The Five Most Ruthless Police States in America

Gentlemen, it's become too easy to attach all kinds of illegal activities and murderous events to the CIA, who sure as hell can't and won't defend themselves from the thousands of allegations.

While the CIA has tons of intelligence officers spread across the globe, their prime effort is in obtaining intelligence.

From time to time, they'll hire independent contractors and their assets to expedite an effort. Just because the CIA used or hired an aircraft three times previously, doesn't automatically mean that when it was loaded with drugs, it was a CIA hire.

I saw an old C-47 at the Opa Locka airport that had been confiscated three times by the DEA for smuggling drugs, sold at auction three times, and had just be re-confiscated again for drug delivery.

I have a relative who ran guns to Castro in the early days before he went Commie. He wasn't paid by Castro, but had the aircraft in the area ready to go. He was hired.

I think we should blame the CIA for everything unlawful, every tragedy, every geophysical catastrophe, and every bad behavior in the world unless it can be proven that they weren't responsible.

This government shutdown? That's right! CIA operation!

Whoa! Double post!

Originally posted by bsbray11

Well, if one of the LAPD's own narcotics investigators and whistleblower doesn't count as any kind of evidence for you, then you're already biased beyond any hope of a rational analysis of the information.

Two things:

1) LAPD is not the CIA. Knowing how one operates doesn't give one automatic insight into the other, and

2) I've been lied to face to face by police investigators before, and they didn't bat an eye doing it. That doesn't mean they're all liars, it means that they get the same amount of caution and scrutiny as to their statements as anyone else. A competent one will have the evidence to back his statements up.

Now I suppose comes all the discrediting insults and insinuations of being a disgruntled employee, towards the guy you just learned about a few minutes ago.

Why? I don't know him. I have no idea whether he's "disgruntled" or not, I have no reason to either believe or disbelieve what he says on face value. I DO have reason to check into what he says, and verify it if it's possible to do so, though. I can't think of any reason I should insult the man, discredit him, or make insinuations against him. Do you know something about him I don't?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Of course it is. It's CIA SOP to make sure Angelinos always know what they're up to.

Who do you think they're selling all the drugs to, genius? Other cops?

Nope. Angelinos, apparently.

When was the last time you interacted with a CIA operative who told you who he was and what he was up to? Wouldn't that sort of negate the value of running a covert op? Logic can be your friend.

Why do you think there was a conference addressing allegations of CIA drug trafficking in the first place?

Because someone made an allegation, and it needed to be investigated? That's the general course of action when an allegation is made - not jumping to the conclusion that it's factual without an investigation. Were there any results of the investigation, or just a press conference that people tried to drown out so that the conclusion couldn't be heard?

Since the CIA never admitted it, I guess you just take their word for it?

I rarely just take anyone's word for anything, which is why this conversation is happening. That includes the CIA or individuals associated with it.

Edit to add: Since when is a "failure to admit" something giving one's word on it? Isn't that a LACK of words to take at face value? I've never admitted to stealing Obama's cuff links, either. Doesn't mean that I did it.

You know what, forget it. There are better things on ATS to argue about. Believe what you want. You will anyway.

That particular sword cuts in both directions, doesn't it? At least I'm willing to entertain the potential that what you say may be so, but I won't just blindly believe it with no evidence at all to back the contention up.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Is that what it's called; "blind belief"? You're just a fountain of useful information, aren't you? I didn't think I needed to prove what other folks have reported on ad nausea, with Hasenfus just tossed in because I recalled the name from 30 years ago.

Well of COURSE you don't need to prove anything! How silly of me! That's what blind belief is FOR, isn't it?

When it comes to the CIA, by the nature of their business we're not really allowed to see their evidence, so we must take them at their word. I call that blind faith, but that's just me.

Wait... what? I was told just a little while ago that evidence for these allegations is all over the place! NOW you're telling me there's no evidence, and I just need to believe because someone says so? How would that be different from blindly believing what the CIA says?

In all honesty, anyone who would make that allegation really ought to be prepared to defend it. In the same way, if the CIA makes an allegation, they'd better be able to defend THAT. Works both ways, y'know?

WHAT criminals? It is YOU who are making the claims of criminal activity, i.e. drug smuggling - which you have spectacularly failed to prove. I've made no claims of criminal activity, so that's not a claim I need to support. YOU, on the other hand....

Well, since we're talking about Iran-Contra, how about Oliver North, Eliott Abrams and John Poindexter for a start?

Are you saying those three smuggled drugs, too, or are you accusing them of some other crime? I'm sure there must be a Police State linkage in there SOMEWHERE...

We can move onto the official criminals who have been using the US military to act as the enforcers for Multinational Corporate interests, something you would term "national interests" no doubt.

We can if you like. Are you prepared to name names and levy charges for criminal behavior? Don't forget the evidence... that's what really kind of makes the case...

We can move on to WMDs and Obama not prosecuting Bush, but I think you get the picture. Do you need a link, or will that do?

Well, yeah, we can go there, too. Just make up your mind what direction you want to take from here.

I think you may never know.

The more I know the less I know, you know?

Well yeah, I can agree with that. It applies to most all of us, myself included.

reply to post by nenothtu


What, are we infants?

I say the Intelligence services are involved in drug running and you want me to prove it? And this after chiding me for posting something off my own topic? Please.

In 1998 the CIA finally admitted to its involvement in drug trafficking in the United States after years of federal investigation by the Kerry Congressional Committee. What the CIA admitted to was allowing coc aine trafficking to take place by Contras who were being supported by the CIA, using facilities and resources supplied by the US government, and preventing investigation into these activities by other agencies. This was done because funds for the support of militant groups in South America had been withdrawn by Congress so the CIA allowed the Contras to engage in the drug trade in the United States in order to make money to fund their military operations. If you are wondering why this was not covered more widely in the news during the Clinton Administration it may be because Arkansas was one of the major trafficking centers for the operations.

rationalrevolution.net...

An August, 1996, series in the San Jose Mercury News by reporter Gary Webb linked the origins of crack coc aine in California to the contras, a guerrilla force backed by the Reagan administration that attacked Nicaragua's Sandinista government during the 1980s. Webb's series, "The Dark Alliance," has been the subject of intense media debate, and has focused attention on a foreign policy drug scandal that leaves many questions unanswered.

www.gwu.edu...

Why Arkansas's biggest mystery won't die. By Mara Leveritt, August 25, 1995 A recent spate of activity is bringing Mena's little mountain airport near the Arkansas-Oklahoma border back into the limelight. This has happened repeatedly since 1982, when Louisiana police notified officials in Arkansas that one of the country's most wanted drug runners was moving his headquarters to Mena. First there was the investigation, the expectation of indictments--and, to the amazement of many, the inaction. The plot thickened in 1986, when discovery of the Iran-Contra affair also revealed shadowy connections between Oliver North's gun-running operation to the Nicaraguan Contras and what appeared to be government-protected drug activity taking place at Mena.

www.idfiles.com...

More on Mena:
old.disinfo.com...


Why don't you start a thread about how cool the CIA is and there you can prove to me and the world just how above board and honest they are and how they're NOT involved in drug running? Maybe then you can and will get over yourself.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by nenothtu

 

What, are we infants?

I suspect one of us is. He seems to be unable to even type without spraying flecks of drool.

I say the Intelligence services are involved in drug running and you want me to prove it? And this after chiding me for posting something off my own topic? Please.

Yes. Offering supporting evidence is the generally accepted mode of supporting an allegation one makes.

In 1998 the CIA finally admitted to its involvement in drug trafficking in the United States after years of federal investigation by the Kerry Congressional Committee. What the CIA admitted to was allowing coc aine trafficking to take place by Contras who were being supported by the CIA, using facilities and resources supplied by the US government, and preventing investigation into these activities by other agencies. This was done because funds for the support of militant groups in South America had been withdrawn by Congress so the CIA allowed the Contras to engage in the drug trade in the United States in order to make money to fund their military operations. If you are wondering why this was not covered more widely in the news during the Clinton Administration it may be because Arkansas was one of the major trafficking centers for the operations.

rationalrevolution.net...

NOW we're getting somewhere! You have offered some supporting evidence! Bravo!

There are some glaring holes in that report, but I'm not prepare to discount the entire premise based upon those alone. I did try to retrieve the primary documents from a link there, and it sent me to a "redirect" page, so I'll have to keep searching. With any luck, I'll have them by morning.

An August, 1996, series in the San Jose Mercury News by reporter Gary Webb linked the origins of crack coc aine in California to the contras, a guerrilla force backed by the Reagan administration that attacked Nicaragua's Sandinista government during the 1980s. Webb's series, "The Dark Alliance," has been the subject of intense media debate, and has focused attention on a foreign policy drug scandal that leaves many questions unanswered.

www.gwu.edu...

Why Arkansas's biggest mystery won't die. By Mara Leveritt, August 25, 1995 A recent spate of activity is bringing Mena's little mountain airport near the Arkansas-Oklahoma border back into the limelight. This has happened repeatedly since 1982, when Louisiana police notified officials in Arkansas that one of the country's most wanted drug runners was moving his headquarters to Mena. First there was the investigation, the expectation of indictments--and, to the amazement of many, the inaction. The plot thickened in 1986, when discovery of the Iran-Contra affair also revealed shadowy connections between Oliver North's gun-running operation to the Nicaraguan Contras and what appeared to be government-protected drug activity taking place at Mena.

www.idfiles.com...

More on Mena:
old.disinfo.com...

I haven't gotten to these yet, but I will, after exhausting the first one above.

Why don't you start a thread about how cool the CIA is and there you can prove to me and the world just how above board and honest they are and how they're NOT involved in drug running?

Why would I do that? Have I said somewhere that the CIA is "above board and honest"? I retract it if I did, because I don't believe that. What I DO believe is that if one is to levy accusations against any one or any thing, he'd best have his ducks in a row. Otherwise, he runs the risk of being caught out in a spurious accusation (much like the CIA itself has done more than once) and then anything he says from that point forward is suspect, and easier to discount. It's the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. After a while of listening to BS, folks tend not to hear any more, they tune it out. In other words, people who are prone to that sort of thing hurt their own cases in case they happen to actually stumble across anything that IS real.

No one listens any more, because of what they've had to sit through before. In other words, if your going to make an accusation, it better count. Look what happened when the CIA didn't verify their information vis-a-vis the Iraq WMD debacle.

Maybe then you can and will get over yourself.

One of us needs to.

Originally posted by nenothtu

I suspect one of us is. He seems to be unable to even type without spraying flecks of drool.

Chiding me for an off topic comment, and then claiming false ignorance and and then demanding evidence for something like the Iran Contra scandal is insulting to one's intelligence, while your childishness is simply boorish.

NOW we're getting somewhere! You have offered some supporting evidence! Bravo!

Feel free to start a thread to discuss the CIA's drug running and the veracity of my so called "allegations" and whether they meet your requirements for evidence.

To avoid my being berated by another blowhard, please stick to the topic.

I didn't realize we had so many people here ready to defend the behavior of the CIA. Seems pretty odd for a conspiracy theory forum, that people would appear be so ignorant of the CIA's habit of breaking various laws, huh?

Apparently they have to be spoon-fed anything that tarnishes the image of the CIA, one painful bite at a time, or else they have no interest in even hearing about it.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by nenothtu

I suspect one of us is. He seems to be unable to even type without spraying flecks of drool.

Chiding me for an off topic comment,

Well, yeah, it WAS off topic. Hasenfus, or even the entire Iran-Contra debacle really has nothing to do with police states in the US.

and then claiming false ignorance

Say what?

and and then demanding evidence for something like the Iran Contra scandal

I never demanded evidence for the Iran Contra scandal. That is pretty well documented. I demanded evidence for your allegations that the CIA was America's premier drug runner. To claim otherwise is deflective and disingenuous.

is insulting to one's intelligence, while your childishness is simply boorish.

If demanding evidence for claims made rather than just blindly believing them with a child-like faith is childish, then I stand guilty as accused. If failure to be able to provide such evidence is "insulting to one's intelligence"... well, perhaps one should not make such bold accusations unprepared.

NOW we're getting somewhere! You have offered some supporting evidence! Bravo!

Feel free to start a thread to discuss the CIA's drug running and the veracity of my so called "allegations" and whether they meet your requirements for evidence.

I might. Will you show up to throw in your two cents worth?

To avoid my being berated by another blowhard,

I've been called worse by better.

please stick to the topic.

See, if you'd done that to begin with, we wouldn't be here now. But I agree, it would be much better to regain the topic. If I find anything worthy of mention in the documentation, I'll be sure to start that thread and send you an invite via U2U.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I didn't realize we had so many people here ready to defend the behavior of the CIA. Seems pretty odd for a conspiracy theory forum, that people would appear be so ignorant of the CIA's habit of breaking various laws, huh?

And I didn't realize that one of me constituted "so many". It's not really odd for someone on a conspiracy forum to call out a propaganda campaign when they see one. Some of them are pretty easy to spot. They start with wild accusations, and then end with them, too, with no supporting evidence in between.

As far as the CIA breaking laws goes, I thought that was more or less common knowledge. You muddy the waters when you accuse them of breaking laws they haven't broken, and assist them in obscuring the ones they have by submerging them in those muddy waters.

This is why it's so important to have one's facts straight.

Apparently they have to be spoon-fed anything that tarnishes the image of the CIA, one painful bite at a time, or else they have no interest in even hearing about it.

I can't think of ANY alphabet agencies who need any assistance in tarnishing their images. They generally do a heck of job of that, all on their own... until someone starts muddying those waters to conceal their real misdeeds, that is...

NOW back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Originally posted by nenothtu
And I didn't realize that one of me constituted "so many".

Don't give yourself so much credit. Between you, the first poster on the top of this page, and whoever keeps starring your posts, that's at least 3 people apparently sympathetic to the CIA.

It's not really odd for someone on a conspiracy forum to call out a propaganda campaign when they see one.

The problem is that you're delusional if you think I'm part of some propaganda campaign. Actually I would sooner think you were paid to post here on the CIA's behalf, because it's ridiculous to even think I would be here to propagandize against the CIA. They do that well enough themselves.

Have you done any more research into the CIA plane that crashed with 4 tons of coke (not an isolated case by any means -- Clinton was even implicated in a scandal related to one of these planes flying in drugs, though I suppose you'll lob an insult there too since I didn't do the Google search for you), or any of the stuff Mike Ruppert was talking about, or are you content living in blissful ignorance until force-fed otherwise?

reply to post by bsbray11

Don't give yourself so much credit. Between you, the first poster on the top of this page, and whoever keeps starring your posts, that's at least 3 people apparently sympathetic to the CIA.

ATS is pretty mainstream after all. Perception management is the name of the game.

reply to post by Yankee451


So what else have you learned about the CIA planes bringing over drugs, or Mike Ruppert's case against the CIA?

You been doing any more research or are you waiting on someone else to post it for you? Or do you really even care?

reply to post by bsbray11


Actually, I do care, but the thread police are smacking down on any conversations that head off on a tangent.

I don't know how the drug war and all things related doesn't pertain to the American Police state, what with the high incarceration rates of drug offenders in the corporate for profit prison system, but I guess that's off topic. For the record, I'm not in the mood to prove any of these "allegations", so for anyone lurking, I'm just thinking out loud on digital paper.

To me the drug war and all the other endless laws to break smacks of capitalists doing what they do best; creating markets and providing supply and demand at the same time.

I know some about the Mena Arkansas deal, and I know some of Mike Ruppert's work from Crossing the Rubicon, but I don't know what he wrote about the CIA's smuggling. If I missed the link earlier, please post it again.

reply to post by Yankee451


My bad, I should have paid more attention to your avatar.

I posted the video earlier for someone else but here it is again:





That's Mike Ruppert confronting the CIA and a Congresswoman at a public conference called due to the allegations.


Here's part one of an eleven-part video on the same subject, also featuring Mike Ruppert:

reply to post by bsbray11


Man, you gotta admire Mike Ruppert...

What do people expect to happen when you've got Intelligence services immune to investigation thanks to the "national security" brick wall?

The spooks can justify any illegal behavior by claiming "national security"...they are the marketing branch for the MilitaryIndustrialCongressional complex.

This just reinforces my belief that the criminally insane go into government...folks who really want to make a difference won't try to do so from within a criminal organization.