerated the Fourth Amendment. And not coincidentally, many of the civil liberties erosions from the war on terror have their origin in the war on drugs. Here are six insidious and not so insidious ways the drug war invades and violates your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

1) The drug-testing dragnet ensnares millions of unsuspecting Americans each year.

Have you ever been drug-tested to get a job? Chances are, you have. Now, over 80 percent of employers drug-test their workers and workers to be. And, if illicit drugs show up in the urine, they don’t get the job. Or maybe the potential employee takes the opportunity to explain to his prospective employer why he’s prescribed legal opiates like oxycodone and methadone or legal amphetamines like Adderall or medical marijuana. Now, the pre-employment pee test gives management unchecked power to discriminate against millions of workers based on their private health decisions. So long as employees are doing their jobs without issue, it’s none of an employer’s business which medications they’re taking and why.

Marijuana users are among the most vulnerable to failing drug tests because THC can be detected in the urine for up to a month. Alcohol and tobacco—two far more dangerous drugs than marijuana—are not subject to screening. And random, suspicionless drug testing is allowed in many workplaces. If you come up positive, it can be automatic grounds for discipline or termination, thanks to the Drug Free Workplace Act.

Plus, peeing in a cup is degrading. Some employees are forced to strip naked and are monitored while they urinate to ensure that they can’t switch and use another person’s “clean” urine. To add insult to injury, drug test results aren’t reliable, and commonly used test kits have false positives that range from 10 to 30 percent. In the meantime, you’re out of a job.

Drug testing has also invaded high schools. The Supreme Court upheld the right of public high schools to randomly drug-test students. Those who test positive for drugs are not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities and are kicked off their sports teams.

The unemployed have become new targets for drug testing. Laws in about 20 states already deny the unemployed benefits if they were fired for using drugs. As if that weren’t discriminatory enough, there is a movement among conservatives to pass legislation to drug-test people claiming unemployment benefits. A “chemical McCarthyism” has been unleashed on those receiving welfare, job training assistance, food stamps and public housing.

2) Carded at Walgreens.

Pharmacies used to sell cold and allergy medicines that contained pseudoephedrine over the counter. You could just grab that Sudafed or Theraflu and go. But that changed as a result of the passage of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which was incorporated into the Patriot Act. The Drug Enforcement Administration whipped up a panic around the use of methamphetamines. Since then, any preparation that contains pseudoephedrine, the main chemical used to make meth, is kept behind the counter. It’s sold in limited quantities and in order to purchase it the buyer must be 18 years old and show a photo ID.

The pharmacist enters the person’s name, address, product name, quantity sold and the date and time of the sale into the computer. The name and initials of the pharmacist are also recorded. All this metadata is sent to and stored by the DEA for at least two years. Federal, state, local and municipal law enforcement personnel have access to the information, too. Yes, not only is Big Brother monitoring your phone calls and emails, he’s tracking the medications you buy.

3) The DEA registration number.

All physicians, nurse practioners, dentists and veterinarians have one. It costs $731. The number allows the DEA to track prescriptions that are written for controlled substances, mostly narcotics. Every time a healthcare provider gives you a prescription for a controlled substance, the information goes into the DEA database. DEA agents, often working with state medical boards and the Department of Justice, have raided offices and arrested doctors who are charged with overprescribing, nontherapeutic prescribing, or diverting narcotics to street dealers.

This level of surveillance has had a chilling effect on the willingness of healthcare providers to prescribe narcotics to patients. Many doctors simply refuse to give these medications to patients out of fear of triggering a DEA investigation. DEA intimidation tactics and sting operations have resulted in more and more doctors rationing pain medication, ignoring pain and flat out refusing to prescribe these drugs or even to accept patients with pain problems in to their practice. One doctor posted a notice in his waiting room: DO NOT ASK ME TO REFILL PAIN MEDICATIONS.

People with chronic pain syndromes who need narcotics just to function have suffered as a result. Lene Grindrod, who has a diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome, takes oxycodone to live a normal life and without it, she is in debilitating pain. In desperation, she has traveled to three different states to see pain specialists. Some of the doctors Grindwod has seen have been disciplined for their prescribing practices and will no longer treat her out of “fear of reprisals.” In a degrading twist, the DEA requires chronic pain patients on narcotics to submit to drug testing to make sure their medications are being taken, not sold.In this case, clean, drug-free urine will trigger an investigation of doctor and patient by the DEA.

4) The DEA designation of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.

Drugs in the Schedule I category are defined as having no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. The designation of marijuana as an addictive drug with no medicinal properties has severely restricted research on the drug. This position is indefensible given the mountains of evidence showing that marijuana effectively treats nausea resulting from chemotherapy, Crohn’s disease, arthritis, diabetes, glaucoma, PTSD and Parkinson’s disease. Marijuana can also be an effective treatment for depression and other mood disorders.

Each of the 20 states (and the District of Columbia) that have legalized medical marijuana had to fight for years, as are the states of Minnesota, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania that are currently trying to pass medical marijuana bills. Thousands of chronically and terminally ill patients have suffered needlessly because the DEA is hell-bent on blocking legal access to marijuana. In states where medical marijuana is legal, the DEA and the feds continue to raid marijuana dispensaries, and arrest patients and legal growers. If you live in a state that doesn’t have legal medical marijuana and you buy it to treat a medical condition, you’re a criminal. If caught, expect to spend time in jail and receive a criminal record.

5) Big Brother is checking your packages.

The Obama administration has demanded that the United Parcel Service and FedEx police customer’s packages. The DEA is investigating both companies for shipping illegal drugs for online pharmacies. A spokesperson for FedEx said, “At the heart of the investigation are sealed packages that are being sent by, as far as we can tell, licensed pharmacies. These are medicines with legal prescriptions written by licensed physicians. So it’s difficult for us to understand where we would have some role in this. We are a transportation company that picks up and delivers close to 10 million packages every day. They are sealed packages, so we have no way of knowing specifically what’s inside and we have no interest in violating the privacy rights of our customers.”

But will FedEx and UPS protect the privacy rights of their customers given the increasing power of the American surveillance state? If the past is any indication, it’s doubtful. Over the years, both companies have worked closely with the DEA, DOJ and the FBI. FedEx and UPS employees have opened “suspicious” packages and alerted authorities. DEA agents wearing FedEx uniforms and posing as workers have delivered packages and those who sign for delivery are arrested.

FedEx played a central role in Operation Green Air, a two-year sting and spy investigation to bust a mail-order marijuana operation that delivered pot from Mexico to major drug hubs in the United States. They seized 35,000 pounds of marijuana and arrested 100 people. Before 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act, company executives testified at a congressional hearing and assured the government that they were happy to track and inspect packages for illegal drugs and other contraband. After the 9/11 attacks, the pressure to cooperate with federal authorities increased dramatically. FedEx allows government and customs officials access to its international database and they created a system to send reports of suspicious activities directly to the Department of Homeland Security via a special computer link.

FedEx and the DEA have even shared personnel. Robert A. Bryden, a former vice president of corporate security for FedEx was the chief of operations for the DEA. The U.S. Postal Service also has an illegal drug detection program. DEA agents, postal inspectors, local police and National Guard divisions work together to bust drug courier operations.

6. NSA, DEA, CIA, FBI.

Thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, the entire world now knows that the National Security Agency has vast, unchecked powers to collect information about millions of Americans’ phone calls, emails, browsing history and social media activities. The NSA has partnered with Microsoft, Verizon, Google, Skype and other companies to sweep up with no prior authorization, all manner of communication. A Reuter’s investigation revealed that the NSA has another partner in crime: the DEA. Their investigation found that the DEA is collaborating with the NSA via a clandestine unit within the DEA called the Special Operations Division (SOD). Partner agencies that comprise the unit include the FBI, CIA, NSA, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. Information from domestic and foreign wiretaps, intelligence intercepts and informants are used in criminal investigations of Americans suspected of involvement in drug trafficking, even though the SOD was originally created to monitor Latin American drug cartels. The SOD was involved in Operation Synergy, a national synthetic drug sting that resulted in hundreds of arrests. It’s likely that the SOD has played a central role in thousands of drug trafficking cases. And the SOD has at its disposal DICE, a massive database that contains about one billion records.

The Reuters journalists discovered that DEA agents create fake investigation trails to disguise where information in drug case originated. They explained the impact of this deception, “If defendants don’t know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence—information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.” Most drug-trafficking defendants plead guilty through plea-bargaining and so don’t demand to see the evidence against them to avoid the risk of losing a trial where draconian mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws routinely result in decades of incarceration with no chance of parole. It’s a win-win for the DEA with the exception of when cases did go to trial, then, according to the article, charges were sometimes dropped to avoid the risk of exposing SOD involvement.

Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, called the DEA a “rogue” agency and commented, “It’s remarkable how little scrutiny the DEA faces from Congress or other federal overseers. With an annual budget of over $2 billion as well as significant discretionary powers, the DEA certainly merits a top-to-bottom review of its operations, expenditures and discretionary actions.”

The spy scandal has triggered a Department of Justice review of the SOD and eight Democratic U.S. senators and congressmen have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to answer questions about the Reuters report. A classified briefing is scheduled for next month, but the only outcome that can safeguard our civil rights is to shut down the Special Operations Division. 3
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
WHY THE “WAR ON DRUGS” WILL NEVER BE WON



In Daniel Estulin’s book – “Shadow Masters” – he outlines a number of things that keep the world turning. Of course, the very title of his book refers to those deep in the shadows who seemingly control what happens in the world on many levels.

He specifically discusses the “rape of Russia” when the global elite stepped into create situations where they could easily plunder Russia of her natural resources as well as further enrich themselves by rigging it so that the ruble literally fell apart (during Yeltsin’s term). The fact that it left millions of average Russians with nothing causing them to starve, drink themselves to death, or commit suicide did not matter to the global elite.

Estulin also discusses – in much detail – how the War in Kosovo was artificially created in order to oust Milosevic. Estulin is not an idiot. He includes so much documentation that no one would be able to sue him. It also goes a long way in providing him the credibility needed to discuss such touchy subjects. The same thing is happening now in North Africa and Syria. The global elite wants Assad out, so now the US is trying to show the world that the Free Syrian Army are the good guys. Once Assad is out, the global elite will go in and loot Syria before setting up a puppet government.

Beyond this, Estulin spends a good amount of time discussing the international drug trade. What we learn – if true – is disheartening to say the least. Reading this book should bring everyone to the point of realizing that for too long, the world has been run by a small cadre of men deep in the shadows who have used the CIA, MI6, KGB, and many other secret organizations for their own profit.

The interesting thing here is that the entire global drug trade earns roughly $700 billion annually. Yes, that’s billion. In order to legitimize that dirty money, it has to be laundered. Estulin notes that the banks are in on it. The fact that for the same two to three months out of every year (just after the poppy season), billions of dollars are shoved through numerous banks throughout the world and especially through the Wall Street financial center in New York, bankers would have to be absolute morons to not recognize what was happening. They simply turn a blind eye to it. The question is why?

Estulin again goes into tremendous detail highlighting the fact that without this dirty money, the U.S. economy – as merely one example – would collapse. The money is there for the using and in fact, it is easier for corporations to receive a loan of say, $20 to 40 million from a drug cartel at 5% than have to go the legal route through banks, which entails tremendous paperwork which allows people to “follow the money” as it travels through one account to the next. All of a sudden because of the drug money, corporations can add $20, 40, 80 or more millions of dollars to their portfolio and no one questions where the money came from because on paper, everything appears legitimate.



There really is no “war on drugs.” As Estulin points out, if our government (or any government) was serious about shutting down the illegal drug industry, all they would have to do is pass laws that began tracking the one basic ingredient necessary to create heroin: acetic anhydride. If the governments of the world cracked down on the import/export of this one chemical, the drug cartels of the world would be in very sorry shape. It makes one wonder why so much time and effort is spent on the “war on guns” here in America where politicians try at every turn to create more gun control. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2010, there were 11,078 U.S. homicides in which guns were used. There are 2.5 million alcohol-related deaths annually worldwide. Of those, 75,000 occur in the United States. These same politicians do virtually nothing with respect to alcohol-related deaths. They talk a big talk at times where drugs are concerned but in reality, that’s all it is – talk. You would think by looking at numbers alone that deaths by alcohol and drugs would take greater precedence than gun-related deaths. Yet, our politicians prefer to go after guns because it makes them appear as though they really care when in point of fact, they don’t care. They simply want to restrict guns because in a few generations, they will be able to remove them from society altogether.

Look at how the Trayvon Martin killing is being used to attempt to create more gun-control. Doesn’t matter that he was into “lean” or smoked pot. What matters to politicians is that we need to get guns off the streets. That’s all they care about because without guns, no one can shoot back when the government closes in. It happened with Hitler and other maniacal leaders, but apparently no one wants to learn from history.

“Tough-talking public campaigns cynically launched with all the bells and whistles during national elections by governments in Europe and the United States promising ‘to take the fight to the drug lords’ are pure nonsense. As noted, if governments, the European Parliament or the United States Congress for example, were serious about eradicating the vile drug trade, they would make laws requiring the meticulous tracking of acetic anhydride and other essential chemicals. Such unilateral and decisive action however, would greatly displease the empire builders.” [1]

Besides the fact that legitimate corporations, Wall Street, and banks benefit greatly from the international drug trade, there is a side “benefit” as well. Because the global elite wants zero growth and also wants to get the global population down to a manageable 500 million from its current 7 billion (according to Estulin and many others), drugs provide an answer to that, albeit a smaller one. Each year, roughly 250,000 people die of drug-related deaths. Certainly, that’s not a large number when compared with the entire population, but it “helps” bring the overall numbers down. The global elite thinks of this as an added benefit inherent within the drug trade.

The international drug trade is with us and will continue to be so. The world’s economy depends upon it and because of unscrupulous bankers and corporations, dirty drug money has become an integral part of buoying the economy.

The so-called war on drugs is a joke, or as Estulin says, a sham. There is no real war at all. Like many things in Washington, DC, it’s only made to look like that for people who are unable to think for themselves.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
25 QUESTIONS SOCIETY NEEDS TO ANSWER BEFORE GETTING OUT OF THE SCUM HOLE




As if there is a need to prove that big government and excessive government action in any scope of life is a direct result of social immorality, or that government intervention has created the mess where most of the world is into right now, there are a series of questions that need to be asked, so that the public gets to answer them individually in a conscious effort to recognize that government, as it stands today, is the origin of the problems, not the solution.

Let’s review a few examples of the consequences of what I called government intervention, before asking those tough but necessary questions. Although each country suffers from different degrees of financial and economic pain, the appearance of the consequences of government interventions are pretty much the same.

For starters, government has grown exponentially. That alone should be an indicator of the problem. With such an excessive growth, government has had to increase taxes, so it can finance its debt. Along with the out of control increase in the tax burden, governments have also enhanced their power to regulate, mandate and impose its own rules, which are different from the ones already in existence before it was created.

War has been made a primary tool to promote government control of everything, especially those that seek to ‘save us’ from unknown threats. Those wars are waged without any authorization from The People, or their representatives, because such wars, the psychopathic leaders say, are too important to let the people decide whether they should be fought or not.

Government spending to finance the wars skyrocketed as a consequence of the numerous conflicts it is involved in. As a result, less money is invested in improving infrastructure, keeping the peace at home, promoting real economic growth or embracing policies that allow individuals to become successful in their own right. It has been quite the oppossite, in fact. Globally, poverty is at its highest level in history and the gap between the poor and the rich is wider that ever before. The middle class is a species threatened with extinction, while government dependency is at its highest level.

Even though the deficit spending recipe has not worked since it was adopted at the start of the 20th century, governments not only continue to use it, but encourage uncontrollable levels of debt to finance their bribery programs intended to keep the ignorant masses calm, cool and collected. Politicians in government found a way to use consensus as tool to reinforce deficit spending as the base of any and all ‘development’ models, setting government as the creator, manager and judge of everything — even private business and private life.

Even though the economic and fiscal policies of the past resulted in the bankruptcy of many governments worldwide, politicians in all political parties lied to the public about such state of affairs, advocating for more deficit spending. Despite the supposed major disagreements in Congress, corrupt politicians were able to agree on one thing: spending is the way to go! Meanwhile, the masses of ignorant people accepted and agreed on spending more as a way to guarantee their piece of the pie even though such spending will mean their continues slavery to a central almighty government. The immoral people embraced authoritarianism as a mechanism of survival.

It is through this mechanism that the immoral people managed to accept illegal wars, government bribery also known as entitlement programs, overregulation of the economy, flawed monetary policy, undeclared economic and military wars, illegal arrests for speaking against the government, sanctions, currency manipulation, bailouts of corrupt banks and so on.

Now that authoritarianism has failed, and after many people — still a minority — realized they have been swindled all along by different management teams that work for the same interests, there is a list of questions The People need to ask themselves to start affecting real change. The answers to those questions will show all the options and the way forward.

1. Why are sick people who use medical marihuana sent to prison?

2. Why do governments restrict and in some places ban the drinking of raw milk?

3. Why do governments limit or ban the production of finished goods from hemp?

4. Why aren’t people allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender?

5. Is the supremacy of the Dollar as the reserve currency beginning to end?

6. Why are political leaders opposed to auditing central banks?

7. Why can’t people decide what kind of light bulbs they can buy?

8. Why are thugs at airport security checkpoints allowed to abuse passengers?

9. Why do governments continue to fight the war on drugs, when all it’s achieved is perpetuate the circulation of massive amounts of laundered money through the corrupt banking system, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and given the government the monopoly of production and sale of such drugs?

10. How can converting society into a prison solve crimes such as drug smuggling, murder and corruption, when the government is the most significant perpetrator of these and other crimes?

11. Why do politicians around the world continue to surrender all power to the executive branch?

12. Why has changing the political party in power never changed the policies supported by government?

13. Why did large banks and corporations get bailed out in 2008 while the middle class and poor people around the world lost their jobs, homes and lives?

14. Why do bureaucrats believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?

15. Why do so many people believe the government bureaucrats can protect us all without harming our liberty?

16. Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?

17. Why do people throw their arms up and accept executive orders that allow a president to compile a kill list, to detain indefinitely and to murder citizens if he deems them enemies of the state?

18. Why do people believe that patriotism is equal to blindly believing and supporting anything that comes from government?

19. Why don’t people understand that real patriotism is all about challenging government when it is wrong?

20. Why did people give government a safe heaven to initiate violence against them and to hold the monopoly of force?

21. Why does the use of religion to oppress those with a different belief system go unchallenged?

22. Why is Democracy held in such a high esteem, when it is the enemy of the minority and the tyranny of the majority?

23. What is the explanation for the growing discontent with politicians and the political system?

24. Why do people have so much trust in government and little or not trust in themselves?

25. Why do people choose to believe in utopian outcomes such as the American Dream and the immoral use of force in their search for peace and liberty?


Only moral and honest answers to these questions can help society pick itself up from the scum hole it is in right now. Only the correct identification of the real causes of today’s generalized state of crisis will bring true solutions to help us solve the problems that immoral people and their government have so successfully created for the rest of society.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Unbelievable!!!!:smh::smh::smh:




THE PRISON SYSTEM EXPANDS AT FRIGHTENING PACE FOLLOWING DECLARATION OF WAR ON DRUGS


In the early 1970s, the prison population in the United States was small and was steadily falling relative to the size of the population. Experts imagined that in a few decades, the prison system as we know it could be successfully dismantled, but that began to change after President Nixon began the War on Drugs in 1971, resulting in a huge influx of convicts.



CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
The massive increase in prisoners has given rise to what some call the Prison Industrial Complex. Like its cousin, the Military Industrial Complex, government policy and spending continues to make private involvement in the prison system very lucrative. Taxpayer money is transferred to corporations to satisfy the increasing number of prisoners as a result of the drug war.

As these corporations become bigger and more powerful, they can lobby for policies that will increase their business. Their business is to see you behind bars. More prisoners means more profit, which means more influence. It’s a continuing cycle that has reached a tipping point.

Like all big businesses, private prisons invest heavily in government lobbying to ensure an ever increasing supply of new customers, in this case prisoners. Currently, private prison companies are negotiating with states to buy and manage public prisons, if in exchange the state can promise occupancy rates remain above 90 percent for at least 20 years. This of course only adds to incentivize the states to prosecute more citizens for more crimes.

The Corrections Corporation of America’s annual filing even admits this is their goal:
The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws…For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them.In some cases, the private prison industry has even assisted in writing the laws designed to increase the prison population, as was the case with the controversial Arizona law SB 1070, which would inevitably jail foreign nationals suspected of being in the country illegally.

The US has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. It’s incarceration rate is the highest in the world and has increased by 10 percent since 2000. The US incarceration rate is only slightly lower than in the Soviet Union at the height of the gulag system just before World War II. At current rates, the US will surpass the gulag system by 2018!

Financial writer Jeff Neilson has recently noted that while US new home inventory has been “plummeting straight down,” other reports indicate that construction of homes are up significantly, producing “50 to 100 percent more units than they sell.” Neilson’s conclusion?
Either the official U.S. housing numbers were total fabrications; or, more than half of these ‘housing starts’ were units which did not require a ‘sale’ to an individual owner in order for the builder to be paid (since no builder can stay in business building twice as many units as they sell).In attempting to come up with an answer to the question ‘how could millions of new U.S. housing units not require sale to an owner?,’ I could only formulate one possibility. All of these phantom housing starts were in fact prison cells.Slave Labor

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution specifically outlaws slavery “except as a punishment for crime,” meaning that convicted prisoners can be used as a source of forced servitude. During times of economic stress, demand for cheap prison labor increases.

With the expansion of the private prison system, we’re seeing new interest in the practice that goes way beyond making license plates.

While cheap sweatshop labor is becoming increasingly common across the country, no one takes better advantage of the system than prisons.

Alternet reports that almost 1 million prisoners are doing simple unskilled labor including “making office furniture, working in call centers, fabricating body armor, taking hotel reservations, working in slaughterhouses, or manufacturing textiles, shoes, and clothing, while getting paid somewhere between 93 cents and $4.73 per day.” They continue:
Rarely can you find workers so pliable, easy to control, stripped of political rights, and subject to martial discipline at the first sign of recalcitrance — unless, that is, you traveled back to the nineteenth century when convict labor was commonplace nationwide…It was one vital way the United States became a modern industrial capitalist economy — at a moment, eerily like our own, when the mechanisms of capital accumulation were in crisis.Compare the cost of less than $5 a day with the cost of a minimum wage worker at $58 a day and you begin to see the perverse influence on the entire labor market.

CNN Money reports that prison inmates are now directly competing for jobs in the rest of the economy, and employers are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up. Lost jobs are the result. They cite one company, American Apparel Inc., which makes military uniforms. They write:
‘We pay employees $9 on average,’ [a company executive] said. ‘They get full medical insurance, 401(k) plans and paid vacation. Yet we’re competing against a federal program that doesn’t pay any of that.’[The private prison] is not required to pay its workers minimum wage and instead pays inmates 23 cents to $1.15 an hour. It doesn’t have health insurance costs. It also doesn’t shell out federal, state or local taxes.The new influx of cheap, domestic labor will inevitably drive down wages for both skilled and unskilled jobs.

Perverse Incentives

The profitability of privately run prison system has led to an increase in abuse within government positions. In 2009, two judges were convicted of fraud for accepting kickbacks from private prisons for sending juveniles to prison, even for minor offenses. In one instance, a 17-year-old student was sentenced to three months in prison for creating a fake MySpace page mocking an assistant principal.

The expansion of the American-style gulag will require the subversion of the jury trial (and jury nullification) or replaced all together with a system that provides fewer checks to protect the innocent. Misdemeanors will be reclassified as felonious. Decriminalization efforts that have succeeded will be reversed. People will be imprisoned for offenses not even considered crimes, or held without trial.

The financial justification for private prisons is in question as well. The New York Times, The Arizona Republic, and the Associated Press, have noted that governments save little if any money by privatizing the prison system. The Times notes that statistics are often manipulated since private prisons are more than willing to take healthy inmates, but tend to reject inmates with expensive health conditions, making the operation appear more cost effective than it is.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The Failed War on Drugs



Failed_War_On_Drugs.gif
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
HOW THE US GOVERNMENT, BANKS, PRISON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, CORRUPT OFFICIALS, BUSINESSES, LAW ENFORCEMENT, RACISTS AND THE CIA PROFIT FROM ILLEGAL DRUGS


This is the eighth article in the Truthout on the Mexican Border series looking at US immigration and Mexican border policies through a social justice lens. Mark Karlin, editor of BuzzFlash at Truthout, visited the border region recently to file these reports. You can find links to the previous coverage at the end of this article.

US Banks Love Real Dollars, and Illegal Drug Money Comes in Cash

A recent article in The Guardian UK offers evidence that "while cocaine production ravages countries in Central America, consumers in the US and Europe are helping developed economies grow rich from the profits."

According to The Guardian UK story, the study by two Colombian professors found that "2.6% of the total street value of cocaine produced remains within the country [Columbia], while a staggering 97.4% of profits are reaped by criminal syndicates and laundered by banks, in first-world consuming countries."

One of the researchers, Alejandro Gaviria said: "We know that authorities in the US and UK know far more than they act upon. The authorities realize things about certain people they think are moving money for the drug trade - but the DEA [US Drug Enforcement Administration] only acts on a fraction of what it knows."

"It's taboo to go after the big banks," added Gaviria's co-researcher Daniel Mejía. "It's political suicide in this economic climate, because the amounts of money recycled are so high."

Since Wachovia Bank (now owned by Wells Fargo) was levied a fine in 2010 (but no criminal charges) for money laundering hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of illegal drug cartel dollars, there does not appear to be any large crackdown on the practice in the United States, although lip service is often given to coming down hard on money laundering.

Indeed, more than one analyst has speculated that the billions of dollars in drug cash are vitally important to US banks because so many of their financial assets are tied up in non-fluid assets.

According to a 2011 article in AlterNet:

Antonio Maria Costa, former executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said in 2008, "there's evidence to suggest that proceeds from drugs and crimes were the only liquid investment capital for banks in trouble of collapsing [during the financial crisis]."

If billions of dollars in drug money rescued banks and other financial institutions from closing down then it's reasonable to argue that the economy itself is addicted to drugs.

As professor Dale Scott noted in his book, American War Machine: Deep Politics; the CIA Global Drug Connection: "A US Senate ... banking committee reportedly estimated that between $500 billion and $1 trillion dollars are laundered each year through banks worldwide, with approximately half of that amount funneled through US Banks."

In the '70s and '80s, Miami became known as a city that was experiencing an economic renaissance based on the flow of illegal drug money (mostly from Colombia at the time) into the city. But the cash didn't just get laundered through banks; it was used to buy legitimate businesses; condos; houses; investments; and more than likely a lot of corrupt law enforcement, custom and government officials.

Estimated $50 Billion in Illegal Drug Sales From Mexico Can Only Occur With US Corruption

In interviews, Truthout has been told again and again that the chain of distribution for illegal drugs is changing. Whereas before it was divided primarily among Mafia families in big cities, the Latin American cartels have now set up networks within the US.

But one thing hasn't changed; it still takes a lot of corruption to buy off virtual domestic impunity for the kingpins overseeing the domestic sale of prohibited drugs. Searching Google, you can find everything from Transportation Security Administration agents paid off to let drugs pass through airport checks, to cops who look the other way or actually steal the drug money, to border patrol agents letting drugs pass through, to local government officials overlooking illegal activity.

However, rarely does one come across the arrest and prosecution of a kingpin in the United States, or of a high-level law enforcement official in a major city or a politician being indicted. Does this mean that powerful individuals in the government and law enforcement are all squeaky clean as $50 billion in illegal drugs go whizzing through America, day in and day out? Not likely.

The emphasis of the DEA, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security is on catching the "guppies" without appearing to be working their way up to the people running the wholesale-to-retail illicit drug business in the US or their protectors. (In Latin America, however, the US is all about catching kingpins, although that doesn't often happen.)

For instance, the El Paso Times reported last year that "two former law enforcement officers allege that they cannot get anyone to investigate allegations that the Mexican drug cartels have corrupted US law officers and politicians in the El Paso border region.... Gonzales and Dutton allege that the FBI dropped them after 'big names' on the US side of the border began to surface in the drug investigations."

David Ramirez rose up the ranks of the Border Patrol to become a special agent at the Department of Homeland Security. He just wrote a book, "Beneath the Same Sky," a candid analysis of the borderland drug war. Interviewed by the Texas Tribune, he described US customs corruption matter-of-factly:

I can only tell you my experiences and what I saw. It was the lure of the money and as I write in the book, they offer this inspector $50,000 for what I call a "wave" - a loaded vehicle to come through the port. And they guaranteed them five vehicles a week so you are talking that kind of money, which is tempting. You have to be a man or a woman who knows their moral ground to say, "No. I am not doing it...."

"It's capitalism, I would think - supply and demand," Ramirez said further. "The demand for the drug is here and then we say, 'Okay Mexico or Latin America, fix your problem over there, but we still want our drugs.'"

Different Interests in the US Financially Gain From the War on Drugs

It's not just that some law enforcement officials are corrupt. They don't need to be for police departments to make money from arresting minor drug offenders.

Police departments around the nation gain from laws that allow the seizing of assets that the law enforcement officers allege may be related to drug crime, without even a court case involved. The libertarian CATO institute wrote about this practice that allows the agencies to use the proceeds from the confiscated money or property to enlarge departmental budgets. The report is called "Forfeit for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture."

Law enforcement agencies can also get extra money from federal grants if they show a high number of arrests related to drug use and selling, so it is of financial value to the department to arrest as many people for drug related offenses as possible.

Neill Franklin is executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). He calls this change to an emphasis on arrests of the drug user as a "shift to the numbers game" for police departments to receive more funding. Franklin, a 34-year law enforcement veteran of the Maryland State Police and Baltimore Police Department, said, "we worked in predominantly white areas, yet most of our cases and lock ups were minorities. There were very few cases in the outlying areas that involved whites."

Franklin told Truthout:

"Over my career I saw a shift to a war on the users of drugs. In the '70s when I worked narcotics it was about working your way up the chain of the sellers to the kingpins. That's how it was. As we got further into the '80s and '90s, we attacked the demand side. We concentrated on locking up the usual street corner suspects and before we knew it we had quadrupled the incarceration rate and most of that increase was from us arresting users. A lot of the small time dealers sell drugs because they need to support their habit of selling drugs. The day of the law enforcement concentrating on kingpins has gone. It's all about increasing the numbers of arrests."

To Franklin this brings up the question of why privatized prison companies are simultaneously benefiting financially from the increased incarceration, a subject that has been analyzed many times on Truthout. If the Correction Corporation of America needs a 90 percent capacity rate to make a profit on a prison, then you need to put the bodies in the beds. Franklin pointed out that the profiteering doesn't end with the prison business. There is the drug testing industry, parole officers, prosecutors, police, lawyers, rehabilitation counselors, psychologists etc. Arresting minor drug offenders, in short, is big business.

Race, Drugs, Incarceration and the New Jim Crow

Michelle Alexander, author of the paradigm-shifting book on racism through the criminalization of being a black male, "The New Jim Crow," recently wrote a commentary in The Guardian UK in which she persuasively argues that "the US war on drugs created a whole new generation of the dispossessed, with millions of black people denied their rights."

Alexander wrote of the racist impact of the war on drugs in the black community, particularly among young black males:

The uncomfortable truth, however, is that crime rates do not explain the sudden and dramatic mass incarceration of African Americans during the past 30 years. Crime rates have fluctuated over the last few decades - they are currently at historical lows - but imprisonment rates have consistently soared. Quintupled, in fact. And the vast majority of that increase is due to the "war on drugs" and the "get tough movement." Drug offenses alone accounted for about two-thirds of the increase in the federal inmate population, between 1985 to 2000, and more than half of the increase in the state prison population.

The drug war has been brutal, but those who live in white communities have little clue to the devastation wrought. This war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color, even though studies consistently show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates. In fact, some studies indicate that white youths are significantly more likely to engage in illegal drug dealing than black youths. They also have about three times the number of drug-related visits to the emergency room as their African American counterparts.

That is not what you would guess, though, when entering our nation's prisons and jails, overflowing as they are with black and brown drug offenders. In some states, African Americans comprise 80-90% of all drug offenders sent to prison....

Again, not so. President Ronald Reagan officially declared the current drug war in 1982, when drug crime was declining, not rising. From the outset, the war had little to do with drug crime and nearly everything to do with racial politics. The drug war was part of a grand and highly successful Republican party strategy of using racially coded political appeals on issues of crime and welfare to attract poor and working-class white voters who were resentful of, and threatened by, desegregation, busing and affirmative action.

If you follow Alexander's analysis to its logical conclusion, the war on drugs in the United States fulfills a racist stereotype by disproportionately sending black males (and black women) to jails, where they are branded and marginalized as felons, while white users of illegal drugs - proportionately - are treated much more leniently by law enforcement and the judicial system.

This policy misleadingly confirms stereotypes of blacks that racists love, even though they are put in prison for offenses that are nonviolent in nature and that are driven by poverty, social neglect and incentivized police department arrest numbers.

But it also serves another important purpose. When poor, stereotyped members of society can only find an entrepreneurial future in the illegal drug business, or use drugs as self-medication to allow them to escape the squalidness of vast swathes of urban America that hold little opportunity of employment, the government does not have to attend to building neighborhoods and creating jobs. Drugs become the opiate of the masses, as meth also has in many poor, rural white communities.

As with the 50,000-plus mostly poor Mexicans who have died in the failed war on drugs, certain lives are deemed of less value in the US - and if there is big money to be made out of the drug trade, it's going to end up in banks and business ventures, not in the hood (with few exceptions). The undesirable resourceless drug users are both profitable and expendable.

US Hegemony and Military Control Over Latin America and the CIA

An established journalist, Gary Webb, wrote a series of articles for the San Jose Mercury-News in 1996 with a shocking account of how the CIA, during the Reagan administration, allowed cocaine to freely be flown into the US (particularly crack cocaine) in return for drug cartel cooperation with funding and arming the Contras against the Sandinistas in the Nicaraguan civil war. At first, the series was a bombshell, but then the CIA fought back through established Eastern newspapers and the Mercury-News retracted the series.

Webb, however, wrote an even more in-depth and credible account of the CIA condoning drugs entering the US in a 1999 book: "Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras and the Crack Cocaine Explosion." However, his reputation was so slandered by CIA flacks that he eventually committed suicide in 2004. Subsequent reports, after his death, corroborated the credibility of his investigative account.

It is not the only allegation of the US turning a blind eye or even politically using drugs entering the US as foreign policy strategic tools. Right now, the US is more or less ignoring the surge in poppy growth in Afghanistan so as not to complicate its precarious role in that nation - and the economic need of farmers there. President George Herbert Walker Bush, who headed the CIA for a time, didn't object to Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's (he was a highly paid CIA asset) role in the drug trade until Noriega started to go rogue on US foreign policy, thus being perceived as becoming a threat to the Canal Zone.

In "Beyond Bogota: Diary of a Drug War Journalist," Garry M. Leech described how the US focus on attacking the growing of cocaine in the Marxist FARC-controlled area is counterproductive, because the right-wing paramilitary area in Columbia grows more and sells it at a cheaper rate. Translated, this means that the US government is more concerned about the political threat of FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) than how much cocaine ends up in the United States.

The drug war in Latin America offers the opportunity to increase US military hegemony and thus preserve markets where the US can dominate governments and obtain cheap labor and natural resources (particularly mining and oil). It also sews death, fear and chaos that stifle populist revolts against oligarchical and military rule.

Drug Cartels Are Headed by Pirate Businessmen Marketing a Commodity in Demand and the American Corporate Class Loves Supply Side Entrepeneurs

Minus the gruesome violence in their host countries, drug cartels are just illegal businessmen, so the business class in the US can relate to them, as can the CIA. They are aggressive, ruthless and greedy, not unlike some of their bankers on Wall Street.

The cost of a drug war to achieve geopolitical objectives then is immense in the loss of life, the breakdown of civil society in the nations affected in Latin America, and in the moral grounding, racial injustice and credibility of our governmental and business institutions.

Eric E. Sterling, who wrote many of the severe anti-drug laws while serving as former assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, indicated second thoughts in a recent Forbes commentary:

Excluding the significant markets in methamphetamine, Ecstasy, psychedelics and other drugs, this is a criminal retail market in the range of $300 billion annually. Most of the markup is at the retail level. This enormous market is evidence that our efforts to stop the drug supply create the incentives that have grown a global criminal infrastructure of countless drug prohibition enterprises....

All over the world, drug organizations depend upon corrupting border guards, customs inspectors, police, prosecutors, judges, legislators, cabinet ministers, military officers, intelligence agents, financial regulators and presidents and prime ministers. Businesses cannot count on the integrity of government officials in such environments.

And corrupted we have become, while publically taking the moral high ground and precipitating a blood bath in Latin America.

Previous installments in the Truthout on the Mexican Border Series Include:

"The US War on Drug Cartels in Mexico Is a Deadly Failure"

"The Border Wall: The Last Stand at Making the US a White Gated Community"

"Murder Incorporated: Guns, the NRA and the Politics of Violence on the Mexican Border"

"A Poet's Pain Launches a Peace Movement in Mexico"

"The School of the Americas, the CIA and the US-Condoned Cancer of Torture Continue to Spread in Latin America, Including Mexico"

"Who Is Killing the Journalists in Mexico?"

"Latina Leaders of Texas Colonias Help Remake Shantytowns Into Empowered Communities"
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
THE ECONOMICS OF INCARCERATION



James Nachtwey / VII
For anyone paying attention, there is no shortage of issues that fundamentally challenge the underpinning moral infrastructure of American society and the values it claims to uphold. Under the conceptual illusion of liberty, few things are more sobering than the amount of Americans who will spend the rest of their lives in an isolated correctional facility – ostensibly, being corrected. The United States of America has long held the highest incarceration rate in the world, far surpassing any other nation. For every 100,000 Americans, 743 citizens sit behind bars. Presently, the prison population in America consists of more than six million people, a number exceeding the amount of prisoners held in the gulags of the former Soviet Union at any point in its history.
While miserable statistics illustrate some measure of the ongoing ethical calamity occurring in the detainment centers inside the land of the free, only a partial picture of the broader situation is painted. While the country faces an unprecedented economic and financial crisis, business is booming in other fields – namely, the private prison industry. Like any other business, these institutions are run for the purpose of turning a profit. State and federal prisons are contracted out to private companies who are paid a fixed amount to house each prisoner per day. Their profits result from spending the minimum amount of state or federal funds on each inmate, only to pocket the remaining capital. For the corrections conglomerates of America, prosperity depends on housing the maximum numbers of inmates for the longest potential time - as inexpensively as possible.
By allowing a profit-driven capitalist-enterprise model to operate over institutions that should rightfully be focused on rehabilitation, America has enthusiastically embraced a prison industrial complex. Under the promise of maintaining correctional facilities at a lower cost due to market competition, state and federal governments contract privately run companies to manage and staff prisons, even allowing the groups to design and construct facilities. The private prison industry is primarily led by two morally deficient entities, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut Corrections Corporation). These companies amassed a combined revenue of over $2.9 billion in 2010, not without situating themselves in the center of political influence.

The number of people imprisoned under state and federal custody increased 772% percent between 1970 and 2009, largely due to the incredible influence private corporations wield against the American legal system. Because judicial leniency and sentencing reductions threaten the very business models of these private corporations, millions have been spent lobbying state officials and political candidates in an effort to influence harsher “zero tolerance” legislation and mandatory sentencing for many non-violent offenses. Political action committees assembled by private correctional corporations have lobbied over 3.3 million dollars to the political establishment since 2001. An annual report released by the CCA in 2010 reiterates the importance of influencing legislation:
“The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior. Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation with electronic monitoring who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates or resources dedicated to prevent and enforce crime could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.”
Considering today’s private prison population is over 17 times larger than the figure two decades earlier, the malleability of the judicial system under corporate influence is clear. The Corrections Corporation of America is the first and largest private prison company in the US, cofounded in 1983 by Tom Beasley, former Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party. The CCA entered the market and overtly exploited Beasley’s political connections in an attempt to exert control over the entire prison system of Tennessee. Today, the company operates over sixty-five facilities and owns contracts with the US Marshal Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Bureau of Prisons. The GEO Group operates 118 detention centers throughout the United States, South Africa, UK, Australia and elsewhere. Under its original name, the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation was synonymous for the sadistic abuse of prisoners in its facilities, resulting in the termination of several contracts in 1999.

The political action committees assembled by private prison enterprises have also wielded incredible influence with respect to administering harsher immigration legislation. The number of illegal immigrants being incarcerated inside the United States is rising exponentially under Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency responsible for annually overseeing the imprisonment of 400,000 foreign nationals at the cost of over $1.9 billion on custody-related operations. The agency has come under heavy criticism for seeking to contract a 1,250-bed immigration detention facility in Essex County, New Jersey to a private company that shares intimate ties to New Jersey's Governor, Chris Christie. Given the private prison industry’s dependence on immigration-detention contracts, the huge contributions of the prison lobby towards drafting Arizona’s recrementitious immigration law SB 1070 are all but unexpected. While the administration of Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer is lined with former private prison lobbyists, its Department of Corrections budget has been raised by $10 million, while all other Arizona state agencies are subject to budget cuts in 2012’s fiscal year.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this obstinate moral predicament presents itself in the private contracting of prisoners and their role in assembling vast quantities of military and commercial equipment. While the United States plunges itself into each new manufactured conflict under a wide range of fraudulent pretenses, it is interesting to note that all military helmets, ammunition belts, bulletproof vests, ID tags, uniforms, tents, bags and other equipment used by military occupation forces are produced by inmates in federal prisons across the US. Giant multinational conglomerates and weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Corporation employ federalprison labor to cheaply assemble weapons components, only to sell them to the Pentagon at premium prices. At the lowest, Prisoners earn 17 cents an hour to assemble high-tech electronic components for guided missile systems needed to produce Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missiles and anti-tank projectiles.
In the past, political mouthpieces of the United States have criticized countries such as China and North Korea for their role in exploiting prisoner labor to create commodity products such as women’s bras and artificial flowers for export. Evidently, outsourcing the construction of the military equipment responsible for innumerable civilian causalities to the prisons of America warrants no such criticism from the military industrial establishment. In utter derisiontoward the integrity of the common worker, prison inmates are exposed to toxic spent ammunition, depleted uranium dust and other chemicals when contracted to clean and reassemble tanks and military vehicles returned from combat. Prison laborers receive no union protection, benefits or health and safety protection when made to work in electronic recycling factories where inmates are regularly exposed to lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic.
In addition to performing tasks that can result in detrimental illnesses, prison labor produces other military utilities such as night-vision goggles, body armor, radio and communication devices, components for battleship anti-aircraft guns, land mine sweepers and electro-optical equipment. While this abundant source of low-cost manpower fosters greater incentives for corporate stockholders to impose draconian legislation on the majority of Americans who commit nonviolent offenses, it’s hard to imagine such an innately colossal contradiction to the nation’s official rhetoric, i.e. American values. Furthermore, prison labor is employed not only in the assembly of complex components used in F-15 fighter jets and Cobra helicopters, it also supplies 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services, with similar statistics in regard to products such as paints, stoves, office furniture, headphones, and speakers.

It is some twisted irony that large sections of the workforce in America’s alleged free-market are shackled in chains. Weapons manufactured in the isolation of America’s prisons are the source of an exploitative cycle, which leaves allied NATO member countries indebted to a multibillion-dollar weapons industry at the behest of the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon. Complete with its own trade exhibitions, mail-order catalogs and investment houses on Wall Street, the eminence of the private prison industry solidifies the ongoing corrosion of American principles – principles that seem more abstract now, than the day they were written.

Predictably, the potential profit of the prison labor boom has encouraged the foundations of US corporate society to move their production forces into American prisons. Conglomerates such as IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom's, Revlon, Macy's, Pierre Cardin, Victoria’s Secret, and Target have all begun mounting production operations in US prisons. Many of these Fortune 500 conglomerates are corporate members of civil society groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). These think tanks are critical toward influencing American foreign policy. Under the guise of democracy promotion, these civil societies fund opposition movements and train dissent groups in countries around the world in the interest of pro-US regime change. With naked insincerity, the same companies that outsource the production of their products to American prisons simultaneously sponsor civil societies that demanded the release of Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest – an overly political effort in the on-going attempts to install a compliant regime in that country.

The concept of privatizing prisons to reduce expenses comes at great cost to the inmates detained, who are subjected to living in increasingly squalid conditions in jail cells across America. In 2007, the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) was sent to a West Texas juvenile prison run by GEO Group for the purpose of monitoring its quality standards. The monitors sent by the TYC were subsequently fired for failing to report the sordid conditions they witnessed in the facility while they awarded the GEO Group with an overall compliance score of nearly 100%. Independent auditors later visited the facility and discovered that inmates were forced to urinate or defecate in small containers due to a lack of toilets in some of the cells. The independent commission also noted in their list of reported findings that the facility racially segregated prisoners and disciplined Hispanics for speaking Spanish by denying their access to layers and medical treatment. It was later discovered that the TYC monitors were employed by the GEO Group. Troublingly, the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (WGYCF) operated by the GEO Group in Mississippi has been subject to a class-action lawsuit after reports that staff members were complicit in the beating and stabbing of a prisoner who consequently incurred permanent brain damage. The official compliant authored by the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center also highlights cases where the administration turned a blind eye to brutal cases of rape and torture within the facility.

The first private prison models were introduced following the abolishment of slavery after the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865, which saw expansive prison farms replace slave plantations. Prisons of the day contracted groups of predominately African-American inmates to pick cotton and construct railroads principally in southern states such as Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. In 2012, there are more African-Americans engrossed in the criminal-justice system than any point during slavery. Throughout its history, the American prison system has shared little with the concept of rehabilitation. Like the post-Civil War prison farms, today’s system functions to purport required labor, largely on a racially specific basis. African-Americans consist of 40% of the prison population and are incarcerated seven times more often than whites, despite the fact that African-Americans make up only 12% of the national population. Once released, former inmates are barred from voting in elections, denied educational opportunities and are legally discriminated against in their efforts to find employment and housing. Few can deny the targeting of underprivileged urban communities of color in America’s failed War on Drugs. This phenomenon can largely be contributed to the stipulations of its anti-drug legislation, which commanded maximum sentencing for possession of minute amounts of rock cocaine, a substance that floods poor inner-city black communities.

Unbeknown to the vast majority of Americans, the US government has been actively taking steps to modify the legal infrastructure of the country to allow for a dramatic expansion of the domestic prison system at the expense of civil rights. On December 31st, 2011, Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) H.R. 1540. Emulating the rouge military dictatorships the US Government has long condemned in its rhetoric, the NDAA introduces a vaguely worded legislation that allows for US citizens to be arbitrarily detained in military detention without due process - might they be predictably be deemed radical, conspiratorial or suspected of terrorism. In a climate of rising public discontent, the establishment media has steadfastly worked to blur the line between public activism and domestic extremism. In addition to the world’s largest network of prison facilities, over 800 located detainment camps exist in all regions of the United States with varying maximum capacities.

Facing economic stagnation, many Americans have been detained in responder camps as a consequence of publically demonstrating in accordance with the Occupy Wall Street movement launched in New York City. Under the guise of protecting Americans from a largely contrived and abstract threat of fundamentalist violence, citizens have been denied the right of peaceful assembly and placed in detainment apparatuses, managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Documents have been released by the American Civil Liberties Union detailing the Pentagon’s widespread monitoring of public demonstrations and the targeting of individual activistsunder threat of national security. Co-authored by Senator Joe Lieberman, the Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166) gives the US government the power to detain nationals and revoke their American citizenship under suspicion of behavior perceived as terrorism.

This legislation becomes increasingly more dangerous as citizens can be labeled domestic extremists based on their constitutionally protected activism or personal political leanings. In January 2006, a contract to construct detention facilities for the Department of Homeland Security worth a maximum of $385 million was awarded to KBR, a subsidiary of Haliburton. Following the signing of NDAA earlier in 2012, leaked documents reveal that KBR is now seeking to staff its detention centers and award contracts for services such as catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, and refuse collection. It would be reasonable to assume that these facilities could be managed in partnership with private corporations such as the GEO Group or the CCA, as many federal and state penitentiaries privatize sections of their facilities to privately owned companies. Declassified US Army documents originally drafted in 1997 divulge the existence of inmate labor camps inside US military installations. It is all but unexpected that the relationship between the upper echelons of government and the private prison enterprise will grow increasingly more intimate in the current climate of prison industrial legislation.

The partnership between the United States government and its corporate associates spans various industries however, they all seek the common pursuit of profit irrespective of the moral and ethical consequence – the humanconsequence. The increasing influence of the Prison Industrial Complex towards official legislation and economic undertakings signifies a reprehensible threat to basic human rights. Perhaps the issuance of government legislation that leads offenders into detainment for the benefit of private shareholders is the purest embodiment of fascism, as cited in Mussolini’s vision of a Corporate State. Perhaps we all (this author included) fail to grasp the seriousness of these legislations and their implications on our lives.

Mumia Abu-Jamal has spent over three decades on death row in the throngs of the American prison system. Prior to his conviction in 1981 for the murder of a white police officer, Jamal was a political activist and President of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists. Critical evidence vindicating Jamal was withheld from the trial prior to the issuance of the death penalty. Forensic experts believe he was denied a fair trial. On December 7, 2011, the Philadelphia District Attorney announced that prosecutors would no longer seek the death penalty for Jamal. He remains imprisoned for life without parole and continues his work as a journalist from his jail cell in Pennsylvania.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
9 WAYS THE BANKSTER OCCUPIED U.S. GOVERNMENT IS WAGING WAR AGAINST AMERICA


1. Ideology.

There is a dictatorship of the mind and spirit in America. The official ideology of the U.S. totalitarian state is counter-terrorism and national security. All domestic and foreign crimes are justified under the umbrella of security and defense. The false flag September 11 attacks served as the catalyst that brought this totalitarian ideology into being on a world stage.

The attacks also had the effect of putting the American people into a psychological state of subservience towards the government and power elite. As a result, the free will of the American people has been destroyed. The minds of the people are directed at non-existent terrorists like Al Qaeda and non-threatening countries like Iraq and Iran for one single purpose: to generate insecurity in the individual so that he/she supports the false and permanent war on terror.

Hans Barth wrote in his 1939 essay called, "Reality and Ideology of the Totalitarian State," that, "a people completely unified by a totalitarian policy and wholly integrated as a spiritual body, thus offering a foundation for a totalitarian state, is nothing but a flexible instrument for the use of the commander-in-chief in the pursuit of the totalitarian war," (Barth (1939); The Review of Politics, Volume 1, Issue 03, Pg. 275-306).

The voice of dissent and 9/11 truth is the only way to break the totalitarian conditioning of the American people and the people of other Western countries.

2. Paradigm.

What exists in Washington is one party dictatorship with two political factions. Super committee or no super committee, republican or democrat, the will of the power elite will prevail over the will of the people under the current system.

The false left-right political paradigm enables the power elite to remain in control and continue to loot America without being discovered as the real enemy of the American people.

The one party dictatorship also means that there is no accountability for the political leadership. Both Republicans and Democrats have stabbed America in the back. This political fact has led to the collapse of the American people's trust in the federal government and Congress.

What lies ahead is social unrest, political collapse, and revolution.

3. Militarization.

Militarized cities are occupied cities.

Urban space is regulated by the hijacked government not to defend the interests of the public but to acquire greater power for the treasonous elite and suppress patriotic dissent.

Essentially, the power elite have turned public space into an urban war zone. An atmosphere of war is created in the public mind, giving the mentally occupied individual two choices: either side with the loving and protective government, or the dangerous and scary domestic terrorists.

Stephen Graham, author of "Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism," said in a recent interview on Democracy Now about the militarization of the police and the violent government reaction to anti-Wall Street protesters:
Well, there’s been a longstanding shift in North America and Europe towards paramilitarized policing, using helicopter-style systems, using infrared sensing, using really, really heavy militarized weaponry. That’s been longstanding, fueled by the war on drugs and other sort of explicit campaigns. But more recently, there’s been a big push since the end of the Cold War by the big defense and security and IT companies to sell things like video surveillance systems, things like geographic mapping systems, and even more recently, drone systems, that have been used in the assassination raids in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and elsewhere, as sort of a domestic policing technology. It’s basically a really big, booming market, particularly in a world where surveillance and security is being integrated into buildings, into cities, into transport systems, on the back of the war on terror.Will Grigg, author of "Liberty in Eclipse," has written about the militarization of the police in America for a number of years. In an interview with Scott Horton of Antiwar Radio on November 22, Grigg said:
"With respect to where we are now with the crackdown on Occupy Wall Street, take a look at the way the enforcers are garbed, take a look at the techniques they use. We're living in what is essentially a prison society."In the prison society that Grigg talks about, the police officer is a guard and the citizen is an inmate who is considered guilty and a potential violent threat to the state. The rule of law is not defended. Instead, police officers are brainwashed and used to rape the public in the name of security.

4. Culture.

The manipulation of mass culture by the elite is part of a larger war against the mental integrity of the individual and the free will of the people. The whole edifice of mainstream culture in the West is designed to control thought and speech. As Terence McKenna said, "Culture is not your friend . . .It insults you, it disempowers you, it uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture. And yet we glorify the creative potential of the individual, the rights of the individual. We understand the felt-presence of experience is what is most important. But the culture is a perversion."

The culture that is being produced creatively by the alternative media, underground music, and other cultural avenues is countering the official totalitarian culture that is handed down by authoritarian governments, corporate elites, and the treasonous media. The harm that the official culture is doing to the average individual cannot be overstated. State propaganda and predictive programming techniques are regularly used in T.V. programming and films to control behavior and thoughts. People have been turned into animals under this psychological prison system.

The most important element of culture is storytelling. Stories connect us with our past, inform our present actions, and point the way towards the future.

In America, the power of storytelling has been hijacked and misused by the controllers of the U.S. government to indoctrinate the people of the world and destroy freedom of thought. The assassination of JFK and the terrorist attacks on 9/11 have overturned the American constitutional system of government, as well as other Western democratic governments, but the official stories about these events that are told in mainstream culture hide the true nature of these evil crimes.

5. Drugs.

Pharmaceutical drugs are promoted and sold by the government and television, but natural drugs are suppressed and persecuted. Many of these natural drugs have the effect of opening the individual's minds to amazing experiences and new conceptions of life and the universe.

The mind is liberated from the routine of everyday life and everyday thoughts when natural drugs like mushrooms are taken, and this experience has political implications, as McKenna said. When people start seeing the world in a different light they don't go back to believing in the fictions and fantasies of the mainstream matrix. The road to intellectual discovery opens up, and the individual begins to search for answers to both personal and political questions.

6. Fear.

Creating fear and chaos is the modus operandi of the U.S. shadow totalitarian state, and of all totalitarian states. Fear is the blood that keeps the fascist state going. The governments of Iran and Israel use the same political playbook against their citizens as the hijacked American government.

Keeping the people in a state of fear and mental insecurity enables political leaders and the criminal power elite to remain in a dominant position in society.

The pumping up of external enemies is the best way to keep the people submissive and scared. But enemies don't fall out of the sky. Enemies in modern totalitarian nations like Iran and America are made by political elites who painstakingly design a propaganda-oriented society that is constantly fed lies and disinformation.

Propaganda, however, is not enough to generate fear about an outside enemy. The manufacturing of dramatic events like the 9/11 attacks, 7/7 attacks, and the Iranian hostage crisis are necessary to create the image of the external enemy in the public mind of a nation.

There is nothing like drama and fear. 9/11 showed that slow-moving societies need explosive and dramatic acts of murder if they are to be moved in a certain direction by political elites in a short period of time. Without drama, without blood, without fear, without murder, without creating a public spectacle, elites cannot attain their dreams of war and revolution.

Fear shuts down critical thinking and makes people even more stupid than they already are, which is why the religious zealots in Iran and the globalist terrorists in the West both use fear as a political tool.

7. Language.
"Presidential power is the power to persuade." – Richard Neustadt
"When the president speaks, he governs." – Sandra Silberstein
"Language is apparently a sword which cuts both ways. With its help man can conquer the unknown; with it he can grievously wound himself." - Stuart Chase
In a democratic society, citizens use language to define collective priorities and interests, but in the current totalitarian hell that we live in the collective use of language has been hijacked by private interests in the pursuit of private ends.
The Western shadow states and establishment media are misusing language to suppress thought, control the political conservation about 9/11 and the war on terror, and alter cultural beliefs about the freedom of the individual.
The thought police in the totalitarian state love the magic of words because it can shape public perceptions about major events, political figures, and dissidents.
I am fascinated by the power of words. With one simple line, astronaut Neil Armstrong marked the official beginning of the space age. A couple of political slogans helped an inexperienced state senator from Illinois become the President of the United States.
McKenna said that language creates reality. This happened in the immediate hours and days after the 9/11 attacks, when American and Israeli politicians, "journalists," and national security experts went on television and used the power of the global communication system to put out the false narrative that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist act.

I was too young to remember what was said in television news reports and newspapers, but I've seen many video clips on the Internet of news anchors and special guests speaking on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CBC, BBC, and other news networks about the significance of the attacks. It is clear that the Zionist criminals, Neocon terrorists and shadow CIA traitors were not wasting any time. They seized the day on 9/11. It was the opportunity of a lifetime for any fascist and totalitarian leader.

Three thousand dead innocent Americans, New York City's skyline destroyed, the Pentagon attacked -- these dramatic pictures were created and politically exploited by the merchants of death in D.C. and Israel -- but pictures are not enough in a time of crisis -- words are also needed.

9/11 Commission director Philip Zelikow spelled it out in a lecture in Houston earlier this month called, "The Twilight of War." Zelikow said: "It’s my job to make meaning of 9/11." This lowlife also said that the CIA manufactured Al-Qaeda "is the enemy," and that they "are an unslayable power." LOL. This traitor relishes his role as the destroyer of America and the bringer of death and pain. He likes the thought of sending the shining knights in the American military to slay fabricated dragons abroad. It gives him something to do. The snake-like teller of lies is his station in life. He couldn't be a doctor, an architect, or a taxi driver, so he settled for being a war criminal.

8. Stigma.

The power of social stigma, shame, and ridicule cannot be overstated. Society is governed in this matter by criminal rulers who don't like to use force to dominate the people and keep their privileges.

In totalitarian societies, truth-tellers are treated like outcasts and driven outside of the community while the biggest liars and mass murderers lead the nation. This is the case in America, Iran, Israel, England, and many other countries.

America and Iran became full-scale totalitarian nations in the 1980s, when Reagan and Khomeini, two power-craving traitors, came to dominate the political scene in both countries thanks to much larger forces that put them in power.

Instead of being shamed for using violent rhetoric, attaining power illegally, and sponsoring backdoor arms deals, Khomeini and Reagan were glorified and raised to the status of heroes.

Both totalitarian leaders molded themselves as "revolutionaries" but they were not revolutionaries. They were destroyers and traitors. Khomeini followed the orders of his masters and destroyed Iran. And Reagan did the same to America, with Bush standing right beside him to make sure he didn't suddenly have a change of heart about committing treason against America.

Even today these two puppets are seen in a heroic light. The statues of Reagan and Khomeini are embraced as god-like by their deluded and brainwashed cult followers.

In a just world, unjust men like Khomeini, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Cheney, Bush II, and Obama would not just be shamed, but hanged, and buried in the sea.

But the reverse is happening.

Murderers and traitors like Reagan, Khomeini, Bush, and Obama are called saviors of the nation and defenders of freedom, while real heroes are shamed and ridiculed as "paranoid conspiracy theorists," and "domestic terrorists."

Millions of truth-tellers in America and the West are silenced and stigmatized. In Iran they are tortured and murdered.

Ron Paul is stigmatized as "loony" for advocating freedom in America and peace in the Middle East, but the sociopathic madmen who hijacked the Republican party and call for total world war are given the most media attention.

The weapon of social stigma as wielded by the establishment media can make people not listen to the wise Ron Paul, but instead, make them blindly follow psychopathic leaders like Barack Obama and his Republican foes to the point of complete destruction.

9. Secrecy.

"We have a system of runaway secrecy," said historian and author Richard Dolan in his lecture about the U.S. government's cover-up of UFOs in April 2011 in Amsterdam called, "Secret Space Program And Breakaway Civilization."

The secrecy of the hijacked U.S. government is its essential feature. Almost every public statement and public policy initiative is meant for global public consumption. I wrote an article in June that contained a quote from a U.S. government official named Edmond Taylor who said that U.S. government policy has two levels, "the esoteric and the exoteric."

The esoteric side is guarded from the American public, low-level government employees, and even high-ranking military and intelligence officials.

The power of the secret and informal government in Washington is beyond imagination. Dolan says the secret-holders have become a "breakaway civilization."

Over the decades, the secret-holders and power elite have broken their psychological ties to regular reality. Their emotional separation with the people of the world is total and complete. They do not consider themselves as part of our world.

Cutting political ties with the American constitutional government and Western democracies is the next step. And they have been very busy building a global fascist government in the shadows so this step is not as difficult as it was in the past.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
ALL IN THE "FAMILY." GLOBAL DRUG TRADE FUELED BY CAPITALIST ELITES


When investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker broke the story four years ago that a DC-9 (N900SA) "registered to a company which once used as its address the hangar of Huffman Aviation, the flight school at the Venice, Florida Airport which trained both terrorist pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, was caught in Campeche by the Mexican military ... carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine destined for the U.S.," it elicited a collective yawn from corporate media.

And when authorities searched the plane and found its cargo consisted solely of 128 identical black suitcases marked "private," packed with cocaine valued at more than $100 million, the silence was deafening.

But now a Bloomberg Markets magazine report, "Wachovia's Drug Habit," reveals that drug traffickers bought that plane, and perhaps fifty others, "with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the U.S.," Wachovia and Bank of America.

The Justice Department charge sheet against the bank tells us that between 2003 and 2008, Wachovia handled $378.4 billion for Mexican currency exchanges, "the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history."

"A sum" Bloomberg averred, equal to one-third of Mexico's current gross domestic product."

Since 2006, some 22,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence. Thousands more have been wounded, countless others "disappeared," torture and illegal imprisonment is rampant.

In a frightening echo of the Reagan administration's anti-communist jihad in Central America during the 1980s, the Bush and now, Obama administration has poured fuel on the fire with some $1.4 billion in "War on Drugs" funding under Plan Mérida. Much of that "aid" is destined to purchase military equipment for repressive police, specialized paramilitary units and the Mexican Army.

There is also evidence of direct U.S. military involvement. In June, The Narco News Bulletin reported that "a special operations task force under the command of the Pentagon is currently in place south of the border providing advice and training to the Mexican Army in gathering intelligence, infiltrating and, as needed, taking direct action against narco-trafficking organizations."

One former U.S. government official told investigative journalist Bill Conroy, "'Black operations have been going on forever. The recent [mainstream] media reports about those operations under the Obama administration make it sound like it's a big scoop, but it's nothing new for those who understand how things really work'."

But, as numerous investigations by American and Mexican journalists have revealed, there is strong evidence of collusion between the Mexican Army and the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels. A former Juarez police commander told NPR in May that "the intention of the army is to try and get rid of the Juarez cartel, so that [Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman] Chapo's [Sinaloa] cartel is the strongest."

The cosy relations among the world's biggest banks, drug trafficking organizations and the U.S. military-intelligence apparatus is not however, a new phenomenon. What is different today is the scale and sheer scope of the corruption involved. As Michel Chossudovsky points out,

This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have "political friends in high places." As legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between "businesspeople" and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions, including the military. (The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century, Montreal: Global Research, 2010, pp. 195-196)
While the Bloomberg story should cast new light on highly-profitable links amongst major financial institutions and narcotrafficking organizations in what may be protected drug rackets green-lighted by corrupt officials, media silence, particularly by outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, threaten to propel what should be an international scandal into a one-off news item scheduled for a trip down the memory hole.

"Cocaine One"

If, as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman claims "the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist," then perhaps too, drug cartels work their "market magic" with their own "hidden fist" or, as the Russians like to say a krysha, a web of protectors--and facilitators--drawn from business, finance, organized crime and the secret world of intelligence.

Dubbed "Cocaine One" by Hopsicker, the DC-9 was curious for a number of reasons, not least of which was the fact that "one of the chief shareholders" of a dodgy outfit called SkyWay Aircraft "is a private investment bank in Dallas which also raised funds for a Mexican industrialist with reported ties to a Cali and Juarez Cartel narcotics trafficker."

More curious still, the airline kitted-out its fleet with distinctive colors and a seal "designed to impersonate planes from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security." And when he learned that "SkyWay's genesis can be traced to In-Q-Tel Inc., a secretive, Arlington, Va., investment group owned, operated, and financed out of the black box budget of the Central Intelligence Agency," well you can bet corporate media ran themselves ragged investigating that!

To top it off, when another drug plane crash landed in the Yucatan Peninsula eighteen months later and broke apart, a Gulfstream II business jet (N987SA) that spilled "4 tons of cocaine across a muddy field," Hopsicker reported that it had originated from the same network and used the same source for its financing, the "Casa de Cambio Puebla SA, a country-wide network of currency exchanges."

And to make matters even more intriguing from a parapolitical perspective, after searching through FAA records Hopsicker discovered that the Gulfstream II business jet "was owned by a secretive Midwestern media baron and Republican fund-raiser, who had a business partner who, incredibly, owned the other American drug plane, the DC-9, recently busted in Mexico."

In fact, as Bloomberg investigative journalist Michael Smith learned years later, these were the same planes and same currency exchange which Hopsicker reported back in 2007 traffickers had used to purchase drug jets with funds laundered through Wachovia.

"One customer that Wachovia took on in 2004 was Casa de Cambio Puebla SA," Smith wrote. The Puebla, Mexico currency exchange was the brainchild of Pedro Alatorre, a "businessman" who "had created front companies for cartels."

Alatorre, and 70 others connected to his network, were seized in 2007 by Mexican law enforcement officials. Authorities discovered that the accused drug money launderer and airline broker for the cartels controlled 23 accounts at the Wachovia Bank branch in Miami and that it held some $11 million, subsequently frozen by U.S. investigators.

In 2008, a Miami federal grand jury indicted Alatorre, now awaiting trial in Mexico along with three other executives, charging them with drug trafficking and money laundering, accusing the company of using "shell firms to launder $720 million through U.S. banks." The Justice Department is currently seeking Alatorre's extradition from Mexico.

According to Bloomberg, "Puebla executives used the stolen identities of 74 people to launder money through Wachovia accounts." Jose Luis Marmolejo, the former head of the Mexican attorney general's financial crimes unit told Smith, "Wachovia handled all the transfers, and they never reported any as suspicious."

Some $300,000 was transferred by Wachovia to a Bank of America branch in Oklahoma City. With cash in hand Bloomberg reports, traffickers "used the funds to buy the DC-9 through Oklahoma City aircraft broker U.S. Aircraft Titles Inc." When queried by Smith about the sale, "U.S. Aircraft Titles President Sue White declined to comment."

Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the Wachovia case said in a press release that "Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations."

Yet, as Hopsicker wrote nearly three years ago, "the politically-explosive implications of the scandal may explain why American officials have been reluctant to move against, or even name, the true owners of the planes and basically 'turned a blind eye' to the American involvement exposed by the drug trafficking seizures."

As of this writing, no Americans have been criminally charged in the cash-for drug planes banking conspiracy.

"Troubled Assets" or Something More Sinister?

When Wells Fargo bought Wachovia, once America's fourth largest bank in 2008 at the fire-sale price of $12.8 billion, the bank and its former CEO, Kennedy "Ken" Thompson, who "retired at the request of the board" before the full-extent of the financial meltdown hit home, were in deep trouble.

Before the Wells takeover, Wachovia had been on a veritable shopping spree. After the firm's 2001 merger with First Union Bank, Wachovia merged with the Prudential Securities division of Prudential Financial, Inc., with Wachovia controlling the lion's share of the firm's $532.1 billion in assets. This was followed by the bank's purchase of Metropolitan West Securities, adding a $50 billion portfolio of securities and loans to the bank's Lending division. In 2004, Wachovia followed-up with the $14.3 billion acquisition of SouthTrust Corporation.

Apparently flush with cash and new market clout, Wachovia set it sights on acquiring California-based Golden West Financial. Golden West operated branches under the name World Savings Bank and was the nation's second largest savings and loan. At the time of the buy-out, Golden West had over $125 billion in assets. For Wachovia however, it was a deal too far.

With an enormous housing bubble fully inflated, and a new speculative merger-mania in full swing, one can only surmise that the need for liquidity at any price, had driven banking giants such as Wachovia to play dumb when shadier, yet highly-profitable transactions, such as the "arrangement" with Casa de Cambio Puebla SA, were involved.

Bleeding cash faster than you can say "mortgage backed securities," Wachovia was on the hook for their 2006 $26 billion buy-out of Golden West Financial at the peak of the housing bubble, a move that BusinessWeek reported generated "resistance from his own management team" but ignored by Thompson.

Why? "Because no one outside of Thompson and Golden West CEO Herb Sandler seemed to like the deal from the moment it was announced," a company insider told BusinessWeek.

While the buy-out may have given Thompson "the beachhead in California he had long desired ... the ink was barely dry on the Golden West deal in late 2006 when the housing bubble in markets including California and Florida began to deflate."

Hammered by the housing bust, Wachovia's share price, which had risen to $70.51 per share when the Golden West deal was announced had slid to $5.71 per share by October 2008. In other words, Wachovia, along with the world's economy, began circling the proverbial drain.

However you slice it, although it was clear that the Golden West deal had gone south quicker than you can say "credit default swaps," this didn't seem to stop Wachovia from paying "smartest guy in the room" Thompson $15.6 million in total compensation in 2007, a year after the fatal Golden West transaction. Nor did these losses stop the bank from showering Thompson with a severance package worth nearly $8 million.

But was something else going on here?

Wells Fargo bank admitted in a signed Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the federal government that they would not contest charges brought by the Justice Department in its indictment of the bank.

The banking giant was forced to admit charges by prosecutors that "On numerous occasions, monies were deposited into a CDC [Casa de Cambio] by a drug trafficking organization. Using false identities, the CDC then wired that money through its Wachovia correspondent bank accounts for the purchase of airplanes for drug trafficking organizations. On various dates between 2004 and 2007, at least four of those airplanes were seized by foreign law enforcement agencies cooperating with the United States and were found to contain large quantities of cocaine."

Bloomberg reported that Wells Fargo, in the wake of the settlement "declined to answer specific questions, including how much it made by handling $378.4 billion--including $4 billion of cash--from Mexican exchange companies."

There was however, more than "troubled assets" and charges of money laundering to the story. In fact, the purchase of these drug planes have been tied to some of the Bush administration's most secretive "War On Terror" programs.

Drug Flights, CIA Renditions. Just Another Day at the Office!

Replicating a pattern used by the Central Intelligence Agency during the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, the secret state used a network of cut-outs and legitimate businesses to transport prisoners to Agency black sites for "special handling."

During Iran-Contra it was "guns in, drugs out." Today one might say its "drugs in, tortured prisoners out." The results however, were the same; egregious crimes and lawbreaking on a staggering scale.

Subsequent investigations by Narco News revealed that "this particular Gulfstream II (tail number N987SA), was used between 2003 and 2005 by the CIA for at least three trips between the U.S. east coast and Guantanamo Bay, home to the infamous 'terrorist' prison camp," Bill Conroy reported.

"In addition," Conroy wrote, "the two SkyWay companies are associated with individuals who have done highly sensitive work for the Department of Defense or U.S. intelligence agencies, public records show and Narco Newssources confirm."

According to AFP, the Mexican daily El Universal said "it had obtained documents from the United States and the European Parliament which 'show that that plane flew several times to Guantanamo, Cuba, presumably to transfer terrorism suspects,'" the French newswire reported.

The plane was carrying "Colombian drugs" bound for the U.S. for the "fugitive leader of Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, Joaquin 'Chapo' Guzman," when it crashed in the Yucatan.

According to El Universal, the Federal Aviation Administration's "logbook registered that the plane had traveled between US territory and the US military base in Guantanamo," and that its last registered owner was "Clyde O'Connor in Pompano Beach, Florida."

The Independent confirmed separately in January of this year that "Evidence points to aircraft--familiarly known as 'torture taxis'--used by the CIA to move captives seized in its kidnapping or 'extraordinary rendition' operations through Gatwick and other airports in the EU being simultaneously used for drug distribution in the Western hemisphere."

Hugh O'Shaughnessy, confirming earlier reporting by Bill Conroy and Daniel Hopsicker said that "a Gulfstream II jet aircraft N9875A identified by the British Government and the European Parliament as being involved in this traffic crashed in Mexico in September 2008 while en route from Colombia to the US with a load of more than three tons of cocaine."

While O'Shaughnessy got the tail-number and date wrong, he's correct when he states that U.S. intelligence assets "continue the drug dealing they indulged in during the Iran-Contra affair of the Reagan years."

Narco News, citing DEA sources, learned that the crashed Gulfstream loaded with four tons of cocaine "was part of an operation being carried out by a Department of Homeland Security agency."

However in a later report, Mark Conrad, a former supervisory special agent with ICE's predecessor agency, U.S. Customs, told Narco News that the crashed Gulfstream used to transport drugs and prisoners was controlled by the CIA and "that the CIA, not ICE ... [was] actually the U.S. agency controlling the ... operation. If this were the case, then "any individuals or companies involved in a CIA-backed operation, even ones that are complicit in drug trafficking, would be off limits to U.S. law enforcers due to the cloak of national security the CIA can invoke."

In other words, a jet purchased by drug traffickers with funds laundered through an American bank and used in the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program may have been part of a protected drug operation by U.S. intelligence agencies. An operation furthermore, whose purpose is still unknown.

This report tracks closely with evidence uncovered by Peter Dale Scott. In a recent piece in Japan Focus Scott wrote that "it is not surprising that the U.S. Government, following the lead of the CIA, has over the years become a protector of drug traffickers against criminal prosecution in this country."

"A recent spectacular example" Scott tells us, drawing on research from his forthcoming book, is the curious case of CIA Venezuelan asset, General Ramon Guillén Davila.

General Ramon Guillén Davila, chief of a CIA-created anti-drug unit in Venezuela, was indicted in Miami for smuggling a ton of cocaine into the United States. According to the New York Times, "The CIA, over the objections of the Drug Enforcement Administration, approved the shipment of at least one ton of pure cocaine to Miami International Airport as a way of gathering information about the Colombian drug cartels." Time magazine reported that a single shipment amounted to 998 pounds, following earlier ones "totaling nearly 2,000 pounds." Mike Wallace confirmed that "the CIA-national guard undercover operation quickly accumulated this cocaine, over a ton and a half that was smuggled from Colombia into Venezuela." According to the Wall Street Journal, the total amount of drugs smuggled by Gen. Guillén may have been more than 22 tons. (Fueling America's War Machine: Deep Politics and the CIA's Global Drug Connection(in press, due Fall 2010 from Rowman & Littlefield).
Scott adds that "the United States never asked for Guillén's extradition from Venezuela to stand trial; and in 2007, when he was arrested in Venezuela for plotting to assassinate President Hugo Chavez, his indictment was still sealed in Miami. Meanwhile, CIA officer Mark McFarlin, whom DEA Chief Bonner had also wished to indict, was never indicted at all; he merely resigned."

But the stench of Iran-Contra, like that of the CIA's torture program, as with earlier secret state machinations with drug cartels never went away; in fact, like a cancer, one managed drug operation seamlessly metastasized into another.

Greasing the Wheels

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODOC) state in their 2010 Annual Report that "money-laundering is the method by which criminals disguise the illegal origins of their wealth and protect their asset bases in order to avoid suspicion of law enforcement and to prevent leaving a trail of incriminating evidence," and that financial institutions, particularly U.S. and European banks are key to efforts to choke-off illicit profits from the grisly trade.

The trouble is these institutions, along with U.S. intelligence agencies, are the problem.

UNODOC estimate that profits derived from narcotics rackets amount to some $600 billion annually and that up to $1.5 trillion dollars in drug money is laundered through seemingly legitimate enterprises.

Part of the fallout from capitalism's economic meltdown has been that "drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis," The Observer disclosed late last year.

Antonio Maria Costa, UNODOC's director, told the British newspaper he saw evidence that proceeds from the illicit trade were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year and that "a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result."

The UN drugs chief said that in "many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital." And with markets tanking and major bank failures nearly a daily occurrence, "liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor."

According to Costa, "Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade and other illegal activities... There were signs that some banks were rescued that way."

Web of Corruption

Although the UN's top anti-narcotics official declined to identify either the countries or banks that have benefited from the murderous trade, a web of corruption envelops the entire financial sector of the capitalist economy as the quest for "liquid assets" trumps everything.

Martin Woods, once director of Wachovia's anti-money-laundering unit in London told Bloomberg, "It's the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy." Woods told the magazine he "quit the bank in disgust" after executives "ignored his documentation that drug dealers were funneling money through Wachovia's branch network."

Despite warnings from the Treasury Department since 1996 that Mexican currency exchanges were laundering drug money through U.S. banks, "Wachovia ignored warnings by regulators and police, according to the deferred-prosecution agreement," Bloomberg reported.

"As early as 2004, Wachovia understood the risk," the bank admitted in court. "Despite these warnings, Wachovia remained in the business."

At the bank's anti-money laundering unit in London, Woods and his counterpart Jim DeFazio in Charlotte, NC told Smith "they suspected that drug dealers were using the bank to move funds."

Former Scotland Yard investigator Woods, said he "spotted illegible signatures and other suspicious markings on traveler's checks from Mexican exchange companies," and that he sent copies of his report to the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority, the DEA and U.S. Treasury Department.

But rather than being rewarded for his diligence, Woods told Smith "his bosses instructed him to keep quiet and tried to have him fired." In one meeting, "a bank official insisted Woods shouldn't have filed suspicious activity reports to the government, as both U.S. and U.K. laws require."

According to a whistleblower suit filed with an employment tribunal in London, Barrons reported last year before the Wachovia scandal broke, that Woods claimed "his bosses bullied and demoted him, then withdrew his reports of other suspicious activities in Eastern Europe."

It gets worse. Woods' complaint alleges "that Wachovia staff may have even tipped off Mexican-exchange clients about his laundering suspicions," and the veteran investigator told Wachovia officials "he feared for his safety."

In response, bank spokesperson Mary Eshet said at the time, "Wachovia believes that it has acted appropriately in its business dealings, and Mr. Woods' claims to the contrary are without merit."

Meanwhile, on the American side of the pond, 21-year FBI veteran DeFazio said "he told bank executives in 2005 that the DEA was probing the transfers through Wachovia to buy the planes." The bank ignored his warnings and continued along on their merry way until their indictment.

The law enforcement veteran told Bloomberg, "I think they looked at the money and said, 'The hell with it. We're going to bring it in, and look at all the money we'll make'."

The former Scotland yard investigator added, "If you don't see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 22,000 people killed in Mexico, you're missing the point."

But Wachovia wasn't the only large financial institution "missing the point." Bloomberg also revealed that Bank of America and the London-based "HSBC Holdings Plc, Europe's biggest bank by assets," American Express Bank, Banco Santander SA, Citigroup Inc., as well as "the world's largest money transfer firm," Western Union were also up to their eyeballs in dubious transactions.

In 1994 for example, American Express paid $14 million to settle with the federal government after "two employees were convicted in a criminal case involving drug trafficker Juan Garcia Abrego."

Yet between 1999-2004, Bloomberg reported "the bank failed to stop clients from laundering $55 million of narcotics funds, the bank admitted in a deferred-prosecution agreement in August 2007 ... and paid $65 million to the U.S. and promised not to break the law again." Charges were dismissed a year later under terms of the agreement.

And back in 2004, The Independent disclosed that "HSBC, the UK's largest bank, have been slammed for lax money-laundering procedures in a report by a US Senate subcommittee."

Journalists Hugh O'Shaughnessy and Paul Lashmar revealed that "the UK-based multinational stands accused of laxity in the fight against money laundering, drug trafficking, corruption and terrorism, notably in the oil-rich African state of Equatorial Guinea."

"In one of the few cases" when the scandal-plagued and now-shuttered Riggs Bank "seems to have properly followed US anti-money-laundering legislation," Riggs formally asked HSBC and a Spanish bank, Banco Santander, "to divulge the identities of the owners of two companies that kept accounts with them and that were receiving suspicious wire transfers totalling in excess of $35m (£20m). The banks refused to say who the owners were."

Bloomberg disclosed that "federal agents caught people who work for Mexican cartels depositing illicit funds in Bank of America accounts in Atlanta, Chicago and Brownsville, Texas, from 2002 to 2009." Authorities contend that "Mexican drug dealers used shell companies to open accounts at London-based HSBC."

Nevertheless, neither bank were accused of wrongdoing by the federal government and both firms denied any involvement in money laundering schemes.

Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton told Smith that they "strictly follow the government rules." Norton said, "Bank of America takes its anti-money-laundering responsibilities very seriously," a fact not readily apparent from Bloomberg Markets investigation.

Both Norton and HSBC spokesman Roy Caple told Smith that "[privacy] laws bar them from discussing specific clients."

And so it goes.

Fallout? What Fallout!

In the wake of Wachovia's admission to federal prosecutors, Wells Fargo will pay "$160 million in fines and penalties, less than 2 percent of its $12.3 billion profit in 2009."

"If Wells Fargo keeps its pledge," Bloomberg reports, then "according to the agreement [the federal government will] drop all charges against the bank in March 2011."

Why might that be? Large banks are immune from vigorous prosecution for violating the Bank Secrecy Act "by a variant of the too-big-to-fail theory."

Veteran Senate investigator Jack Blum, who led probes into the Iran-Contra drug connection and the CIA's favorite shadow bank during the 1980s, the Bank of Credit and Commerce (BCCI) told Bloomberg, "the theory is like a get-out-of-jail-free card for big banks."

"There's no capacity to regulate or punish them because they're too big to be threatened with failure," Blum says. "They seem to be willing to do anything that improves their bottom line, until they're caught."

Meanwhile as the bodies pile up, there's no jail time for executives and the assets of firms that could charitably be described as part of a "continuing criminal enterprise" haven't been seized; only a slap on the wrist and a promise to "do better next time."
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The New Jim Crow, is a book every copper color person should have in their collection!!!


THE NEW JIM CROW: HOW THE WAR ON DRUGS GAVE BIRTH TO A PERMANENT AMERICAN UNDERCASTE



Source: Truthout - Michelle Alexander

Ever since Barack Obama lifted his right hand and took his oath of office, pledging to serve the United States as its 44th president, ordinary people and their leaders around the globe have been celebrating our nation's "triumph over race." Obama's election has been touted as the final nail in the coffin of Jim Crow, the bookend placed on the history of racial caste in America.

Obama's mere presence in the Oval Office is offered as proof that "the land of the free" has finally made good on its promise of equality. There's an implicit yet undeniable message embedded in his appearance on the world stage: this is what freedom looks like; this is what democracy can do for you. If you are poor, marginalized, or relegated to an inferior caste, there is hope for you. Trust us. Trust our rules, laws, customs, and wars. You, too, can get to the promised land.

Perhaps greater lies have been told in the past century, but they can be counted on one hand. Racial caste is alive and well in America.

Most people don't like it when I say this. It makes them angry. In the "era of colorblindness" there's a nearly fanatical desire to cling to the myth that we as a nation have "moved beyond" race. Here are a few facts that run counter to that triumphant racial narrative:

  • There are more African Americans under correctional control today -- in prison or jail, on probation or parole -- than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.
  • As of 2004, more African American men were disenfranchised (due to felon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race.
  • A black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery. The recent disintegration of the African American family is due in large part to the mass imprisonment of black fathers.
  • If you take into account prisoners, a large majority of African American men in some urban areas have been labeled felons for life. (In the Chicago area, the figure is nearly 80%.) These men are part of a growing undercaste -- not class, caste -- permanently relegated, by law, to a second-class status. They can be denied the right to vote, automatically excluded from juries, and legally discriminated against in employment, housing, access to education, and public benefits, much as their grandparents and great-grandparents were during the Jim Crow era.
Excuses for the Lockdown

There is, of course, a colorblind explanation for all this: crime rates. Our prison population has exploded from about 300,000 to more than 2 million in a few short decades, it is said, because of rampant crime. We're told that the reason so many black and brown men find themselves behind bars and ushered into a permanent, second-class status is because they happen to be the bad guys.

The uncomfortable truth, however, is that crime rates do not explain the sudden and dramatic mass incarceration of African Americans during the past 30 years. Crime rates have fluctuated over the last few decades -- they are currently are at historical lows -- but imprisonment rates have consistently soared. Quintupled, in fact. And the vast majority of that increase is due to the War on Drugs. Drug offenses alone account for about two-thirds of the increase in the federal inmate population, and more than half of the increase in the state prison population.

The drug war has been brutal -- complete with SWAT teams, tanks, bazookas, grenade launchers, and sweeps of entire neighborhoods -- but those who live in white communities have little clue to the devastation wrought. This war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color, even though studies consistently show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates. In fact, some studies indicate that white youth are significantly more likely to engage in illegal drug dealing than black youth. Any notion that drug use among African Americans is more severe or dangerous is belied by the data. White youth, for example, have about three times the number of drug-related visits to the emergency room as their African American counterparts.

That is not what you would guess, though, when entering our nation's prisons and jails, overflowing as they are with black and brown drug offenders. In some states, African Americans comprise 80%-90% of all drug offenders sent to prison.

This is the point at which I am typically interrupted and reminded that black men have higher rates of violent crime. That's why the drug war is waged in poor communities of color and not middle-class suburbs. Drug warriors are trying to get rid of those drug kingpins and violent offenders who make ghetto communities a living hell. It has nothing to do with race; it's all about violent crime.

Again, not so. President Ronald Reagan officially declared the current drug war in 1982, when drug crime was declining, not rising. From the outset, the war had little to do with drug crime and nearly everything to do with racial politics. The drug war was part of a grand and highly successful Republican Party strategy of using racially coded political appeals on issues of crime and welfare to attract poor and working class white voters who were resentful of, and threatened by, desegregation, busing, and affirmative action. In the words of H.R. Haldeman, President Richard Nixon's White House Chief of Staff: "[T]he whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to."

A few years after the drug war was announced, crack cocaine hit the streets of inner-city communities. The Reagan administration seized on this development with glee, hiring staff who were to be responsible for publicizing inner-city crack babies, crack mothers, crack whores, and drug-related violence. The goal was to make inner-city crack abuse and violence a media sensation, bolstering public support for the drug war which, it was hoped, would lead Congress to devote millions of dollars in additional funding to it.

The plan worked like a charm. For more than a decade, black drug dealers and users would be regulars in newspaper stories and would saturate the evening TV news. Congress and state legislatures nationwide would devote billions of dollars to the drug war and pass harsh mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes -- sentences longer than murderers receive in many countries.

Democrats began competing with Republicans to prove that they could be even tougher on the dark-skinned pariahs. In President Bill Clinton's boastful words, "I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say I'm soft on crime." The facts bear him out. Clinton's "tough on crime" policies resulted in the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. But Clinton was not satisfied with exploding prison populations. He and the "New Democrats" championed legislation banning drug felons from public housing (no matter how minor the offense) and denying them basic public benefits, including food stamps, for life. Discrimination in virtually every aspect of political, economic, and social life is now perfectly legal, if you've been labeled a felon.

Facing Facts

But what about all those violent criminals and drug kingpins? Isn't the drug war waged in ghetto communities because that's where the violent offenders can be found? The answer is yes... in made-for-TV movies. In real life, the answer is no.

The drug war has never been focused on rooting out drug kingpins or violent offenders. Federal funding flows to those agencies that increase dramatically the volume of drug arrests, not the agencies most successful in bringing down the bosses. What gets rewarded in this war is sheer numbers of drug arrests. To make matters worse, federal drug forfeiture laws allow state and local law enforcement agencies to keep for their own use 80% of the cash, cars, and homes seized from drug suspects, thus granting law enforcement a direct monetary interest in the profitability of the drug market.

The results have been predictable: people of color rounded up en masse for relatively minor, non-violent drug offenses. In 2005, four out of five drug arrests were for possession, only one out of five for sales. Most people in state prison have no history of violence or even of significant selling activity. In fact, during the 1990s -- the period of the most dramatic expansion of the drug war -- nearly 80% of the increase in drug arrests was for marijuana possession, a drug generally considered less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and at least as prevalent in middle-class white communities as in the inner city.

In this way, a new racial undercaste has been created in an astonishingly short period of time -- a new Jim Crow system. Millions of people of color are now saddled with criminal records and legally denied the very rights that their parents and grandparents fought for and, in some cases, died for.

Affirmative action, though, has put a happy face on this racial reality. Seeing black people graduate from Harvard and Yale and become CEOs or corporate lawyers -- not to mention president of the United States -- causes us all to marvel at what a long way we've come.

Recent data shows, though, that much of black progress is a myth. In many respects, African Americans are doing no better than they were when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated and uprisings swept inner cities across America. Nearly a quarter of African Americans live below the poverty line today, approximately the same percentage as in 1968. The black child poverty rate is actually higher now than it was then. Unemployment rates in black communities rival those in Third World countries. And that's with affirmative action!

When we pull back the curtain and take a look at what our "colorblind" society creates without affirmative action, we see a familiar social, political, and economic structure -- the structure of racial caste. The entrance into this new caste system can be found at the prison gate.

This is not Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream. This is not the promised land. The cyclical rebirth of caste in America is a recurring racial nightmare.

Michelle Alexander is the author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (The New Press, 2010). The former director of the Racial Justice Project of the ACLU in Northern California, she also served as a law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun on the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently, she holds a joint appointment with the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity and the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University. To listen to a TomCast audio interview in which Alexander explains how she came to realize that this country was bringing Jim Crow into the Age of Obama, click here.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered


The above picture speaks 1,000 words. The beer industry hypocritically tells teens not to drink alcohol until they are 21, while those same companies saturate American culture with booze, booze, booze! Consequently, underaged drinking is an epidemic problem in America!
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The Hypocrisy of Alcohol and Drug Laws

Marijuana is illegal in most of the world, while alcohol is legal, despite the fact that alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than marijuana in every way. People consider marijuana to be a dangerous drug, while they think of alcohol as being a fun beverage.
They consider those who sell marijuana to be drug dealers, the scourge of society who should be hunted down and imprisoned, while those who sell alcohol (wine makers, grocery stores) are viewed as respectable citizens.

Logically speaking, it should be the other way around. Alcohol tends to make many people aggressive, leading to a variety of violent crimes, while marijuana does not. Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant, and leads to a serious loss of coordination and motor skills.

At larger doses, alcohol renders one completely unconscious. Drunk drivers cause enormous numbers of automobile accidents and deaths. Marijuana is not a central nervous system depressant, and while one probably shouldn't drive while intoxicated on anything, it simply does not cause anywhere near the loss of motor control that alcohol does, and is only a fraction as dangerous as alcohol in terms of driving. And, a large enough dose of alcohol can and will kill you, while the same is not true of marijuana.

But people are looking at this based on their feelings. Marijuana feels like a drug to them. It's illegal, isn't it? Alcohol feels like a fun beverage. It's legal, and socially acceptable, so it feels ok, so it must be ok. So the same cop who arrests someone for possessing Marijuana, can LEGALLY go home and get plastered on Jim Beam or Jack Daniel's alcohol. All of this is illogical and stupid, and typically human. It is tragic! The American people have proven themselves to be irresponsible when it comes to booze. Our sinful “get down and party” culture promotes boozing and drunkenness.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The U.S. government propaganda about the "war on drugs" disguises the fact (if we must speak of "war" at all) that this is a war on people — people who (responsibly or otherwise) choose to use drugs — or rather, drugs whose use authoritarian governments actively discourage — in contrast to their encouragement of the officially-condoned disease- and death-causing drugs alcohol and tobacco.

In a civilized society, war is a response by the government to a military attack from a hostile power. In a civilized society, the government does not make war upon its own people. Viewed from the perspective of the "war on drugs" the United States is no better than some tin-pot dictatorship in which those whom the government disapproves of regularly disappear and the rest live in fear of the same thing happening to them.

In America the "war on drugs" is big business. Lots of people make a lot of money from it — police, judges, lawyers, probation officers, prison guards, companies that build prisons, companies that provide "security", hand gun manufacturers and many others — including those supposedly "rogue" elements in the government itself (which are hardly "rogue" if they originate from the highest levels of government) that import heroin and cocaine to supply both the inhabitants of urban ghettos and the inhabitants of corporate boardrooms (more cocaine goes up the noses of affluent whites than of poor blacks). This is one reason why development of a saner drug policy is so difficult in the U.S. — there are too many people in positions of power profiting from prohibition.

Another reason is that any major revision of the government's prohibitionist position would require it to admit it has been wrong all these years, that it has in effect lied to the people while claiming to provide reliable information and guidance, and that its policies of encouraging the use of dangerous drugs and prohibiting the use of drugs which have few (if any) harmful effects have resulted in enormous suffering and loss of life. A government which prides itself on being a superpower — and (according to its view of itself) practically infallible — is unlikely to admit voluntarily that it has made a mistake of this enormity.

In Rethinking Drug Prohibition Peter Webster also points out that there are multiple factors sustaining the Drug War:



  • It's a useful tool for politicians seeking to whip up the electorate.
  • It profits the prison industry and even the weapons industry.
  • Legalization would threaten the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.
  • Legalization would threaten the profits of the tobacco and alcohol industries.
  • Users of marijuana and psychedelics are less enamored of material consumption, so legalization would threaten the profits of those promoting consumerism.
  • Drug prohibition facilitates control of the population.
  • Enforcement agencies (police, DEA, customs, etc.) profit greatly from the civil asset forfeiture laws.
  • The illegality and high prices for heroin and cocaine allows the CIA to obtain secret funding for its activities.
  • The Drug War has lead to draconian "money laundering" laws, which are a way for the U.S. to pry into the details of everyone's financial transactions.
  • The Drug War provides an excuse for invasions of South and Central American countries.
  • Following the demise of the Red Threat another scapegoat is needed, and "drugs" (and drug users) are it.
  • The Drug War provides a distraction from the failure of the U.S. government to solve the real problems facing U.S. society (poverty, unemployment, poor health and educational systems, etc.).
  • The Drug War is a tool of racism, providing an excuse to disenfranchise the black population.
  • The DEA is a major bureaucracy and lives from the Drug War, so it's in the interests of the DEA to keep the "drug menace" on the front burner.
  • Puritanism is a major component of the American psyche, and the advocates of drug prohibition appeal to this.
  • For the U.S. govt. to reverse its stance on drug prohibition would mean admitting it was wrong, which it will never do.
lega1.gif
These are all reasons why the "war on drugs" is entrenched. But the supporters of the status quo (those who benefit from it in one way or another) may be making a false assumption: that people who know they have a perfect right to use drugs (if they do so without directly harming anyone else) will continue forever to put up with the active repression of their rights (in this and in many other respects) by a paternalistic, dictatorial, hypocritical and corrupt government-military-corporate complex which seems interested only in maintaining them, for its own financial benefit, in a condition of ignorance, fear, impoverishment and economic slavery.


marinol.jpg
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The War on (Certain) Drugs
Noam Chomsky in What Uncle Sam Really Wants

O
ne substitute for the disappearing Evil Empire has been the threat of drug traffickers from Latin America. In early September 1989, a major government-media blitz was launched by the President. That month the AP wires carried more stories about drugs than about Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa combined. If you looked at television, every news program had a big section on how drugs were destroying our society, becoming the greatest threat to our existence, etc.

The effect on public opinion was immediate. When Bush won the 1988 election, people said the budget deficit was the biggest problem facing the country. Only about 3% named drugs. After the media blitz, concern over the budget was way down and drugs had soared to about 40% to 45%, which is highly unusual for an open question (where no specific answers are suggested).

Now, when some client state complains that the US government isn't sending it enough money, they no longer say, "we need it to stop the Russians" - rather, "we need it to stop drug trafficking." Like the Soviet threat, this enemy provides a good excuse for a US military presence where there's rebel activity or other unrest.

So internationally, "the war on drugs" provides a cover for intervention. Domestically, it has little to do with drugs but a lot to do with distracting the population, increasing repression in the inner cities, and building support for the attack on civil liberties.

That's not to say that "substance abuse" isn't a serious problem. At the time the drug war was launched, deaths from tobacco were estimated at about 300,000 a year, with perhaps another 100,000 from alcohol. But these aren't the drugs the Bush administration targeted. It went after illegal drugs, which had caused many fewer deaths - over 3500 a year - according to official figures. One reason for going after these drugs was that their use had been declining for some years, so the Bush administration could safely predict that its drug war would "succeed" in lowering drug use.

The Administration also targeted marijuana, which hadn't caused any known deaths among some 60 million users. In fact, the crackdown has exacerbated the drug problem - many marijuana users have turned from this relatively harmless drug to more dangerous drugs like cocaine, which are easier to conceal.

Just as the drug war was launched with great fanfare in September 1989, the US Trade Representative (USTR) panel held a hearing in Washington to consider a tobacco industry request that the US impose sanctions on Thailand in retaliation for its efforts to restrict US tobacco imports and advertising. Such US government actions had already rammed this lethal addictive narcotic down the throats of consumers in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, with human costs of the kind already indicated.

The US Surgeon General, Everett Koop, testified at the USTR panel that "when we are pleading with foreign governments to stop the flow of cocaine, it is the height of hypocrisy for the United States to export tobacco." He added, "years from now, our nation will look back on this application of free trade policy and find it scandalous."

Thai witnesses also protested, predicting that the consequence of US sanctions would be to reverse a decline in smoking achieved by their government's campaign against tobacco use. Responding to the US tobacco companies' claim that their product is the best in the world, a Thai witness said, "Certainly in the Golden Triangle we have some of the best products, but we never ask the principle of free trade to govern such products. In fact we suppressed [them]." Critics recalled the Opium War 150 years earlier, when the British government compelled China to open its doors to opium from British India, sanctimoniously pleading the virtues of free trade as they forcefully imposed large-scale drug addiction on China.

Here we have the biggest drug story of the day. Imagine the screaming headlines: "U.S. Government The World's Leading Drug Peddler." It would surely sell papers. But the story passed virtually unreported, and with not a hint of the obvious conclusions.

Another aspect of the drug problem, which also received little attention, is the leading role of the US government in stimulating drug trafficking since World War II. This happened in part when the US began its postwar task of undermining the anti-fascist resistance and the labor movement became an important target.

In France, the threat of political power and influence of the labor movement was enhanced by its steps to impede the flow of arms to French forces seeking to reconquer their former colony of Vietnam with US aid. So the CIA undertook to weaken and split the French labor movement - with the aid of top American labor leaders, who were quite proud of their role.

The task required strikebreakers and goons. There was an obvious supplier: the Mafia. Of course, they didn't take on this work just for the fun of it. They wanted a return for their efforts. And it was given to them: they were authorized to reestablish the heroin racket that had been suppressed by the fascist governments - the famous "French connection" that dominated the drug trade until the 1960s.

By then, the center of the drug trade shifted to Indochina, particularly Laos and Thailand. The shift was again a by-product of a CIA operation - the "secret war" fought in those countries during the Vietnam War by a CIA mercenary army. They also wanted a payoff for their contributions. Later, as the CIA shifted its activities to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the drug racket boomed there.

The clandestine war against Nicaragua also provided a shot in the arm to drug traffickers in the region, as illegal CIA arms flights to the US mercenary forces offered an easy way to ship drugs back to the US, sometimes through US Air Force bases, traffickers report.

The close correlation between the drug racket and international terrorism (sometimes called "counterinsurgency," "low intensity conflict" or some other euphemism) is not surprising. Clandestine operations need plenty of money, which should be undetectable. And they need criminal operatives as well. The rest follows.
 

ORIGINAL NATION

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Reagan ordered a war on drugs and he was the biggest drug lord in the world at the time. Herbert Walker Bush took his place. We do not know who is taking their place right now
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
100 YEARS OF THE “WAR ON DRUGS”

100-years-Drug-War-BW.jpg

Soldier Snorting Dope, Aldo Stephen Panzieri, 1969 (source)

If the soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness.
—Monseigneur Bienvenu in Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
One of Johann Hari’s first childhood memories is one in which he futilely tries to wake up a family member from a drug overdose. Hari went on to graduate from Cambridge University in England and practice journalism. After becoming an award-winning journalist, Hari embarked on a thirty thousand mile trip, across nine countries, over the course of three years, doing research on the War on Drugs. The result was a New York Times bestselling book, Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs.

The title of the book is assumed to be a spin-off of the cantonese slang “Chasing the Dragon,” which refers to the inhaling of vapor emanating from heating opium. Hari begins the book with the first soldier of the War on Drugs, Harry Anslinger. As a child, Anslinger heard screams at night while he tried to sleep. One night his father woke him up. Armed with a note for the pharmacist, young Anslinger was sent to get his mother’s opioid prescription. That night, he discovered his mother was an addict. Hari writes:

When he grew into a man, this boy [Anslinger] was going to draw together some of the deepest fears in American culture – of racial minorities, of intoxication, of losing control – and channel them into a global war to prevent those screams. It would cause many screams in turn. They can be heard in almost every city on earth tonight. This is how Harry Anslinger entered the drug war.
In 1930, Anslinger became the First Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which later became the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). As First Commissioner, Anslinger played a crucial role in the eventual prohibition of marijuana. One of his effective tactics was to play on racists views held by many at the time. Anslinger was quoted saying, “there are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, most are negroes, hispanics, filipinos, and entertainers. Their satanic music, Jazz, and Swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with negroes, entertainers, and any others”. Thus, it comes as no surprise when today Whites and African Americans use marijuana at a similar rate, yet African Americans are six-times more likely to get arrested for marijuana use. While Anslinger is dead, his spirit lives on in the form of institutional racism, or as the scholar Michelle Alexander explains, racism without racists.

The above chart shows arrests data from the FBI and the latest census. It is worth noting that liberal-leaning urban centers like Cook County, and New York, have the largest disparities.

" id="yui_3_17_2_1_1560868684011_119" style="line-height: 0; text-align: center; position: relative; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 764.062px;">
FBI%2Barrests%2Bdata.jpg

The above chart shows arrests data from the FBI and the latest census. It is worth noting that liberal-leaning urban centers like Cook County, and New York, have the largest disparities.

In what I believe is the most eye-opening section of the book, Hari’s thesis argues that “the opposite of addiction is not sobriety, the opposite of addiction is connection” . To add teeth to his argument, Hari cites the “rat park” experiment conducted by psychologist Bruce Alexander, which explains that during the 1970s, the prominent theory of addiction came from a series of experiments known as the Skinner Box. These experiments consisted of a rat placed inside a cage with two bottles to drink from. One bottle contained plain water, the other contained sugar-water laced with morphine. Isolated in the cage, the rat tried both waters and ended up addicted to the morphine water. Alexander went further to explain that the drug itself is not the sole problem, but rather the environment. He created a social “rat park” where play structures, food, and mating was plentiful, and the two water options were also available. Most rats tried both waters, but none became dependent on the morphine water. In fact, consumption of the drugged water by isolated rats was nineteen times higher than those in the social rat park. Alexander and his students concluded:

It soon became absolutely clear to us that the earlier Skinner box experiments did not prove that morphine was irresistible to rats. Rather, most of the consumption of rats isolated in a Skinner box was likely to be a response to isolation itself. So, we published the results of our experiments in psychopharmacology journals.
The “rat park” experiment.
Illustrations by Stuart McMillen.

" id="yui_3_17_2_1_1560868684011_136" style="line-height: 0; text-align: center; position: relative; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 484.062px;">
Rat%2Bpark-1.jpg

The “rat park” experiment.
Illustrations by Stuart McMillen.

Rat%2Bpark.jpg

In 1971, Congressman Robert Steele from Connecticut and Morgan Murphy from Illinois visited American troops in Vietnam. To their astonishment, they discovered that 15% of the troops were addicted to heroin and that 40% had tried the drug. Researchers led by Dr. Lee Robinson later found, however, that when troops came home only 5% of them continued to be addicted. The remaining 95% ended their addiction practically overnight. Thousands of miles away from home, enduring excruciating terrain in a war that killed 47,000 Americans and 1 million civilians, one can see how the numbing effects of heroin could be used to cope with such a dark time. While there is not a single explanation for the decrease in addiction to heroin once service members came home, it is clear to see that once home, they found themselves in a completely different environment. War is a cage of isolation and hopelessness, but once back in their social rat park, war was no longer begging them to “chase the dragon”.

Nonetheless, in 2016, the National Institute of Drug Abuse recorded 64,000 deaths from drug overdoses in the United States, surpassing the death toll of American service members killed in the Vietnam War. This begs the question, “what cage is causing this addiction?” Although not isolated in a warzone, a large swath of the American public lives with stagnant wages, housing crises, and poverty. One can argue that this builds a cage of isolation and hopelessness, and in the words of former addict and artist Russell Brand, some would, “rather anesthetize the pain of living to ease the passage of the day with some purchased relief” (citation)

It has been 100 years since the War on Drugs began, during which militarism and draconian laws targeting illicit drug trade and consumption have failed spectacularly. Rather than eradicating drugs and reducing addiction, the United States has become the number one destination for drug trade, also leading the world in the number of incarcerations for drug-related charges, disproportionately minorities. As the popularity of books like Chasing the Scream indicates, decent people are looking for alternative narratives that offer an iota of hope. Hope for those whom the system has deemed dispensable deadweight by the War on Drugs.

Critics of Johann Hari say that his thesis is too simplistic. I agree. After all these years of complex laws and complex military tactics/devices sweeping through poor neighborhoods, perhaps a simple solution like investing in a social rat park could mark an the end to this war. As California becomes the 8th State to tax and regulate marijuana with funds to be used to support social services to help people out of the hypothetical rate cage, such as job placement, mental health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, the federal government has two options: enforce a bankrupt policy or acquiesce.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Facts Surface on the Heroin War By Flora Lewis

AT LAST the facts of the heroin war in Indochina are trickling out. Many officials, and others, have been aware of them for a long time. But the officials weren't very interested, and secrecy about the war in Laos and American clandestine operations made it extra hard for others' to pinpoint the route of heroin from the mountaintop poppy fields of Southeast Asia to American bloodstreams. The CIA, which has prime responsibility for the Laotian war, long denied any knowledge of the drug traffic. Now it has provided Congress, through the Bureau of Narcotics, with a report naming the sites of heroin refineries in Burma, Thailand and 'Laos. Further, the public report says that "a senior .Laotian officer may hold an ownership in terest in some of these facilities." The officer, named elsewhere, is Gen. Ouane Rathikone, chief of staff of the Laotian army, which exists entirely on U.S. subsidy. Army • units provide a "military defense perimeter" to guard the refineries. The report also confirms for the first time • on the record that Laotian air force planes and Laotian and South Vietnamese commer- ,. cial planes take the drugs on to markets, both the GI market in South Vietnam and •international centers which ship to Europe and the United States. It does not mention • Air America, the CIA-operated airline in Laos and Vietnam. But there have long been numerous reports that Air America's secret flights supporting the Laotian war also often transport opium. Rep. Robert Steele of Connecticut, an exCIA man himself, has named Maj. Gen. Ngo • Dzu who commands South Vietnam's Second Military region as one large-scale or- . ganizer of the traffic. e4.0 • • THE opium, from which heroin is refined, Is grown chiefly by Meo tribesmen who live in what is called the "golden triangle" area of western Burma, northern Thailand and Laos. The CIA organized the Meo of Laos • into the Armee Clandestine and has accepted responsibility for large numbers of them. Although it normally denied having any awareness or interest in the drug trade, from time to time the CIA claimed progress in persuading the Meo under its influence to • switch to food crops. Its own report now .says that • "in areas (in Laos) where the tribesmen have been encouraged to grow corn, the • poppies are planted among the corn. When the corn is cut the poppies continue to grow until they too can be har- • vested." Vice Adm. William C. Mack, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, has testified that the only thing that "will save our men" from the tremendous drug problem in Vietnam is troop withdrawal. But the supply routes are organized now. The high-ranking officials, and by no means all the highest have as yet been named, still have U.S. support and every prospect that support will continue after most troops have gone. So the heroin can be expected to follow the GIs home, a continuing souvenir of the war. 644 TWO developments have begun to bring Into the open the relation of heroin and the war. One is the huge increase in GI use In the past two years, while the military were assiduously fighting marijuana and virtually. ignoring the opium-heroin trade. The other is mounting public revulsion as each piece of news'appears here. But the situation isn't very new Capt. Robert Marasco, the former Green Beret who was, accused of killing a double agent, tells of camping on the Cambodian border in the Parrot's Beak sector in 1969. "There was a big market field there; people went back and forth as though there were no border. The price of heroin was astonishing; for $25 you could get what sells for $500,000 in the United States," he told me. "It was being bought by South Vietnamese soldiers, obviously flunkies for the higher-ups." On another occasion, he trailed 30 pounds of pure opium brought down the Ho Chi Minh Trail by Pathet Lao Communists along Wiht medical supplies and found they were - sold to South Vietnamese military and sent on to Saigon. "I didn't pay much attention," Marasco says; "that wasn't our concern." It is time, late but not too late, for 'American intelligence which does know quite a lot about the drug traffic to make It their concern. It is time to stop defoliating Vietnamese fields and start defoliating poppy fields. It is time to stop subsidizing high Asian officials who use American support to deal in drugs with impunity. John Ingersoll, director of the Bureau of Narcotics, has written Congress that "It is probable that opium production in Southeast Asia will be brought under effective control only with further. political development in these countries." If that means that the United States can't successfully fight heroin and Vietnamese Communists at the same time because too many allies are on the side of heroin, it shouldn't be hard to choose the worst enemy. There can be no national defense even on this continent if the invasion of drugs is not stopped. • I, 1971 by Netesdng. Distributed by Los Angeles Tim
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
War and Drugs


nov-2010-war-and-drugs.jpg

Alcohol and drug use by soldiers is nothing new, and at times, their use has even been sanctioned by military command. David Young takes a look at an issue that has affected every country’s armed forces, including those of New Zealand.

In September, five US infantrymen were charged with murdering Afghan civilians in Kandahar province. Prosecutors say the soldiers killed for sport, dismembered their victims and collected body parts as souvenirs.

But Geoffrey Nathan, defence lawyer for murder-accused Jeremy Morlock, says the real disgrace is a culture of “rampant” drug abuse among troops in Afghanistan that gave rise to the scandal.

Whichever version of events is to be believed, drugs – legal and illegal – are a recurring theme in the story of the ‘rogue kill squad’. The prosecution alleges the killers smoked large quantities of hashish prepared from marijuana that grows in the Kandahar countryside. The war crime allegations were made by a junior soldier who was viciously beaten after telling on his unit for smoking the drug. Morlock’s defence lawyers say that, if he was high, it was on a cocktail of prescribed sleeping pills, antidepressantsand painkillers.

“This lad was all juiced up, and it was by Army doctors”, says Nathan.

In a letter to the Boston Globe, Nathan claims that, in Afghanistan, the US military suffers from “rampant and easy distribution of prescription medications without adequate warnings, supervision or proper medical training,” and, he contends, “There are no controls on troops purchasing hashish and other narcotics from interpreters who are drug dealers on the side.”

Prolonged exposure to combat increases the risk of substance abuse and mental health issues. It is 9 years since the Taliban was toppled in Afghanistan, and 7 years since a US-led coalition invaded Iraq. There are 1.4 million men and women in active service in the US military. As the withdrawal of troops draws nearer in Afghanistan – and 2 months after the last US ‘combat brigade’ left Iraq – multinational forces continue to suffer casualties in both countries.

Media accounts of Kandahar’s “hash-fuelled murder spree” have renewed focus on the US military’s complex relationship with drugs.

Treatment experts worry that drug use has increased during the wars. Researcher Thomas Kosten says that, while soldiers’ “use of [hard] drugs or stimulants seems not very common, many smoke marijuana, and usage rates have gone up as much as 500 percent in some Veterans’ Administration [areas] around the country in the last 6 years. That seems a rather alarming problem.”

Because of its size and primary role in multiple theatres of war, the US Department of Defense has dramatically larger and more serious problems with substance use and mental health issues than any of the militaries it fights alongside. But even troops from smaller defence forces have generated negative drug use headlines during the wars in the Middle East.

This year, British military police tightened border security and introduced sniffer dogs to several Afghanistan air bases after allegations that British and Canadian soldiers were smuggling heroin home in military aircraft.

The Australian military was embarrassed in late May when an elite commando in Afghanistan was found unconscious on base with a suspected opiate overdose, the morning after a function at which the commanding officer had allowed troops to drink alcohol.

“Diggers are using cocaine, heroin and other hard drugs while on tours of duty in Afghanistan and are returning home as addicts,” cried one Southern Australian newspaper, although there is no evidence that this is a trend affecting Australian forces.

And while New Zealand’s Defence Force in Afghanistan has experienced next to none of the drug-related problems of the US military, it did have its own, relatively minor brush with drugs when six junior personnel were returned home from Bamiyan province in 2008 for trial by court martial for allegedly smoking hashish.

By all accounts, hashish, opium and heroin can be found fairly easily in Afghanistan. In March, a United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report revealed Afghanistan has become the world’s largest marijuana producer, growing between 10,000 and 24,000 hectares each year, with yields that surpass Morocco. (The verdant crops posed a unique military problem when Canadian troops complained that Taliban insurgents were hiding in “almost impenetrable forests of 10-foottall marijuana plants”. A Canadian general worried that burning the forests could cause “ill effects” for soldiers downwind). And Afghanistan has long been the world’s largest opium poppy producer, supplying more than 90 percent of the global market for opium and heroin.

Of course, drug use by soldiers did not begin with Operation Enduring Freedom.

“Historically, substance abuse has not only been present but fostered by the military,” Jim McDonough, former Strategy Director at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, told a health conference in New York in June 2009.

“At Agincourt, the Somme and Waterloo, soldiers got liquored up before combat. There’s been almost no break in that today.”

As long ago as during the Philippine-American War that started in 1898, enlisted US soldiers were discharged for being habitual drug users. They learned to smoke opium from Chinese and native Filipinos.

But it was the Vietnam War (1955–1975) that saw drug use become a significant problem for the US military and, to a lesser extent, other anti-Communist forces. Since then, drug use by Vietnam soldiers and veterans has been the subject of much research, with both the military and addiction researchers keen to learn lessons from the war’s experiences.

Vietnam War studies have identified two phases of drug use among anti- Communist troops. In the war’s initial stage, there was marijuana use, followed by an influx of potent heroin in 1970. Estimates of drug use have varied sharply and controversially in different research reports, but today, most experts believe that about 20 percent of all soldiers who served in Vietnam used opiates at least once – although a markedly smaller percentage developed addiction. (In fact, one lesson that many researchers took from the Vietnam War was that addiction was not nearly as inevitable for hard drug users as once thought.)

According to a 1976 study published in the American Journal of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, marijuana and opiates were seen as “serving many of the functions performed by alcohol in earlier military conflicts”. The study found the key reasons for drug use among soldiers were the need for self-medication, escape and hedonistic indulgence; the relaxation of taboos against drug use in the United States; the availability of illicit drugs at low cost; and growing disenchantment with the war.

Soldiers’ use of heroin during the Vietnam War forced the US and other militaries to actively crack down on drugs. In 1971, the US military introduced mandatory heroin urinalysis tests for every soldier leaving Vietnam. At the same time, it introduced an ‘amnesty’ policy. In theory, this meant soldiers admitting to drug use would be given help for their addiction. Within just the first 3 months of tests, more than 3,500 military personnel had tested positive for heroin use. Despite the ‘amnesty’, thousands of heroin addicts were dishonourably discharged, and follow-up treatment for troops was non-existent.

The Vietnam War was a watershed in the understanding of the psychological effects of trauma and eventually led to the introduction of a new diagnosis that is closely aligned with substance abuse: post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can develop after a terrifying event or ordeal. Studies have found that individuals with PTSD are more likely to experience problems with alcohol and drugs.

As with estimates of drug use, research into PTSD rates has been controversial. A landmark US report in 1988 found that one in three Vietnam veterans would suffer from PTSD at some point in life; a much-debated re-analysis of the data in 2006 revised the figure downward to one in five.

Thirty-five years after the Vietnam War, some psychiatric trauma experts fear that levels of PTSD and substance abuse in soldiers from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars could turn out to be even more severe.

John Renner, Associate Chief of Psychiatry at the US Department of Veterans’ Affairs Boston Healthcare System, warned in 2009 that the longer tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq would bring higher rates of trauma.

“We knew in Vietnam that the limit was 1 year [of combat] if you wanted to avoid PTSD. Now, with tours of 18 to 24 months, we should expect a higher level of problems.”

Based in part on lessons from Vietnam, veterans’ organisations expect a delay before the extent of the problem becomes clear. It takes an average of 14 years for a soldier to seek help for PTSD, according to the British veterans’ treatment and support group Combat Stress.

Some of the data starting to emerge is worrying. According to a study by the Rand Corporation in 2008, 18.5 percent of US military personnel who had then returned from Afghanistan and Iraq were suffering from mental disorders that included PTSD and depression.

While several military forces – including the US – conduct comprehensive, anonymous personnel surveys of self-reported drug use and knowledge, many addiction experts believe these under-represent the extent of the problem.

One set of statistics, however, cannot be doubted: in July, a US Army report revealed that the suicide rate in troops is higher than the civilian rate for the first time since the Vietnam War.

The Times reported in July 2009 that the UK Ministry of Defence was similarly “braced for a surge in the suicide rate” after new data showed 67 service personnel who served in Iraq or Afghanistan were suspected of having killed themselves. The British Armed Forces’ suicide rate, though, remains lower than that of the general population.

“Drug and mental health problems are not new,” says Thomas Kosten, who is Research Director of the US Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ National Substance Use Disorders Quality Enhancement Research Initiative and a Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience at Baylor College of Medicine.

“Their contribution to the increasing suicide rates is unclear due to underreporting of these problems [but we know they] are significant risk factors for suicide.”

According to the US Army’s July report, roughly 20 out of 100,000 soldiers kill themselves, compared with 19 out of 100,000 civilians. The report said if the Army added in accidental deaths, which could often be attributed to high-risk behaviour involving alcohol and drugs, “less young men and women die in combat than die by their own actions”.

The US Army, however, has rejected the direct link some make between combat exposure and suicide.

“We have analysed this closely,” says Walter Morales, Army Suicide Prevention Programme Manager. “We just haven’t found that repeated deployments and suicide are directly connected.”

Army generals point out that about 80 percent of suicides occur among personnel who have never deployed or who have only deployed once. Suicide prevention programmes are therefore not targeted at troops in combat, but are designed to reach all service personnel.

The Army does acknowledge that lowering the standard for recruits in order to get more soldiers into battle has created “a subculture... that engages in high-risk behaviour.” Its data shows that almost 30 percent of the Army’s suicide deaths from 2003 to 2009, and over 45 percent of the non-fatal suicide attempts from 2005 to 2009, involved the use of drugs or alcohol.

There are now literally hundreds of drug awareness and abuse prevention programmes in the US military, alongside suicide prevention and mental health programmes. Their development is one major change that has occurred in the past few decades. But, in terms of the policing of drug use, not so much has changed.

The US Department of Defense – like every major defence force around the world – has a close to zero tolerance attitude toward substance use by its employees and a highly active policing programme designed specifically to root out and expel drug users.

The military is different from other employers. In the private sector, and even in many government departments, employees can usually expect confidentiality if they refer themselves to workplace-organised counselling for substance or alcohol use. But in the military, an individual’s right to confidentiality is often over-ridden by the defence force’s paramount need for “combat readiness”.

In practice, this means, if a soldier reports concerns about his or her own drug or alcohol use to medical staff, the medics have an obligation to notify his or her commander. In theory, commanders have discretion over punishment, but anecdotal evidence suggests acknowledgement of drug use most often results in discharge from service.

In April, Army Secretary Pete Geren raised the idea that soldiers should be allowed to volunteer for treatment without commanders being informed. The idea won little support.

A British Army pamphlet for troops explains the lack of tolerance for substance use:

“Soldiers do not work for their own gain or the profit of a company: soldiers are public servants responsible for the defence of the country and the protection of British interests at home and abroad. In addition, today’s professional soldier is in charge of highly dangerous weapon systems and expensive and sensitive equipment. Soldiers must be fit and ready to fight at a moment’s notice. The misuse of illegal drugs puts lives at risk.”

Since it was introduced during the Vietnam War, urinalysis has become a key weapon in the fight to deter troops from using illicit substances. Today, it is used extensively by every modern-day defence force. The British Army’s policy is that someone using drugs only needs to be caught once to face administrative discharge.

A report by the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute in late 2007 showed that the number of British Army soldiers caught using cocaine in routine urine tests had climbed four-fold in 4 years. At the time, the Army admitted it was discharging almost the equivalent of a battalion each year because of illegal drug use. (Detection rates of ecstasy and cocaine subsequently plummeted in 2009. Analysts attributed this to a shift in use to mephedrone, a drug that was then legal in the UK and undetected in the Army’s urinalysis.)

The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) – which has experienced only a tiny fraction of the drug and alcohol-related problems of the US military – also uses urinalysis. All military personnel are subject to random tests, as well as before and on entry to a deployment.

“There is no mandatory course of action commanders must follow in relation to a positive test,” says NZDF Surgeon Captain Alison Drewry, “but some guidance is given around the circumstances they might take into account, and this is based around security and safety.

“The security element does change things. Somebody who becomes a security liability [by using drugs] might well face a different situation than if they were just working at The Warehouse in New Zealand.”

Of the 39 New Zealand Army personnel who tested positive for cannabis use in 2009, 28 were discharged, ‘released’ from service or took ‘voluntary release’. Ten were given formal warnings, and one was fined and confined to barracks for 21 days.

In the New Zealand Navy, eight personnel returned positive drug urine tests. Two would-be naval recruits lost their chance of serving, two personnel were discharged, and four were warned that they would be dismissed if they ever tested positive again.

Nobody from the New Zealand Air Force tested positive to any drug use.

This trend – of the highest drug use in the Army, lower use in the Navy and lowest use in the Air Force – appears to exist across all of the major defence forces who collect data. Aside from the fact that air forces entrust personnel with multi-million dollar equipment and therefore have a higher incentive to deter drug use, it could suggest a variation in the socio-economic background of staff from different forces. Drewry says that, in many cases of cannabis use, other personnel step forward to report the drug use. The NZDF is small enough that she can recall the details of the handful of incidents where personnel were involved with hard drugs.

“We’re very lucky in that we’re a small country and we are very close-knit. We have our own electronic health system so it’s very difficult for anybody even to have anything prescribed without it being opened to audit, and we audit regularly.

“We only ever had one issue [of an attempt to abuse prescription drugs]. Somebody actually asked for Valium by name. We have such a different population from the normal [civilian] population where you have drug-seeking. We discovered they were a very early part of the methamphetamine distribution problem.” Drewry says the NZDF “stamped out” the problem very quickly.

In contrast, prescription drug use is a major – and growing – concern for the US military.

During the first Gulf War, the public learned that US Air Force and Navy pilots were being given amphetamines – or ‘go pills’ – to fly long distances. The pill-taking was blamed by two pilots involved in a fatal ‘friendly fire’ bombing incident and discontinued in 1992 before being reintroduced in 1996. Technically, pilots ‘volunteer’ to take the pills – although they can be grounded for refusing.

However, it is medically motivated prescriptions that cause concern today. Recall that the lawyer of one of the troops involved in the Kandahar ‘kill squad’ argues that his client was “juiced up” on 11 different prescribed medications.

The pills given to soldiers at war generally fall into two categories – medicines provided for mental health reasons (such as anti-depressants and sleeping pills) and painkilling opiates.

Until 1999, US troops were banned from using anti-depressants in combat. A uniform policy giving anti-depressants the ‘green light’ was only introduced in 2006. According to the US Department of Defense’s own survey of staff in 2008, about 12 percent of soldiers in Iraq and 15 percent of those in Afghanistan reported taking anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medication or sleeping pills. This is likely an under-reporting given the stigma attached to mental health issues.

Kosten identifies use of prescribed opiates as one of the most serious problems today.

“These are given in many cases for musculo-skeletal injuries, but then they are continued for many months and perhaps 15 percent [of these patients] or more then develop problems related to abuse of these opiates.”

This year, USA Today claimed prescriptions for painkillers to military members have gone up by four times since 2001 – from just under 900,000 in 2001 to nearly 4 million in 2009.

In part, this reflects a broader societal problem. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more Americans abuse prescription opiates than cocaine, and the abusers far outnumber those who misuse tranquilisers, stimulants, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants or sedatives.

But it also reflects 9 years of continued conflict, Chief of Staff of the Army General George W Casey Jr acknowledged to the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense. He said the US Department of Defense is attempting to create a better tracking system for prescriptions, especially in combat situations. “It’s something – not a pretty thing – something we need to get on the table and deal with.”

Meanwhile, the US Department of Defense is trying to rapidly expand its provision of substance abuse treatment to soldiers and veterans. Over the last decade, the US military hierarchy has scrambled to keep up with an increase in demand for substance abuse care and recovery programmes.

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has long been the world’s largest provider of substance abuse services, but there has been strong criticism that current and recently returned soldiers have not been able to get the help they need.

The Rand Report of 2008, suggesting that nearly one in five returning troops suffered from mental trauma, also found that roughly half of those needing treatment would actually seek it and only slightly more than half of those receiving treatment got “minimally adequate care”. It was particularly difficult for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to access mental healthcare.

Jim McDonough, the former Strategy Director at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in 2009 that troop shortages and strains on the system meant military commanders were trying to “get men back in the fight” instead of dealing with their addictions and mental health problems.

“Between 2004 and 2006, the incidence of substance abuse went up 100 percent, while treatment referrals by commanders went up zero percent.”

And Stars and Stripes, the US military’s editorially independent but official newspaper, complained in 2009 that “hundreds of soldiers” were not being provided with counselling because commanders wanted to “keep their numbers up for combat deployments”.

This fear was underpinned by a leaked 2009 memo from General Peter Chiarelli to commanders that blasted them for allowing hundreds of soldiers involved in “substance abuse-related misconduct (including multiple positive urinalyses)” to continue to work without being processed for possible discharge. He also noted that many are not referred to the Army Substance Abuse Programme for help.

In the past year or so, however, the Department of Defense has pumped billions of dollars into programmes designed to improve war-time and post-war care. Much of that has been directed into substance abuse. Some research is specifically looking at barriers to care, including finding out why and when veterans ask for help and why many don’t.

As part of this research push, Kosten has worked on recommendations to improve treatment for returning soldiers experiencing PTSD, depression and problems with drugs and alcohol. Describing the need for change, he says, “If you went to 10 different places to get your post-traumatic stress disorder treated, you could get 10 different treatments” – and that is just within the VA system.

Now, though, “Evidence-based treatments are being standardised and implemented across the USA in the VA. That is excellent news for veterans, but it will take some time to get this as fully implemented as would be ideal.”

Veterans’ groups express quiet optimism that the slow-moving US military is making small steps in the right direction on substance abuse care, treatment and mental health.

General Casey Jr recently acknowledged that too many young Americans had been accepted to the Army without “coping skills to deal with the challenges we’re asking them to deal with” and, he said, the Army realised it needed to change.

“We want to bring mental fitness up to the same level we give physical fitness.”

Although it is now scrambling to catch up, the US military proved unprepared to cope with the inevitable, substantial increase in mental health problems and substance abuse from fighting concurrent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the Army’s July report into suicides concluded, “We are often more dangerous to ourselves than the enemy.”
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Part 1


The drug wars: World War II and Vietnam

lucky_luciano.jpg

Mafia gangster Charles “Lucky” Luciano conspired with US intelligence services to crack down on dock unions.
World War II was fought to resist fascist aggression; the Vietnam War was an imperial war of aggression fought chiefly by France and the US, alongside allies that included Australia. The wars have been well documented, but rarely will you find an account of how they were instrumental in rejuvenating and then expanding the heroin trade.

Before WWII, Mafia gangster Charles “Lucky” Luciano was the head of a heroin importing syndicate in the US that made in excess of $1 billion a year supplying up to 200,000 heroin addicts. Among them were many of the sex workers in the 200 New York brothels that Luciano controlled. But Luciano’s luck ran out when his mistreatment of the women in his employ led them to give evidence against him in a case brought to trial in 1936. Convicted on 62 charges of forced prostitution, Luciano was sentenced to 30-50 years in prison.

At the end of February 1942, more than 70 allied merchant ships carrying supplies vital to the war effort in Europe had been sunk off the Atlantic coast in just two-and-a-half months by German U-boats. Earlier that month, the passenger liner Normandie caught fire and sank while moored in New York’s Hudson River. Spies and sabotage were suspected and tighter security on the New York waterfront was called for.

An anti-fascist union leader from the west coast, Melbourne-born Harry Bridges, had a different solution. New York’s waterfront workers should leave the corrupt, Mafia-controlled International Longshoremen’s Association and join the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen’s Union that he led. A cleaned-up waterfront could be relied on to support the war against fascism through democratic politics in a democratic union. But Bridges was suspected of being a communist, so the authorities spent their efforts trying to deport him and looked the other way while his supporters were bashed and murdered by Mafia thugs.

The gangsters remained in control and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) turned instead to Luciano’s pre-war partner in crime, Meyer Lansky. Lansky became the intermediary to the imprisoned Luciano as the ONI negotiated enlisting the aid of Luciano’s lieutenants in enforcing control on New York’s docks. The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) forerunner to the CIA had previously made contact with a Sicilian Mafia decimated by Mussolini, trying to win their support for the planned invasion of Sicily in 1943. Luciano became involved in this project too. His reward was to be freed from prison.

The decision to involve the Mafia in domestic dock security and the liberation of Europe would quickly contribute to a resurgence of the US’s heroin problem. Deported to Italy in early 1946, Luciano wasted no time establishing heroin laboratories in Sicily and exporting the drug to New York via Cuba, where the Mafia had controlled illegal activities for years.

The US heroin market had fewer than 20,000 addicts at the end of WWII. But it was rejuvenated with the complicity of the OSS and ONI. CIA complicity in the trade would ensure that heroin became an enduring problem, in the US and beyond.

The heroin for Luciano’s European operation was initially sourced from the Italian pharmaceutical company Schiaparelli. When this supply was eventually cut off, the operation relied on raw opium from Turkey that was refined into morphine in Beirut and finally processed into heroin in Sicily, ready for export. The Sicilian operation proved to be the weak link in the chain. A number of couriers were arrested, largely due to incompetence and an arrogance that came from being in a position of some power courtesy of the OSS. The heroin laboratories were shifted to Marseilles, establishing a supply link that became infamously known as the French Connection. By 1952 the number of heroin addicts in the US had tripled to 60,000.

Marseilles' geographical location was ideally suited to Lansky and Luciano’s heroin production and distribution network. But it was only possible because of the defeat of communist-led militants on the Marseilles waterfront by a combination of Corsican gangsters, CIA money and imported Italian scabs during a strike against the Vietnam War in 1950.

The French Connection was broken in the 1970s; it was replaced by heroin supplied from the Golden Triangle. How it came to do so is the largely untold story of the Vietnam War.

[This is the first of a three-part series about how two wars contributed to the international drug trade and how the Sydney-based Nugan Hand Bank, staffed by the former director and deputy director of the CIA, helped to finance the trade
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Part 2


How the Vietnam war boosted the drug trade

vietnam_war_junkie.jpg

Australia saw the start of a heroin problem when soldiers brought the habit home from Vietnam.
When Japanese forces occupied French Indochina in 1941, it was not entirely without French opposition. But for the most part it was close to business-as-usual for the French in Vietnam. Japan left the French colonial administration intact, beholden now to Tokyo rather than Paris.

It was oppression-as-usual for the Vietnamese, 2 million of whom Japanese forces starved to death in 1944.

After Japan's surrender in August 1945, the Vietminh (a coalition of Communists, Catholics, Buddhists, small-business operators and farmers who led the resistance in Vietnam) formed an administration and began to celebrate their independence.

The next month, resistance leader Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi.

The French, however, had a very different view of the future shape of Vietnam after the Japanese defeat to which they had contributed so little. The legacy of Napoleon III would not be as easily surrendered to Vietnamese nationalism as it had been to Japanese imperialism.

Less than a month after the Saigon celebrations, a company of French infantry and 1400 Ghurkhas under British command were airlifted Saigon from Burma. After re-arming the surrendered Japanese soldiers they forced the Vietminh to withdraw from the city. For the French, this war lasted until 1954.

The French attempt to re-establish control of Vietnam was strong on colonial ambition, but it was weak on financial and military support. To combat these deficiencies, the French intelligence organisation, Service de Documentation Exterieure et du Contre-Espionage (SDECE) recruited mercenaries from hill tribes in the north and criminal gangs in the south financed by profits of the opium trade.

The northern force of predominantly Hmong tribes that were recruited was 40,000 strong by 1954. It was their opium that the SDECE bought and then transported in French military DC-3 planes to the airbase at Cap Saint Jaques near Saigon. From here it was processed by the Saigon mercenaries who were recruited from a criminal gang known as the Binh Xuyen.

It proved a suitable arrangement for all concerned. The Hmong had a steady market for their raw opium, the Binh Xuyen at the retail end were pleased with the profits that they shared with French intelligence.

The French, in turn, were more than pleased that they were now able to finance an operation which saw the Vietminh harassed by mercenaries in the north and suppressed by the French in Saigon and its surrounds in the south. There was even a surplus of opium available for sale to Chinese syndicates, who exported it to Hong Kong, and Corsican syndicates operating in Vietnam, who exported it to Marseilles.

Unfortunately for this cosy arrangement, there was a dispute with the Hmong in the north-west of Vietnam, who felt exploited by the French-appointed regional leader from a minority tribe who enriched himself and his supporters by securing their opium at below market price. As a result, the disaffected Hmong sided with the Vietminh and gave them significant logistical support, which helped them defeat the French in the decisive battle that ended the war for them at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954.

Under the peace negotiated in Geneva soon after, the French were to cease hostilities and withdraw to the south of the country for two years, at which time national elections would take place uniting the country under one government.

With about 80% support, Ho Chi Minh — a founding member of the French Communist Party who attended the Versailles Conference in 1919 arguing for Vietnamese independence — was destined to become the elected leader of Vietnam in the July 1956 elections.

He never did, because the elections were never held. The US created a new country called South Vietnam and stepped into the breach vacated by the French. The war against the Vietminh (who in 1960 re-formed as the Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, or NLF) would continue for the next 20 years, until Saigon fell on April 30, 1975.

The US sent 500,000 troops to Vietnam. They also set up a series of puppet regimes led firstly by Ngo Dinh Diem, who was succeeded by Nguyen Cao Ky when Diem was murdered in a US-backed coup. After Ky fell from favour he was replaced by Nguyen Van Thieu.

What they all had in common was control of the opium trade in which the US was also complicit. The South Vietnamese air force ferried opium from Laos to Saigon and competed with the country’s army, navy, customs officials, politicians and the national police for a share of the trade. The CIA airline Air America that was also used to transport opium to the region’s heroin refineries was known as Air Opium.

From late 1969, Hong Kong chemists associated with the Chiu Chua syndicate began refining opium into No.4 heroin — up to 99% pure — in the Golden Triangle, an area encompassing the hills of eastern Burma, the mountain crests of Thailand and the high plateaus of northern Laos. Like opium, it soon found its way to US troops. Within 18 months, it was estimated that between 10% and 15% of them were using it. Later estimates went as high as 34%.

These troops took the habit back home with them, and some of them became involved in the trade.

At this point, the US addict population had risen to 500,000 and Australia was seeing the start of its own heroin problem.

By the time the war was over, Vietnam was in ruins and Golden Triangle heroin was being exported around the world.

It was from here that Australia imported its heroin. It did so with the considerable help of the Sydney-based Nugan Hand Bank, an institution established by two men who were not bankers but did employ several high ranking ex-US military personnel, and the ex-director and ex-deputy director of the CIA, whose banking experience was also non-existent.

[This is the second of a three-part series about how two wars contributed to the international drug trade and how the Sydney-based Nugan Hand Bank, staffed by the former director and deputy director of the CIA, helped finance the trade.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Part 3



How Aus bank financed the heroin trade

nugan_hand.jpg

Over a five year period, Nugan Hand was responsible for arranging the financial transactions of at least 26 known drug dealers.
In early February 1978, on the strength of a claimed turnover of $1 billion, the Australian Financial Review reported that “at this sort of growth rate Nugan Hand will soon be bigger than BHP.”

Two years later, on January 27, 1980, one of the two founders of the Nugan Hand Bank, Frank Nugan, was found dead near Lithgow in New South Wales from a gunshot wound to the head, apparently self-administered. While this was taking place, the other founder of the bank, Michael Hand, was busy shredding “sensitive” documents. By June 1980, Nugan Hand Ltd was in liquidation. It owed about $15 million to creditors. Hand had fled to the United States, never to be seen or heard from again.

As some of the activities of Nugan Hand came to light following the appointment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, the print media in Australia and the US were running stories about the connection between the bank and the CIA, alongside allegations that the bank was involved in drugs and arms trafficking.

Nugan and Hand were not bankers, and they employed a number of prominent former US militaryand intelligence personnel who also lacked banking experience.

The bank’s president was Admiral Earl Preston Yates, who was deputy chief of staff at US Pacific Command during the final US withdrawal from Vietnam. General Edwin Fahey Black, the bank’s representative in Hawaii, commanded US troops in Thailand during the Vietnam War, having previously served with the National Security Council and the OSS, the predecessor to the CIA. Lieutenant-General Leroy Joseph Manor, who worked for the bank in the Philippines, was also a Vietnam veteran, and had previously been chief of staff of the Pacific Command. General Erle Cocke, a World War II veteran and former Brigadier-General of the Georgia National Guard, worked as a consultant for the bank in Washington.

Two other people employed by the bank were high-ranking CIA operatives. Walter Joseph McDonald worked for the CIA from 1952 to 1979, including a period as deputy director. He was a “special adviser” to Nugan Hand, opening an office for the bank in Annapolis, Maryland. William Egan Colby was US ambassador to Vietnam from 1968 to 1971, and executive director, then director of the CIA from 1973 to 1976. He was retained by the bank to provide legal advice on taxation matters. His business card, on which were written the dates when he would be available to meet Nugan in Hong Kong or Singapore in March 1980, was found in Nugan’s possession after his death.

The bank also had business dealings with a number of other high-ranking former CIA officers including Ted Shackley and Thomas Clines, chief and deputy chief respectively of the CIA station in Vientiane in the mid 1960s.

The Royal Commission into the activities of Nugan Hand seemed a little bemused that the CIA, such a “powerful agency of the United States Government” would have dealings with the “inept individuals” who ran Nugan Hand.

Those who ran Nugan Hand were not so much inept as just plain crooked, and the operation that they ran was a sham from the start. Shortly after the company was incorporated in July 1973, its accounts showed a paid-up capital of $1,000,005. The shares were held by Nugan and Hand, “paid” for with cheques drawn by Nugan totalling $1 million. The company then “repaid” Nugan $999,900. When these cheques were passed around the boardroom table there was no money to cover them in the relevant accounts. All this created the illusion that the company was worth $1 million, when in fact its paid-up share capital throughout its life amounted to just $105, and it was at all times insolvent.

The apparent success of the company was attributed by the Royal Commission to “sheer fortuity.” They were certainly fortunate in acquiring the services of a money market manager who was skilful enough to trade without any money. Using his market contacts he managed to trade on short-term extended credit each day, racking up sales of $2.4 million that resulted in a trading loss of $18,373, but nevertheless gave the impression of a company doing significant business in its early days. Nugan Hand was also said to be “purely fortuitous” in finding auditors who were willing to certify accounts without checking them, and later, in obtaining a banking licence.

Nugan Hand obtained a banking licence in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands in 1976 after it was refused a licence in Panama. The newly established bank was then able to collect deposits, which were used to pay for the inflated expenses and ostentatious lifestyle of its principals.

It also enabled the bank to establish offices around the world and go into the heroin trade. One of the offices it established was in Chiang Mai in the heart of the Golden Triangle. Its principal purpose, according to the employee who set it up on Hand’s instructions, was to attract deposits from those involved in the drug trade. It was apparently not too inconvenienced by its location next door to the US Drug Enforcement Agency.

The Chiang Mai office was set up on the helpful suggestion of Murray Stewart Riley, an ex-NSW detective who imported heroin into Australia from the location on at least six different occasions during 1976 and 1977. In 1978, Riley received a 10-year prison sentence for his part in the importation of 4.5 tonnes of Buddha sticks from Bangkok.

Nugan Hand was also fortunate in obtaining the services of Bernie Houghton, a Texan who worked in Saigon and Bangkok in the mid 1960s where he traded in anything that came along, including opium.

Houghton arrived in Sydney in 1967 and opened the Bourbon and Beefsteak bar in Kings Cross. The next year he bought shares in a company that owned a private hotel in the area that later became the Texas Tavern. After he acquired an interest in the Aquatic Club in the Cross he opened the restaurant Harpoon Harry’s. This was in another partnership that included Sir Paul Strasser, a lawyer from Hungary who migrated to Australia in 1948, became a property developer with his Parkes Development company and was knighted by the premier of NSW, Sir Robert Askin.

It was at Houghton’s Bourbon and Beefsteak and Texas Tavern that many associated with Nugan Hand first met. Hand, like many other US servicemen on leave in the late 60s and early 70s, was a frequent visitor to the Bourbon and Beefsteak. Houghton was good enough to find Hand his first job in Australia, with Strasser’s Parkes Development, and Hand later repaid the favour by lending Houghton significant amounts of money – interest free and without security.

Admiral Yates was a guest of Houghton’s at the Bourbon and Beefsteak on several occasions. Other guests included such luminaries as the Australian head of the CIA, John D Walker, premier Askin and crime boss Abe Saffron. Houghton introduced Yates to Nugan and Hand. After receiving the “attractive offer” to work for them, he testified to the Royal Commission that he inquired into the bona fides of Nugan Hand by checking with Askin and Strasser. It was rather a pity that he didn’t have the information that award-winning journalist Evan Whitton would later publish:

history
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Drugs-as-a-Disease:
Heroin, Metaphors, and Identity in Nixon’s Drug War


This essay examines President Nixon’s drug policy during the early 1970s, specifically the
government’s reaction to heroin use by American soldiers in Vietnam. The official response,
discursively (through the employment of the drugs-as-a-disease metaphor) and on the policy
level, illustrated how issues of national- and self-identity, othering, and modernity intersected in the formulation and implementation of what is now termed the Drug War. Heroin using soldiers and domestic addicts, labeled as carriers of a contagious, foreign, and dangerous, antimodern disease, threatened to undermine a contingent national identity, an identity weighted by capitalist modernity. Unearthing how addiction’s ostensibly antimodern
condition contributed to the othering of addicts as a foreign danger reveals how the United
States’ antidrug character and policies help maintain a national identity bound to the
tenets of capitalist modernity. Methodologically, this essay combines historical analysis with
literary and critical theory.

If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America,
then it will surely in time destroy us.
Richard Nixon
Cause when the smack begins to flow
I really don’t care anymore
About all the Jim-Jims in this town
And all the politicians making crazy sounds
Lou Reed2
We live in an era in which the drug war consumes billions of federal
dollars in order to stop the flow of illicit drugs into the United States,
supports research that hopes to find the genetic roots of addiction, and
witnesses the U.S. attorney general attempting to conflate the drug war
with the war on terrorism.3

Thus the current drug war melds questions
of drug control with issues of security, foreign danger, and the biology of
addiction. Given this contemporary scenario, it is useful to look backward and explore how a previous era dealt with similar issues. This essay
looks thirty years into the past and examines U.S. drug policy during
the first years of the Nixon administration, during which the modern
Janus Head, Daniel Weimer
drug war was launched. From 1969 to 1974 the Nixon administration
greatly increased federal funding for drug control at home and abroad
and elevated, in rhetoric if not always in practice, the issue of drug control to a top domestic and foreign policy issue.

In particular, this essay examines a telling event in the Nixon drug
war, the occurrence of heroin use among 15 to 20 percent of American
soldiers in Vietnam from 1970-1972, which caused alarm with the U.S.
government that returning soldier addicts would spread addiction and
crime within the United States. The “GI heroin epidemic,” as it was
termed, and the government’s response to the event represented a specific historical conjuncture which involved questions of self and national
identity, othering, and capitalist modernity. Each of these issues, identity, othering, and capitalist modernity, was linked to the GI heroin
epidemic.

First, through their language and actions, the Nixon administration and other U.S. officials attempted to promote an antidrug
American identity by identifying GI heroin users in Vietnam, domestic
addicts, and foreign traffickers in Southeast Asia as sources of danger
that threatened to not only spread crime and societal decay within the
U.S. but also threatened a contingent national identity. That is, the
United States, like all nations, did not and does not possess an a priori,
stable national identity. Rather, the U.S. possesses a constructed national identity, which, as this essay will demonstrate, revolves around
binary distinctions between the self and the other and is often created
and maintained by the continual process of detecting security threats to
the country.

Representations of danger foreign and domestic contribute
to the construction of an American identity because the sources of danger are deemed a threatening other that are in contradistinction to a
national self. In this instance, GI and domestic addicts were inscribed
with otherness and therefore represented as a security threat to the national self, which professed a strong antidrug national identity. Historically, drug addiction was considered dangerous, antisocial behavior, confined to marginal segments of society and the U.S. government has sought
to minimize not only addiction within America but also the illicit production and trafficking of drugs abroad. During the time period discussed in this essay, drug use had increased and spread into mainstream
society.

Nonetheless, the U.S. government vigorously maintained drug
use as a dangerous and un-American behavior. In essence, for the Nixon
administration and many other government officials, drug use, particu-
larly heroin use was not part of the American identity.
In response to the GI heroin epidemic, the U.S. government discursively and through its antidrug policies represented GI addicts as
harbingers of increasing crime and addiction by employing the drugsas-disease-metaphor, which equated addiction with a contagious disease. More specifically, GI heroin users, along with their domestic counterparts via their dreaded disease threatened to complicate a contingent
national identity, an identity heavily influenced by capitalist modernity. Addiction was believed to be antithetical to capitalist modernity, a
condition in which (among many other factors) scientific rationality,
human agency, individualism, and the belief in unlimited self-development (including the ability to self-reflexively construct an identity) are
prized. In modern, capitalist America, addicts were viewed as a reversion
to an illusionary, irrational, and “traditional” life in which the opportunities afforded the modern self were deleted by the individual’s addiction. Thus, given the antimodern character of addiction and the belief
that addiction spread like a contagious disease, the U.S. government
sought to identify and contain addicts and if possible return them to
“normal” life through drug treatment, such as methadone maintenance.

In 1971 the news that 15 to 25 percent of the military personnel
in Vietnam were using heroin alarmed the Nixon administration and
American public. Highly publicized reports filtered in during mid-1971,
but indicators of heroin usage among soldiers initially emerged in the
spring of 1970, when high-grade heroin (no. 4 heroin) became widely
available throughout South Vietnam. Throughout 1970 heroin use and
addiction spread among American soldiers.2
Drug overdose deaths shot
up by 175 percent in August and September, with forty-six deaths occurring, while during the first three weeks of October thirty-five soldiers died
On 25 February 1971, The New York Times ran an article on the
widespread availability of cheap and potent heroin in South Vietnam,
but the story did not garner great attention until a few months later.

The 16 May 1971 front page of The New York Times proclaimed “G.I.
Heroin Addiction Epidemic in Vietnam.” Estimates of the number of
soldiers addicted to heroin ranged from 10 percent to 25 percent, which
meant anywhere from twenty-four thousand to over sixty thousand soldiers. The rest of the spring and summer of that year saw a flurry of
reports about the “heroin epidemic” and a fear of the prospect of returning soldier addicts spreading their addiction in the United States. A
month after the story broke a Gallup poll revealed drug addiction as the
third largest problem facing the country. The number of Americans who
expressed such opinions had doubled since March (Massing 1998, 113).
Moreover, in late April two Congressmen, Morgan F. Murphy (DIL) and Robert H. Steele (R-CT), presented the findings of their study
mission to Vietnam in which they investigated the level of heroin abuse
among American soldiers (Murphy and Steele 1971). Their report proclaimed that tens of thousands of soldier addicts were poised in Vietnam waiting to return to the United States with their habit and implied
that they would resort to crime to finance their addiction. With Nixon’s
plan for Vietnamization (the simultaneous withdrawal of American troops
and buildup of South Vietnamese forces) in effect, around one thousand
soldiers were withdrawn from Vietnam daily, and if 10 to 25 percent of
those returning were heroin addicts, then the prospects of a worsening
domestic addiction problem seemed palpable.
The GI heroin epidemic prompted Nixon to find a way to inoculate the country from returning servicemen addicted to heroin. Two
measures that were enacted are of particular interest: a federal methadone maintenance system and the employment of urinalysis to screen
veterans for heroin use before they returned to the United States. The
GI heroin epidemic, and the drugs-crime nexus associated with it,
prompted the establishment of a federal methadone clinic system aimed
at reducing addiction and crime among existing addicts and possibly
those returning from Vietnam. Urinalysis (used on a large scale for the
first time in Vietnam and, by the 1980s, a permanent feature of the
drug war) helped maintain an antidrug American identity because drug
testing made heroin-using soldiers visible to the government and demarcated the bounds of American identity.3
Nixon intended the procedure to construct a cordon sanitaire around the United States in order to
contain the foreign danger of GI addicts.
Outlining his administration’s new approach to drug addiction,
Nixon, on 17 July 1971, delivered a landmark speech that declared
drug abuse as a “national emergency” and “public enemy number one.”
Reflecting the breakdown in the purely punitive approach to drug control that held sway since the 1930s, Nixon stated that law enforcement
“must be coupled with a radical approach to the reclamation of the drug
264 Janus Head
user himself.” To bolster public support for his program he drew a distinct connection between addiction and street crime by claiming that
addicts spent $10,000 to $36,000 a year on narcotics, most of which
came from “shoplifting, mugging, burglary, armed robbery,” and other
crimes. With these statistics in mind, Nixon recognized the need for
vastly expanded treatment facilities for existing addicts and for the possible infusion of Vietnam veteran addicts who would return to find higher
prices for heroin. On this point, Nixon noted that “a habit which cost
$5 a day to maintain in Vietnam can cost $100 a day to maintain in the
United States.” Conjoined with these provisions was a call for expanded
enforcement measures, such as increased drug crime penalties, greater
cooperation between American and foreign enforcement agencies, increased funding for the Bureau of Customs, funds for the Bureau of
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD, later, in 1973, the DEA) to
train foreign narcotics officers, and amending existing foreign policy legislation to permit American assistance in helping foreign nations tackle
illegal drug production and trafficking (U.S. Congress 1971a, 20594-
598).
To expedite the urinalysis program, Nixon established, by executive order, the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention
(SAODAP) to immediately set up urine testing programs among soldiers departing from Vietnam (U.S. President 1971, 941-42). Under
the auspices of the humorously dubbed Operation Golden Flow, soldiers were required to submit a urine sample for screening. Throughout
the fall of 1971 the number of positive tests decreased, and in February
1972 the positive test rate fell to under 2 percent, at which point the
administration declared the “epidemic” under control (Massing 1998,
86-131).
By identifying a population of individuals deemed a threat to the
United States and subjecting returning soldiers to urinalysis the U.S.
government helped construct and maintain a modern anti-(illegal) drug
identity. Operation Golden Flow and the greatly expanded urinalysis
program that eventually encompassed millions of overseas soldiers set
up a boundary between normal and pathological behavior that helped
determine and construct a national identity. David Campbell’s (1992)
work proves useful for understanding how national identity and drug
control were linked. Campbell maintains that the United States does
not possess an a priori, stable national identity. Rather the United States
Daniel Weimer 265
has a constructed national identity, which is produced and sustained by
the constant process of identifying security threats to the country (vii).
For Campbell, “the boundaries of a state’s identity are secured by the
representation of danger,” which form an integral part of “foreign policy”
(3). The term “foreign policy” refers to “all the practices of differentiation or modes of exclusion (possibly figured as relationships of otherness) which constitute their objects as ‘foreign’ in the process of dealing
with them” (8-12). The discursive process of “foreign policy” utilizes
bipolar language and entails the delineation between the “self” and the
“other,” or the “inside” and the “outside.” For Campbell, and for the
purposes of this essay, the inscription of otherness upon individuals,
groups, and nations identifies internal and external threats that might
undermine or complicate the contingent identity of any nation (214-
15).
The practice of “foreign policy,” the process of discursive differentiation among a self and others, which informs identity formation, influences “Foreign Policy,” the relations between states, and how national
governments interact with one another. For Campbell, the relations between nation states serves “to reproduce the constitution of identity made
possible by “foreign policy” (discursive differentiation) and to contain
challenges to the identity which results” (75-9). The process of “foreign
policy” and the inscription of “other” upon suspect groups and individuals informs the mindset of officials involved in international policy
formation; it is part of American culture, a resource that individuals
draw upon to order the world they live in.
Domestic addicts, GI addicts, and foreign traffickers and producers played the role of the “other” and needed to be contained or excluded from playing any role in constructing an American identity, one
characterized by anti-drug beliefs and practices. Campbell noted that
the drug war constructed “sites of both ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’ marginality, constituting American identity through the negation of ‘un-American’ behavior at home and abroad.” Subjecting soldiers to urinalysis in
Vietnam and identifying heroin users at home through the institution
of methadone maintenance programs contained and excluded the domestic “other,” but the exclusion was not final. Due to the re-conceptualized notion of heroin addiction as a medical disease, GI addicts and
methadone patients held the potential for reform and conformity to
“normal” behavior, behavior consistent with capitalist modernity.4
In
266 Janus Head
one sense, William S. Burroughs previewed the incompatibility of addiction and capitalist modernity when he wrote that the U.S. government wished to rid the country of “anyone who does not function as an
interchangeable part in their anti-human Social Economic set up”
(Burroughs, 125). However, unlike the 1950s, when Burroughs expressed
his strong sentiments and incarceration was the primary approach to
dealing with addicts, the Nixon administration replaced incarceration
with methadone treatment (for non-criminal addicts) in hopes of normalizing heroin addicts to life in a modern, capitalist society.
An integral part of differentiation and identity formation is regarding the other as a threat to the self, which is often expressed through
metaphors of sickness or pollution. The drugs-as-disease metaphor performed this task when used to express the danger that heroin addiction
posed to the United States (Campbell, 76). When President Nixon characterized addiction as a “cancerous growth” that “comes quietly into
homes and destroys children” (U.S. Congress 1971a, 20597-598), he
was performing “foreign policy” by marking boundaries of identity between addicts who cause destruction and “normal” Americans who raise
families and do not use illicit drugs. Likewise, when the Nixon administration increased funding for U.S. drug control policies aimed at prevented international drug trafficking, American “Foreign Policy” (the
relations between nation states) was reproducing the process of othering
addicts (foreign policy) discussed above.
Returning to the link between addiction, national identity, and
capitalist modernity, it is necessary to expand upon how GI heroin addicts in Vietnam and their domestic counterparts jeopardized a contingent American identity bound to notions of modernity and order. The
literature on modernity is legion and for that reason this study will rely
upon a brief definition of modernity. Modernity is defined as a socioeconomic state characterized by scientific rationality, liberal-democratic
political systems, a capitalist economy based upon high industrial production and exploitation of natural resources, and a highly centralized
government with an integrated population that possesses a sense of nationalism, enjoys high literacy rates and holds substantial urban populations. Moreover, modernity entails more than just the socioeconomic
state of a group of people and the degree of control a government holds
over its nature and population; it also entails attitudes, values, beliefs,
and a certain existential view of the world, one that upholds freedom of
Daniel Weimer 267
human action and choice.5
One argument for why addiction is antimodern centers on the fact
that addiction cuts individuals off from society, it de-socializes them.
Addicts withdraw from mainstream culture into a world of solitary, inauthentic pleasures that are far removed from “reality” (Derrida 1995,
235, 250). Two acute critics of rationality in Western culture, Max
Horkheimer and Theodore W. Adorno (1972), referring to the story of
the “Lotus-eaters” in Homer’s Odyssey, argued that the addict’s pleasures
are an illusion in the eyes of most modern individuals. For Adorno and
Horkheimer, enlightened bourgeois society required “sobriety.” The
“high” state of mind produced by drugs stood as a “mere illusion of
happiness, a dull vegetation, as meager as an animal’s bare existence,
and at best only the absence of the awareness of misfortune” (57, 62-3).
The pleasures of the addict are beyond the boundaries of pleasure allowed by society. Addicts cannot produce anything of merit or contribute to a rationalized society because their faculties are distorted. Commenting on the anti-modern characterization of addiction throughout
American history, H. Wayne Morgan (1981) noted that addiction threatened a
generally accepted set of values and aspirations that dated from the
beginning of the national experience. These involved an individualism that was responsive to larger social needs and that conformed
to limits; the need for order, efficiency, and predictability that kept
the entire society going; productivity that enriched the society as
well as the producer; an emphasis on the observable reality of the
world rather than flights of imagination; and a rational mentality
and emotional stability that were the hallmarks of liberty based
upon conscious logic (x-xi).
Thus, the premium placed on rationality in American culture makes
the addict’s willful irrationality the basis for intervention, particularly
since addiction is viewed as a contagious infection that may spread to
others.
Besides irrationality, non-productivity, and withdrawal from mainstream society, drug addiction deletes a central aspect of an individual
living within a modern society: free will and limitless self-development.
Modernity frees individuals from rigid social and economic restrictions,
268 Janus Head
as well as from the superstitious beliefs found in traditional societies.
Modernity affords an individual’s economic development as well as selfdevelopment (Tomlinson 1991, 140-50). Addiction, however, can be
viewed as negating these freedoms. If addiction is a physical disease that
obliterates free will, narrows a person’s options, and distorts rational
decision-making then addiction is antimodern. Jacques Derrida likened
the life of addicts to a “society of foragers,” whose economic life remains
at a subsistence level (Derrida 1995, 472). In sum, the search for unauthentic pleasures and the constant need for drugs severely constrain the
addict’s personal development and focuses their lives upon a narrow set
of goals.
Psychological assessments of soldier drug users upheld the irrationality, unproductivity, and social withdrawal associated with addiction.
One report stated that “susceptible personalities” contributed to addiction, while another noted that “situational maladjustment problems,”
“immaturity problems,” and “longstanding character and behavioral
disorders” typified drug users in Vietnam (U.S. Congress 1971c, 65).
While these characterizations of addict psychological states seem ordinary, they do reveal the otherness associated with drug abuse. That is,
these reported psychological defects in soldiers illustrated how drug abuse
was axiomatically linked to abnormal behavior, which, in the end, prevented individuals from engaging in social interaction and the performance of everyday actions.
Likewise, the symbols associated with addiction help separate drug
users from mainstream society. Arguably, the most recognizable and
powerful symbol of addiction is the hypodermic syringe, a symbol that
often denotes heroin addiction. Why the needle is emblematic of heroin
addiction, the “hardest” of addictions, stems from numerous factors.
First, the hypodermic needle violates the boundary between the body
and the outside world. This violation is normal if an injection is related
to an approved medical procedure. Yet, injection of heroin nullifies this
normality because the voluntary introduction of an illegal substance
into a person’s bloodstream violates the “normal” use of a hypodermic
needle. Moreover, instead of medication, an illegal pollutant is placed
into the body (Manderson 1995, 799-83). Thus, the ultimate boundary of the body plays a role in deciding what is normal and what is
deviant because what one allows into the body contributes to identity
formation. That is, the concept of pollution associated with heroin ad-
Daniel Weimer 269
diction contributes to the practice of differentiation or othering. Anthropologist Mary Douglas (1970) argued that where “there is no differentiation there is no defilement,” and the drugs-as-disease- metaphor
supports this statement because the metaphor performs a differentiating function (115-22). In sum, addiction disturbs the natural (though
socially constructed) use of the hypodermic needle and quickly makes
the previously fixed symbol of a medical instrument abnormal. The hypodermic needle becomes an ambiguous symbol, one that denotes legitimate and illegitimate behavior. Drug laws maintain an antidrug national identity by trying to mitigate this ambiguity and contain difference by delineating borders, both individual and national, and by representing the pollutant or the other as a danger, a security threat.
Most GI heroin addicts did not inject heroin; rather, they snorted
or smoked it, nonetheless, the repulsive symbol of a mainlining addict
could not be removed from the GI heroin epidemic. The 6 June 1971
edition of The New York Times featured a photograph of a hypodermic
needle puncturing an army helmet, an image that illustrated the wedding of heroin addiction and injection in the popular mind. Representative Seymour Halpern (R-NY) fanned popular fears of mainlining addicts by arguing that returning GI addicts, finding less pure heroin in
the United States, would graduate to injecting the drug. Likewise, an
article in the Saturday Review (1972) on the decline of morale within
the United States army in Vietnam featured a photograph of a hypodermic syringe; a single needle floating against a blank white background.
The syringe is unconnected to any other image but automatically evokes
heroin addiction and all of the anxiety attached to it. The prospect of
soldier addicts becoming intravenous heroin users as typified by the
“junkie” stereotype heightened the sense of pollution and danger the
nation faced from the GI heroin epidemic and at the same time reinforced a “normal” American identity by depicting heroin using soldiers
as an other.6
Yet, the attempt, conscious or unconscious, to place the stereotypical image of a heroin addict onto GI users did not square with the identity that soldier addicts had constructed for themselves. In fact, while
soldiers who used heroin in Vietnam may have appeared to become like
the domestic heroin-using other, many GI heroin users actively rejected
the “junkie” stereotype. As a subculture, GI drug users were not a onedimensional group. Rather, they were dynamic and complex and dif-
270 Janus Head
fered from their domestic counterparts. As previously stated, the most
common form of heroin administration was mixing the drug with cigarette tobacco and then smoking it. The next most common method was
snorting or sniffing. Taking heroin in these ways was a conscious attempt by GI users to avoid the identity of “addict” or “junkie,” which
they associated with crime and an inability to perform on the job. In
rejecting the addict stigma, GI heroin users denied their possible dependency on the drug and the need for rehabilitation or treatment once
they had undergone detoxification. Most felt that they could quit using
heroin on their own and in fact fought against military drug programs
that tried to assign the addict identity to them. Furthermore, many GI
heroin users wanted Americans to know that they were not like domestic addicts and that they should not be feared because they were aware
of the high social costs of heroin addiction in “the world” (Ingraham
1974, 117-18; Halloway 1974, 109-11).7
Drug use among American soldiers in Vietnam ran the spectrum
when it came to the types of substances abused. Nearly every psychoactive substance made possible by the modern world was available. Soldiers who used drugs in Vietnam often referred to themselves as “heads”
as a way of creating an identity for themselves. One’s rank within the
“head” subculture depended upon his drug of choice. Soldiers who used
only marijuana held the highest status, while soldiers who used drugs
that made them unpredictable, unreliable, or annoying had lower status. For example, habitual users of amphetamines, known as “speed
freaks,” were disliked because of their constant talking and overactivity.
Likewise, soldiers who indulged in hallucinogenic drugs, such as LSD,
were held in suspicion because of their perceived unpredictability, while
individuals who used “downers,” such as barbiturates, were also held in
low esteem due to their heavily impaired dexterity and ability to speak.
In between the marijuana smoker and lower status drug users were the
heroin smokers, who maintained this in-between position because they
were considered able to perform their duties despite their drug use.
(Ingraham 1974, 116-17; Sanders 1974, 32-43).
The drug using GI subculture also constructed an identity for itself through the outward symbols it adopted. Some observers of the
heroin epidemic and drug use in general in Vietnam argued that counterculture values, such as drug taking, had made their way overseas and
partly explained GI drug use. By the time of the heroin epidemic Ameri-
Daniel Weimer 271
can soldiers came from a society in which illegal drug use, especially
marijuana, had increased and young people held different views on drugs
than earlier generations (Stanton 1976, 561-63; Zinberg 1971). But
while drug using GIs came from a more drug tolerant society, their
substance abuse and adoption of counterculture symbols, such as long
hair, bandannas, peace symbols, and “drug cant,” did not automatically
signal a belief in counterculture values. Rather, many adapted counterculture symbols and rhetoric to express their frustrations with military
life, namely the difference in power between enlisted men and their
superiors and the “heads’” disdain for career soldiers (“lifers”). Though
their rhetoric and outward appearance suggested antiwar and antimilitary attitudes, they “did not question the authority of their government
to send them to Vietnam, nor did they question their obligation to
serve, nor did they express regret about the killing of ‘gook’ or ‘slant’
combatants and civilian noncombatants” (Ingraham 1974, 123).8
Furthermore, GI drug users did not perceive drugs as a path to religious or
eternal truth, as some of the counterculture did. Just as GI heroin users
rejected the “junkie” label, despite superficial similarities, many also
rejected “hippie” values.
Fear that soldier addicts in Vietnam would spread heroin addiction
in the United States proved to be exaggerated. While surveys could not
represent all Vietnam veterans, one study indicated that of the total
number of returning addicts, only 1 percent “reported addiction to heroin
during the first year back from Vietnam, and only two percent reported
addiction in the second or third year back.” The same study found that
“half of the men who had been addicted in Vietnam used heroin on
their return but only one-eighth became readdicted to heroin. Even
when heroin was used frequently, that is, more than once a week for a
considerable period of time, only one-half of those who used it frequently
became readdicted” (Schaler 1998, 256-59). Nonetheless, thousands of
GI addicts were discharged prior to the urine-screening program, and
even after the establishment of Operation Golden Flow, soldiers who
detoxified themselves to avoid detection returned home “clean” but possibly still addicted. So too did soldiers who earned their superiors’ ire,
and a discharge, by repeatedly failing urinalysis tests, according to 19
December 1971 New York Times story. The military’s antidrug policies
proved less than perfect, but the dire warning of a flood of addiction
resulting from returning soldiers also proved less than accurate.
272 Janus Head
Despite the self-image of drug using soldiers, politicians’ and
policymakers’ employment of the drugs-as-disease metaphor to emphasize the notion of drugs as a foreign danger manifested itself in specific
legislation and antidrug policies enacted during the early 1970s, such
as the U.S. supplying antinarcotics aid to foreign nations. Individuals in
the White House and in Congress found the drugs-as-disease metaphor
useful as rhetorical justification for greater source control efforts. But as
Michael Hunt (1987) has observed,
Public rhetoric is not simply a screen, tool, or ornament. It is also,
perhaps even primarily, a form of communication, rich in symbols
and mythology and closely constrained by certain rules. A rhetoric
that ignores or eschews the language of common discourse on the
central problems of the day closes itself off as a matter of course
from any sizeable audience, limiting its own influence. (15)
When Nixon uttered that “this deadly poison is a foreign import” (U.S.
Congress 1971a, 20595), he was not only communicating to the public
through a widely used metaphor, which conveyed an understanding of
addiction and its dangers that require increased source control, he was
also imparting symbols of what America was and how drugs threatened
national identity.9
The same held true for congressional members who
weighed in on the drug issue, and Congress, no less than Nixon, found
wide use for the metaphor in creating new antidrug legislation.
How the drugs-as-disease metaphor helped promote source control measures attempting to halt the production of illicit narcotics at
their source or interdicting drug traffic requires explanation. Numerous
foreign “dangers” have been characterized as illnesses, such as communist subversion, but unlike the fear of domestic communism, heroin
addiction presented to the public demonstrable evidence of the damage
that addiction reaps upon individuals and communities. Individually,
addiction limits personal development and also can lead to physical decline due to bodily neglect and the detrimental effects of drugs.10
Crime and violence are often cited as the societal damage resulting
from drug addiction, and this was true during the early 1970s, as Nixon’s
law and order pledge testified. While the anticipated rise in drug-related crime due to the GI heroin epidemic did not materialize, how
officials argued that returning soldier-addicts would spread addiction
Daniel Weimer 273
and crime offers evidence that illustrated how the drugs-as-disease-metaphor justified greater source control and interdiction measures. Besides
GI addicts, American officials pointed to a potential increase in the
amount of Southeast Asian heroin coming into the United States. For
example, CIA reports and testimony by drug enforcement officials warned
that Southeast Asian heroin would become a major source for the American drug market (McCoy 1990, 254-55, 283-92). Given the potential
for a wave of addiction and subsequent crime, individuals in the military, the Nixon administration, and Congress offered epidemiological
models of heroin addiction that demonstrated how addiction acted like
an infectious disease.
General Lewis W. Walt, U.S. Marines (Ret.), headed a task force on
the world narcotics traffic in 1972. Testifying before a Senate Judiciary
subcommittee Walt employed the drugs-as-disease metaphor to amplify
his argument that heroin was an outside threat to the United States.
Remarking that “drug addiction has all the attributes of a contagious
disease,” he asserted that addicts were “under an irresistible compulsion
to addict others,” and that heroin addiction was “just about as contagious and just about as deadly as the bubonic plague.” In order to demonstrate the communicable nature of heroin addiction and how GI addicts as well as domestic addicts contaminate the nation, Walt supplied
evidence to boost his claims. British psychiatrist Rene de Alarron exhibited her research for the congressional subcommittee, illustrating “how
two addicts in the small British town of Crawley spread the sickness of
heroin addiction to 56 other people over a period of 5 years.” Diagrams
depicting concentric circles charted how the two addicts made “contact” with others and spread their disease. Referring to returning GI
addicts and the infusion of Southeast Asian heroin into the United States,
Walt stated, “multiply the infectious circles in this diagram by roughly
10,000 and you will have some conception of the problem we are up
against in America today” (U.S. Congress 1972, 125-26).
Dr. Joseph A. Greenwood, a BNDD statistician and epidemiologist whose work was enlisted by the administration, offered a way of
estimating the number of heroin addicts in the United States that underscored the infectious character of addiction and highlighted increased
addiction rates. In late 1969 the BNDD reported 69,000 registered
addicts. The BNDD’s number was compiled from local and state crime
reports. Greenwood, applying a statistical sampling technique used by
274 Janus Head
biologists to calculate fish population, took the 69,000 number and
multiplied it by the number of individuals who were identified in 1969
and 1970. Greenwood’s statistical analysis reported that the population
had jumped to 315,000 by the end of 1970. Applying the same procedure in 1971, the BNDD reported 560,000 addicts by late 1971.
Greenwood admitted that his numbers were not the result of exact scientific techniques but defended the legitimacy of his statistics. So did
the Nixon administration (Epstein 1990, 174-81). If addiction was a
foreign-born disease, then crime was certainly the worst symptom.
Congressional members also characterized addiction as a foreignborn disease, which fostered the reliance on source control. One month
after the GI heroin epidemic became front line news, Senator Alan
Cranston (D-CA) likened addiction to an “infectious disease” sweeping
the nation and maintained that it threatened “far greater destruction of
lives and welfare . . . than the war in Southeast Asia” (U.S. Congress
1971b, 5). Senator James O. Eastland (D-MS) portrayed heroin addiction as a “contagious disease” that posed considerable danger to the nation since each addict was “capable of spreading his disease to many
other people.” Eastland extended the threat of addiction to include the
nation’s “internal security” (U.S. Congress 1972b, 1). Representative
Lester L. Wolff (D-NY), declared that narcotics were “far more dangerous than one man, or even an army of murderers, for they threaten the
American way of life and the American future” (U.S. Congress 1973,
14).
Congress enacted source control measures that reinforced the notion of drugs as a foreign disease and charges of complicity among the
United States’ Southeast Asian allies in the narcotics trade prompted
members of the House and Senate to tie American foreign aid to drug
control. In February 1971 Congress amended the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act to allow the application of American funds to international
narcotics control and authorized the suspension of foreign aid to countries that were not cooperating with the U.S.-led drug war. March 1971
saw Congress add to the president’s power to use economic incentives in
the drug war. Three laws aimed at potentially uncooperative nations
authorized the president to instruct American representatives to the Asian
Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the
International Development Association to vote against loans for nations
deemed disinclined to the American drug war. Furthermore, in May
Daniel Weimer 275
1972 the National Advisory Council announced policy changes for international financial institutions (IFI) such as the World Bank. The
policy changes urged financial and technical assistance to nations willing to combat narcotics trafficking and production within their borders
(Quinn 1974, 50-54). Within two months Congress had created carrots and sticks for Nixon’s drug war.
Congressional employment of the drugs-as-disease metaphor, as with
its use by members of the Nixon administration, was more than just
hyperbole.11 While scholars have made justified arguments that the heroin
epidemic was a manufactured scare or politicians exaggerated the problem for political fame or more nefarious reasons (Epstein 1990), the
language used is still telling about the cultural mindset surrounding
drugs and the cultural construction of the drug war. Metaphors function within a culture by making a complex or not fully understood phenomenon familiar; they make what is complex simple. In the case of
drug addiction, the drugs-as-disease metaphor proved useful because,
in many ways, addiction was (and still is) a mysterious phenomenon.
Susan Sontag (1990) wrote that misunderstood illnesses have the “widest possibility as metaphors for what is socially or morally wrong” (61),
and the linkage by government officials between addiction and social
decay underscored this idea. In one sense, the disease metaphor cleared
away misunderstandings about heroin addiction by supporting methadone clinics and the fact that addiction required medical treatment, not
incarceration. Yet, addiction remained a highly stigmatized condition,
one that evoked powerful reactions.
Moreover, likening addiction to the bubonic plague or cancer, as
Nixon did, implied that addiction was a radical abnormality and that
the “normal” state of society was drug free, just as a healthy society
should be disease free (Campbell 1992, 94-101). Clarifying this notion, Nixon, in July 1969, declared that federal antidrug policies were
“aimed at eradicating this rising sickness in our land” (The New York
Times 1969). This mode of thinking upheld binary thought, which bestowed the individual or group making the diagnosis with the authority
to prescribe a solution or treatment. In this sense, use of the drugs-asdisease metaphor during the early 1970s stood as an example of how
socio-medical discourse operated in American society because it delineated who or what was normal and abnormal and upheld the authority
of U.S. government to intervene at home and abroad in order to stem
276 Janus Head
drug abuse and trafficking. If addiction was the disease, then a “clean”
body, individual and national, was “normal,” though conceptions of
normality and abnormality are culturally constituted, just as nationaland self-identity were and are. Domestic addicts threatened the “clean”
and “normal” social body while Southeast Asians connected to the narcotics trade posed a danger to the United States. Urinalysis, methadone
maintenance, and increased domestic enforcement acted as the domestic treatment while source control and interdiction were the international solution.
Furthermore, metaphors, as Hayden White (1978) has noted, often lack specificity and therefore do not offer exact knowledge about
who or what they refer to. White observed that a metaphor functions as
“a symbol, rather than a sign: which is to say that it does not give us
either a description or an icon of the thing it represents, but tells us what
images to look for in our culturally encoded experience in order to determine how we should feel about the thing represented” (91). The disease metaphor did not offer the American public a useful conception of
addiction but instead presented a discursive device upon which a grab
bag of stereotypes and stigmas could be attached. While using the disease metaphor to uphold a medical approach to addiction offered a more
specific conception of addiction, old stereotypes persisted with the employment of the illness metaphor, namely drugs as un-American and a
foreign danger.
The drugs-as-disease-metaphor even attached itself to another
overgeneralized term, “national security.” When Senator Eastland and
Representative Wolff invoked drugs as a national security threat, they
further diluted the specificity of what sort of danger addiction posed in
American and international society.12 The GI heroin epidemic may have
been a national security threat had it not occurred in the midst of
Vietnamization and had the government of South Vietnam displayed
any semblance of autonomy and popular support. But the heroin epidemic hit at the end of the United States’ long involvement in Vietnam,
and the withdrawal of American troops actually helped stem the spread
of addiction by removing the market for heroin in Vietnam. Besides the
case of the GI heroin epidemic, narcotics trafficking constituted a security threat for the Nixon administration because international drug control policies emphasized the foreign origin of drugs, and blame lay with
foreign governments that lacked the will to fight illicit production and
Daniel Weimer 277
distribution. In any case, the avowal of drugs as a national security threat
did not lend any useful conception of how addiction affected society
and only promoted a militarized perception of drug policy. The complex and most likely un-resolvable issue of demand reduction is lost in
viewing drugs as a national security threat and further casts blame onto
foreign nations.13
In the final analysis, the GI heroin epidemic and the discursive and
policy responses to it represented a particular historical event in which
issues of national- and self-identity, othering, and modernity converged.
U.S. government representations of GI heroin addicts and domestic addicts as others and a foreign danger through the employment of the
drugs-as-disease-metaphor resulted in programs designed to contain these
threats. If addicts harbored a contagious disease that promised to spread
addiction and crime as well as disrupt social order then, as this essay
demonstrated, urinalysis for soldiers serving in Vietnam, methadone clinics, and drug control assistance to foreign nations was required to protect a contingent antidrug national identity that was also wedded to
capitalist modernity and its emphasis on rationality, order and human
agency. The same notions of addiction that informed the U.S. government during the GI heroin epidemic drugs as a dangerous disease, an
antidrug national identity, and the antimodern character of addicts still
resonate with U.S. drug policy to this day.
Notes
1
This is not to suggest that Nixon began the war on drugs. He did draw
upon prior drug policy, primarily a source-control focus (stopping the
illicit production of drugs at their source of origin and interdicting drugs
en route to the United States) and nativist beliefs that America’s drug
problem stems from foreign nations and people.
2
No. 4 heroin refers to the highest grade of heroin available, which is
80-90% pure. Heroin is derived from morphine that has been chemically treated. The name, “no. 4,” means that the heroin resulted from
four stages of refinement to remove impurities. A skilled chemist is needed
to produce no. 4 heroin, while no. 3 heroin, a grandular substance,
takes less treatment but is of considerably less purity. No. 4 heroin consists of a fine white powder and is what most people envision as “heroin.”
3
For an analysis of how governments attempt to identify and make
278 Janus Head
hidden drug subcultures visible and subject to official intervention, see
Fitzgerald (1996).
4
It should be noted that in 1962 the Supreme Court declared addiction a medical condition and not a crime. Likewise, proponents of methadone maintenance held the view that heroin addiction permanently altered an individual’s physical makeup, which prevented them from exercising self-control over their habituation. The answer to this physical
problem was the administration of medicine, methadone. For an incisive critique of the notion of drug addiction as a medical, biologicallybased disease, see Peele (1987). Also seee Keane (2002) for a critical
analysis of the many existing discourses of addiction. Keane and Peele
offer a needed corrective to the prevalent belief that addiction is a chemically and biologically based disease.
5
This definition of modern societies is not drawn from one source. My
understanding of modernity and modern science comes from the following: Scott (1988); Escobar (1995); Sachs (1992); Tomlinson (1991);
Giddens (1991).
6
Gilman’s (1988) work advanced a similar argument concerning the
stereotyping of AIDS patients. Gilman demonstrated that the archetypal AIDS patient—male, homosexual, and African American—was
often grafted onto all AIDS victims despite the existence of a more varied AIDS population (245-72).
7
Halloway (1974) noted that only one in ten heroin users in Vietnam
preferred injecting the drug.
8
However one must qualify Ingraham’s conclusion regarding American
soldiers’ attitude on killing Vietnamese civilians. U.S. soldiers did discuss, question, and were affected by the killing of noncombatants, particularly after the My Lai massacre, which occurred in March, 1968 and
became public in November, 1969.
9
The full text of Nixon’s words reads: “This deadly poison in the American lifestream is, in other words, a forein import.” Nixon was also implying that the disease of heroin addiction threatened societal collapse,
an implication associated with many Western images of disease.
10 Horror stories abound when it comes to the individual and collective
damage drug abuse can do. For vivid testimony of the detrimental effects of addiction, consult Inciardi (1992).
11 Philosopher Mark Johnson (1987) has argued that metaphors are
more than just figurative language employed as another way of making
Daniel Weimer 279
literal statements. Johnson countered the Objectivist standpoint that
metaphors merely restate preexisting literal knowledge with a diffrent
name and therefore play no role in producing knowledge. He argued
that metaphors play an essential role in cognition and that they are “one
of the chief ways we general structure in our experience in a way that we
can comprehend.” In essence, Johnson denies the scholarly tradition of
viewing language as a transparent reflection of an independent reality
(67, 98).
12 Since its inception in the 1940s, the term “national security” has lost
all specificity. The very title of the four part hearings conducted by the
Senate Judiciary Committee, World Drug Traffic and Its Impact on Security, conveyed the notion of drugs as a national security threat. 13 In 1986, President Reagan formally institutionalized drugs as a national security threat, for the United States and all of the Americas, with
the declaration of National Security Decision Directive NSDD no. 221.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Reagan ordered a war on drugs and he was the biggest drug lord in the world at the time. Herbert Walker Bush took his place. We do not know who is taking their place right now

So true, bruh.. And when reagan declared the war on drugs, there wasnt even a drug(crack) problem at that time.. 2yrs after he declared his war on drugs, then cocaine started flowin in our neighborhoods and cities!! Bruh, this whole gang and drugs problem was set up a decade or two ahead!! Ive said it before, nothing in this country just happens out the blue, everything is well planned out decades ahead of time!!
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered


Obama and Afghanistan: America’s Drug-Corrupted War

116713.jpg

The presidential electoral campaign of Barack Obama in 2008, it was thought, “changed the political debate in a party and a country that desperately needed to take a new direction.”[1] Like most preceding presidential winners dating back at least to John F. Kennedy, what moved voters of all descriptions to back Obama was the hope he offered of significant change. Yet within a year Obama has taken decisive steps, not just to continue America’s engagement in Bush’s Afghan War, but significantly to enlarge it into Pakistan. If this was change of a sort, it was a change that few voters desired.

Those of us convinced that a war machine prevails in Washington were not surprised. The situation was similar to the disappointment experienced with Jimmy Carter: Carter was elected in 1976 with a promise to cut the defense budget. Instead, he initiated both an expansion of the defense budget and also an expansion of U.S. influence into the Indian Ocean.[2]

As I wrote in The Road to 9/11, after Carter’s election

It appeared on the surface that with the blessing of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, the traditional U.S. search for unilateral domination would be abandoned. But…the 1970s were a period in which a major “intellectual counterrevolution” was mustered, to mobilize conservative opinion with the aid of vast amounts of money…. By the time SALT II was signed in 1979, Carter had consented to significant new weapons programs and arms budget increases (reversing his campaign pledge).[3]

The complex strategy for reversing Carter’s promises was revived for a successful new mobilization in the 1990s during the Clinton presidency, in which a commission headed by Donald Rumsfeld was prominent. In this way the stage was set, even under Clinton, for the neocon triumph in the George W. Bush presidency[4]


The Vietnam War as a Template for Afghanistan

The aim of the war machine has been consistent over the last three decades: to overcome the humiliation of a defeat in Vietnam by doing it again and getting it right. But the principal obstacle to victory in Afghanistan is the same as in Vietnam: the lack of a viable central government to defend. The relevance of the Vietnam analogy was rejected by Obama in his December 1 speech: “Unlike Vietnam,” he said, “we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency.” But the importance of the Vietnam analogy has been well brought out by Thomas H. Johnson, coordinator of anthropological research studies at the Naval Postgraduate School, and his co-author Chris Mason. In their memorable phrase, “the Vietnam War is less a metaphor for the conflict in Afghanistan than it is a template:”

It is an oft-cited maxim that in all the conflicts of the past century, the United States has refought its last war. A number of analysts and journalists have mentioned the war in Vietnam recently in connection with Afghanistan.1 Perhaps fearful of taking this analogy too far, most have backed away from it. They should not—the Vietnam War is less a metaphor for the conflict in Afghanistan than it is a template. For eight years, the United States has engaged in an almost exact political and military reenactment of the Vietnam War, and the lack of self-awareness of the repetition of events 50 years ago is deeply disturbing.[5]

In their words, quoting Jeffrey Record,

“the fundamental political obstacle to an enduring American success in Vietnam [was] a politically illegitimate, militarily feckless, and thoroughly corrupted South Vietnamese client regime.” Substitute the word “Afghanistan” for the words “South Vietnam” in these quotations and the descriptions apply precisely to today’s government in Kabul. Like Afghanistan, South Vietnam at the national level was a massively corrupt collection of self-interested warlords, many of them deeply implicated in the profitable opium trade, with almost nonexistent legitimacy outside the capital city. The purely military gains achieved at such terrible cost in our nation’s blood and treasure in Vietnam never came close to exhausting the enemy’s manpower pool or his will to fight, and simply could not be sustained politically by a venal and incompetent set of dysfunctional state institutions where self-interest was the order of the day.[6]

If Johnson had written a little later, he might have added that a major CIA asset in Afghanistan was Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai; and that Ahmed Wali Karzai was a major drug trafficker who used his private force to help arrange a flagrantly falsified election result.[7] This is a fairly exact description of Ngo dinh Nhu in Vietnam, President Ngo dinh Diem’s brother, an organizer of the Vietnamese drug traffic whose dreaded Can Lao secret force helped, among other things, to organize a falsified election result there.[8]


This pattern of a corrupt near relative, often involved in drugs, is a recurring feature of regimes installed or supported by U.S. influence. There were similar allegations about Chiang Kai-shek’s brother-in-law T.V. Soong, Mexican President Echevarría’s brother-in-law Rubén Zuno Arce, and the Shah of Iran’s sister. In the case of Ngo dinh Nhu, it was the absence of a popular base for his externally installed presidential brother that led to drug involvement, “to provide the necessary funding” for political repression.[9] This analogy to the Karzais is pertinent.

An additional similarity, not noted by Johnson, is that America initially engaged in Vietnam in support of an embattled and unpopular minority, the Roman Catholics who had thrived under the French. America has twice made the same mistake in Afghanistan. Initially, after the Russian invasion of 1980, the bulk of American aid went to Gulbeddin Hekmatyar, a leader both insignificant in and unpopular with the mujahedin resistance; the CIA is said to have supported Hekmatyar, who became a drug trafficker to compensate for his lack of a popular base, because he was the preferred client of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which distributed American and Saudi aid.

When America re-engaged in 2001, it was to support the Northern Alliance, a drug-trafficking Tajik-Uzbek minority coalition hateful to the Pashtun majority south of the Hindu Kush. Just as America’s initial commitment to the Catholic Diem family fatally alienated the Vietnamese countryside, so the American presence in Afghanistan is weakened by its initial dependence on the Tajiks of the minority Northern Alliance. (The Roman Catholic minority in Vietnam at least shared a language with the Buddhists in the countryside. The Tajiks speak Dari, a version of Persian unintelligible to the Pashtun majority.)


According to an important article by Gareth Porter,

Contrary to the official portrayal of the Afghan National Army (ANA) as ethnically balanced, the latest data from U.S. sources reveal that the Tajik minority now accounts for far more of its troops than the Pashtuns, the country’s largest ethnic group.…. Tajik domination of the ANA feeds Pashtun resentment over the control of the country’s security institutions by their ethnic rivals, while Tajiks increasingly regard the Pashtun population as aligned with the Taliban.

The leadership of the army has been primarily Tajik since the ANA was organised in 2002, and Tajiks have been overrepresented in the officer corps from the beginning. But the original troop composition of the ANA was relatively well-balanced ethnically. The latest report of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, issued Oct. 30, shows that Tajiks, which represent 25 percent of the population, now account for 41 percent of all ANA troops who have been trained, and that only 30 percent of the ANA trainees are now Pashtuns. A key reason for the predominance of Tajik troops is that the ANA began to have serious problems recruiting troops in the rural areas of Kandahar and Helmand provinces by mid-2007.[10]

This problem derives from a major strategic error committed by the U.S. first in Vietnam and now repeated: the effort to impose central state authority on a country that had always been socially and culturally diverse.[11] Johnson and Mason illustrate Diem’s lack of legitimacy with a quote from Eric Bergerud:

The Government of Vietnam (GVN) lacked legitimacy with the rural peasantry, the largest segment of the population…The peasantry perceived the GVN to be aloof, corrupt, and inefficient…South Vietnam’s urban elite possessed the outward manifestations of a foreign culture…more importantly, this small group held most of the wealth and power in a poor nation, and the attitude of the ruling elite toward the rural population was, at best, paternalistic and, at worst, predatory.[12]

Thomas Johnson rightly deplores the U.S. effort to impose Kabul’s will on an even more diverse Afghanistan. As he has written elsewhere,

The characterization of Afghanistan by the 19th Century British diplomat Sir Henry Rawlinson as `consist[ing] of a mere collection of tribes, of unequal power and divergent habits, which are held together more or less closely, according to the personal character of the chief who rules them. The feeling of patriotism, as it is known in Europe, cannot exist among Afghans, for there is no common country’ is still true today and suggests critical nuances for any realistic Afghanistan reconstruction and future political agenda.”[13]

According to Thomas Johnson, the first eight years of the U.S. in Afghanistan have also seen the Army repeating the strategy of targeting the enemy that failed in Vietnam:

Since 2002, the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan—at all levels—has been based on an implied strategy of attrition via clearing operations virtually identical to those pursued in Vietnam. In Vietnam, they were dubbed “search and destroy missions;” in Afghanistan they are called “clearing operations” and “compound searches,” but the purpose is the same—to find easily replaced weapons or clear a tiny, arbitrarily chosen patch of worthless ground for a short period, and then turn it over to indigenous security forces who can’t hold it, and then go do it again somewhere else…. General McChrystal is the first American commander since the war began to understand that protecting the people, not chasing illiterate teenage boys with guns around the countryside, is the basic principle of counterinsurgency. Yet four months into his command, little seems to have changed, except for an eight-year overdue order to stop answering the enemy’s prayers by blowing up compounds with air strikes to martyr more of the teenage boys[14]

The astute observer Rory Stewart is equally pessimistic about the new counter-insurgency strategy, which according to its proponents needs one “trained counterinsurgent” for every fifty members of the population, or a troop level of from 300,000 (for the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan) to 600,000 (for the whole country):[15]

The ingredients of successful counter-insurgency campaigns in places like Malaya – control of the borders, large numbers of troops in relation to the population, strong support from the majority ethnic groups, a long-term commitment and a credible local government – are lacking in Afghanistan.[16]

Johnson and Mason’s depiction of the Vietnam template underlying Afghanistan is important. But there is a glaring omission in their description of power in the Afghan countryside:

When it is in equilibrium, rural Afghan society is a triangle of power formed by the tribal elders, the mullahs, and the government…. In times of peace and stability, the longest side of the triangle is that of the tribal elders, constituted through the jirga system. The next longest, but much shorter side is that of the mullahs. Traditionally and historically, the government side is a microscopic short segment. However, after 30 years of blowback from the Islamization of the Pashtun begun by General Zia in Pakistan and accelerated by the Soviet-Afghan War, the religious side of the triangle has become the longest side of jihad has grown stronger and more virulent.

This remains true, but is dated by its omission of drug-trafficking, and the militias supported by drug-trafficking, which since 1980 have become a more and more important element in the power-balance. Sometimes the drug-traffic adds to the power of tribal elders like Jalaluddin Haqqani or Haji Bashir Noorzai, with tribal drug networks often passed from father to son. But today one of the most important power-holders is the drug-trafficker Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a Ghilzai Pashtun from the north without a significant tribal base. Hekmatyar is much like General Dan Van Quang during the Vietnam War, in that his power continues to depend in part on his sophisticated heroin trafficking network in Afghanistan’s Kunar and Nuristan provinces.[17]


The more we recognize that today drugs are a major factor in both the economy and the power structure of Afghanistan, the more we must recognize that an even better template for the Afghan war is not the Vietnam war, where drugs were important but not central, but the CIA’s drug-funded undeclared war in Laos, 1959-75.

Afghanistan and the Laos Template

I have quoted at great length from Johnson’s pessimistic essay in Military Review, partly because I believe it deserves to be read by a non-military audience, but also because I believe that his excellent analogies to Vietnam are even more pertinent if we recall the CIA’s hopeless fiasco in Laos.


Vietnam, for all its problems with Catholic and Montagnard minorities, was essentially a state with a single language and a single, French-imposed system of law. Laos, in contrast, was little more than an arbitrary collection of about 100 tribes with different languages, in which the dominant Tai-speaking Lao Loum tribes compromised, in the 1960s, little more than half of the total population. Faced with an intractable mountainous terrain, the French wisely devoted little energy to establishing a central power in Laos, which then had one capital for the north and another for the south.[18] Like Afghanistan and in contrast to Nepal, Laos remained and remains one of the world’s last countries without a railroad.

To supplement their own minimal presence in Laos, the French relied on two minorities with two completely different non-Tai languages, the Vietnamese and the Méo or Hmong. The protracted French war in Indochina produced two combating armies in Laos, the pro-French Royal Laotian Army, in uneasy alliance with Hmong guerrillas, and the pro-Vietnamese Pathet Lao.

Thus Laos, when it became nominally independent in 1954, was a quasi-state with two armies, a collection of tribes with different languages and customs, and tribe-dividing borders defined arbitrarily to suit western convenience. All this might have remained relatively stable, had not Americans arrived with naïve notions of “nation-building.” Misguided efforts to establish a strong central government rapidly produced two dominating consequences: massive corruption (even worse than Vietnam’s), and civil war.[19]

It would appear that the CIA in Laos, reflecting the opposition of the Dulles brothers to any form of neutralism, intended to divide the country and make it an anti-Communist battlefield, rather than let it slumber quietly under the guidance of its first post-French prime minister, the neutralist Souvanna Phouma (nephew of the king). A CIA officer told Time magazine in 1961 that the CIA’s aim “was to ‘polarize’ the communist and anti-communist factions in Laos.”[20] If this was truly the aim, the CIA succeeded, creating a conflict in which the U.S. dropped more than two million tons of bombs on one part of Laos, more than in both Europe and the Pacific during World War Two.[21]

Despite this absurd and criminal U.S. over-commitment, the end result was to turn Laos, a profoundly Buddhist nation with an anti-Vietnamese bias, into what is nominally one of the last remaining Communist countries in the world. And our principal ally, a Hmong faction allied earlier with the French, suffered devastating, almost genocidal casualties. (The London Guardian charged in 1971 that Hmong villages who “try to find their own way out of the war – even if it is simply by staying neutral and refusing to send their 13-year-olds to fight in the CIA army – are immediately denied American rice and transport, and ultimately bombed by the U.S. Air Force.”)[22]

No one has ever claimed that in Laos, as opposed to Vietnam, “the system worked,”[23] or that the U.S. might have prevailed had it not been for faulty decision-making at the civilian level.[24] From a humanitarian standpoint, America’s campaign in Laos, was from the outset a disaster if not indeed a major war crime. Only one faction profited from that war, international drug traffickers – whether Corsican, Nationalist Chinese, or American.

With the beginning of CIA support for him in 1959, the CIA’s client Phoumi Nosavan, for the first time, directly involved his army in the opium traffic, “as an alternative source of income for his [Laotian] army and government…. This decision ultimately led to the growth of northwest Laos as one of the largest heroin-producing centers in the world” in the late 1960s.[25] (The CIA not only supported General Ouan Rattikone (Phoumi’s successor) and his drug-funded army, it even supplied airplanes to senior Laotian generals which soon “ran opium for them” without interference.)[26] Conversely, when the US withdrew from Laos in the 1970s, opium production plummeted, from an estimated 200 tons in 1975 to 30 tons in 1984.[27]

America’s Addiction to Drug-Assisted War: Afghanistan the 1980s

It is hard to demonstrate the CIA, when unilaterally initiating a military conflict in Laos in 1959, foresaw the resulting huge increase in Laotian opium production. But two decades later this experience did not deter Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, from unilaterally initiating contact with drug-trafficking Afghans in 1978 and 1979.


It is clear that this time the Carter White House foresaw the drug consequences. In 1980 White House drug advisor David Musto told the White House Strategy Council on Drug Abuse that “we were going into Afghanistan to support the opium growers…. Shouldn’t we try to avoid what we had done in Laos?”[28] Denied access by the CIA to data to which he was legally entitled, Musto took his concerns public in May 1980, noting in a New York Times Op Ed that Golden Crescent heroin was already (and for the first time) causing a medical crisis in New York. And he warned, presciently, that “this crisis is bound to worsen.”[29]

The CIA, in conjunction with its creation the Iranian intelligence agency SAVAK, was initially trying to move to the right the regime of Afghan president Mohammed Daoud Khan, whose objectionable policy (like that of Souvanna Phouma before him) was to maintain good relations with both the Soviet Union and the west. In 1978 SAVAK- and CIA-supported Islamist agents soon arrived from Iran “with bulging bankrolls,” trying to mobilize a purge of left-wing officers in the army and a clamp-down on their party the PDPA.

The result of this provocative polarization was the same as in Laos: a confrontation in which the left, and not the right, soon prevailed.[30] In a coup that was at least partly defensive, left-wing officers overthrew and killed Daoud; they installed in his place a left-wing regime so extreme and unpopular that by 1980 the USSR (as Brzezinski had predicted) intervened to install a more moderate faction.[31]

By May 1979 the CIA was in touch with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the mujahedin warlord with perhaps the smallest following inside Afghanistan, and also the leading mujahedin drug-trafficker.[32] Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the faces of women not wearing burkas, was not the choice of the Afghan resistance, but of the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI), perhaps because he was the only Afghan leader willing to accept the British-drawn Durand Line as the Afghan-Pakistan boundary. As an Afghan leader in 1994 told Tim Weiner of the New York Times:

“We didn’t choose these leaders. The United States made Hekmatyar by giving him his weapons. Now we want the United States to shake these leaders and make them stop the killing, to save us from them.”[33]

Robert D. Kaplan reported his personal experience that Hekmatyar was “loathed by all the other party leaders, fundamentalist and moderate alike.”[34]

This decision by ISI and CIA belies the usual American rhetoric that the US was assisting an Afghan liberation movement.[35] In the next decade of anti-Soviet resistance, more than half of America’s aid went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who soon became “one of Afghanistan’s leading drug lords.” Brzezinski was also soon in contact with Pakistan’s emissary Fazle ul-Haq, a man who by 1982 would be listed by Interpol as an international narcotics trafficker.[36]



The consequences were swiftly felt in America, where heroin from the Golden Crescent, negligible before 1979, amounted in 1980 to 60 percent of the U.S. market.[37] And by 1986, for the first time, the region supplied 70 percent of the high-grade heroin in the world, and supplied a new army of 650,000 addicts in Pakistan itself. Witnesses confirmed that the drug was shipped out of the area on the same Pakistan Army trucks which shipped in “covert” US military aid.[38]

Yet before 1986 the only high-level heroin bust in Pakistan was made at the insistence of a single Norwegian prosecutor; none were instigated by the seventeen narcotics officers in the U.S. Embassy. Eight tons of Afghan-Pakistani morphine base from a single Pakistani source supplied the Sicilian mafia “Pizza Connection” in New York, said by the FBI supervisor on the case to have been responsible for 80% of the heroin reaching the United States between 1978 and 1984.[39]

Meanwhile, CIA Director William Casey appears to have promoted a plan suggested to him in 1980 by the former French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches, that the CIA supply drugs on the sly to Soviet troops.[40] Although de Marenches subsequently denied that the plan, Operation Mosquito, went forward, there are reports that heroin, hashish, and even cocaine from Latin America soon reached Soviet troops; and that along with the CIA-ISI-linked bank BCCI, “a few American intelligence operatives were deeply enmeshed in the drug trade” before the war was over.[41] Maureen Orth heard from Mathea Falco, head of International Narcotics Control for the State Department under Jimmy Carter, that the CIA and ISI together encouraged the mujahedin to addict the Soviet troops.[42]

America’s Return in 2001, Again With the Support of Drug-Traffickers

The social costs of this drug-assisted war are still with us: there are said, for example, to be now five million heroin addicts in Pakistan alone. And yet America in 2001 decided to do it again: to try, with the assistance of drug traffickers, to impose nation-building on a quasi-state with at least a dozen major ethnic groups speaking unrelated languages. In a close analogy to the use of the Hmong in Laos, America initiated its Afghan campaign in 2001 in concert with a distinct minority, the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance. In a closer analogy still, the CIA in 2000 (in the last weeks of Clinton’s presidency) chose as its principal ally Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance, despite the objection of other national security advisers that “Massoud was a drug trafficker; if the CIA established a permanent base [with him] in the Panjshir, it risked entanglement with the heroin trade.”[43]

There was no ambiguity about the U.S. intention to use drug traffickers to initiate its ground position in Afghanistan. The CIA mounted its coalition against the Taliban in 2001 by recruiting and even importing drug traffickers, usually old assets from the 1980s. An example was Haji Zaman who had retired to Dijon in France, whom “British and American officials…met with and persuaded … to return to Afghanistan.”[44]

In Afghanistan in 2001 as in 1980, and as in Laos in 1959, the U.S. intervention has since been a bonanza for the international drug syndicates. With the increase of chaos in the countryside, and number of aircraft flying in and out of the country, opium production more than doubled, from 3276 metric tonnes in 2000 (and 185 in 2001, the year of a Taliban ban on opium) to 8,200 metric tonnes in 2007.


Why does the U.S. intervene repeatedly on the same side as the most powerful local drug traffickers? Some years ago I summarized the conventional wisdom on this matter:

Partly this has been from realpolitik – in recognition of the local power realities represented by the drug traffic. Partly it has been from the need to escape domestic political restraints: the traffickers have supplied additional financial resources needed because of US budgetary limitations, and they have also provided assets not bound (as the U.S. is) by the rules of war. … These facts…have led to enduring intelligence networks involving both oil and drugs, or more specifically both petrodollars and narcodollars. These networks, particularly in the Middle East, have become so important that they affect, not just the conduct of US foreign policy, but the health and behavior of the US government, US banks and corporations, and indeed the whole of US society.[45]

Persuaded in part by the analysis of authors like Michel Chossudovsky and James Petras, I would now stress more heavily that American banks, as well as oil majors, benefit significantly from drug trafficking. A Senate staff report has estimated “that $500 billion to $1 trillion in criminal proceeds are laundered through banks worldwide each year, with about half of that amount moved through United States banks.”[46] The London Independent reported in 2004 that drug trafficking constitutes “the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade.”[47]

Petras concludes that the U.S. economy has become a narco-capitalist one, dependent on the hot or dirty money, much of it from the drug traffic.

As Senator Levin summarizes the record: “Estimates are that $500 billion to $1 trillion of international criminal proceeds are moved internationally and deposited into bank accounts annually. It is estimated half of that money comes to the United States”….


Washington and the mass media have portrayed the U.S. in the forefront of the struggle against narco trafficking, drug laundering and political corruption: the image is of clean white hands fighting dirty money from the Third world (or the ex-Communist countries). The truth is exactly the opposite. U.S. banks have developed a highly elaborate set of policies for transferring illicit funds to the U.S., investing those funds in legitimate businesses or U.S. government bonds and legitimating them. The U.S. Congress has held numerous hearings, provided detailed exposés of the illicit practices of the banks, passed several laws and called for stiffer enforcement by any number of public regulators and private bankers. Yet the biggest banks continue their practices, the sums of dirty money grows exponentially, because both the State and the banks have neither the will nor the interest to put an end to the practices that provide high profits and buttress an otherwise fragile empire.[48]

In the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, this analysis found support from the claim of Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, that “Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis.” According to the London Observer, Costa

said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result…. Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. “In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor,” he said.[49]

The War Machine and the Drug-Corrupted Afghan War


Thus the war machine that co-opted Obama into his escalation of a drug-corrupted war is not just a bureaucratic cabal inside Washington. It is solidly grounded in and supported by a wide coalition of forces in our society. For this reason the war machine will not be dissuaded by sensible advice from within the establishment, such as the recommendation for Afghan counterterrorism from the RAND Corporation:

Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa’ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.[50]

It will not be dissuaded by the conclusion of a recent study for the Carnegie Endowment that “the presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban.”[51] To justify its global strategic posture of what it calls “full-spectrum dominance,” the Pentagon badly needs the “war against terror” in Afghanistan, just as a decade ago it needed the counter-productive “war against drugs” in Colombia.

Full-spectrum dominance is of course not just an end in itself, it is also lobbied for by far-flung American corporations overseas, especially oil companies like Exxon Mobil with huge investments in Kazakhstan and elsewhere in Central Asia. As Michael Klare noted in his book Resource Wars, a secondary objective of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan was “to consolidate U.S. power in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea area, and to ensure continued flow of oil.”[52]

The Ambiguous Significance of Obama’s Last Troop Increase

Last July Rory Stewart, an intelligent observer whose experience of Afghanistan has included an epic walk across it, argued that America should abandon the illusions of dominance and nation-building in Afghanistan, and adopt more modest goals:

The best Afghan policy would be to reduce the number of foreign troops from the current level of 90,000 to far fewer – perhaps 20,000. In that case, two distinct objectives would remain for the international community: development and counter-terrorism. Neither would amount to the building of an Afghan state. …

A reduction in troop numbers and a turn away from state-building should not mean total withdrawal: good projects could continue to be undertaken in electricity, water, irrigation, health, education, agriculture, rural development and in other areas favoured by development agencies. We should not control and cannot predict the future of Afghanistan. It may in the future become more violent, or find a decentralised equilibrium or a new national unity, but if its communities continue to want to work with us, we can, over 30 years, encourage the more positive trends in Afghan society and help to contain the more negative.[53]

Stewart sees these recommendations as underlying Obama’s December 1 speech authorizing a 30,000 troop increase, which was only 75 percent of what General McChrystal and the Joint Chiefs had called for.

Obama’s central—and revolutionary—claim is that our responsibility, our means, and our interests are finite in Afghanistan. As he says, “we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.” Instead of pursuing an Afghan policy for existential reasons—doing “whatever it takes” and “whatever it costs”—we should accept that there is a limit on what we can do. And we don’t have a moral obligation to do what we cannot do…. There was no talk of victory. His aim was no longer to defeat but to contain the Taliban: to “deny it the ability to overthrow the government.” He explicitly rejected a long “nation-building project.” He talked not of eliminating but of keeping the pressure on al-Qaeda…. Obama has acquired leverage over the generals and some support from the public by making it clear that he will not increase troop strength further.[54]

Stewart’s confidence that Obama will hold troop strength at this new level, if true, will probably mean an impending confrontation with those of his generals convinced that counterinsurgency can work – a confrontation reminiscent of those experienced during the Vietnam War by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.

However Stewart’s confidence is not shared by Andrew Bacevich, another astute observer. Bacevich doubts

the very notion that we can ratchet up our involvement in Afghanistan and then state with confidence at this point that in 18 months we will carefully ratchet our involvement back down again. [Obama] seems to assume that war is a predictable and controllable instrument that can be directed with precision by people sitting in offices back in Washington, D.C. I think the history of Vietnam and the history of war more broadly teaches us something different. And that is, when statesmen choose war, they really are simply rolling the dice. They have no idea of what numbers are going to come up. And their ability to predict, control, direct the outcome tends to be extremely precarious. So from my point of view, the President has drawn the wrong lessons from his understanding of the history of war.[55]

Asked by Amy Goodman about Obama’s rejection of the Vietnam template, Bacevich responded,

Well I think the President is unfortunately misreading the history with regard to Vietnam. My sense is that the President has made this decision to escalate in Afghanistan with great reluctance. And it’s worth recalling that Lyndon Johnson I think felt a similar reluctance about going more deeply into Vietnam. President Johnson allowed himself to be convinced that really there was no plausible alternative, that to admit failure in Vietnam would have drastic consequences for his own capacity to lead and for the credibility of the United States and so he went in more deeply. And he went in more deeply persuading himself that he, his generals could maintain control of the situation even as they escalated. I think that may well turn out to be the key error that Obama is also making.[56]

With more time to reflect on Obama’s decision, Bacevich reached an even more pessimistic conclusion:

Historically, the default strategy for wars that lack a plausible victory narrative is attrition. When you don’t know how to win, you try to outlast your opponent, hoping he’ll run out of troops, money and will before you do. Think World War I, but also Vietnam. The revival of counterinsurgency doctrine, celebrated as evidence of enlightened military practice, commits America to a postmodern version of attrition. Rather than wearing the enemy down, we’ll build contested countries up, while expending hundreds of billions of dollars (borrowed from abroad) and hundreds of soldiers’ lives (sent from home). How does this end? The verdict is already written: The Long War ends not in victory but in exhaustion and insolvency, when the United States runs out of troops and out of money.[57]

Time will tell whether Obama will successfully resist all future demands for troop increases, as Stewart assumes, or will allow counterinsurgency to continue as our new Afghan strategy, which will make further troop increases necessary.[58]

Though always skeptical about anyone’s ability to predict history, I will on this occasion predict that Bacevich’s gloom will prove closer to the truth than Stewart’s modified optimism. I predict this because of what neither Stewart nor Bacevich mentions: that the determining factor is less likely to be either the will of a reluctant president, or the reigning strategic doctrines of the Pentagon, but a third factor: the dominant mindset in Washington of a drug-corrupted war machine.

Drug Consequences of Our War in Afghanistan

The global drug traffic itself will continue to benefit from the protracted conflict generated by “full-spectrum dominance” in Afghanistan, and some of the beneficiaries may have been secretly lobbying for it. And I fear that all the client intelligence assets organized about the movement of Afghan heroin through Central Asia and beyond will, without a clear change in policy, continue as before to be protected by the CIA.[59] And America’s superbanks like Citibank – the banks allegedly “too big to fail” – are now since the downturn even more dependant than before on the hundreds of billions of illicit profits which they launder each year.[60]

In both Afghanistan and Laos (as opposed to Vietnam) heroin has been by far the principal export, and so important that simply to curtail the production of opium has risked impoverishing those in the areas where opium was grown. This was the reason given for not disrupting heroin flows in the severe winter of 2001-02, the first year of the American invasion of Afghanistan. The economy was so devastated that, without income from opium, large numbers of Afghans might have starved.

According to Australian journalist Michael Ware, Time Magazine’s correspondent in Kandahar, opium is still the main support of the Afghan economy, as well the main support for both the Karzai government and the Taliban opposition:

You take away the opium and you suck the oxygen out of this economy and you’ll be treading on the toes of significant players who have built empires around the opium trade, and that includes political and military figures as well as criminal and business figures here in Kandahar.[61]

A consistent bias of U.S. news reporting on opium and heroin in Afghanistan has been to blame the Taliban for their production, and not also the government. For example, the New York Times reported on November 27, 2008 that

“Afghanistan has produced so much opium in recent years that the Taliban are cutting poppy cultivation and stockpiling raw opium in an effort to support prices and preserve a major source of financing for the insurgency, Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the United Nations drug office [UNODC], says.”[62]

But as Jeremy Hammond responds,

In commentary attached to the UNODC report, Mr. Costa asks, “Who collects this money? Local strong men. In other words, by year end, war-lords, drug-lords and insurgents will have extracted almost half a billion dollars of tax revenue from drug farming, production and trafficking.” Notably, Mr. Costa does not answer his question with “the Taliban”, but includes a much broader range of participants who profit from the trade that includes, but is in no way limited to, the Taliban.[63]

Citing the statistics in the UNODC’s annual reports, Hammond estimates that the reported Taliban revenues from opium ($75-100 million) are only about 3 percent of the total earned income in Afghanistan ($3.4 billion), which in turn is only about five percent of the UNODC estimate of what that crop is worth in the world market ($64 billion).[64]

It is because of the larger share of drug profits going to supporters of the Kabul government that U.S. strategies to attack the Afghan drug trade are explicitly limited to attacking drug traffickers supporting the Taliban.[65] Such strategies have the indirect effect of increasing the opium market share of the past and present CIA assets in the Karzai regime (headed by Hamid Karzai, a former CIA asset),[66] such as the president’s brother Ahmed Wali Karzai, an active CIA asset, and Abdul Rashid Dostum, a former CIA asset.[67]


As I have observed elsewhere about the U.S. campaign against the FARC and cocaine in Colombia, the aim of all U.S. anti drug campaigns abroad has never been the hopeless ideal of eradication. The aim of all such campaigns has been to alter market share: to target specific enemies and thus ensure that the drug traffic remains under the control of those traffickers who are allies of the state security apparatus and/or the CIA. This was notably true of Laos in the 1960s, when the CIA intervened militarily with air support to assist Ouan Rattikone’s army, in a battle over a contested opium caravan in Laos.[68]


Consequences for America of a Drug-Corrupted War

But this toleration of the traffic has led to another similarity with Vietnam and Laos in the 1960s: the increasing addiction of GIs to heroin, Afghanistan’s principal export. Despite the denial one has come to expect from high places, it is (according to Salon’s Shaun McCanna).

not difficult to find a soldier who has returned from Afghanistan with an addiction. Nearly every veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom I have spoken with was familiar with heroin’s availability on base, and most knew at least one soldier who used while deployed.[69]

And the reported easy availability of heroin outside Afghanistan’s Bagram air base, like that four decades ago outside Vietnam’s American base at Long Binh, points to another alarming similarity. Just as at the height of the Vietnam war, heroin was shipped to the United States in coffins containing cadavers,[70] so now we hear from Heneral Mahmut Gareev, a former Soviet commander in Afghanistan, that

Americans themselves admit that drugs are often transported out of Afghanistan on American planes. Drug trafficking in Afghanistan brings them about 50 billion dollars a year – which fully covers the expenses tied to keeping their troops there. Essentially, they are not going to interfere and stop the production of drugs.[71]

Gareev’s charge has been repeated in one form or another by a number of other sources, including Pakistani General Hamid Gul, a former ISI commander:

“Abdul Wali Karzai is the biggest drug baron of Afghanistan,” he stated bluntly. He added that the drug lords are also involved in arms trafficking, which is “a flourishing trade” in Afghanistan. “But what is most disturbing from my point of view is that the military aircraft, American military aircraft are also being used. You said very rightly that the drug routes are northward through the Central Asia republics and through some of the Russian territory, and then into Europe and beyond. But some of it is going directly. That is by the military aircraft. I have so many times in my interviews said, ‘Please listen to this information, because I am an aware person.’ We have Afghans still in Pakistan, and they sometimes contact and pass on the stories to me. And some of them are very authentic. I can judge that. So they are saying that the American military aircraft are being used for this purpose. So, if that is true, it is very, very disturbing indeed.”[72]

Another slightly different testimony is from General Khodaidad Khodaidad, the current Afghan minister of counter narcotics:

The Afghan minister of counter narcotics says foreign troops are earning money from drug production in Afghanistan. General Khodaidad Khodaidad said the majority of drugs are stockpiled in two provinces controlled by troops from the US, the UK, and Canada, IRNA reported on Saturday. He went on to say that NATO forces are taxing the production of opium in the regions under their control.[73]

I do not accept these charges as proven, despite the number of additional sources for them. None of the sources quoted here can be considered an objective source with no axe to grind, and worse charges still are easy to find in wilds of the Internet.

However the charges are plausible, because of history. Just as in Vietnam and Laos, the United States made its initial alliances in Afghanistan with drug traffickers, both in 1980 and again in 2001; and this is a major factor explaining the endemic corruption of the U.S.-sponsored Karzai regime today. There should be an official Congressional investigation whether the United States did not intend for its Afghan assets, just as earlier in Burma, Laos, and Thailand, to supplement their CIA subsidies with income from drug trafficking.

In short the impasse the U.S. faces in Afghanistan, in its efforts to support an unpopular and corrupt regime, must be understood in the light of its past relations to the drug traffic there – a situation which resembles the past U.S. involvement in Laos even more than in Vietnam. It is this sustained pattern of intervention in support of drug economies, and with the support of drug traffickers, that so depresses observers who had hoped desperately that, in this respect, Obama would bring a change.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The Things They Carried Marijuana and Heroin Use During the Vietnam War

One of many elements that set the Vietnam War apart from other wars up until that point was drug use, which was rampant among soldiers. Marijuana was grown all over Vietnam, and many soldiers had their first experiences smoking it overseas. It helped them mellow out, it helped them continue fighting. It took their mind off what the war was about and helped if they didn'tt necessarily believe in the cause for which they fought. In The Things They Carried, drug use is treated matter of factly: it is another not-too-wonderful strategy for trying not to see what is going on around the users. Some soldiers have religion, others have girlfriends waiting for them at home, others have dope.

Although smoking marijuana -- the drug of choice among soldiers -- was a punishable offense under army rules, many soldiers still indulged. Precise statistics are not available, but army records suggest that marijuana use at the time was much more widespread in Vietnam itself than it was in the United States. After outraged, sympathetic and bemused newspaper reports drew international interest to the issue, the southern Vietnamese government took steps to make marijuana harder to obtain in 1968. The problem was soon overshadowed, though, by the rise of heroin as a popular drug among soldiers.

Some leaders chose to ignore the problem. Others encouraged marijuana use, because it kept their men mellow and focused, because it diffused social problems in the group, because it had fewer side affects than alcohol use and abuse, or because they simply could not imagine trying to prohibit it. It is unclear whether a crackdown, ordered from above, on marijuana use helped feed a switch to heroin. What is clear from army documents is that heroin was a larger problem. Heroin is debilitating. And when soldiers returned to America they were sick for months because they no longer had access to the drug. This was often in addition to post-traumatic stress disorder, an illness portrayed in many of O'Brien's stories.



SPONSORED CONTENT
[15s] Why This Is Perfect For Dip Lovers Everywhere
By Ted Lavender is the group's habitual drug user. When he is high, the other men like to ask him how the war is going. Lavender responds: "...real smooth. Today we've got ourselves a real mellow war." (18) This is always good for a laugh. When Lavender is killed, the others try to convince themselves that he is just high, is in a higher place, has taken so much dope that he's up there floating in the clouds somewhere. To help themselves believe this, the soldiers all partake in smoking what's left of Lavender's dope. This anecdote illustrates that drug use, though it may have been insubordination according to strict army definitions, was also simply a form of escapism for the soldiers.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
ILLEGAL DRUGS IN VIETNAM: OPIUM, HEROIN AND THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG SMUGGLERS


ILLEGAL DRUGS IN VIETNAM


Vietnam has a centuries-old history of opium use. During the Vietnam war, heroin flows from the nearby Golden Triangle to Western markets rose sharply. Heroin, most of it from the 'Golden Triangle' countries of Myanmar and Laos, is the most popular illegal drug in Vietnam and — because it is often injected with shared needles — the leading cause of HIV infections, experts say.

AFP reported: "In 2004 Vietnam estimated that little more than 30 hectares of poppy fields remained, mostly grown by remote and poor ethnic minority villagers. However, Vietnam's proximity to Myanmar and Laos — still the second and third largest opium producers after Afghanistan — and its porous borders and long coastline have made it a major transit country, say experts. Domestic drug abuse in Vietnam has risen sharply since the 1990s, especially in the cities, where "heroin continues to be the preferred drug among younger drug abusers," according to the UN Office for Drugs and Crime Control. Opium smoking had long given way to heroin smoking and increasingly injection, which now causes about 60 percent of known HIV infections, the UN agency said in its 2005 country report.

According to statistics from Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security, there were 76,443 drug cases between 2001 and 2007. In that time, police have arrested 119,286 people and seized 1.28 tons of heroin, 1.77 tons of opium and 800,000 drug tablets, mostly methamphetamine. [Source: Deutsche Presse Agentur, February 22, 2008]

Thailand, Laos and Vietnam have recently embraced or long resorted to compulsory detoxification and punitive detention amid concern over a recent, sharp rise in methamphetamine use.


Heroin and Opium Use in Vietnam


For generations, Vietnam's drug of choice was opium, which was widely grown and encouraged under French rule. But by the early 1990s, Reuters reported: " Hanoi moved to eradicate the crop. At Hang Kia, a remote northern mountain commune near Vietnam's border with Laos, where once opium poppies stretched as far as the eye could see, there are now plums. These sour fruit have sweetened life for Hmong ethnic minority people in this highland valley, with most farmers saying incomes are higher than with opium."People have grown opium for generations, hundreds of years,'' said local farmer and former addict Sung A Sa. "As long as there have been people there has been opium.'' But by 1993, in the twin communes of Hang Kia and Pa Co in Mai Chau district some 170 kilometers (106 miles) west of Hanoi, hit squads arrived to slash poppies in a national campaign which led to almost total elimination of the crop. "I used to smoke opium, but stopped when they banned growing it,'' said Vung A Vo. "By growing plums I can make a profit and get income for my family.'' [Source: Reuters, July 21, 1999]

But while opium use has declined in Vietnam, heroin use among young people has been on the rise since the 1990s. The UN Office for Drugs and Crime Control says heroin has been Vietnam's most popular illegal drug since the 1990s. Injecting drug users are a driving force behind HIV infections across Vietnam. Intravenous drug use now causes two thirds of all known HIV infections. In 2011 Vietnam said there are 138,000 drug addicts in the country and 30 percent them are HIV positive, down from 60 percent in 2006.

It is not unusual to see addicts hitting up liquid opium or heroin or smoking heroin or opium mixed with tranquilizers on the streets of Saigon. Some even shoot up heroin mixed with boiling water. There are lots of drug busts on Vietnamese news broadcasts. In 1997, 96 people between 15 and 23 were arrested for smoking heroin in a karaoke bar in Saigon. One officials at the time said he thought there were 30,000 addicts in Saigon, and "10 percent of drug users were women, including girls aged 12 or 13." He also said that 70 percent of the 1,500 addicts arrested in one four month period were from wealthy or well-connected families.

Heroin and opium is often sold in gum wrappers at bars, karaokes and opium dens. One user told AFP, "All I want to do is experience that strange sensation that I feel each time. I'm not a heavy smoker but it hard to imagine going out with my friends without heroin." A more serious user told AFP, "I use between 20 and 30 small hits of heroin a day, with the price varying between 30,000 and 40,000 dong [$2.60 to $3.60]...I ask my parents and grandparents for money, and if they don't give me some, I steal from them."

In April 2003, Associated Press reported: "The number of known drug addicts in Vietnam jumped 25 percent over the past year to 142,000 despite a government crackdown, state-controlled media reported Thursday. Among them, 25,453 are serving sentences at prisons and other correctional facilities run by the Ministry of Public Security, the Ho Chi Minh City Police newspaper quoted a government report as saying. The newspaper said more than 67 percent of the drug addicts known by police are under age 30. The number of addicts has continued to rise in recent years despite tough penalties, including death sentences on drug-related offenses. The government has announced plans to send all known drug addicts through tough rehabilitation programs by the end of 2005, while reducing the relapse rate of the programs to 60 percent. The current relapse rate is more than 90 percent. Most of Vietnam's drug addicts are heroin users. [Source: Associated Press, April 3, 2003]


United Nations: Drug Use on the Rise in Vietnam


In June 2013, Thanh Nien News reported: "The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has warned that amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) is the most common drug used among Vietnamese in big cities, border areas and industrial zones, while its use continues to rise in rural areas. A press release by the UN in Vietnam on Wednesday said that ATS remained the second most commonly used drug in Vietnam since 2010, despite the availability of some new psychoactive substances (NPS)."We recognize the increasing number of drug seizures and cross-border trafficking operations in Vietnam, as well as the danger of increasing abuse of ATS and new psychoactive substances among the Vietnamese youth," said Pratibha Mehta, the UN Resident Coordinator in Vietnam. "We need to help young people become more aware of the harmful consequences of these substances," Mehta said. [Source: Thanh Nien News, June 27, 2013 \+\]

"According to the UNODC’s 2013 World Drug Report released the same day, the number of NPS, which are marketed as "legal highs" and "designer drugs," is increasing at an unusually rapid rate. UNODC member states have reported the number of NPS in their countries have increased from 166 at the end of 2009, to 251 by mid-2012. "New psychoactive substances can be made by slightly modifying the molecular structure of controlled drugs, making a new drug with similar effects which can elude national and international bans," according to a Reuters report. NPS include ketamine and kratom – which are common in Asia. \+\

"The use of NPS endangers public health as the drugs have yet to be formally outlawed, said the report. It said the drugs are sold openly and represent a "lucrative" business, but can be "far more dangerous" than traditional drugs. Street names like "spice" and "meow-meow" lure people into believing that they present an opportunity for "low-risk fun," but their potentially adverse effects and addictive properties remain poorly understood. \+\

"Drug busts frequently make headlines in Vietnam, which has some of the stiffest drug laws in the world and where those convicted of serious offences involving traditional drugs like heroin and methamphetamine commonly receive the death penalty. Transporting drugs via air travel in particular is also common in Vietnam. In the most recent case, a US national of Vietnamese origin was arrested Tuesday at Tan Son Nhat International Airport in Ho Chi Minh City for attempting to transport 1.1 kilograms of heroin from Vietnam to Australia. Official figures show that Vietnam now has over 172,000 drug addicts, up 8.5 percent since 2011. \+\


Drugs and the Vietnam War


Drug use was rampant among GIs in the Vietnam War. Marijuana was a common recreational drug. Good quality stuff included "Thai sticks" and opium-laced hashish. Many American servicemen became addicted to heroin while in Vietnam. It was not unusual for battalion to have a single combat death but 18 from overdoes.

On one way China was helping North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, Chinese Premier Chou En-lai told the president of Egypt in 1965: "Some [American troops] are trying opium, and we are helping them. We are planting the best kinds of opium especially for American soldiers in Vietnam...Do you remember when the West imposed opium on us? They fought war with opium. We are going to fight them with their own weapons."

The recreation habits of American GIs had a profound influence on the cultures not only of Vietnam, but also Thailand and Laos. In many ways the association of these countries with sex, prostitution, drugs and decadence can be tied to the American influence during the Vietnam War.

Michael Herr wrote in "Dispatches", "Going out at night the medics gave you pills, Dexedrine breath like dead snakes kept too long in a jar. [...] I knew one 4th division Lurp who took his pills by the fistful, downs from the left pocket of his tiger suit and ups from the right, one to cut the trail for him and the other to send him down it. He told me that they cooled things out just right for him, that he could see that old jungle at night like he was looking at it through a starlight scope. "They sure give you the range," he said." [Source: Michael Herr, "Dispatches", Knopf, 1977]


Marijuana and Heroin Use During the Vietnam War


Marijuana was grown all over Vietnam, and many soldiers had their first experiences smoking it overseas. It helped them mellow out, it helped them continue fighting. It took their mind off what the war was about and helped if they didn'tt necessarily believe in the cause for which they fought. In The Things They Carried, drug use is treated matter of factly: it is another not-too-wonderful strategy for trying not to see what is going on around the users. Some soldiers have religion, others have girlfriends waiting for them at home, others have dope. [Source: gradesaver.com +++]

Although smoking marijuana -- the drug of choice among soldiers -- was a punishable offense under army rules, many soldiers still indulged. Precise statistics are not available, but army records suggest that marijuana use at the time was much more widespread in Vietnam itself than it was in the United States. After outraged, sympathetic and bemused newspaper reports drew international interest to the issue, the southern Vietnamese government took steps to make marijuana harder to obtain in 1968. The problem was soon overshadowed, though, by the rise of heroin as a popular drug among soldiers. +++

Some leaders chose to ignore the problem. Others encouraged marijuana use, because it kept their men mellow and focused, because it diffused social problems in the group, because it had fewer side affects than alcohol use and abuse, or because they simply could not imagine trying to prohibit it. It is unclear whether a crackdown, ordered from above, on marijuana use helped feed a switch to heroin. What is clear from army documents is that heroin was a larger problem. Heroin is debilitating. And when soldiers returned to America they were sick for months because they no longer had access to the drug. This was often in addition to post-traumatic stress disorder, an illness portrayed in many of O'Brien's stories. +++

In O'Brien's fiction, all drugs are grouped together under the term "dope." As when writing about many of the other aspects of the book -- casual sex, killing, to name a few -- O'Brien the narrator remains non-judgmental. They are things that happen. Some people are drug addicts, others carry their girlfriends' stockings. In the moral balance and the wider craze of the war, these small transgressions hardly seem to matter. +++

Drug use in the book is even used to fuel some of the troops' humor. Ted Lavender is the group's habitual drug user. When he is high, the other men like to ask him how the war is going. Lavender responds: "...real smooth. Today we've got ourselves a real mellow war." This is always good for a laugh. When Lavender is killed, the others try to convince themselves that he is just high, is in a higher place, has taken so much dope that he's up there floating in the clouds somewhere. To help themselves believe this, the soldiers all partake in smoking what's left of Lavender's dope. This anecdote illustrates that drug use, though it may have been insubordination according to strict army definitions, was also simply a form of escapism for the soldiers. +++


Heroin Abuse Booms in the 1990s as Opium Use Declines


In 1999, Reuters reported: "Opium may be almost gone, but experts say heroin arrived as a by-product of Vietnam being an emerging transit point for drugs from the infamous Golden Triangle. In the nearby settlement of Mai Chau an elderly man from the White Thai ethnic minority — a group not traditionally involved in opium cultivation — bemoaned what he saw as a breakdown in the community's traditional hierarchy. "We never had drug problems here, but now the drugs and alcohol situation is terrible,'' he said. He added that students returning from studies in Hanoi brought back crime and heroin habits, while an influx of foreign backpackers had created demand for drug dealers — a market that was spilling over into young villagers. Jens Hannibal, representative for the U.N. Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) in Vietnam, said trafficking and abuse went hand-in-hand. "Because of the trafficking the problem is not going away and ...we now have reports of villagers starting to use heroin,'' he said. [Source: Reuters, July 21, 1999 *+*]

"The picture in the cities -- which are home to most of Vietnam's estimated 100,000 drug addicts -- has become particularly gloomy, where detected heroin addiction rates have soared by hundreds of percent over recent years. Shooting galleries and dealers can be found across urban Vietnam, and around 65 percent of users are aged under 25. Decades of war, poverty and strict communist controls have left Vietnam with almost no developed youth culture. While mini-skirts and stack-heels are common in large cities, rock-'n'-roll has yet to penetrate and young rebels can be found illegally racing motorbikes, singing karaoke, visiting prostitutes and shooting heroin. Bombed-out addicts are a common sight in Hanoi parks, while residents complain of rising levels of petty crime. *+*

"Nguyen Vi Hung, chief of Hanoi's anti-social evils department -- the body charged with eradicating drugs, prostitution and other subversive cultural activities -- blamed the new market economy. "They are gradually forming trafficking rings and retail points in the city and we are not experienced enough to combat the situation,'' he told Reuters. Officials say busts, seizures and prosecutions are running at record levels. Media reports have said that in 1998 local courts dished out death sentences to 49 drug offenders.The UNDCP's Hannibal said seizures had risen steadily in the past couple of years but in the first five months of 1999 jumped a record 80 percent over the same period last year. "We hope it is because they are more efficient, but how can you tell?'' he said. *+*


Vietnam Official Admits Drug Addiction Not Just Bourgeois Scourge


In 2001, AFP reported: "Thirty percent of Vietnam's registered drug addicts are blue-collar workers, union bosses said Thursday in a frank admission that narcotics are not the bourgeois scourge often depicted by communist ideologues here. Of the 100,030 addicts registered to July last year, 30,000 of them were state sector employees, the deputy head of the Vietnam Labor Confederation's (VLC) drugs and social evils department, Le Van Nhien, told the Gia Dinh va Xa Hoi (Family and Society) newspaper. [Source: Agence France Presse, March 22, 2001 /=\]

"A survey carried out by unions in drugs rehabilitation units across the country also found that 30 percent of addicts were trade union members, the English-language Vietnam News reported. By contrast students, regarded in most Western societies as a key risk group, formed just 1.6 percent of addicts, while farmers, who form the huge majority of Vietnam's 78 million population, accounted for only 0.6 percent. Alarmingly for travellers, the transport industry proved the "most notorious" sector for drug use, with 6,000 addicts uncovered in the survey. The coal industry came a distant second with some 300 addicts found. /=\

"Nhien said that the VLC had been working to persuade managers against automatically firing staff who were found to have a drug problem. "We have been directing those units to learn that state employees who become addicted to drugs for a first or second time should be regarded as victims," he told the newspaper. "Only if they return to the habit for a third or fourth time are managers entitled to sack them." VLC deputy chairman Do Duc Ngo said the unions had also been urging employers and local authorities to help recovering addicts find a job as employment often proved the most difficult part of their rehabilitation. /=\

"The ready availability of cheap heroin has fuelled a massive increase in addiction in Vietnam's big cities in recent years, greatly complicating the government's fight against AIDS. Despite the widespread use of the death penalty in a draconian campaign against trafficking, opium and its derivatives continue to pour across the border from neighbouring Laos and the other poppy-growing Golden Triangle countries of Myanmar and Thailand beyond. Needle sharing among heroin users has so far been the main factor behind the spread of the AIDS virus here, the health ministry says. /=\

"But growing heroin use among prostitutes has seen an alarming rise in sexual transmission, with infection rates among Ho Chi Minh City prostitutes leaping to 15.9 percent in 1999 from just 3.1 percent the previous year. Mounting official concern about the spread of AIDS has prompted a growing frankness about a raft of issues that were previously regarded as bourgeois "social evils." Last April the social affairs ministry made the shock admission that as many as 70 percent of the men who use Vietnam's myriad brothels were not decadent Westerners but communist party cadres and civil servants. /=\

"Prostitution has developed in an alarming and fairly open manner in Vietnam since 1997 ... largely due to the lack of firmness shown in punishing prostitutes' customers and particularly those who are party cadres or state officials," the head of the ministry's social evils department, Nguyen Thi Hue, said in a frank newspaper interview. Hue's 70 percent figure for the proportion of brothel-goers who are party or government officials was repeated by the Ho Chi Minh City youth daily Tuoi Tre Thursday in its report on the trade union drugs survey. /=\


Treatment for Heroin Addicts in Vietnam


According to the U.S. Department of State: The Vietnamese government reported in September 2011 that more than 32,300 drug users—the large majority of whom were administratively sentenced to forced detoxification without judicial review—were living in the 121 drug-detention centers countrywide. According to the government, the stated population did not exceed the intended capacity of the centers, which had separate facilities for women. At these centers, according to a September report from a nongovernmental organization (NGO), authorities allegedly forced individuals to perform menial work under harsh conditions and mistreated them. After his November visit, the UN special rapporteur on health criticized these centers as ineffective and counterproductive. [Source: 2011 Human Rights Reports: Vietnam, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State; 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report, May 24, 2012 ***]

Describing the Vietnamese boot camp method of drug rehab, Reuters reported: "A sharp blast from a shrill whistle calls around 300 emaciated and tattooed Vietnam heroin addicts to muster. The pyjama-clad men shuffle out of crowded, concrete rooms and stare vacantly as they spend 10 lacklustre minutes moving through orchestrated early morning exercise at Re-education Center 06 at Ba Vi, 60 kilometers (37 miles) west of Hanoi. [Source: Reuters, July 21, 1999 ||||]

"Six months' cold turkey greets Hanoi addicts at Re-education Center 06. They have been removed from society by the authorities or long-suffering relatives in a bid to kill the habit. Nestled in lush, green hills in the shadow of army firing ranges and just down the road from Center 05 which houses prostitutes, 318 addicts withdraw and undergo physical exercise, work and strict discipline. They are taught of the dangers of drugs, government policy and how to become model citizens. But anti-social evils chief Hung said re-addiction rates for former camp inmates were as high as 85 percent. ||||

"Vu Huy Luan, director of Center 06, said most camp addicts expressed a genuine desire to kick the habit, but once they were freed many slipped back into old ways.He stopped short of seeing them as victims, but said he was sympathetic to their plight. "We want to give advice...so that when they return home they feel regret and change their lifestyle. Most of them have chosen the wrong way and they are also criminals,'' he said. ||||

The U.S. provided $7.7 million to Vietnam for methadone treatment and community-based drug intervention, according to the US Embassy website. The World Bank has funded an HIV/AIDS prevention program in 20 drug rehabilitation centers across Vietnam.

Tran Kung Dam, a former construction foreman and owner of a herbal shop, claims that he has developed an herbal cure for heroin addiction called Heantos (the Greek word for plants). Although he won't reveal the formula he says it included cinnamon bark and ginger. To test it he purposely addicted himself to opium and heroin and used his concoction to overcome them. Thousands of addicts have reportedly been cured with Heantos, which is consumed in a liquid by an addict an hour before he thinks he will have a craving for opium or heroin. The liquid leaves a smokey aftertaste and makes the addicts fall asleep.


Human Rights Watch: Forced Labor in Vietnam Drug Centers


According to Human Rights Watch: “People dependent on illegal drugs can be held in government detention centers where they are subjected to "labor therapy," the mainstay of Vietnam’s approach to drug treatment. In early 2011 there were 123 centers across the country holding some 40,000 people, including children as young as 12. Their detention is not subject to any form of due process or judicial oversight and routinely lasts for as long as four years. Infringement of center rules—including the work requirement—is punished by beatings with truncheons, shocks with electrical batons, and being locked in disciplinary rooms where detainees are deprived of food and water. Former detainees report being forced to work in cashew processing and other forms of agricultural production, including potato or coffee farming; construction work; and garment manufacturing and other forms of manufacturing, such as making bamboo and rattan products. Under Vietnamese law, companies who source products from these centers are eligible for tax exemptions. Some products produced as a result of this forced labor made their way into the supply chain of companies who sell goods abroad, including to the United States and Europe. [Source:Human Rights Watch World Report 2012]

In 2011, Mike Ives of Associated Press wrote: "New York-based Human Rights Watch accused Vietnam of imprisoning hundreds of thousands of drug addicts over the past decade without due process and forcing them to work long hours for little pay. It also alleged that the U.S. and Australian governments, the United Nations, the World Bank and other international donors may "indirectly facilitate human rights abuses" by providing drug dependency or HIV treatment and prevention services to addicts inside some of the centers. About 309,000 drug users nationwide passed through the centers from 2000 to 2010, with the number of facilities more than doubling — from 56 to 123— and the maximum length of detention rising from one to four years, the report said, citing government figures. [Source: Mike Ives, Associated Press, September 7, 2011 ^*^]

"The report called drug treatment at the centers "ineffective and abusive," claiming donor support for health services inside such facilities allows Vietnam to "maximize profits" by detaining drug addicts for longer periods and forcing them to do manual labor. "People who are dependent on drugs in Vietnam need access to community-based, voluntary treatment," Joe Amon, health and human rights director at Human Rights Watch in New York, said in a statement. "Instead, the government is locking them up, private companies are exploiting their labor and international donors are turning a blind eye to the torture and abuses they face." ^*^

"Vietnamese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Nguyen Phuong Nga called the report "groundless," saying compulsory drug rehabilitation in Vietnam is "humane, effective and beneficial for drug users, community and society." Vietnam's drug rehabilitation centers comply with Vietnamese law and are "in line" with drug-treatment principles set by the U.S., the U.N. and the World Health Organization, Nga added. ^*^

"Detainees inside the Vietnamese drug centers report beatings and spells of solitary confinement, and some who attempted escape say they were captured and shocked with an electric baton as punishment, according to the 126-page report that interviewed 34 former detainees in 2010 who were held at 14 centers in and around southern Ho Chi Minh City. It also charged Vietnam with forcing prisoners to sew clothing, lay bricks or husk cashews for between $5 and $20 per month, a violation of domestic labor law, which guarantees a minimum monthly wage of about $40. ^*^

"Instead of providing health services inside the centers, donors should focus on releasing detainees back into their communities, the report said, citing government reports that place the relapse rate for drug users treated inside the centers at 80 percent or higher. China and other Southeast Asian countries have also come under fire from rights groups in recent years for alleged human rights violations inside similar drug rehabilitation facilities. Several large escapes from Vietnam's drug rehabilitation centers have been reported in recent years. The centers, which began opening after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, are one facet of Vietnam's ongoing campaign against drug abuse, prostitution and other so-called "social evils." Most detainees are young male heroin users, the Human Rights Watch report said, citing government data. Some are rounded up by police while others are sent to the centers by family members. ^*^


Drug Trafficking in Vietnam


Vietnam has become a major transhipment center for Golden Triangle opium and heroin originating in Laos and Burma. "Vietnam is a transit country for drugs going into the international market," Jeffrey Wanner, the DEA's Vietnam attache, told AFP. "It's based on their proximity to the Golden Triangle, to some of the major producers," he said, referring to the Thai-Lao-Myanmar border area that has long been a hotspot for opium poppy cultivation. "Some (traffickers) use the Mekong River, some use mountain routes, some use the main highways. Then it's compiled again in a central location and brought into the local market or to the ports for international distribution." [Source: AFP, August 2, 2008 \=\]

"Most heroin in Southeast Asia comes from within military-ruled Myanmar, where syndicates are also increasingly producing synthetic drugs including methamphetamines and MDMA or ecstasy, Wanner said. "The amount of heroin they are producing is decreasing, but the amount of synthetic drugs is increasing dramatically. It's easier to do, the profits are a lot higher and there's a growing demand for that." \=\

"Vietnam has become a major trafficking country, in part because of its porous borders with Laos and Cambodia to the west and China to the north, as well as its 3,200-kilometre (2,000-mile) coastline. Vietnamese police Senior Captain Luu Duc Cuong, a course participant from Cao Bang province on the Chinese border, spoke of drug gangs who use sawn-off Chinese-made AK-47s assault rifles. "It is easier to conceal and causes more severe injuries," he said. \=\

AFP reported: Vietnam's mountainous northwest accounted for almost half of the confiscated heroin, while the Chinese border area was identified as another "hotbed." In the Lao-border province of Dien Bien, authorities have recently launched a major drive against the rise in heroin smuggling, the state-run English language Vietnam News daily reported Friday. Villagers in the province had been asked to sign pledges not to grow opium poppy, not to use opium, and not to help smugglers carry or sell drugs. The report said traffickers had become more sophisticated and dangerous, with some ready to attack police with firearms and grenades. [Source: Agence France Presse, December 28, 2007]

In 2002, Reuters reported: "Drug-linked crimes were up 10 percent in Vietnam this year, with heroin featuring in high-profile drug-smuggling cases. Between November 2001 and November 2002, police in Vietnam uncovered about 14,000 drug trafficking cases, a rise of 10.5 percent, the state-run Vietnam News Agency reported. Police say the quantity of heroin seized over the year is up 62 percent. Other drugs seized in transborder smuggling cases this year were opium and narcotic pills. [Source: Reuters, December 31, 2002 /*/]

For a while it was said that Vietnamese ran the heroin business in Australia. Australians of Vietnamese descent were at the center of a number of heroin smuggling cases in the early 2000s. Three Australian sisters, aged 12, 14 and 24 faced charges of smuggling heroin to Sydney and a 34-year-old Australian of Vietnamese origin was arrested on a similar charge. /*/


Combating Drug Trafficking


Vietnam's communist government has mostly eradicated large-scale opium cultivation and imposes harsh penalties for drug users and smugglers. People caught with more than 600 grams (21 ounces) of heroin or 20 kilograms (44 pounds) of opium, its raw material, are usually sentenced to death by firing squad. Vietnam also has the death penalty for drug smuggling. Public campaigns have included billboards in cities warning of the dangers of drugs. In the early 2000s Vietnam invested over 500 billion dong ($32.55 million) to upgrade and build detoxification centers in Ho Chi Minh City to treat 23,000 addicts, the Vietnam News Agency said.

According to statistics from the Ministry of Public Security, there were 76,443 drug cases between 2001 and 2007. In that time, police have arrested 119,286 people and seized 1.28 tons of heroin, 1.77 tons of opium and 800,000 drug tablets, mostly methamphetamine. [Source: Deutsche Presse Agentur, February 22, 2008]

Vietnam has signed agreements to combat drug trafficking with Laos and the United States. Sometimes drugs produced in the Golden Triangle are transhipped to China or the United States through Vietnam. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has run US-Vietnamese training exercise in which DEA agents pass on some of their skills to their Vietnamese counterparts. The exercises included drug raid drills, handcuffing practice, arrest scenarios using an interactive gun-and-video screen system, and first aid training for bullet wounds. More than 80 Vietnamese officers from counter narcotics units, Customs, army and police academies joined the two-week courses with the US agents in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. The British Embassy in Hanoi has funded a computer network to collect and analyse drug control information across Vietnam.

Police have also conducted nightclub raids. In April 2007, Associated Press reported: "Hundreds of riot police raided a nightclub in the Vietnamese capital, detaining more than 600 people for suspected drug use, state media reported. About 500 riot police were deployed in the raid of the New Century discotheque in downtown Hanoi early Saturday morning, the online Tien Phong (Pioneer) newspaper said. Those detained were taken to a police station where they were being tested for drug use, the paper said. The newspaper said the raid was part of a campaign by police to ensure security and social order ahead of celebrations for national reunification day on April 30 and May Day. Authorities have said many nightclubs and karaoke bars are used as fronts for drug abuse and prostitution. [Source: Associated Press, April 28, 2007]


Vietnam Reduces Opium Poppy Fields


At one time Vietnam was a major producer of opium. Opium production was reduced by 90 percent in the 1990s. Illegal opium production (tons in 2000); 1) Afghanistan (3,276); 2) Burma (1,087); 3) Laos (167); 4) Columbia (88); 5) Mexico (22); 6) Pakistan (8); 7) Thailand (6); 8) Vietnam (2).

In 2001, Associated Press reported: "Vietnam has reduced its opium-producing poppy fields by 97 percent over the past decade under a government eradication program, an official said Wednesday. Just over 1,000 acres are now used to grow poppies compared to about 47,000 acres in 1992-93, said Hoang Van Dong, director of the Ministry of Agriculture's Department of Settlement and Crop Stability. [Source: Associated Press, February 21, 2001 \^/]

"The fight against opium planting has been successful, with 97 percent of the growing areas in over 800 communes eliminated," he said. The 800 communes represent nationwide production. Opium -- the milky substance drained from the poppy plant -- is converted into heroin and sold in Europe and North America. Officials say, however, that opium poppies are still grown in the northern provinces of Son La, Lai Chau, Ha Giang and the central province of Nghe An. Between 1992 and 2000, Vietnam invested $22 million in its drug control program, including $7.8 million for poppy eradication. At times, military troops were sent in to destroy poppy crops. As part of the program, farmers were given financial incentives to replace poppies with cinnamon, anise, tea, fruit trees and drought-resistant rice. \^/

"In addition, the U.N. Drug Control Program gave $3.8 million to fund a similar program in Nghe An province. In spite of its success in poppy reduction, Vietnam faces problems with spiraling addiction and its role as a major transit route for heroin and opium trafficking from neighboring countries. Vietnam has toughened its penalties on drug crimes since 1997, applying the death penalty for possession, trading or trafficking of more than 3.5 ounces of heroin or 11 pounds of opium. \^/


Vietnam Police Arrest Man with 70,000 Amphetamine Pills and a Tourist with Prescription Pain Pills


In 2005, UPI reported: "A French man has been arrested in Vietnam for being in possession of prescription drugs that are legal in France but banned in Vietnam. Van Huong Pham, a French national of Vietnamese decent, was arrested by Vietnamese police at the end of July for being in possession of some 50 Valium and other pain-reducing pills. His family says he suffers from severe back pain, and that they have had no news of him. He was on a 3-week vacation in Vietnam. The French Foreign Ministry told reporters Tuesday that it was looking into the matter. [Source: United Press International, August 2, 2005]

In 2008, Deutsche Presse Agentur reported: "Police in Vietnam have arrested a man with 70,000 tablets of methamphetamine, weighing around 20 kilograms, local media said. Du Kim Dung, 39, was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. Police discovered the tablets in a suitcase during a search of Dung's home in Haiphong City, 100 kilometers east of Hanoi. Police also found two guns in his house, and two other firearms in his BMW sedan, the report said. [Source: Deutsche Presse Agentur, February 22, 2008 ////]

The newspaper said Dung brought the drugs into Vietnam from foreign countries and then sold the pills in large discotheques and bars in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Haiphong City. Methamphetamine is a popular drug in Vietnam. Scores of young Vietnamese have been arrested using the pills at dance clubs, karaoke bars and in hotel rooms. Laboratories inside Burma produce most of the synthetic drugs that end up in Vietnam. Not only is illegal drug use in Vietnam on the rise, but international drug enforcement agencies believe the country is becoming a larger player in drug trafficking to third countries. ////


Death Sentences for Drugs in Vietnam


Vietnam has tough drug laws and possessing or trafficking 600g (21 ounces) of heroin can result in a death sentence. There are nearly 700 people on death row in Vietnam, many for drug offenses.

In 1998, eight members of a heroin smuggling ring were executed in Vietnam. In 2007, the country sentenced at least 118 people to death in 2007, including 85 for drug crimes. In March 2013, the Vietnam News Service reported that two men from the mountainous Son La Province's Moc Chau District were sentenced to death for drug trafficking after being arrested for carrying over one kilogram of heroin to sell to a woman in Hanoi.

In April 2000, a 44-year-old Vietnamese-born Canadian was executed for possession of 5.5 kilograms of heroin found in some art work at Hanoi Airport in 1996. Her arrest and execution set off a diplomatic row between Vietnam and Canadian officials who claimed the woman had been duped. The woman’s mother was also arrested and sentenced to life in prison but was set free in a general amnesty in 2000.

Amnesty International reported: "Over the course of two weeks in November 2007, Vietnamese courts condemned 35 people to death for drug related offences. It was such a flurry of death sentences that even the media became interested after having ignored the issue for so long. The Government of Vietnam admitted in a 2003 submission to the UN Human Rights Committee that, "Over the last [few] years, the death penalty has been mostly given to persons engaged in drug trafficking." According to a recent media report, "around 100 people are executed by firing squad in Vietnam each year, mostly for drug related offences." [Source: Amnesty International February 27, 2008]


Vietnam Sentences 43 Heroin Traffickers to Death in a Month


In December 2007, AFP reported: "Vietnam has sentenced eight heroin traffickers to death, a court official said, raising to more than 40 the number of drug smugglers to receive the death penalty over the past month. In the latest mass trial, the Hanoi people's court also jailed 29 others, 18 of them for life, for trafficking heroin across the country's mountainous north over two years, a court clerk told AFP. Working a common trafficking route, the gang had smuggled the heroin from the northwestern Son La province near the Lao border to the capital Hanoi, the port of Haiphong and to Ho Chi Minh City, the court heard. [Source: Agence France Presse, December 28, 2007 //\\]

Since late November, Vietnamese courts have sentenced at least 43 people to death and jailed scores more in several group trials against heroin smuggling syndicates, often extended family and clan networks. Vietnam's police say they have uncovered more than 8,200 drug trafficking cases involving 12,500 offenders this year. Foreigners involved came mostly from Laos, Cambodia, Australia, China, the United States and Taiwan, the Ministry of Public Security said according to a report by the Vietnam News Agency. "Police admitted that drug trafficking into Vietnam is increasing but actions to prevent and stop the negative phenomenon along the borders... remained on a limited scale," the state media report said. //\\

Phillip Smith wrote in his blog StoptheDrugWar.org: "A Vietnamese court sentenced eight people to death for smuggling heroin Wednesday, bringing to 35 the number of people sent to death row for drug trafficking offenses in the past two weeks. This week's death sentences came only days after 11 people were sentenced to death November 29 and four more sentenced to death November 30. In the most recent case, 26 people were convicted of trafficking 50 kilograms of heroin over an eight-year period, and eight, including the ringleader, a 35-year-old woman, were given the ultimate sanction. Eight others received life sentences, and the rest were jailed for between 15 and 20 years. [Source: Phillip Smith, StoptheDrugWar.org, December 14, 2007]

In the November 29 case, the Hanoi People's Court sentenced 11 people to death for trafficking 440 kilos of heroin in Vietnam and China, while seven more got life in prison. Others got 20-year sentences. In the November 30 case, a court in the central province of Nghe An sentenced four more people to death and three others to life for trafficking an unspecified amount of heroin.


Thirty People Sentenced to Death for Drugs in Single Mass Trial in Vietnam


In January 2014, Associated Press reported: “A Vietnamese court has sentenced 30 people to death for trafficking in heroin at the conclusion of a mass trial. State media reported the 21 men and nine women were convicted on Monday of being part of a ring that smuggled nearly two tonnes of heroin from Laos into Vietnam and then on to China. The trial lasted 20 days and was held in the northern province of Quang Ninh. [Source: Associated Press, January 24, 2014]

Cyrus Engineer wrote in the Daily Star: “Thirty people have been sentenced to death for smuggling over 12 tons of heroin in Vietnam after the country's biggest ever drugs trial. Dozens more have been convicted of trafficking in the south east Asian country and given lengthy jail terms. In total 89 defendants have been found guilty of trafficking heroin between 2006 and 2012 at the mass trial in the province of Quang Ninh, which borers China. [Source: Cyrus Engineer, Daily Star, January 21, 2014 \=/]

“There were so many accused at the proceedings it had to be held outside rather than in a courtroom. “This was Vietnam's largest ever trial in terms of defendants, the number of death penalties given out and the amount of heroin involved” Presiding judge Ngo Duc said: "This was Vietnam's largest ever trial in terms of defendants, the number of death penalties given out and the amount of heroin involved. "Because of the large number of defendants and the seriousness of the case, the trial was held at the prison." The guilty persons belonged to four major international smuggling rings responsible for transporting heroin and other drugs from nearby Laos into Vietnam and China since 2006. \=/


Twenty-Three-Year old Female Student and a Foreign Woman Sentenced to Death for Drug Trafficking


In June 2012, the Voice of America, reported: "A former female student aged 23, Tran Ha Duy, who has been charged with drug trafficking, had her life sentence increased to the death penalty at an appeal hearing in Ho Chi Minh City. The Procuracy claimed that the sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of her crime. According to the indictment, in October 2010, Duy, then a student at HCMC-based Hong Bang University, engaged in a transnational drug trafficking ring run by foreigners. She later lured her younger sister, 21-year-old Tran Ha Tien, also a student, to join the ring’s activities. They were paid US$500-1,000 for each international trafficking trip. Tran Ha Duy nearly passed out in the court room after being given a death penalty [Source: Voice of America, June 21, 2012 <:>]

"Tien was arrested at Tan Son Nhat Airport in HCMC in July 2011 after being caught carrying 4 kg of methamphetamine hidden in the bottom of a suitcase from Doha, Qatar. After Tien’s arrest, Duy surrendered herself to police. Duy confessed that in 2007 she happened to meet a Kenyan man, named Francis, on a bus in HCMC. The man later suggested that Duy deliver sample goods, including garments and footwear, from Vietnam to other countries for his company, which would pay her US$1,000 for a delivery to Benin, a West African country, and $500 for delivery to Malaysia. Francis said he would pay for all expenses related to Duy’s trips abroad. She said that after taking a few trips she knew that drugs had been hidden in the goods sent from Vietnam, but she continued working for Francis to enjoy the high reimbursements. At the first instance hearing, Duy and Tien told the court that they had decided to work for the drug ring since they wanted money for their daily needs. <:>

In March 2013, VietNam,net reported: "A Filipino woman was condemned to death for transporting 5kg of narcotics into Vietnam. On March 11, the Hanoi City People's Court convicted defendant Javier Engracia Ebalang, 41, a Filipino citizen, on charges of illegal transportation of narcotics into Vietnam. She was sentenced to death. On April 27, 2012, at Hanoi’s Noi Bai international airport, the police caught Javier in the act of illegally transporting drugs into Vietnam on a flight from Doha to Hanoi. [Source: Vietnam.net, March 12, 2013 /~/]

"The authorities detected three yellow plastic packs containing white crystals, weighing more than 5kg, in the bottom of her suitcase. The white substance was then defined as Methamphetamine. Javier testified that in early April 2012, a friend hired her to go to Bangkok, Thailand, to transport goods to other countries, with $300 per trip.In Thailand, she met some fellow countrymen who did the same "job." Javier was assigned to go to Mali to receive suitcases and take them to Hanoi, then to Thailand by land. When the suitcases were to be handed over to the recipient, she will be paid. On April 20, 2012, Javier arrived at the Mali airport and was picked up to a hotel, where she stayed for 4 days. After that, a man gave two suitcases and air ticket to her and told her to fly to Vietnam. Javier was arrested right at the Vietnam’s airport. Javier declared that she only knew the suitcases were containing banned goods but she did not know it was drugs. She insisted that in this case, she was just a victim. /~/


Female Thai Student on Death Row in Vietnam for Smuggling Amphetamines


In August 2012, the Bangkok Post reported: "Charge d'affaires Boonrong Pongstiensak said that the Thai embassy in Vietnam is working to help Preeyanooch Phuttharaksa, 23, a Thai college student from Bangkok who was sentenced to death for drug trafficking by Ho Chi Minh City court in June 2012. Preeyanooch was arrested for trafficking three kilograms of methamphetamine pills from Nigeria's Benin city into Vietnam through Saigon airport in October 2012. She was arrested after the drugs were found in a false bottom of her suitcase. She told the court she was paid about US$1,570 (about 50,000 baht) by a Nigerian trafficking ring to smuggle the drugs. [Source: Bangkok Post, August 14, 2012 *\*]

Mr Boonrong said Preeyanooch had appealed for a reduced sentence on the advice of the Thai embassy in Vietnam. He said the embassy was waiting for the Vietnamese president's decision on whether to reduce her death sentence to life imprisonment. But Mr Boonrong said a reduced sentence would be difficult to obtain as drug trafficking is considered a most serious offence in Vietnam. Mr Boonrong said four other Thais arrested for drugs trafficking are now being detained in prisons in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi. *\*

Mr Boonrong said he had received information that many Thai women are being deceived into trafficking drugs by international drugs gangs. Permpong Chavalit, deputy secretary-general of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board, said the Foreign Ministry recently reported that about 100 Thai women are currently being detained for drug trafficking in several countries, including China, India, United Arab Emirates, Spain, Brazil and South Africa. Some of them had married citizens of African countries and were forced to become involved in the trans-national drug trade, while others were willing to act as drug couriers due to the high pay, he said. He said African drug syndicates are using Thailand as their base, and that African gangsters used different tactics to dupe Thai women into the drug trade. Mr Permpong warned Thai women to stay away from African men to save themselves from being tricked into becoming a part of the drug networks. *\*


Chinese Man Sentenced to Death for Trafficking 11kg of Narcotics


In March 2013m VietNam,net reported: "To get $40,000 for a delivery fee, a Chinese man transported nearly 11 kilograms of drugs from Cambodia to Vietnam and then to China. On February 28, the Ho Chi Minh City Supreme People's Court of Appeal rejected an appeal for penalty mitigation, sentencing defendant Zhang Zhi Hua, 52, Chinese national, to death penalty on charges of "illegal transportation of narcotics." [Source: Vietnam.net, March 5, 2013]

According to the indictment, at 7.30pm on February 1, 2012, at the Moc Bai joint control station in Tay Ninh province, the police checked the taxi number plates 51LD -9184. Through inspection, the police detected passengers Zhang Zhi Hua carrying two bags containing 20 yellow nylon bags. Inside these bags were 120,000 tablets in pink and yellow colors, which were suspected as synthetic drugs. According to the assessment results, these tablets are narcotics, with a total weight of 10.9 kg.

Zhang Zhi Hua confessed that in November 2011, a Chinese man named Vy, who lived in Cambodia, rented Hua to traffic drugs from Cambodia to China, but Hua refused because the delivery fee was too low. After that, another Chinese man named Trinh, who is Vy’s friend and lived in Guangdong, China, called Hua, asking him to carry 120,000 tablets of drug from Cambodia to Vietnam and then to China with the delivery cost of $40,000. Hua agreed. According to plan, Hua would receive the drugs from a Thai couple in Cambodia then going through the Moc Bai border gate, getting a taxi to Saigon and then to Hanoi and going through Quang Ninh to China.However, the defendant was arrested at the Vietnam- Cambodia border.


Australians Gets 20 Years in Vietnam for 200 Grams of Heroin


In September 2009, AFP reported: "A Vietnamese-Australian has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for heroin possession, state media reported. A court in southern Ho Chi Minh City found Chu Hoang Mai, 47, guilty of attempting to smuggle 215 grams of heroin on a flight to Sydney, Vietnam News reported. It said customs officers found the drug in three small packages on her body during a routine check at Ho Chi Minh City's Tan Son Nhat Airport on June 11 last year. [Source: AFP, September 5, 2009]

In June 2005, DPA reported: "An Australian man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison in Vietnam after being convicted of trying to smuggle 200 grams of heroin from Vietnam to Australia. Tony Tran, 43, an Australian of Vietnamese descent, was arrested at a house in Phu Yen province after trying to send 200 grams of heroin in laminated photographs to various addresses in Australia, said Nguyen Van Minh, a court official in Phu Yen, 500 kilometers north of Ho Chi Minh City. Tran faced a maximum sentence of death for the crime but the court gave him its lightest penalty. The court said Tran and his girlfriend bought the heroin in Ho Chi Minh City, and tried to post it in small portions in May 2004, Minh said. "We seized the heroin in the photos before it was sent out, and the crime is punishable by between 20 years in prison and the death sentence, so he was given the lightest sentence," the court official said. [Source: DPA, June 2, 2005]

Tran's 33-year-old Vietnamese girlfriend Le Thi Van was given 15 years in jail after the two-day trial that ended yesterday. "An Australian-based officer from the consulate was present at the trial," a spokesman for the Australian consulate in Ho Chi Minh City, told AFP later. A spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra said Australia's travel advice warned of very stiff penalties for drug trafficking. "`We urge all citizens to read the advice about harsh penalties and the limits to the assistance we can provide,'' she said. There are nine Australian citizens and one Australian resident currently in prison in Vietnam on drugs charges, four of them are awaiting trial, and two are facing possible death sentences.



Image Sources:

Text Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, Lonely Planet Guides, Library of Congress, Vietnamtourism. com, Vietnam National Administration of Tourism, CIA World Factbook, Compton’s Encyclopedia, The Guardian, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AP, AFP, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, Global Viewpoint (Christian Science Monitor), Foreign Policy, Wikipedia, BBC, CNN, Fox News and various websites, books and other publications identified in the text.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Armies, Addicts and Spooks: the CIA in Vietnam and Laos


Screen-Shot-2017-09-22-at-11.16.39-AM.png

At 7:30 a.m., on March 16, 1968, Task Force Barker descended on the small hamlet of My Lai in the Quang Nai province of South Vietnam. Two squads cordoned off the village and one, led by Lieutenant William Calley, moved in and, accompanied by US Army Intelligence officers, began to slaughter all the inhabitants. Over the next eight hours US soldiers methodically killed 504 men, women and children.

As the late Ron Ridenhour, who first exposed the massacre, said years later to one of the present authors, “Above My Lai were helicopters filled with the entire command staff of the brigade, division and task force. All three tiers in the chain of command were literally flying overhead while it was going on. It takes a long time to kill 600 people. It’s a dirty job, you might say. These guys were flying overhead from 7:30 in the morning, when the unit first landed and began to move into those hamlets. They were there at least two hours, at 500 feet, 1000 feet and 1500 feet.”

The cover-up of this operation began almost from the start. The problem wasn’t the massacre itself: polls right after the event showed 65 percent of Americans approved of the US action. The cover-up was instead to disguise the fact that My Lai was part of the CIA killing program called Operation Phoenix. As Douglas Valentine writes in his brilliant book, The Phoenix Program,

the My Lai massacre was a result of Phoenix, the ‘jerry-built’ counter-terror program that provided an outlet for the repressed fears and anger of the psyched-up men of Task Force Barker. Under the aegis of neutralizing the infrastructure, old men, women and children became the enemy. Phoenix made it as easy to shoot a Vietnamese child as it was to shoot a sparrow in a tree. The ammunition was faulty intelligence provided by secret agents harboring grudges – in violation of the agreement that Census Grievance intelligence would not be provided to the police. The trigger was the blacklist.

The My Lai operation was principally developed by two men, the CIA’s Paul Ramsdell and a Colonel Khien, the Quang Nai province chief. Operating under cover of the US Agency for International Development, Ramsdell headed the Phoenix program in Quang Nai province, where it was his task to prepare lists of suspected NLF (called by the Americans “Viet Cong”) leaders, organizers and sympathizers. Ramsdell would then pass these lists on to the US Army units that were carrying out the killings. In the case of My Lai, Ramsdell told Task Force Barker’s intelligence officer, Captain Koutac, that “anyone in that area was considered a VC sympathizer because they couldn’t survive in that area unless they were sympathizers.”

Ramsdell had acquired this estimate from Col. Khien, who had his own agenda. For one thing, his family had been hit hard by the Tet offensive launched by the NLF earlier in the year. In addition, the NLF had seriously disrupted his business enterprises. Khien was notorious for being one of South Vietnam’s most corrupt chieftains, an officer who had his hand in everything from payroll fraud to prostitution. But Khien apparently made his really big money from heroin sales to US soldiers.

For the CIA, the need to cover its involvement in the My Lai massacre became acute in August 1970, when Sergeant David Mitchell, a member of Task Force Barker, was put on trial for killing dozens of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. Mitchell claimed that the My Lai operation had been conducted under the supervision of the CIA. The Agency’s lawyer, John Greaney, successfully prevented Mitchell’s lawyers from lodging subpoenas against any Agency personnel. But despite such maneuvers, high CIA and army brass were worried that the truth might trickle out, and so General William Peers of US Army Intelligence was given the task – so to speak – of straightening out the furniture.

Peers was a former CIA man whose ties to Agency operations in Southeast Asia dated back to World War II, when he supervised the OSS’s Detachment 101, the Burma campaign that often operated under the cover of Shan opium trafficking. Peers had also served as CIA station chief in Taiwan in the early 1950s, when the Agency was backing the exiled KMT supremo, Chiang Kai-shek and his henchman Li Mi, Peers had helped design the pacification strategy for South Vietnam and was a good friend of Evan Parker, the CIA officer who headed ICEX (Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation), the command structure that oversaw Phoenix and other covert killing operations. It’s not surprising, then, that the Peers investigation found no CIA fingerprints on the massacre and instead placed the blame on the crazed actions of the enlisted men and junior officers of Task Force Barker.

In the immediate aftermath of My Lai the polls may have shown 65 percent approval by Americans, but it’s doubtful whether such momentary enthusiasm would have survived the brute facts of what Operation Phoenix involved. As Bart Osborn, a US Army Intelligence officer collecting names of suspects in the Phoenix Program testified before Congress in 1972,

I never knew in the course of all of these operations any detainee to live through his interrogation. They all died. There was never any reasonable establishment of the fact that any one of those individuals was, in fact, cooperating with the VC, but they all died and the majority were either tortured to death or things like thrown out of helicopters.

One of the more outlandish efforts to protect the true instigators of My Lai came during the 1970 congressional hearings run by Senator Thomas Dodd (father of the present US senator from Connecticut). Dodd was trying to pin the blame for My Lai on drug use by US soldiers. He had seized on this idea after seeing a CBS news item showing a US soldier smoking marijuana in the jungle after a fire-fight. The senator forthwith convened hearings of his subcommittee on juvenile deliquency, and his staff contacted Ron Ridenhour, the man who had first brought the massacre to light prior to Seymour Hersh’s journalistic exposé. Ridenhour had long made it his quest to show that My Lai was planned from the top, so he agreed to testify on the condition that he would not have to deal with any foolishness about blaming the murder of over 500 people on dope.

But no sooner had Ridenhour presented himself in the hearing chamber than Dodd began to issue pronouncements about the properties of marijuana so outlandish that Harry Anslinger himself would have approved. Ridenhour got nowhere, denounced the proceedings and expostulated outside the hearing room that “Dodd is stacking the evidence. Nobody mentioned drugs at My Lai after it happened and they would have been looking for any excuse. Many, many Americans are looking for any reason other than a command decision.”

Although Dodd had simply wanted to blame My Lai on drugs and move on, the press now began to take an interest in the whole question of drug use in Vietnam by US forces. The attention prompted a congressional delegation to travel to Vietnam headed by Rep. Robert Steele, a Connecticut Republican, and Rep. Morgan Murphy, a Democrat from Illinois. They spent a month in Vietnam talking to soldiers and medics and returned with a startling conclusion. “The soldier going to Vietnam,” Steele said, “runs a far greater risk of becoming a heroin addict than a combat casualty.” They estimated that as many as 40,000 soldiers in Vietnam were addicted to heroin. A follow-up investigation by the New York Times reckoned that the count might be even higher – perhaps as many as 80,000.

The Pentagon naturally preferred a lower figure, putting the total number of heroin addicts at between 100 and 200. But by this time President Nixon had begun to mistrust the flow of numbers out of the Defense Department and dispatched his White House domestic policy council chief, Egil Krogh Jr., to Vietnam for another look. Krogh didn’t spend time with the generals, but headed out into the field where he watched soldiers openly light up joints and Thai sticks and brag about the purity of the grades of heroin they were taking. Krogh came back with the news that as many as 20 percent of the US troops were heroin users. The figure made a big impression on Richard Nixon, who readily appreciated that although Americans might be prepared to see their sons die on the front lines battling communism, they would be far less enthusiastic at the news that hundreds of thousands of these same sons would be returning home as heroin addicts.

Partially in response to these findings Nixon recruited the CIA into his drug war. The man the Agency chose to put forward as coordinator with the White House was Lucien Conein, a veteran of the CIA’s station in Saigon, where he had been involved in the coup in 1963 that saw South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem, assassinated along with his brother Ngo Dhin Nhu. (The Diems were regarded by President Kennedy and his advisers as insufficiently robust in pursuing the war. What the CIA proposed, local South Vietnamese generals disposed, and the Diems died in a hail of machine-gun bullets.) At the time of his death Nhu was one of the largest heroin brokers in South Vietnam. His supplier was a Corsican living in Laos named Bonaventure Francisi.

Lucien Conein himself was of Corsican origin, and as part of his intelligence work had maintained ties to Corsican gangsters in Southeast Asia and in Marseilles. His role in the White House drug war team appears to have been not so much one of advancing an effective interdiction of drug supplies as in protecting CIA assets who were tied to the drug trade. For example, one of the CIA’s first recommendations – an instinctive reflex, really – was a “campaign of assassination” against global drug lords. The CIA argued that there were only a handful of heroin kingpins and that it would be easy to eliminate all of them. A White House policy memo from 1971 records this piece of Agency advice: “With 150 key assassinations the entire heroin-refining industry can be thrown into chaos.” On that list were relatively small-time players and those without any links to the CIA-backed KMT forces that controlled the crucial supply lines out of the Shan States. This discretion was nothing new, since there had been an agreement between Anslinger’s Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (the forerunner of the DEA) and the CIA not to run any of Anslinger’s agents in Southeast Asia, lest it discommode the CIA’s complex living arrangements in the region.

Another tactic advanced by Conein was to contaminate US cocaine supplies with methedrine, the theory being that users would react violently when dosing themselves with this potion and turn violently on their suppliers. There’s no evidence that either of these schemes – assassination or methedrine adulteration – was ever put into play. But the Agency was able to convince the Nixon administration that its eradication effort should be directed at Turkey rather than Southeast Asia, said effort culminating in an attempt at export substitution, with opium growers in Anatolia being helped to set up a factory to produce bicycles.

The CIA was well aware that Turkey provided only between 3 and 5 percent of the world’s supplies of raw opium at that time. In fact, the Agency had prepared an internal survey that estimated that 60 percent of the opium on the world market was coming from Southeast Asia and noted the precise whereabouts of the four largest heroin labs in the region, in villages in Laos, Burma and Thailand. This report was leaked to the New York Times, whose reporter relayed the main conclusions, without realizing that these villages were all next to CIA stations with the labs being run by people on the CIA’s payroll.

In April 1971, the CIA’s ties to the opium kings of Southeast Asia nearly sparked a major international confrontation. Crown Prince Sopsaisana had been appointed Laotian ambassador to France. On arrival in Paris, the prince angrily announced that some of his copious luggage was missing. He berated French airport officials, who meekly promised they would restore his property. In fact the prince’s bags had been intercepted by French customs after a tip that Sopsaisana was carrying high-grade heroin; indeed, his luggage contained 60 kilos of heroin, worth $13.5 million, then the largest drug seizure in French history. The prince had planned to ship his drug cargo on to New York. The CIA station in Paris convinced the French to cover up the affair, although the prince was not given back his dope. It hardly mattered. Sopsaisana returned two weeks later to Vientiane to nearly inexhaustible supplies of the drug.

Why the CIA interest in protecting the largest trafficker nabbed on the French soil? The opium used to manufacture the prince’s drugs had been grown in the highlands of Laos. It was purchased by a Hmong general, Vang Pao, who commanded the CIA’s secret air base in Laos, where it was processed into high-grade Number 4 heroin in labs just down the block from CIA quarters. The heroin was then flown to Vientiane on Vang Pao’s private airline, which consisted of two C-47s given to him by the CIA.

Vang Pao was the leader of a CIA-sponsored 30,000-man force of Hmong, which by 1971 consisted mostly of teenagers, fighting the Pathet Lao Communist forces. The Hmong had a reputation for fierceness, in part due to a century of conflict with the Chinese, who had, back in the nineteenth century, driven them into Laos after taking over their opium fields in Hunan. As one Hmong put it to Christopher Robbins, author of Air America, “They say we are a people who like to fight, a cruel people, enemy of everybody, always changing our region and being happy nowhere. If you want to know the truth about our people, ask the bear who is hurt why he defends himself, ask the dog who is kicked why he barks, ask the deer who is chased why he changes mountains.” The Hmong practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, with two crops – rice and opium, the first for sustenance and the latter for medicinal and trading purposes.

Vang Pao was born in 1932 in a Laotian hamlet called Nong Het. At the age of thirteen he served as an interpreter for the French forces then fighting the Japanese. Two years later he was battling Viet Minh incursions into Laos in the First Indochina War. He underwent officer training at the French military academy near Saigon, becoming the highest-ranking Hmong in the Royal Laotian Air Force. In 1954 Vang Pao led a group of 850 Hmong soldiers on a fruitless mission to relieve the beleaguered French during their debacle at Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam.

The Hmong were first marshaled into a surrogate army by a French colonel called Roger Trinquier, who confronted a crisis in the French budget for local covert operations and intelligence in a fashion that covered more than one objective. “The money from the opium,” he wrote later, “financed the maquis [that is, the Hmong mercenaries] in Laos. It was flown to Cp. St. Jacques [a French military base sixty miles south of Saigon] in Vietnam in a DC-3 and sold.” The money was put into an account and used to feed and arm the guerrillas. Trinquier cynically added than the trade “was strictly controlled even though it was outlawed.” Overseeing the marketing in Saigon was the local French director of the Deuxiéme Bureau, Colonel Antoine Savani. A Corsican with ties to the Marseilles drug syndicates, Savani organized the Bin Xuyen River gang on the lower Mekong to run the heroin labs, manage the opium dens and sell the surplus to the Corsican drug syndicate. This enterprise, called Operation X, ran from 1946 through 1954.

Ho Chi Minh made opposition to the opium trade a key feature of his campaign to run the French out of Vietnam. The Viet Minh leader said, quite accurately, that the French were pushing opium on the people of Vietnam as a means of social control. A drugged people, Ho said, is less likely to rise up and throw off the oppressor.

During World War II, OSS officers working to oust the Japanese from Southeast Asia developed a cordial relationship with Ho Chi Minh, finding that the Viet Minh leader spoke fluent English and was well versed in American history. Ho quoted from memory lengthy passages from the Declaration of Independence, and chided the intelligence agents, noting that Vietnamese nationalists had been asking American presidents since Lincoln for help in booting out the French colonialists. As with Mao’s forces in China, the OSS operatives in Vietnam realized that Ho’s well-trained troops were a vital ally, more capable and less corrupt than Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang army and the pro-French forces in Indochina. When Ho was stricken with malaria, the OSS sent one of its agents, Paul Helliwell, who would later head up the CIA’s Overseas Supply Company, to treat the ailing Communist. Similar to Joe Stilwell’s view of Mao, many military and OSS men recommended that the US should back Ho after the eviction of the Japanese.

After arriving in Vietnam in 1945, US Army General Phillip Gallagher asked the OSS to compile a detailed background on Ho. An OSS operative named Le Xuan, who would later work for the CIA during the Vietnam War, acquired a dossier on Ho from a disaffected Vietnamese nationalist: Le Xuan paid the man off with a bag of opium. The dossier disclosed to US intelligence agencies that Ho had had extended stays in the Soviet Union, a revelation that doomed any future aid from the Americans for his cause. Le Xuan would later turn on the CIA, showing up in Paris in 1968 to reveal his services to the Agency and denounce its murderous policies in Vietnam.

In 1953, Trinquier’s Operation X opium network was discovered by Colonel Edwin Lansdale, at the time the CIA’s military adviser in Southeast Asia. Lansdale later claimed that he protested about this French role in opium trafficking, but was admonished to hold his tongue because, in his words, exposure of “the operation would prove a major embarrassment to a friendly government.” In fact, the CIA’s director, Allen Dulles, was mightily impressed by Trinquier’s operation and, looking ahead to the time when the US would take over from the French in the region, began funneling money, guns and CIA advisers to Trinquier’s Hmong army.

The post–Dien Bien Phu accords, signed in Geneva in 1954, decreed that Laos was to be neutral, off-limits to all foreign military forces. This had the effect of opening Laos to the CIA, which did not consider itself a military force. The CIA became the unchallenged principal in all US actions inside Laos. Once in this position of dominance the CIA brooked no interference from the Pentagon. This point was driven home by the military attaché to Laos, Colonel Paul Pettigrew, who advised his replacement in Vientiane in 1961, “For God’s sake, don’t buck the CIA or you’ll find yourself floating face down on that Mekong River.”

From the moment the Geneva Accords were signed, the US government was determined to undermine them and do everything in its power to prevent the installation of Ho Chi Minh as president of all Vietnam, even though elections would have clearly showed he was the choice of most Vietnamese, as President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously admitted. Eisenhower and his advisers decreed that Laos’s neutral status should be subverted. On the ground this meant that the neutralist government of Prime Minister Souvanna Phouma, which had amicable relations with the Pathet Lao, should be subverted by the CIA, whose preferred client was General Nosavan Phoumi. The Agency fixed elections in 1960 in an attempt to legitimize his rule. Also in 1960 the CIA began a more sustained effort to build up Vang Pao and his army, furnishing him with rifles, mortars, rockets and grenades.

After John Kennedy’s victory in 1960, Eisenhower advised him that the next big battleground in Southeast Asia would not be Vietnam but Laos. His counsel found its mark, even though Kennedy initially snooted Laos as “a country not worthy of engaging the attention of great powers.” In public Kennedy pronounced the country’s name as L-AY-o-s, thinking that Americans would not rally to the cause of a place pronounced “louse.” In 1960 there were but a thousand men in Vang Pao’s army. By 1961 “L’Armée Clandestine” had grown to 9,000. By the time of Kennedy’s assassination in late 1963, Vang Pao was at the head of some 30,000 troops. This army and its air force were entirely funded by the United States to the tune of $300 million, administered and overseen by the CIA.

Vang Pao’s original CIA case officer was William Young, the Baptist missionary-become-CIA-officer we met in the preceding chapter. Young never had any problem with the opium trafficking of the Hmong tribes. After Young was transferred out of the area in 1962, the CIA asked the Frenchman Trinquier to return as military adviser to the Hmong. Trinquier had just completed his tour of duty in the French Congo and consented to perform that function for a few months before the arrival of one of the most notorious characters in this saga, an American named Anthony Posephny, always known as Tony Poe.

Poe was a CIA officer, a former US Marine who had been wounded at Iwo Jima. By the early 1950s he was working for the Agency in Asia, starting with the training of Tibetan Khamba tribesmen in Colorado (thus breaching the law against CIA activities inside the US), prior to leading them back to retrieve the Dalai Lama. In 1958 Poe showed up in Indonesia in an early effort to topple Sukarno. In 1960 he was training KMT forces for raids into China; his right hand was by now mangled after ill-advised contact with a car’s fanbelt. In 1963 Poe became Vang Pao’s case officer and forthwith instituted new incentives to fire up the Hmong’s dedication to freedom’s cause, announcing that he would pay a cash bounty for every pair of Pathet Lao ears delivered to him. He kept a plastic bag on his front porch where the ears were deposited and strung his collection along the verandah. To convince skeptical CIA superiors, in this case Ted Shackley in Vientiane, that his body counts were accurate, Poe once stapled a pair of ears to a report and sent it to HQ.

This souvenir of early methods of computing the slaughter of native Americans was not as foolproof as Poe imagined. He himself later described going up country and finding a small boy with no ears, then was told that the boy’s father had sliced them off “to get money from the Americans.” Poe shifted his incentive to the entire heads of Pathet Lao, claiming that he preserved them in formaldehyde in his bedroom.

This man, described by an associate as an “amiable psychopath,” was running Phoenix-type operations into Lao villages near the Vietnam border. The teams were officially termed “home defense units,” though Poe more frankly described them as “hunter-killer teams.” Poe later claimed that he was booted out of Long Tieng because he had objected to CIA tolerance of Vang Pao’s drug trading, but his description suggests more an envy for the French style of direct supervision of the opium trade. In a filmed TV interview at his home in Northern Thailand Poe said in 1987,

You don’t let ’em run loose without a chain on ’em. They’re like any kind of animals, or a baby. You have to control ’em. Vang Pao was the only guy with a pair of shoes when I met him. Why does he need Mercedes and hotels and homes when he never had them before? Why are you going to give him them? He was making millions. He had his own avenue for selling heroin. He put his money in US bank accounts and Swiss banks, and we all knew it. We tried to monitor it. We controlled all the pilots. We were giving him free rides into Thailand. They were flying it [that is, the opium cargoes] into Danang, where it was picked up by the number two man to Thieu [at the time South Vietnam’s president]. It was all a contractual relationship, just like bankers and businessmen. A wonderful relationship. Just a Mafia. A big organized Mafia.

By the time Poe left this area of Laos in 1965, the situation was just as he described it twenty years later. The CIA’s client army was collecting and shipping the opium on CIA planes, which by now were flying under the American flag.

“Yes, I’ve seen the sticky bricks come on board, and no one challenged it,” Neal Hanson, an Air America pilot, said in a filmed interview in the late 1980s. “It was as if it was their personal property. We were a freebie airline. Whoever was put on our plane we flew. Primarily it was the smaller aircraft that would visit outlying villages and bring it [the opium] back to Long Tieng. If they put something on the airplane and told you not to look at it, you didn’t look at it.”

The Air America operation played a key role in expanding the opium market. CIA and US Agency for International Development funds went to the construction of more than 150 short, so-called LIMA landing strips in the mountains near the opium fields, thus opening these remote spots to the export trade – and also ensuring that such exports went to Vang Pao. The head of AID in that area at the time, Ron Rickenbach, said later, “I was on the air strips. My people were in charge of supplying the aircraft. I was in the areas where the opium was grown. I personally witnessed it being placed on Air America planes. We didn’t create the opium product. But our presence accelerated it dramatically.” In 1959 Laos was producing about 150 tons. By 1971 production had risen to 300 tons. Another boost to opium production, much of which was ultimately destined for the veins of Americans then fighting in Vietnam, was enabled by the USAID’s supplying rice to the Hmong, thus allowing them to stop growing this staple and use the land to cultivate opium poppies.

Vang Pao controlled the opium trade in the Plain of Jars region of Laos. By buying up the one salable crop the general could garner the allegiance of the hill tribes as well as stuff his own bank account. He would pay $60 a kilo, $10 over the prevailing rate, and would purchase a village’s crop if, in return, the village would supply recruits for his army. As a village leader described it, “Meo [that is, Hmong] officers with three or four stripes came from Long Tieng to buy their opium. They came in American helicopters, perhaps two or three men at one time. The helicopter leaves them here for a few days and they walk to the villages, then come back here and radio Long Tieng to send another helicopter for them and take the opium back.”

John Everingham, an Australian war photographer, was at that time based in Laos and visited the Hmong village of Long Pot; he recalled in the late 1980s that

I was given the guest bed in a district village leader’s house. I ended up sharing it with a military guy, who I later discovered was a leader in Vang Pao’s army. I was wakened by a great confusion of people and noise at the bottom of the bed, where there was a packet of black sticky stuff on bamboo leaves. And the village leader was weighing it out and paying quite a considerable amount of money. This went on several mornings. I found out it was raw opium. They all wore American uniforms. The opium went to Long Tieng by helicopters, Air America helicopters on contract to the CIA. I know as a fact that shortly after Vang Pao’s army was formed, the military officers gained control of the opium trade. It not only helped make them a lot of money. It also helped the villagers who needed their opium carried out, a difficult task in wartime. The officers were obviously paying a very good price because the villagers were very anxious to sell it to them.

In the early 1960s the trading chain from Long Tieng was as follows: the opium would be shipped into Vietnam on Laos Commercial Air, an airline run jointly by Ngo Dinh Nhu and the Corsican Bonaventure Francisi. Nhu, brother of South Vietnam’s President Diem, had presided over a huge expansion in Saigon’s opium parlors in order to fund his own security operation. But after the Diem brothers’ assassination, Marshall Nguyen Cao Ky, the man selected by the CIA as South Vietnam’s new leader, began bringing the opium in from Long Tieng on Vietnamese air force planes. (Ky had previously been head of South Vietnam’s air force.) A CIA man, Sam Mustard, testified to this arrangement in congressional hearings in 1968.

At the Laotian end, General Phoumi had placed Ouane Rattikone in charge of overall opium operations, and his dealings resulted in about a ton of opium a month being landed in Saigon. For his services, however, Rattikone was getting only about $200 a month from the parsimonious Phoumi. With the backing of the CIA, Rattikone rebelled and launched a coup in 1965 against Phoumi, driving his former boss into exile in Thailand. Rattikone now wanted to drop the contract with the Corsican’s Air Laos, which, despite Marshall Ky’s switch, was still doing business. Rattikone’s plan was to use the Royal Lao Air Force, entirely funded by the CIA. He referred to the opium shipments on the national air force as “requisitions militaires.” But CIA air commander Jack Drummond objected to what he deemed a logistically inefficient use of the Royal Lao Air Force’s T-28s and instead decreed that the CIA would furnish a C-47 for the dope runs “if they’d leave the T-28s alone.”

That’s precisely what happened. Two years later, in 1967, the CIA and USAID purchased two C-47s for Vang Pao, who opened up his own air transport company, which he called Xieng Khouang Air, known by one and all as Air Opium.

At the time the CIA decided to give Vang Pao his own airline, the CIA station chief in Vientiane was Ted Shackley, a man who had gotten his start in the CIA’s Paperclip project, recruiting Nazi scientists. Before he came to Laos Shackley had headed the Agency’s Miami station, where he orchestrated the repeated terror raids and assassination bids against Cuba and consorted with the local Cuban émigrés, themselves deeply involved in the drug trade. Shackley was an ardent exponent of the idea of purchasing the loyalty of CIA clients by a policy of economic assistance, calling this “the third option.” Tolerance – indeed active support – of the opium trade was therefore a proper military and diplomatic strategy. He also had a reputation for preferring to work with a team of long-term associates whom he would deploy in appropriate posts.

Thus one can follow, through the decades, the Shackley team from Miami, to Laos, to Vietnam (where he later became CIA station chief in Saigon) to his private business operations in Central America. When Shackley was in Vientiane, his associate, Thomas Clines, was handling business at Long Tieng. Another CIA man, Edwin Wilson, was delivering espionage equipment to Shackley in Laos. Richard Secord was supervising CIA operations, thus participating in a bombing program depositing more high explosive on peasants and guerrillas in the Plain of Jars than did the US on Germany and Japan during the whole of World War II. Shackley, Clines, Secord and Air America cargo kicker Eugene Hasenfus show up later in our story, in Central America, once again amid the CIA’s active complicity in the drug trade.

By the time Shackley moved to Saigon in 1968, the war had turned against Vang Pao. The Pathet Lao now had the upper hand. Over the next three years the story of the Hmong was one of forced marches and military defeats, and as the ground war went badly the CIA took to bombing campaigns that killed yet more Hmong. As Edgar “Pop” Buell, a missionary working in the hills, wrote in a memo to the CIA in 1968, “A short time ago we rounded up 300 fresh recruits [from the Hmong], 30 percent were 14 years old. Another 30 percent were 15 or 16. The remaining 40 percent were 45 or over. Where were the ages between? I’ll tell you – they’re all dead.”

By the end of the war in Laos a third of the entire population of the country had become refugees. In their forced marches the Hmong experienced 30 percent casualty rates, with young children often having to put their exhausted parents, prostrated along the trail, out of their misery. By 1971 the CIA was practicing a scorched-earth policy in Hmong territory against the incoming Pathet Lao. The land was drenched with herbicides, which killed the opium crop and also poisoned the Hmong. Later, when Hmong refugees in Thai refugee camps reported this “yellow rain,” CIA-patronized journalists spread the story that this was a Communist essay in biological warfare. The Wall Street Journal editorial page ran an extensive propaganda campaign on the issue in the early Reagan years. Vang Pao ended up in Missoula, Montana. General Ouane Rattikone went into exile in Thailand.

This CIA-transported opium engendered an addiction rate among US servicemen in Vietnam of up to 30 percent, with the soldiers spending some $80 million a year in Vietnam on heroin. In the early 1970s some of this same heroin was being smuggled back to the US in the body bags of dead servicemen, and when DEA agent Michael Levine attempted to bust the operation, he was warned off by his superiors because it might have led to exposure of the supply line from Long Tieng.

In 1971 a second-year grad student at Yale named Alfred McCoy met the poet Allen Ginsberg at a demonstration for Bobby Seale in New Haven. Ginsberg found out that McCoy had studied up on the drug trade and also knew several Southeast Asian languages as well as the political history of the region. He encouraged McCoy to research allegations about CIA involvement in the drug trade. McCoy finished his term papers and traveled to Southeast Asia in the summer of 1971, where he embarked on a courageous and far-reaching investigation that yielded brilliant results. He interviewed troops and officers in Saigon, and there also met John Everingham, the photographer who had witnessed the opium dealings in Laos. Everingham took him back into Laos to that same village. McCoy interviewed Hmong, both villagers and chiefs. He tracked down General Ouane Rattikone in Thailand. He interviewed Pop Buell and the CIA agent William Young.

Back in the United States by the spring of 1972, McCoy had finished the first draft of what was to be the path-breaking The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. In June of that year he was invited to testify before the US Senate by Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin. Following that testimony, he was called by his publisher Harper & Row, demanding that he come to New York and meet with the company’s president, Winthrop Knowlton. Knowlton told McCoy that Cord Meyer, a top-ranking CIA officer, had paid a visit to the owner of Harper & Row, Cass Canfield, and had told Canfield that McCoy’s book posed a national security threat. Meyer demanded that Harper & Row cancel the contract. Canfield refused, but did agree to let the CIA review McCoy’s book before publication.

While McCoy was deliberating what to do, the CIA’s approach to Canfield leaked out to Seymour Hersh, then working at the New York Times. Hersh promptly published the story. As McCoy wrote in the preface to a new edition of his book published in 1990, “Humiliated in the public arena, the CIA turned to covert harassment. Over the coming months, my federal education grant was investigated. My phones were tapped. My income tax was audited and my sources were intimidated.” Some of his interpreters were threatened with assassination.

The book was duly published by Harper & Row in 1972. Amid Congressional disquiet, the CIA told the Joint Committee on Intelligence that it was pressing forward with an internal review by the CIA’s Inspector General. The Agency sent twelve investigators into the field, where they spent two brief weeks in interviews. The report has never been released in its entirety, but this is its conclusion:

No evidence that the Agency or any senior officer of the Agency has ever sanctioned, or supported drug trafficking, as a matter of policy. Also we found not the slightest suspicion, much less evidence, that any Agency officer, staff or contact, has ever been involved with the drug business. With respect to Air America, we found that it has always forbidden, as a matter of policy, the transportation of contraband goods. We believe that its Security Inspection Service which is used by the cooperating air transport company as well, is now serving as an added deterrent to drug traffickers.

The one area of our activities in South East Asia that gives us some concern has to do with the agents and local officials with whom we are in contact and who have been or may still be involved in one way or another in the drug business. We are not referring here to those agents who are run as penetrations of the narcotics industry for collection of intelligence on the industry but, rather, to those with whom we are in touch in our other operations. What to do about these people is particularly troublesome in view of its implications for some of our operations, particularly in Laos. Yet their good will, if not mutual cooperation, considerably facilitates the military activities of the Agency-supported irregulars.

The report admitted that “the war has clearly been our over-riding priority in Southeast Asia and all other issues have taken second place in the scheme of things.” The report also suggested that there was no financial incentive for the pilots in Air America to be involved in smuggling, since they were “making good money.”

Reviews of McCoy’s book were hostile, suggesting that his hundreds of pages of well-sourced interviews and reporting amounted to conspiratorial rumor-mongering by a radical opponent of the war. McCoy’s charges were dismissed out of hand in the Church hearings of 1975, which concluded that allegations of drug smuggling by CIA assets and proprietaries “lacked substance.”

As McCoy himself summed it up in 1990, in words which no doubt strike a chord in the heart of Gary Webb, “Although I had scored in the first engagement with a media blitz, the CIA won the longer bureaucratic battle. By silencing my sources and publicly announcing its abhorrence of drugs, the Agency convinced Congress that it had been innocent of any complicity in the Southeast Asian opium trade.”
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Military Smuggling Drugs Heroin Smuggled in Body Bags of GIs Reported by Military Eye Witness
Dear friends,

WantToKnow.info recently received an excellent update to the below revealing email sent to us on April 20, 2004. Both the original email and the update were written and sent by Bob Kirkconnell, a courageous career military man who describes here how he personally witnessed a very large-scale drug smuggling operation which likely involved rogue elements of the US government and military.

Shortly after receiving his initial email, we put Bob in touch with Mike Levine, a 25-year veteran of the DEA who also personally witnessed large-scale drug smuggling by the government. After his whistleblowing, Mike became a target and had to go underground several years for his own safety. Read the beautiful story of what happened after Mike and Bob connected below.

SInce 2004, Bob has researched this case deeply and found lots of highly revealing information to support his claims. His updated comments sent Nov. 10, 2012 are interspersed between paragraphs of his original message with italics and indenting to distinguish these more recent findings. He also gives a key quote from a book by a Wall Street Journal front-page editor supporting his claims. At the end of this email are empowering suggestions for what you can do to make a difference. And for a great book Bob wrote on this event and much more, click here.

Email from Bob Kirkconnell To WantToKnow.info

I am Bob Kirkconnell, a retired Air Force chief master sergeant. I spent 27 years on active duty, and now teach high school. I was involved in an investigation of heroin smuggling into the US using killed-in-action human remains out of Vietnam. This happened in 1972 or 1973, and since then I have been looking for any information that would explain the whole picture. Your web site is the first info I have been able to find in over 30 years.

Update, Nov. 10, 2012: I retired from teaching in 2010. This case was investigated by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations in December, 1972. Since writing the above, I have found other connections to this case, one of which was Green Beret captain and physician Jeffery MacDonald. He was investigating heroin smuggling in G.I. corpses at Ft. Bragg, NC when he and his whole family were attacked by a gang of drug users. He was the only survivor with 17 stab wounds, three of which should have been fatal. Strangely, MacDonald was charged with the murders. He is now in jail appealing his case. One of the witnesses, Helena Stoeckley, stated that Thomas Edward Southerland was involved in this case also. These so-called "Fatal Vision" murders happened in 1970.

I was an Air Transportation Supervisor in those days stationed at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. One day we had an Air Force C-5 come in that was only scheduled for a few hours servicing (intransit), and then to continue on to Travis Air Force Base, California. This plane contained between 80 and 90 transfer cases (87 is the number I recall) containing human remains, killed-in-action, out of Vietnam. When it arrived, the plane broke, went into maintenance, and we had to order parts that would take over 24 hours to receive.

Update, Nov. 10, 2012: The 80 to 90 figure I stated above is likely to have been inaccurate. I do not recall the exact figure, but I do recall the master sergeant I worked for briefing me that "The whole shipment had been gutted and stuffed with heroin." It is possible that the above figure was a rumor that stuck in my memory, but the source did not. I checked with the National Archives and the total number of war dead for 1972 was 759, so it is highly unlikely that the number I stated in 2004 was accurate.

On intransit aircraft, Japanese customs did not get involved unless the plane was going to be on the ground more than 24 hours. This was the case with this C-5. After the plane was fixed we noticed that the two couriers for the human remains could not be located. This was highly unusual.One of the couriers was an Army major and the other was an Army master sergeant. We started looking for them and notified Japanese customs that something was very suspicious. We discovered that the master sergeant had taken another flight to Hawaii. The name he was traveling under was Sutherland. We never did find the major, and I do not recall his name.

Update, Nov. 10, 2012: The proper spelling of the master sergeant's name was Southerland. This had to have been Thomas Edward Southerland, who was tried in a Baltimore Md. Federal court in connection with this case in 1973. This case was also written about in a Time magazine article, January 1st, 1973 edition, and the name given for the suspect was Thomas Edward Southerland. The federal attorney who prosecuted the case was Michael Marr. He is now in private practice in the Baltimore, Md. area. I contacted him via e-mail a few years back and he said that he remembered the case well and that if I had questions about the case to "feel free to ask" him about it. I had several questions that I did ask him, but he did not reply. I tried several more times to contact him but never got a response other than the first one. I am pretty sure that the rank of the other person who disappeared was captain, not major. I still do not recall his name, but I remember it being of French extraction.

Japanese customs opened the transfer cases and found that all of the bodies had had their internal organs removed, and that they were stuffed with bags of pure heroin. An Air Force Office of Special Investigations, OSI, agent contacted me and told me "not to release any documents pertaining to the incident to anyone but him." One of my responsibilities was for processing and storage of all cargo and passenger documentation. He told me that he would let me know what he needed at a later date. I passed this info on to my people that worked the night shift. That night an Army investigator from Criminal Investigations Division, CID, came to the records section and demanded these records. He threatened to put our personnel in jail for obstructing an investigation, etc. The shift supervisor refused to give him the records, and eventually he went away.

Update, Nov. 10, 2012: The master sergeant I reported to briefed me that Japanese customs officials had been alerted by passenger reservations personnel that the couriers could not be found for the human remains shipment and that this was highly unusual. I have tried to locate the above master sergeant but have been unable to find him, nor have I found a record of his death.

Master Sergeant Sutherland (this was an alias) was apprehended in Hawaii a few days later, and was charged with several offenses. He was tried in a federal court in Washington, DC, and one of our captains testified at the trial. The OSI agent in Okinawa came to me before the trial and signed for all related documentation (orders, aircraft manifest, etc.). He sent this via US registered mail, signature service required, to the federal prosecutor in Washington.

Update, Nov. 10, 2012: Again, the name was "Southerland." I have discovered that this name was not an alias, but was this person's name of record. According to Time Magazine article, Jan. 1, 1973, Southerland was apprehended at Andrews A.F.B., Md. Terminal Reservations personnel told me that Southerland had flown from Kadena A.B., Japan, to Hickam A.F.B., Hawaii, on his orders that had "variations authorized" typed in them. This meant that he could change his destination and take a military flight to any location. When a military person varies their destination through Passenger Terminal Reservations and flies on their orders and not a Military Transportation Authorization, my office would not have had a copy of the orders. The orders would have been retained and filed at Reservations, so I did not see these orders. Southerland maintains that he was traveling on falsified leave orders, but this was not what I was told. The prosecutor, Michael Marr, referred to travel orders in this case and not leave orders and the difference is important. Leave orders would not have linked him as a courier for human remains but official travel orders would have. My understanding was that he was traveling on orders issued by the 5th Army Field Hospital in Thailand, but I cannot state that as a fact.

The evidence never got to the court. I know this because I was concerned that the records needed to be returned to the files, and I inquired about them about once a week. The OSI agent eventually told me that the records had disappeared and signed a statement that the documentation was missing and could not be returned. I put this in the files. He also told me that Sutherland was convicted of only one charge--unauthorized wear of a US military uniform. None of the other charges were proven because of lack of evidence. He also told me that Sutherland was not his real name, and that he and the major with him had never been in the Army.

Update, Nov. 10, 2012: As before, Southerland was the spelling of the name, and the rank given as major was a captain. Apparently Southerland was charged with more than one offense having to do with illegal travel on military aircraft and illegal wear of a military uniform. I found no evidence that he was charged with any offense having to do with drugs or smuggling drugs using bodies.

I knew this OSI agent because I had researched several other cases of drug smuggling on military aircraft. I usually did not ask him questions which I thought he was not at liberty to answer. He always told me everything that I needed to know to research illegal activities. Most of the cases were relatively small-time drug smuggling. This case was something that was way over-the-top. All of us that knew the enormity of this case were flabbergasted. The forged documentation was flawless and had to have been done by experts in the air transportation field. Also, our people who saw the two impostors said that their uniforms and ID cards were perfect.

Further, when we talked about this, we were astounded with the enormity of this operation. The mortuary in Vietnam had to have put the heroin in the bodies, and the one at Travis Air Force Base, California had to remove the heroin, and it had to be distributed, ID cards had to be obtained, orders had to be made, etc. This was no smalltime operation.

Update, Nov. 10, 2012: One of the lingering questions is where these bodies came from, and what port was their destination? I assumed that the bodies had to have originated at either Da Nang Air Base, South Vietnam, or Ton Son Nhut Air Base because these were the only mortuaries in Vietnam at the time. I have discovered, however, that the 5th Army Field Hospital near Bangkok, Thailand, was taking over the handling of Vietnam fatalities because the two in-county mortuaries were closing. It is possible that the bodies came from there. Prosecutor Michael Marr stated to the press that Southerland was wearing Army medical insignia on his uniform. If true, this leads one to seriously question how this could simply be a coincidence. I also assumed that Travis Air Force Base, CA, was the port of debarkation because it had the only military mortuary on the West Coast. This, however, might not have been the case.

I never forgot this event and it changed the way I looked at things from that time on. I recall hearing Maxine Waters, Congresswoman from California, talk about the FBI dumping enormous quantities of heroin in the inner-cities to destroy the social fabric of black communities. I also think about the fact that about one-third of African American males have criminal records and cannot vote in many states. And then there was Iran-Contra that involved cocaine smuggling. I wonder about the so-called "War on Drugs." Maybe it is really a war against African Americans. I also notice that Afghanistan has a bumper crop of opium, and I wonder if that might have had something to do with our invasion and the Northern Alliance taking over much of the country. Finally, I have never been stationed on an Air Base that I didn't suspect was being used for drug smuggling.

Update, Nov. 10, 2012: In the years since writing this letter, I have found substantial evidence that the above suspicions are based in fact. As the late author Gary Webb explains in detail in his book Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Cocaine Explosion, there is much more to drug smuggling than what we are seeing in the news. There is also evidence that minorities are being targeted. For example, the mandatory jail sentences for crack cocaine, used mostly by African Americans, is in most localities about six times that of powder cocaine, mostly the choice of white Americans.

Bob Kirkconnell

How We Responded

Shortly after receiving it, I forwarded Bob's 2004 email to Mike Levine, a member of WantToKnow.info. Mike is a 25-year veteran of the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) turned best-selling author and journalist. For many years he has hosted the popular Expert Witness radio show on WBAI in New York. His articles and interviews on the drug war have also been published in numerous national newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and Esquire.

Upon receiving the forwarded email, Mike was most interested in Bob's account. As a top DEA agent, Mike was involved himself in a similar case. Here is a quote from Mike on his experience:

"The Chang Mai 'factory' that the CIA prevented me from destroying was the source of massive amounts of heroin being smuggled into the US in the bodies and body bags of GIs killed in Vietnam. Case after case was killed by CIA and State Department intervention, and there wasn't a thing we could do about it."

You can read more about this on our website at this link. Bob and Mike eventually had a deeply moving radio interview on New York's WBAI on June 21, 2004, titled "The Vietnam Body Bag Case." Mike later wrote me an email saying: "The show on the body bag case was very emotional to both of us. We were both loyal servicemen whose notions of [our government's integrity] were crushed ... and the show is the very first time real witnesses to those horrific events came together to compare notes. Anyone who hears the show will most certainly be affected."

Additional Note by Bob Kirkconnell Written in November 2012

My recollection of this over 30 year old case is certainly not perfect. Facts, speculation, and rumor tend to merge over the years, and the human mind tends to fill in blank spots on its own in order to make sense of events that do not make sense.

I have thought about this a lot, and the above is true to the best of my knowledge. I am also positive that the above investigation did happen, and it was conducted by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations at Kadena AB, Japan, beginning in December, 1972. Further, the results of this investigation, to my knowledge, were not made public one way or the other as far as what was found or not found. Further, I am positive that evidence did disappear out of official channels.page 52 of the above book:

"Another former officer from the army's Criminal Investigation Division recalls a mammoth heroin scheme he and his colleagues uncovered by accident. He says he and four others from his unit were investigating corruption in the sale of supplies to commissioned- and noncommissioned-officers' clubs. The corrupt U.S. and Vietnamese officers they caught tried to bargain away jail terms by describing the heroin traffic involving Vietnamese politicians and senior U.S. officers. The reports checked out, the investigator says.

"The investigator, now a stockbroker, says that his investigation group filed reports to the Pentagon revealing that G.I. bodies being flown back to the United States were cut open, gutted, and filled with heroin. Witnesses were prepared to testify that the heroin-stuffed soldiers bore coded body numbers, allowing conspiring officers on the other end, at Norton Air Force Base in California, to remove the booty – up to fifty pounds of heroin per dead G.I.

"The Army acted on these reports – not by coming down on the dope traffickers, but by disbanding the investigative team and sending them to combat duty, the former investigator says. Other reports corroborate the use of G.I. bodies to ship dope back to the United States via military channels."

The late Jonathan Kwitny spent his entire life in the profession of journalism. As a Wall Street Journal editor, he was well aware of the need for validity of the story and also the reliability of sources. It is true that there has not been, to my knowledge, a prosecution of any case that involved drugs smuggled in the bodies of G.I.s, but the question remains; is that because these cases have been suppressed as above, or that it never happened? This question is still open.

Bob Kirkconnell, Nov. 10, 2012

Final Note

WantToKnow.info is getting the word out. We are in contact with dozens of deep insiders like Bob and Mike. Most choose to remain anonymous.We're helping them to further research their stories and to put them in contact with each other. Many thanks to both Bob and Mike for their courage in speaking openly about their important experiences. They are helping those with eyes to see in a big way to better understand all that is going on behind the scenes. And for a great book Bob wrote on the above event and much more, click here.

By educating ourselves and sharing this information widely with the help of email and the Internet, all of us can help to wake many people up. Please spread the word. Together, we are creating positive transformation in this world. Thanks for caring and for making a difference.

With very best wishes for a transformed world,
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Soldiers Have Used Drugs to Enhance Their Killing Capabilities in Basically Every War

In his new book 'Shooting Up,' the Polish historian Lukasz Kamienski traces the history of drugs in warfare, from the Viking berserkers to the Mumbai attacks.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
CIA, Heroin Still Rule Day in Afghanistan



Afghanistan now supplies over 90 percent of the world’s heroin, generating nearly $200 billion in revenue. Since the U.S. invasion on Oct. 7, 2001, opium output has increased 33-fold (to over 8,250 metric tons a year).

The U.S. has been in Afghanistan for over seven years, has spent $177 billion in that country alone, and has the most powerful and technologically advanced military on Earth. GPS tracking devices can locate any spot imaginable by simply pushing a few buttons.

Still, bumper crops keep flourishing year after year, even though heroin production is a laborious, intricate process. The poppies must be planted, grown and harvested; then after the morphine is extracted it has to be cooked, refined, packaged into bricks and transported from rural locales across national borders. To make heroin from morphine requires another 12-14 hours of laborious chemical reactions. Thousands of people are involved, yet—despite the massive resources at our disposal—heroin keeps flowing at record levels.

Common sense suggests that such prolific trade over an extended period of time is no accident, especially when the history of what has transpired in that region is considered. While the CIA ran its operations during the Vietnam War, the Golden Triangle supplied the world with most of its heroin. After that war ended in 1975, an intriguing event took place in 1979 when Zbigniew Brzezinski covertly manipulated the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan.





Behind the scenes, the CIA, along with Pakistan’s ISI, were secretly funding Afghanistan’s mujahideen to fight their Russian foes. Prior to this war, opium production in Afghanistan was minimal. But according to historian Alfred McCoy, an expert on the subject, a shift in focus took place. “Within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer.”

Soon, as Professor Michel Chossudovsky notes, “CIA assets again controlled the heroin trade. As the mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant poppies as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories.”

Eventually, the Soviet Union was defeated (their version of Vietnam), and ultimately lost the Cold War. The aftermath, however, proved to be an entirely new can of worms. During his research, McCoy discovered that “the CIA supported various Afghan drug lords, for instance Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The CIA did not handle heroin, but it did provide its drug lord allies with transport, arms, and political protection.”

By 1994, a new force emerged in the region—the Taliban—that took over the drug trade. Chossudovsky again discovered that “the Americans had secretly, and through the Pakistanis [specifically the ISI], supported the Taliban’s assumption of power.”

These strange bedfellows endured a rocky relationship until July 2000 when Taliban leaders banned the planting of poppies. This alarming development, along with other disagreements over proposed oil pipelines through Eurasia, posed a serious problem for power centers in the West. Without heroin money at their disposal, billions of dollars could not be funneled into various CIA black budget projects. Already sensing trouble in this volatile region, 18 influential neo-cons signed a letter in 1998 which became a blueprint for war—the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

Fifteen days after 9-11, CIA Director George Tenet sent his top-secret Special Operations Group (SOG) into Afghanistan. One of the biggest revelations in Tenet’s book, At the Center of the Storm, was that CIA forces directed the Afghanistan invasion, not the Pentagon.

In the Jan. 26, 2003, issue of Time magazine, Douglas Waller describes Donald Rumsfeld’s reaction to this development. “When aides told Rumsfeld that his Army Green Beret A-Teams couldn’t go into Afghanistan until the CIA contingent had lain the groundwork with

countbk.gif

local warlords, he erupted, ‘I have all these guys under arms, and we’ve got to wait like little birds in a nest for the CIA to let us go in?’”

ARMITAGE A MAJOR PLAYER

But the real operator in Afghanistan was Richard Armitage, a man whose legend includes being the biggest heroin trafficker in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War; director of the State Department’s Foreign Narcotics Control Office (a front for CIA drug dealing); head of the Far East Company (used to funnel drug money out of the Golden Triangle); a close liaison with Oliver North during the Iran-Contra cocaine-for-guns scandal; a primary Pentagon official in the terror and covert ops field under George Bush the Elder; one of the original signatories of the infamous PNAC document; and the man who helped CIA Director William Casey run weapons to the mujahideen during their war against the Soviet Union. Armitage was also stationed in Iran during the mid-1970s right before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah. Armitage may well be the greatest covert operator in U.S. history.

On Sept. 10, 2001, Armitage met with the UK’s national security advisor, Sir David Manning. Was Armitage “passing on specific intelligence information about the impending terrorist attacks”? The scenario is plausible because one day later—on 9-11—Dick Cheney directly called for Armitage’s presence down in his bunker. Immediately after WTC 2 was struck, Armitage told BBC Radio, “I was told to go to the operations center [where] I spent the rest of the day in the ops center with the vice president.”

These two share a long history together. Not only was Armitage employed by Cheney’s former company Halliburton (via Brown & Root), he was also a deputy when Cheney was secretary of defense under Bush the Elder. More importantly, Cheney and Armitage had joint business and consulting interests in the Central Asian pipeline which had been contracted by Unocal. The only problem standing between them and the Caspian Sea’s vast energy reserves was the Taliban.

Since the 1980s, Armitage amassed a huge roster of allies in Pakistan’s ISI. He was also one of the “Vulcans”—along with Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Rabbi Dov Zakheim—who coordinated Bush’s geo-strategic foreign policy initiatives. Then, after 9-11, he negotiated with the Pakistanis prior to our invasion of Afghanistan, while also becoming Bush’s deputy secretary of state stationed in Afghanistan.

Our “enemy,” or course, was the Taliban “terrorists.” But George Tenet, Colin Powell, Porter Goss, and Armitage had developed a close relationship with Pakistan’s military head of the ISI—General Mahmoud Ahmad— who was cited in a Sept. 2001 FBI report as “supporting and financing the alleged 9-11 terrorists, as well as having links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

The line between friend and foe gets even murkier. Afghan President Hamid Karzai not only collaborated with the Taliban, but he was also on Unocal’s payroll in the mid-1990s. He is also described by Saudi Arabia’s Al-Watan newspaper as being “a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the 1980s that collaborated with the CIA in funding U.S. aid to the Taliban.”

Capturing a new, abundant source for heroin was an integral part of the U.S. “war on terror.” Hamid Karzai is a puppet ruler of the CIA; Afghanistan is a full-fledged narco-state; and the poppies that flourish there have yet to be eradicated, as was proven in 2003 when the Bush administration refused to destroy the crops, despite having the chance to do so. Major drug dealers are rarely arrested, smugglers enjoy carte blanche immunity, and Nushin Arbabzadah, writing for The Guardian, theorized that “U.S. Army planes leave Afghanistan carrying coffins empty of bodies, but filled with drugs.” Is that why the military protested so vehemently when reporters tried to photograph returning caskets?

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
DRUGS AND COUNTER-REVOLUTION
'White lies' about the drug war in Colombia
By Deirdre Griswold


There is dramatic news on the drug front, but it's not exactly what the Pentagon wanted to see in print. The wife of the U.S. Army colonel in charge of the Pentagon's "war on drugs" in Colombia has been charged with shipping cocaine to the United States.

"Laurie Hiett, wife of Army Col. James Hiett, was charged in June with conspiracy to distribute narcotics after the U.S. Customs service found parcels containing cocaine ... that carried Mrs. Hiett's name," reported Associated Press military writer Robert Burns on Aug. 6.

Colonel Hiett worked out of the U.S. Embassy in Bogota and "was in charge of all U.S. military activities in Colombia, including counter-drug operations," Southern Command spokesperson Col. Ron Williams admitted to the reporter. The Hietts must have thought this made them untouchable.

A few years ago, Gen. Ramon Guillen Davila, "one of the CIA's most trusted sources in Venezuela," was charged in a sealed indictment with smuggling up to 22 tons of cocaine into the U.S., according to the Nov. 23, 1996, Miami Herald.

Tons? Yes, tons.

From Korea to Vietnam
to Colombia


The involvement of the CIA and other U.S. agencies in the drug trade has been detailed in many books and articles, including the recent "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn, "Dark Alliance" by Gary Webb, "The Politics of Heroin" by Alfred W. McCoy, and "Cocaine Politics" by Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall.

Those who remember the Vietnam War know that the CIA, with all its protective secrecy, became deeply involved in the heroin trade during that conflict, as detailed in the book "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia."

An informative piece in the Dec. 3, 1993, International Herald Tribune by Larry Collins, author of the book "Black Eagles" about the CIA, cocaine traffic and Central America said that "CIA ties to international drug trafficking date to the Korean War."

The agency gave weapons to warlords thrown out of revolutionary China in exchange for information about Chinese support for north Korea. "Soon intelligence began to flow to Washington from the area, which became known as the Golden Triangle. So, too, did heroin, en route to Southeast Asia and often to the United States."

The involvement of the CIA and the U.S. military in the drug trade was briefly in the spotlight again when the intricate plot by Col. Oliver North to finance the contras in Nicaragua through an arms trade with Iran made the news. North claimed not to know about the dirty dealings generated from his office in the basement of the Reagan White House, but it seems that plenty of people in Los Angeles knew that the cocaine flooding into their city was coming from the Nicaraguan contras, with CIA help.

It is well documented that the Taliban of Afghanistan have a multimillion-dollar opium and heroin operation. These thugs, who were nothing more than mercenaries for the feudal landlords uprooted by the Afghan Revolution, rose to power in a vicious war paid for by U.S. taxpayers and organized by the Pentagon.

The KLA paramilitary group that has just been installed by NATO decree as the civil authority in Kosovo is linked to organized crime and the drug trade in Western Europe. Evidence of the KLA-drug connection was presented at the July 31 Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia, held in New York.

McCaffrey and counter-revolution

Everywhere U.S. super-secret agencies have been involved in counter-revolution, it seems, they have also been involved in using drug trafficking to generate funds for their "assets"--and for themselves, too, on the side.

But Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey must think that the public's memory is short.

McCaffrey is director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and he has called for stepping up the "war on drugs" in Latin America.

The general--whose appointment in 1996 was a major stride in militarizing what is basically a public health problem--has requested another $1 billion to stop the advances of the revolutionary guerrilla army in Colombia, whom he calls "narco-terrorists." This money will go for special forces--highly trained killers--and more high-tech planes and helicopters.

Meanwhile, drug treatment facilities here--the most economical and effective way to deal with addiction--are going begging for funds.

McCaffrey may not know much about public health, but he knows what war and counter-revolution are all about. He's a veteran of Vietnam. He also commanded a division in "Operation Desert Storm." He was commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command from February 1994 until Clinton named him "drug czar" two years later.

McCaffrey calls the revolutionaries in Colombia "narco-terrorists." This is the phrase Washington has invented for the popular revolutionary army that has been fighting against the Colombian ruling class for the last 30 years.

The "war on drugs" that the U.S. government has launched against the revolutionary movement in Colombia is bound to fail. It will not reduce drug addiction in the United States and it will not turn back the international drug trade. In fact, stopping the flow of drugs to the U.S. has nothing to do with this war.

The "drug war" is nothing but a cover for an all-out military attempt to keep Colombia and neighboring countries in Latin America in the orbit of U.S. transnational corporations. This means propping up a corrupt and brutal ruling class there--that is, the same social grouping that owes much of its wealth to the cocaine trade.

Progressives have argued for decades that the drug trade is a product of capitalism. It is nothing more than an extreme form of profiteering--one that ranks along with arms sales, prostitution and slavery in directly profiting off of human misery and degradation.

It attracts capital the way any for-profit business does--by promising a generous return on the investment.

The profits grow directly with the risks involved--so criminalizing and even militarizing the problem just make the trade more lucrative. Prohibition in the same way led to the growth of organized crime and vast fortunes for the most successful bootleggers. The Kennedy millions originated in the illegal liquor trade.

Narcotics have grown into a huge industry that relies not only on the desperado characters portrayed in movies but, even more importantly, on the prosaic administrators and managers of "legal" businesses like banks and brokerage houses. They launder the hundreds of billions that are made in drug profits.

Banks and money laundering

Back on Oct. 5, 1989, a New York Times report on the testimony of Assistant Treasury Secretary Salvatore R. Martoche to the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations said the Bush administration official admitted that U.S. banks were laundering the enormous sum of $110 billion a year in drug money.

Just this July 27, the New York Times referred to an ongoing investigation of Citibank's "private banking" practices. You won't find the word "drugs" or even "controlled substances" in the article, which lumps together private accounts the bank has set up for a number of wealthy people. But in at least one of the cases mentioned--an offshore account Citibank set up for Raul Salinas--the laundering of drug money is what it's all about.

A report posted last Oct. 30 (titled GAO/OSI-99-1) on the web site of the General Accounting Office goes into quite a bit of detail on Citibank's relations with Salinas, brother of the former president of Mexico--who got elected with U.S. support and then returned the favor for U.S. big business by signing the NAFTA trade agreement.

Any worker who has ever tried to open a checking account with the bank will be shocked at the special treatment accorded Salinas. At a time when he was in prison on a murder charge, Citibank opened an account for him in the name of his fiancé. It accepted a double-endorsed check that wasn't even made out to her real name.

Had the check been for $100, the bank would have told her to take a hike. But the checks she used to open the account added up to $100 million. So she got special treatment--from Citibank's offices in Mexico City, New York, Zurich and London--and was able to open an offshore account in the Cayman Islands.

The GAO report on this matter refers to other cases of bank money laundering. In a 1994 case against two employees of American Express Bank, the largest monetary penalty ever imposed--$35 million--was levied against the bank.

Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. The truth is that with an industry as large as drugs, all kinds of financial institutions are part of the profit-making network.

Special Agent Harold D. Wankel of the Drug Enforcement Administration told the House Banking and Financial Committee on Feb. 28, 1996, that "Drug trafficking is a multibillion-dollar cash business, and drug money is essential to these enterprises. Without it, they cannot finance the manufacturing, the transportation and the smuggling, the distribution, the murder and the intimidation that are essential to their illegal trade. Drug money laundering organizations are established to ensure the cash flow to these illegal businesses.

"Profits from the sale of illegal drugs are recycled through laundered investments, which take place across many borders--and often involve international financial institutions--banks and money exchange houses. With today's sophisticated banking techniques, including the electronic transfer of money, once the money enters into the banking system, it can be transferred among dozens of banks within a 24-hour period, making the paper trail either impossible or extremely time-consuming to follow. Globalization of the drug trade has necessitated an expansion and sophistication of the laundering of illegal drug profits."

But you'll never see SWAT teams breaking into the offices of these white-collar dope pushers and slamming them against the wall on the nightly news. That kind of treatment is reserved for the street dealers who take all the risks and get peanuts compared to the big criminals.

Demonization of FARC

The U.S. government has tried to portray the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP) as "narco-guerrillas" because, it says, there are coca-growing peasants living in the areas controlled by the rebel force, and they are "taxed" by the guerrillas.

These peasants, like poor farmers everywhere, get very little for what they grow. They are not the kingpins of the drug industry.

The FARC is a Marxist organization that intends to completely revamp Colombian society along socialist lines. The real drug lords fear this most of all, because they know that when the economy is socially owned and producing to satisfy people's needs, not to generate a profit for private owners, then they will be washed up.

Just look at Russia today for proof of this statement. When the Soviet Union existed, there was virtually no drug problem there. Now that capitalism has been restored, organized crime, drug addiction, violence and prostitution are rampant and Russian mobsters have become part of an international underworld.

China, too, needed a revolution to get rid of the opium habit that had been forced on it by the British during the Opium Wars.

The answer to the drug problem is not McCaffrey's war in Latin America. It is victory for progressive movements like the FARC that are fighting to overturn capitalism's poisonous influence on human society. And that goes for here, too.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
War on drugs: Calculating the damage from a century of drug prohibition



For more than a century, the U.S. has worked through the U.N. (and its predecessor, the League of Nations) to build a harsh global drug prohibition regime — grounded in draconian laws, enforced by pervasive policing, and punished with mass incarceration. For the past half-century, the U.S. has also waged its own “war on drugs” that has complicated its foreign policy, compromised its electoral democracy, and contributed to social inequality. Perhaps the time has finally come to assess the damage that drug war has caused and consider alternatives.


Even though I first made my mark with a 1972 book that the CIA tried to suppress on the heroin trade in Southeast Asia, it’s taken me most of my life to grasp all the complex ways this country’s drug war, from Afghanistan to Colombia, the Mexican border to inner-city Chicago, has shaped American society. Last summer, a French director doing a documentary interviewed me for seven hours about the history of illicit narcotics. As we moved from the seventeenth century to the present and from Asia to America, I found myself trying to answer the same relentless question: What had 50 years of observation actually drilled into me, beyond some random facts, about the character of the illicit traffic in drugs.estimated that the transnational traffic, which supplied drugs to 4.2% of the world’s adult population, was a $400 billion industry, the equivalent of 8% of global trade.


In ways that few seem to understand, illicit drugs have had a profound influence on modern America, shaping our international politics, national elections, and domestic social relations. Yet a feeling that illicit drugs belong to a marginalized demimonde has made U.S. drug policy the sole property of law enforcement and not health care, education, or urban development.









During this process of reflection, I’ve returned to three conversations I had back in 1971 when I was a 26-year-old graduate student researching that first book of mine, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. In the course of an 18-month odyssey around the globe, I met three men, deeply involved in the drug wars, whose words I was then too young to fully absorb.


The first was Lucien Conein, a “legendary” CIA operative whose covert career ranged from parachuting into North Vietnam in 1945 to train communist guerrillas with Ho Chi Minh to organizing the CIA coup that killed South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963. In the course of our interview at his modest home near CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, he laid out just how the Agency’s operatives, like so many Corsican gangsters, practiced the “clandestine arts” of conducting complex operations beyond the bounds of civil society and how such “arts” were, in fact, the heart and soul of both covert operations and the drug trade.


Second came Colonel Roger Trinquier, whose life in a French drug netherworld extended from commanding paratroopers in the opium-growing highlands of Vietnam during the First Indochina War of the early 1950s to serving as deputy to General Jacques Massu in his campaign of murder and torture in the Battle of Algiers in 1957. During an interview in his elegant Paris apartment, Trinquier explained how he helped fund his own paratroop operations through Indochina’s illicit opium traffic. Emerging from that interview, I felt almost overwhelmed by the aura of Nietzschean omnipotence that Trinquier had clearly gained from his many years in this shadowy realm of drugs and death.


My last mentor on the subject of drugs was Tom Tripodi, a covert operativewho had trained Cuban exiles in Florida for the CIA’s 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion and then, in the late 1970s, penetrated mafia networks in Sicily for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. In 1971, he appeared at my front door in New Haven, Connecticut, identified himself as a senior agent for the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Narcotics, and insisted that the Bureau was worried about my future book. Rather tentatively, I showed him just a few draft pages of my manuscript for The Politics of Heroin and he promptly offered to help me make it as accurate as possible. During later visits, I would hand him chapters and he would sit in a rocking chair, shirt sleeves rolled up, revolver in his shoulder holster, scribbling corrections and telling remarkable stories about the drug trade — like the time his Bureau found that French intelligence was protecting the Corsican syndicates smuggling heroin into New York City. Far more important, though, through him I grasped how ad hoc alliances between criminal traffickers and the CIA regularly helped both the Agency and the drug trade prosper.


Looking back, I can now see how those veteran operatives were each describing to me a clandestine political domain, a covert netherworld in which government agents, military men, and drug traders were freed from the shackles of civil society and empowered to form secret armies, overthrow governments, and even, perhaps, kill a foreign president.


At its core, this netherworld was then and remains today an invisible political realm inhabited by criminal actors and practitioners of Conein’s “clandestine arts.” Offering some sense of the scale of this social milieu, in 1997 the United Nations reported that transnational crime syndicates had 3.3 million members worldwide who trafficked in drugs, arms, humans, and endangered species. Meanwhile, during the Cold War, all the major powers — Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States — deployed expanded clandestine services worldwide, making covert operations a central facet of geopolitical power. The end of the Cold War has in no way changed this reality.


For over a century now, states and empires have used their expanding powers for moral prohibition campaigns that have periodically transformed alcohol, gambling, tobacco, and, above all, drugs into an illicit commerce that generates sufficient cash to sustain covert netherworlds.


Drugs and U.S. Foreign Policy


The influence of illicit drugs on U.S. foreign policy was evident between 1979 and 2019 in the abysmal failure of its never-ending wars in Afghanistan. Over a period of 40 years, two U.S. interventions there fostered all the conditions for just such a covert netherworld. While mobilizing Islamic fundamentalists to fight the Soviet occupation of that country in the 1980s, the CIA tolerated opium trafficking by its Afghan mujahedeen allies, while arming them for a guerrilla war that would ravage the countryside, destroying conventional agriculture and herding.


In the decade after superpower intervention ended in 1989, a devastating civil war and then Taliban rule only increased the country’s dependence upon drugs, raising opium production from 250 tons in 1979 to 4,600 tons by 1999. This 20-fold increase transformed Afghanistan from a diverse agricultural economy into a country with the world’s first opium monocrop — that is, a land thoroughly dependent on illicit drugs for exports, employment, and taxes. Demonstrating that dependence, in 2000 when the Taliban banned opium in a bid for diplomatic recognition and cut production to just 185 tons, the rural economy imploded and their regime collapsed as the first U.S. bombs fell in October 2001.


To say the least, the U.S. invasion and occupation of 2001-2002 failed to effectively deal with the drug situation in the country. As a start, to capture the Taliban-controlled capital, Kabul, the CIA had mobilized Northern Alliance leaders who had long dominated the drug trade in northeast Afghanistan, as well as Pashtun warlords active as drug smugglers in the southeastern part of the country. In the process, they created a post-war politics ideal for the expansion of opium cultivation.


Even though output surged in the first three years of the U.S. occupation, Washington remained uninterested, resisting anything that might weaken military operations against the Taliban guerrillas. Testifying to this policy’s failure, the U.N.’s Afghanistan Opium Survey 2007 reported that the harvest that year reached a record 8,200 tons, generating 53% of the country’s gross domestic product, while accounting for 93% of the world’s illicit narcotics supply.




When a single commodity represents over half of a nation’s economy, everyone — officials, rebels, merchants, and traffickers — is directly or indirectly implicated. In 2016, the New York Times reported that both Taliban rebels and provincial officials opposing them were locked in a struggle for control of the lucrative drug traffic in Helmand Province, the source of nearly half the country’s opium. A year later, the harvest reached a record 9,000 tons, which, according to the U.S. command, provided 60% of the Taliban’s funding. Desperate to cut that funding, American commanders dispatched F-22 fighters and B-52 bombers to destroy the insurgency’s heroin laboratories in Helmand — doing inconsequential damage to a handful of crude labs and revealing the impotence of even the most powerful weaponry against the social power of the covert drug netherworld.

With unchecked opium production sustaining Taliban resistance for the past 17 years and capable of doing so for another 17, the only U.S. exit strategy now seems to be restoring those rebels to power in a coalition government — a policy tantamount to conceding defeat in its longest military intervention and least successful drug war.


High Priests of Prohibition


For the past half-century, the ever-failing U.S. drug war has found a compliant handmaiden at the U.N., whose dubious role when it comes to drug policy stands in stark contrast to its positive work on issues like climate change and peace-keeping.


In 1997, the director of U.N. drug control, Dr. Pino Arlacchi, proclaimed a 10-year program to eradicate all illicit opium and coca cultivation from the face of the planet, starting in Afghanistan. A decade later, his successor, Antonio Maria Costa, glossing over that failure, announced in the U.N.’s World Drug Report 2007 that “drug control is working and the world drug problem is being contained.” While U.N. leaders were making such grandiloquent promises about drug prohibition, the world’s illicit opium production was, in fact, rising 10-fold from just 1,200 tons in 1971, the year the U.S. drug war officially started, to a record 10,500 tons by 2017.


This gap between triumphal rhetoric and dismal reality cries out for an explanation. That 10-fold increase in illicit opium supply is the result of a market dynamic I’ve termed “the stimulus of prohibition.” At the most basic level, prohibition is the necessary precondition for the global narcotics trade, creating both local drug lords and transnational syndicates that control this vast commerce. Prohibition, of course, guarantees the existence and well-being of such criminal syndicates which, to evade interdiction, constantly shift and build up their smuggling routes, hierarchies, and mechanisms, encouraging a worldwide proliferation of trafficking and consumption, while ensuring that the drug netherworld will only grow.


In seeking to prohibit addictive drugs, U.S. and U.N. drug warriors act as if mobilizing for forceful repression could actually reduce drug trafficking, thanks to the imagined inelasticity of, or limits on, the global narcotics supply. In practice, however, when suppression reduces the opium supply from one area (Burma or Thailand), the global price just rises, spurring traders and growers to sell off stocks, old growers to plant more, and new areas (Colombia) to enter production. In addition, such repression usually only increases consumption. If drug seizures, for instance, raise the street price, then addicted consumers will maintain their habit by cutting other expenses (food, rent) or raising their income by dealing drugs to new users and so expanding the trade.


Instead of reducing the traffic, the drug war has actually helped stimulate that 10-fold increase in global opium production and a parallel surge in U.S. heroin users from just 68,000 in 1970 to 886,000 in 2017.


By attacking supply and failing to treat demand, the U.N.-U.S. drug war has been pursuing a “solution” to drugs that defies the immutable law of supply and demand. As a result, Washington’s drug war has, in the past 50 years, gone from defeat to debacle.


The Domestic Influence of Illicit Drugs


That drug war has, however, incredible staying power. It has persisted despite decades of failure because of an underlying partisan logic. In 1973, while President Richard Nixon was still fighting his drug war in Turkey and Thailand, New York’s Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller, enacted the notorious “Rockefeller Drug Laws.” Those included mandatory penalties of 15 years to life for the possession of just four ounces of narcotics.


As the police swept inner-city streets for low-level offenders, annual prison sentences in New York State for drug crimes surged from only 470 in 1970 to a peak of 8,500 in 1999, with African-Americans representing 90% of those incarcerated. By then, New York’s state prisons held a previously unimaginable 73,000 people. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, dusted off Rockefeller’s anti-drug campaign for intensified domestic enforcement, calling for a “national crusade” against drugs and winning draconian federal penalties for personal drug use and small-scale dealing.


For the previous 50 years, the U.S. prison population had remained remarkably stable at just 110 prisoners per 100,000 people. The new drug war, however, doubled those prisoners from 370,000 in 1981 to 713,000 in 1989. Driven by Reagan-era drug laws and parallel state legislation, prison inmates soared to 2.3 million by 2008, raising the country’s incarceration rate to an extraordinary 751 prisoners per 100,000 population. And 51% of those in federal penitentiaries were there for drug offenses.


Such mass incarceration has led as well to significant disenfranchisement, starting a trend that would, by 2012, deny the vote to nearly six million people, including 8% of all African-American voting-age adults, a liberal constituency that had gone overwhelmingly Democratic for more than half a century. In addition, this carceral regime concentrated its prison populations, including guards and other prison workers, in conservative rural districts of the country, creating something akin to latter-day “rotten boroughs” for the Republican Party.


Take, for example, New York’s 21st Congressional District, which covers the Adirondacks and the state’s heavily forested northern panhandle. It’s home to 14 state prisons, including some 16,000 inmates, 5,000 employees, and their 8,000 family members — making them collectively the district’s largest employer and a defining political presence. Add in the 13,000 or so troops in nearby Fort Drum and you have a reliably conservative bloc of 26,000 voters (and 16,000 non-voters), or the largest political force in a district where only 240,000 residents actually vote. Not surprisingly, the incumbent Republican congresswoman survived the 2018 blue wave to win handily with 56% of the vote. (So never say that the drug war had no effect.)


So successful were Reagan Republicans in framing this partisan drug policy as a moral imperative that two of his liberal Democratic successors, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, avoided any serious reform of it. Instead of systemic change, Obama offered clemency to about 1,700 convicts, an insignificant handful among the hundreds of thousands still locked up for non-violent drug offenses.


While partisan paralysis at the federal level has blocked change, the separate states, forced to bear the rising costs of incarceration, have slowly begun reducing prison populations. In a November 2018 ballot measure, for instance, Florida — where the 2000 presidential election was decided by just 537 ballots — voted to restore electoral rights to the state’s 1.4 million felons, including 400,000 African-Americans. No sooner did that plebiscite pass, however, than Florida’s Republican legislators desperately tried to claw backthat defeat by requiring that the same felons pay fines and court costs before returning to the electoral rolls.


Not only does the drug war influence U.S. politics in all sorts of negative ways but it has reshaped American society — and not for the better, either. The surprising role of illicit drug distribution in ordering life inside some of the country’s major cities has been illuminated in a careful study by a University of Chicago researcher who gained access to the financial records of a drug gang inside Chicago’s impoverished Southside housingprojects. He found that, in 2005, the Black Gangster Disciple Nation, known as GD, had about 120 bosses who employed 5,300 young men, largely as street dealers, and had another 20,000 members aspiring to those very jobs. While the boss of each of the gang’s hundred crews earned about $100,000 annually, his three officers made just $7.00 an hour, his 50 street dealers only $3.30 an hour, and their hundreds of other members served as unpaid apprentices, vying for entry-level slots when street dealers were killed, a fate which one in four regularly suffered.


So what does all this mean? In an impoverished inner city with very limited job opportunities, this drug gang provided high-mortality employment on a par with the minimum wage (then $5.15 a hour) that their peers in more affluent neighborhoods earned from much safer work at McDonald’s. Moreover, with some 25,000 members in Southside Chicago, GD was providing social order for young men in the volatile 16-to-30 age cohort — minimizing random violence, reducing petty crime, and helping Chicago maintain its gloss as a world-class business center. Until there is sufficient education and employment in the nation’s cities, the illicit drug market will continue to fill the void with work that carries a high cost in violence, addiction, imprisonment, and more generally blighted lives.


The End of Drug Prohibition


As the global prohibition effort enters its second century, we are witnessing two countervailing trends. The very idea of a prohibition regime has reached a crescendo of dead-end violence not just in Afghanistan but recently in Southeast Asia, demonstrating the failure of the drug war’s repression strategy. In 2003, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra launched a campaign against methamphetamine abuse that prompted his police to carry out 2,275 extrajudicial killings in just three months. Carrying that coercive logic to its ultimate conclusion, on his first day as Philippine president in 2016, Rodrigo Duterte ordered an attack on drug trafficking that has since yielded 1.3 million surrenders by dealers and users, 86,000 arrests, and some 20,000 bodies dumped on city streets across the country. Yet drug use remains deeply rooted in the slums of both Bangkok and Manila.


On the other side of history’s ledger, the harm-reduction movement led by medical practitioners and community activists worldwide is slowly working to unravel the global prohibition regime. With a 1996 ballot measure, California voters, for instance, started a trend by legalizing medical marijuana sales. By 2018, Oklahoma had become the 30th state to legalize medical cannabis. Following initiatives by Colorado and Washington in 2012, eight more states to date have decriminalized the recreational use of cannabis, long the most widespread of all illicit drugs.


Hit by a surge of heroin abuse during the 1980s, Portugal’s government first reacted with repression that, as everywhere else on the planet, did little to stanch rising drug abuse, crime, and infection. Gradually, a network of medical professionals across the country adopted harm-reduction measures that would provide a striking record of proven success. After two decades of this ad hoc trial, in 2001 Portugal decriminalized the possession of all illegal drugs, replacing incarceration with counseling and producing a sustained drop in HIV and hepatitis infections.


Projecting this experience into the future, it seems likely that harm-reduction measures will be adopted progressively at local and national levels around the globe, while various endless and unsuccessful wars on drugs are curtailed or abandoned. Perhaps someday a caucus of Republican legislators in some oak-paneled Washington conference room and a choir of U.N. bureaucrats in their glass-towered Vienna headquarters will remain the only apostles preaching the discredited gospel of drug prohibition.


Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and most recently In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books).


Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The U.S. Won't Legalize Marijuana in 2019. Here's Why.
Canada may have gone green, but there are plenty of reasons to believe the U.S. isn't following suit this year.



The legal cannabis industry had itself a year to remember in 2018. Although marijuana stockswere a mixed bag, the weed industry gained validation like never before following the legalization of recreational marijuana in Canada. Rolling out the red carpet for cannabis will mean billions of dollars in added annual revenue, and it demonstrates that the cannabis industry is in no danger of disappearing.

There was plenty to cheer about in the United States, too. President Trump signed the Farm Bill into law in December, giving the green light to hemp and hemp-based cannabidiol, while the Food and Drug Administration approved its very first cannabis-derived drug, and a handful of states legalized cannabis in some capacity. Today, roughly two-thirds of U.S. states have legalized medical marijuana, with 10 also allowing adult-use pot.

image

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

Calls for cannabis reform in the U.S. pick up steam
Despite all of this progress, marijuana remains a Schedule I drug at the federal level. That means it's wholly illegal, defined as being prone to abuse, and not recognized as having any medical benefits. The big question is, when does this classification change?

On the surface, there appears to be a ton of momentum behind reform at the federal level. An October 2018 survey from Gallup found that two out of three adults now favor legalizing weed nationally, up from just 33% as recently as 2005. In fact, a half-dozen major polls conducted since January 2018 have found overwhelming support for reforming the current cannabis policy.

State-level legalizations have also put the infrastructure in place in numerous states that would allow a seamless transition between an illicit and legal environment. A handful of states have been retailing adult-use cannabis for multiple years (e.g., Washington and Colorado), with more than half of all states having had medical marijuana legal for at least two years. Reform at the federal level wouldn't require a lot of effort from most states to amend their infrastructure.

In addition, online publication Marijuana Moment reported this past Tuesday that the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), foresees reform coming sooner rather than later. Said Nadley, "Let me just observe on your time that we may be discussing that [cannabis reform] fairly soon."

image

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

Marijuana legalization is highly unlikely this year
So is this the year that we finally see the veil of prohibition lifted on the U.S. pot industry? The honest answer is that it's unlikely.


1. Congress isn't currently friendly toward reform
First, consider the current make-up of our government. Although Democrats recently won back a majority in the House for the first time in eight years, the Senate and presidency are still controlled by Republicans. That's meaningful for one reason: Republicans have historically had a more negative view of cannabis than people who identify as Democrats or independents.

Even with Gallup finding in its October survey that 53% of self-identified Republicans favored legalization, that's still well below the percentage of folks who identify as Democrat (75%) or independent (71%) and support legalization. That suggests that Republicans may shun any attempts at federal reform, even if a Democratic-backed bill passes the House. With the GOP laser-focused on border reform, a federal cannabis bill doesn't look to have a good shot at passing in 2019.

image

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

2. Marijuana isn't a polarizing enough issue to make a difference... yet
The second issue is that even though support for marijuana has steadily improved over the past two decades, its relevance in Washington hasn't budged much.

For example, the independent Quinnipiac University released a poll in April 2018 that, among other things, questioned respondents on their perception of cannabis. Here is what I believe is the most telling question asked by Quinnipiac:

"If you agreed with a political candidate on their issues, but not on the issue of legalizing marijuana, do you think you could still vote for that candidate or not?"

Essentially, this question gets to the heart of the issue of whether elected officials have to worry about their seat in Washington if they don't agree with the majority opinion of legalizing weed. Just 13% of respondents said "no" to the question, with 82% saying "yes." That means marijuana doesn't yet have enough sway on Capitol Hill to cause dissenting politicians from losing their elected seats in the House or Senate. That would have to change before there's any chance of cannabis reform at the federal level.

image

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.


3. It's a money issue
And, of course, you knew it would come down to money.

Since marijuana is a Schedule I substance, businesses selling cannabis in the U.S. are subject to Section 280E of the U.S. tax code. The gist of the code is that it disallows businesses selling a federally illicit substance, as defined by the Controlled Substances Act, from taking normal corporate income tax deductions, save for costs of goods sold. Unfortunately, costs of goods sold typically represents a small percentage of revenue. This exposes profitable weed companies to effective corporate rates that could be as high as 90%.

If cannabis were reformed at the federal level, either through a rescheduling or removal from the controlled-substances list, it would no longer expose pot-based businesses to Section 280E. That would be excellent news for investors and the businesses themselves, but it would lead to less tax revenue for the federal government -- an estimated $5 billion reduction over a 10-year period. Adding a federal excise tax may not be the answer, either. Californians are already paying up to a 45% in-state tax on retail marijuana sales, and pushing a federal excise tax on top of that could further drive consumers to the black market.

image

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

Keep your eyes on the global prize
In short, legalization doesn't look to be on the table in 2019 -- but it is possible that 2020 may be the year, especially considering it'll be an election year for the presidency. For investors, that means focusing your attention on marijuana stocks that have global appeal, rather than just appeal within a single market.

A perfect example is KushCo Holdings (NASDAQOTH:KSHB), a company most investors know best for its packaging and branding solutions. KushCo provides child- and tamper-resistant packaging for more than 5,000 marijuana growers worldwide, including businesses in legal U.S. states. Since federal, state, and local laws can differ, KushCo bears the burden of ensuring that packaging meets regulatory spec. As a branding company, it also works with growers to make their packaging unique so as to stand out in an increasingly crowded field.

KushCo also stands to benefit from its role as a supplier of hydrocarbon gases and solvents. The former is used in the production of cannabis oils, whereas the latter is crucial for cannabis concentrate production. These high-margin alternative consumption products are expected to come into focus worldwide, since they're considerably more resistant to pricing pressure than dried cannabis flower.

Investing in the marijuana space doesn't have to be an adventure if you focus on diversified business models like KushCo.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
See how they work?? They get the masses looking at the distractions and while the people get caught up in the fake bullshit, the money class is robbing the bank/market blind!!



3 U.S. Pot Stocks Wall Street Expects Will Double

These budding marijuana stocks may be bargains... or value traps.


Few industries have had investors seeing more green over the past couple of years than legal marijuana. According to the latest projections in "Marijuana Business Factbook 2019" from Marijuana Business Daily, legal aggregate U.S. weed sales should catapult from between $8.6 billion and $10 billion in 2018 to between $11.2 billion and $13.7 billion this year.

To put these figures into some perspective, Wall Street has opined that Canada will be generating between $5 billion and $6 billion in annual cannabis sales by 2022 when its pot industry begins to fully mature. That's potentially less than half of what the U.S. market will generate in 2019, despite the fact that only nine states currently allow recreational weed to be legally sold (adult-use marijuana is legal for consumption in Vermont, but not for sale). In terms of sheer potential, the U.S. is the crown jewel of the cannabis industry.

Perhaps, then, it's no surprise that Wall Street expects some of the biggest long-term marijuana stock gains to come from U.S.-based companies. As of early last week, there were three U.S.-headquartered pot stocks that Wall Street's consensus price target suggests will (at least) double.

image

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

KushCo Holdings
At its closing low last week, a share of Garden Grove, Calif.-based, KushCo Holdings(NASDAQOTH:KSHB) could be had for just $4.15, meaning its market cap had fallen below $370 million. Yet, according to Wall Street's consensus price target, ancillary player KushCo could be worth $8.40 per share, or nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in market cap.

KushCo has certainly had its fair share of problems of late. Having initially absorbed Chinese tariffs on its imported vape products, its gross margin has come in below the company's targeted level of 30% (or higher) for a couple of quarters. Additionally, accounting errors that led to restatements of its 2017 and 2018 operating results haven't exactly inspired confidence in management.

But the thing to remember about both of KushCo's problems is that neither have long-term legs. The company is correcting its margins weakness by passing along tariffs costs to consumers, and the accounting errors, which have led to tighter governance, didn't impact sales, cash on hand, or cash flow.

The reason I chose to add KushCo to my own portfolio in May has to do with its ability to hit multiple niches in the ancillary space. It's one of the most well-known providers of compliant packaging and branding solutions. Since the legality of cannabis can change by country, state, or jurisdiction, KushCo takes pains to ensure its more than 5,000 clients remain compliant, as well as help their products stand out in an increasingly crowded field.

KushCo also has a line of vape products that should be set for expansion in Canada by this coming October, which is when Health Canada is expected to legalize numerous alternative cannabis consumption options.

Lastly, the company is also in line to benefit as derivatives become more popular with the younger generation. As a provider of hydrocarbon gases and solvents for the respective production of oils and concentrates, KushCo finds itself as a critical middleman in a number of cannabis functions.

image

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

Trulieve Cannabis
At its trough last week, vertically integrated dispensary operator Trulieve Cannabis(NASDAQOTH:TCNNF), which is based in Quincy, Florida, ended at $10.34 a share, its lowest close in more than four months. But if Wall Street's consensus price target means anything, its share price is set to double to $20.78.

Whereas most U.S. dispensary stocks have been hemorrhaging cash as they expand their operations into new states, Trulieve has remained focused on its home market of Florida. The company ended its most recent quarter with 30 open retail stores, of which 28 of them were located in the Sunshine State. Because it's been busy building up its brand recognition close to home, it's been able to gobble up a majority of Florida's medical marijuana market share. As a result, Trulieve has been, and continues to be, highly profitable.

In the company's first-quarter operating report, it offered up guidance for 2019 and 2020. Sales this year are expected to more than double to a range of $220 million to $240 million, with up to $400 million in revenue projected for 2020. All the while, adjusted EBITDA in 2020 might be up to four times higher than it was in 2018.

This is also a company with aspirations of moving into additional states. Acquisitions in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut put it on pace to become a multistate player. It will, however, be a more drawn-out process establishing itself outside of its home market.

Even if expenditures rise a bit as the company looks to diversify its revenue stream geographically, the point is that no marijuana stock is cheaper on the basis of forward price-to-earnings than Trulieve Cannabis. That, along with its robust growth outlook, makes Wall Street's price target very achievable.

image

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

MedMen Enterprises
According to Wall Street, though, the biggest gain of all could be had by one of 2019's worst-performing pot stocks: Culver City, Calif.-based MedMen Enterprises (NASDAQOTH:MMNFF). After ending Wednesday at just $1.93 a share, the Street anticipates that MedMen could hit $6, more than tripling its current market cap of close to $950 million.

Wall Street's bullishness on MedMen likely revolves around its early success in launching its brand in California. The company's California retail dispensaries have been averaging sales per square foot that rival that of Apple stores, thereby proving that its upscale experience and efforts to normalize the cannabis-buying process are working.

MedMen is also in the process of acquiring privately held PharmaCann for $682 million in an all-stock deal. Once closed, the combined company will have nearly seven dozen retail licenses, with MedMen expected to make a sizable push into Florida's medical marijuana market and Illinois, now that it's on track to roll out recreational cannabis by this coming January.

But MedMen has something else that KushCo and Trulieve Cannabis don't: reasons to stay away. MedMen has been losing money hand over fist, with its latest quarterly report featuring a $53.3 million loss from operations. Over the last nine months, MedMen's operating loss has surpassed $178 million. Even with an infusion of cash from Gotham Green Partners, it's unclear if the company has enough capital on hand to execute on its long-term strategy.

We're also seeing significant slowing in organic sales growth in what should be MedMen's most impressive market. Sales growth in the company's existing California locations grew by a mere 5% from the sequential second quarter. As competition in the dispensary space has picked up, MedMen has been exposed for not being as much of a standout as Wall Street initially thought. This is one "bullish" case I'd suggest avoiding.



Here's The Marijuana Stock You've Been Waiting For
A little-known Canadian company just unlocked what some experts think could be the key to profiting off the coming marijuana boom.

And make no mistake – it is coming.

Cannabis legalization is sweeping over North America – 10 states plus Washington, D.C., have all legalized recreational marijuana over the last few years, and full legalization came to Canada in October 2018.

And one under-the-radar Canadian company is poised to explode from this coming marijuana revolution.

Because a game-changing deal just went down between the Ontario government and this powerhouse company...and you need to hear this story today if you have even considered investing in pot stocks.
 
Top