Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
For the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug
ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of
Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to an arm of
the contra guerrillas of Nicaragua run by the Central Intelligence
Agency, the San Jose Mercury News has found.
The army's financiers - who met with CIA agents before and
during the time they were selling the drugs in L.A. - delivered
cut-rate cocaine to the gangs through a young South-Central
crack dealer named Ricky Donnell Ross.
Unaware of his suppliers' military and political connections,
"Freeway Rick" turned the cocaine powder into crack and
wholesaled it to gangs across the country.
Court records show the cash was then used to buy equipment for
a guerrilla army named the Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguense
(Nicaraguan Democratic Force) or FDN, the largest of several
anti-communist groups commonly called the contras.
And the L.A. gangs, which used their enormous cocaine profits
to arm themselves and spread crack across the country, are still
thriving.
"There is a saying that the ends justify the means," former FDN
leader and drug dealer Oscar Danilo Blandon Reyes testified
during a recent cocaine-trafficking trial in San Diego. "And
that's what Mr. Bermudez (the CIA agent who commanded the
FDN) told us in Honduras, OK? So we started raising money for
the contra revolution."
Shortly before Blandon - who had been the drug ring's Southern
California distributor - took the stand in San Diego as a witness
for the U.S. Department of Justice, federal prosecutors obtained
a court order preventing defense lawyers from delving into his
ties to the CIA.
Meneses - who ran the drug ring from his homes in the Bay Area
- is listed in the DEA's computers as a major international drug
smuggler and was implicated in 45 separate federal
investigations. Yet he and his cocaine-dealing relatives lived
quite openly in the Bay Area for years, buying homes, bars,
restaurants, car lots and factories.
The money was returned, court records show, after two contra
leaders sent letters to the court swearing that the drug dealer had
been given the cash to buy weapons for guerrillas.
After Nicaraguan police arrested Meneses on cocaine charges in
Managua in 1991, his judge expressed astonishment that the
infamous smuggler went unmolested by American drug agents
during his years in the United States.
On Oct. 27, 1986, agents from the FBI, the IRS, local police and
the Los Angeles County sheriff fanned out across Southern
California and raided more than a dozen locations connected to
Blandon's cocaine operation. Blandon and his wife, along with
numerous Nicaraguan associates, were arrested on drug and
weapons charges.
The search-warrant affidavit reveals that local drug agents knew
plenty about Blandon's involvement with cocaine and the CIA's
army nearly 10 years ago.
Blandon has also implied that his cocaine sales were, for a time,
CIA-approved. He told a San Francisco federal grand jury in
1994 that once the FDN began receiving American taxpayer
dollars, the CIA no longer needed his kind of help.
by Gary Webb
by Gary Webb
Federal lawmen will tell you plenty about Rick Ross, mostly
about the evils he visited upon black neighborhoods by
spreading the crack plague in Los Angeles and cities as far east
as Cincinnati. Tomorrow, they hope, Freeway Rick will be
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
But those same officials won't say a word about the two men
who turned Rick Ross into L.A.'s first king of crack, the men
who, for at least five years, supplied him with enough
Colombian cocaine to help spawn crack markets in major cities
nationwide. Their critical role in the country's crack explosion
has been a strictly guarded secret.
But the rallies and cocktail parties the exiles hosted raised little
money. "At this point, he became committed to raising money
for humanitarian and political reasons via illegal activity
(cocaine trafficking for profit)," said a heavily censored parole
report, which surfaced during the March trial.
Blandon said his college chum, who also was working in the
resistance movement, dispatched him to Los Angeles
International Airport to pick up another exile, Juan Norwin
Meneses Cantarero. Though their families were related, Blandon
said, he'd never met Meneses until that day.
"I picked him up, and he started telling me that we had to (raise)
some money and to send to Honduras," Blandon testified. He
said he flew with Meneses to a camp there and met one of his
new companion's old friends, Col. Enrique Bermudez.
Emergence of crack
Blandon told the DEA last year that he was selling Ross up to
100 kilos of cocaine a week, which was then "rocked up" and
distributed "to the major gangs in the area, specifically the Crips
and the Bloods," the DEA report said.
"He was one of the main distributors down here," said former
Los Angeles Police Department narcotics detective Steve Polak,
who was part of the Freeway Rick Task Force, which was set up
in 1987 to put Ross out of business. "And his poison, there's no
telling how many tens of thousands of people he touched. He's
responsible for a major cancer that still hasn't stopped
spreading."
But Ross is the first to admit that being in the right place at the
right time had almost nothing to do with his amazing success.
Other L.A. dealers, he noted, were selling crack long before he
started.
But Freeway Rick had no idea just how "plugged" his erudite
cocaine broker was. He didn't know about Meneses, or the CIA,
or the Salvadoran air-force planes that allegedly were flying the
cocaine into an air base in Texas.
by Gary Webb
When San Francisco Bay Area dealers tried recreating the drug
they'd seen in South America, Siegel learned, they'd screwed up.
"They were wowed by it," Siegel said. "They thought they were
smoking BASE. They were not. They were smoking something
nobody on the planet had ever smoked before."
"We were able to show to our satisfaction that they were directly
responsible for distributing the habit throughout the United
States," Siegel said.
by Gary Webb
For the past 1 1/2 years, the U.S. Department of Justice has
been trying to explain why nearly everyone convicted in
California's federal courts of "crack" cocaine trafficking is black.
But why - of all the ethnic and racial groups in California to pick
from - crack planted its deadly roots in L.A.'s black
neighborhoods is something Oscar Danilo Blandon Reyes may
be able to answer.
"No, it's not him," Blandon insisted. "These . . . these are the
black people."
"I called it cooling out, trying to back away from the game,"
Ross said. "I had enough money."
But unlike before, when he was selling cocaine for the contras,
Blandon was constantly dogged by the police.
Soon after that, Blandon and his wife, Chepita, were arrested by
DEA agents on charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. They
were jailed without bond as dangers to the community, and
several other Nicaraguans also were arrested.
Less than a year later, records show, O'Neale was back with
another idea: Why not just let Blandon go? After all, he wrote
the judge, Blandon had a federal job waiting.
Records show Ross was still behind bars, awaiting parole, when
San Diego DEA agents targeted him.
Soon after Ross went to prison for the Cincinnati bust, federal
prosecutors offered him a deal. His term would be shortened by
five years in return for testimony in a federal case against Los
Angeles County Sheriff's detectives that included members of
the old Freeway Rick Task Force.
Ross jumped into a friend's pickup and zoomed off "looking for
a wall that I could crash myself into," he said. "I just wanted to
die." He was captured after the truck careened into a hedgerow.
He has been held in jail without bond since then.
by Gary Webb
Even though crack and powder cocaine are the same drug, you
have to sell more than six pounds of powder before you face the
same jail time as someone who sells one ounce of crack - a 100-
to-1 ratio.
That logic has eluded Dr. Robert Byck, a Yale University drug
expert, from the moment he discovered the 100-to-1 ratio may
have been his inadvertent doing.
Oct. 3, 1996
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
LOS ANGELES - During the early 1980s, federal and local
narcotics agents knew that a massive drug ring operated by
Nicaraguan contra rebels was selling large amounts of cocaine
"mainly to blacks living in the South Central Los Angeles area,"
according to a search-warrant affidavit obtained by the San Jose
Mercury News.
In its printed version, as the paper's editor has pointed out, the
stories were careful never to claim that the Central Intelligence
Agency condoned or abetted drug dealing to support the contras.
Reporter Gary Webb has said that his research into the CIA-
crack connection "ended at the CIA's door," but did not firmly
establish a link between the agency and the crack epidemic of
the 1980s.
by Associated Press
"I believe that we fell short at every step of our process - in the
writing, editing and production of our work. Several people here
share that burden," he wrote.
"We have learned from the experience and even are changing the
way we handle major investigations."
The series, written by reporter Gary Webb, reported that a San
Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold cocaine in South Central Los
Angeles, then funneled profits to the contras for the better part
of a decade.
The series traced the drugs to dealers Danilo Blandon and Ricky
Ross, leaders of a CIA-run guerrilla army in Nicaragua.
The investigations never found that the CIA had any link to drug
dealing. Several newspapers also disputed the Mercury News
report.
Ceppos wrote that while the newspaper did not report the CIA
knew about the drug operations, it implied CIA knowledge.
"Although members of the drug ring met with contra leaders
paid by the CIA and Webb believes the relationship with the CIA
was a tight one, I feel that we did not have proof that top CIA
officials knew of the relationship," he wrote. "I believe that part
of our contract with readers is to be as clear about what we don't
know as what we do know.
"We also did not include CIA comment about our findings, and I
think we should have."
The editor also said the series reported the profit figures from
the drug sales as fact when they were estimates, and unfairly
suggested the drugs funneled to Los Angeles played a critical
role in the crack problem in urban America.
by Thomas Farragher
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
Ceppos also said the newspaper "did not have proof that top CIA
officials knew of the relationship" of the drug ring and contra
leaders.
from
http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/garywebb/garyWebbSpea
ks.htm:
by Charles Overbeck
Matrix Editor
easterisle@aol.com
Gary Webb: I look like an idiot up here with all these mikes,
the CIA agents are probably behind one or the other... [laughter
from the audience]. It's really nice to be in Eugene -- I've been in
Madison, Wisconsin talking about this, I've been in Berkeley,
I've been in Santa Monica, and these are sort of like islands of
sanity in this world today, so it's great to be on one of those
islands.
One of the things that is weird about this whole thing, though, is
that I've been a daily news reporter for about twenty years, and
I've done probably a thousand interviews with people, and the
strangest thing is being on the other side of the table now and
having reporters ask me questions. One of them asked me about
a week ago -- I was on a radio show -- and the host asked me,
"Why did you get into newspaper reporting, of all the media?
Why did you pick newspapers?" And I really had to admit that I
was stumped. Because I thought about it -- I'd been doing
newspaper reporting since I was fourteen or fifteen years old --
and I really didn't have an answer.
I said, "Apologize for what?" And she said, "Well, the girls were
very offended." And I said, "Well, I'm not apologizing because
they don't want my opinion. You'll have to come up with a better
reason than that." And they said, "Well, if you don't apologize,
we're not going to let you in Quill & Scroll," which is the high
school journalism society. And I said, "Well, I don't want to be
in that organization if I have to apologize to get into it." [More
laughter from the audience, scattered applause.]
They were sort of powerless at that point, and they said, "Look,
why don't you just come down and the cheerleaders are going to
come in, and they want to talk to you and tell you what they
think," and I said okay. So I went down to the newspaper office,
and there were about fifteen of them sitting around this table,
and they all went around one by one telling me what a scumbag
I was, and what a terrible guy I was, and how I'd ruined their
dates, ruined their complexions, and all sorts of things...
[Laughter and groans from the audience.] ...and at that moment,
I decided, "Man, this is what I want to do for a living." [Roar of
laughter from the audience.] And I wish I could say that it was
because I was infused with this sense of the First Amendment,
and thinking great thoughts about John Peter Zenger and I.F.
Stone... but what I was really thinking was, "Man, this is a great
way to meet women!" [More laughter.]
And that's a true story, but the reason I tell you that is because
it's often those kinds of weird motivations and unthinking
consequences that lead us to do things, that lead us to events that
we have absolutely no concept how they're going to turn out.
Little did I know that twenty-five years later, I'd be writing a
story about the CIA's wrongdoings because I wanted to meet
women by writing editorials about cheerleaders.
But that's really the way life and that's really the way history
works a lot of times. You know, when you think back on your
own lives, from the vantage point of time, you can see it. I
mean, think back to the decisions you've made in your lifetimes
that brought you to where you are tonight, think about how close
you came to never meeting your wife or your husband, how
easily you could have been doing something else for a living if it
hadn't been for a decision that you made or someone made that
you had absolutely no control over. And it's really kind of scary
when you think about how capricious life is sometimes. That's a
theme I try to bring to my book, Dark Alliance, which was about
the crack cocaine explosion in the 1980s.
So for the record, let me just say this right now. I do not believe
-- and I have never believed -- that the crack cocaine explosion
was a conscious CIA conspiracy, or anybody's conspiracy, to
decimate black America. I've never believed that South Central
Los Angeles was targeted by the U.S. government to become the
crack capitol of the world. But that isn't to say that the CIA's
hands or the U.S. government's hands are clean in this matter.
Actually, far from it. After spending three years of my life
looking into this, I am more convinced than ever that the U.S.
government's responsibility for the drug problems in South
Central Los Angeles and other inner cities is greater than I ever
wrote in the newspaper.
Many years ago, there was a great series on PBS -- I don't know
how many of you are old enough to remember this -- it was
called Connections. And it was by a British historian named
James Burke. If you don't remember it, it was a marvelous show,
very influential on me. And he would take a seemingly
inconsequential event in history, and follow it through the ages
to see what it spawned as a result. The one show I remember the
most clearly was the one he did on how the scarcity of firewood
in thirteenth-century Europe led to the development of the steam
engine. And you would think, "Well, these things aren't
connected at all," and he would show very convincingly that
they were.
In 1979 and 1980, the CIA secretly began visiting these groups
that were setting up here in the United States, supplying them
with a little bit of money, and telling them to hold on, wait for a
little while, don't give up. And Ronald Reagan came to town.
And Reagan had a very different outlook on Central America
than Carter did. Reagan saw what happened in Nicaragua not as
a populist uprising, as most of the rest of the world did. He saw
it as this band of communists down there, there was going to be
another Fidel Castro, and he was going to have another Cuba in
his backyard. Which fit in very well with the CIA's thinking. So,
the CIA under Reagan got it together, and they said, "We're
going to help these guys out." They authorized $19 million to
fund a covert war to destabilize the government in Nicaragua
and help get their old buddies back in power.
Soon after the CIA took over this operation, these two drug
traffickers, who had come from Nicaragua and settled in
California, were called down to Honduras. And they met with a
CIA agent named Enrique Bermúdez, who was one of Somoza's
military officials, and the man the CIA picked to run this new
organization they were forming. And both traffickers had said --
one of them said, the other one wrote, and it's never been
contradicted -- that when they met with the CIA agent, he told
them, "We need money for this operation. Your guy's job is to go
to California and raise money, and not to worry about how you
did it. And what he said was -- and I think this had been used to
justify just about every crime against humanity that we've
known -- "the ends justify the means."
There was a CIA cable from I believe 1984, which called him
the "kingpin of narcotics trafficking" in Central America. He
was sort of like the Al Capone of Nicaragua. So after getting
these fundraising instructions from this CIA agent, these two
men go back to California, and they begin selling cocaine. This
time not exclusively for themselves -- this time in furtherance of
U.S. foreign policy. And they began selling it in Los Angeles,
and they began selling it in San Francisco.
And now they've got all this money, and they felt nervous. You
get $100,000 or $200,000 in cash in your house, and you start
getting kind of antsy about it. So now they wanted weapons to
guard their money with, and to guard their rock houses, which
other people were starting to knock off. And lo and behold, you
had weapons. The contras. They were selling weapons. They
were buying weapons. And they started selling weapons to the
gangs in Los Angeles. They started selling them AR-15s, they
started selling them Uzis, they started selling them Israeli-made
pistols with laser sights, just about anything. Because that was
part of the process here. They were not just drug dealers, they
were taking the drug money and buying weapons with it to send
down to Central America with the assistance of a great number
of spooky CIA folks, who were getting them [audio glitch --
"across the border"?] and that sort of thing, so they could get
weapons in and out of the country. So, not only does South
Central suddenly have a drug problem, they have a weapons
problem that they never had before. And you started seeing
things like drive-by shootings and gang bangers with Uzis.
Now, a lot of people disagreed with this scenario. The New York
Times, the LA Times and the Washington Post all came out and
said, oh, no, that's not so. They said this couldn't have happened
that way, because crack would have happened anyway. Which is
true, somewhat. As I pointed out in the first chapter of my book,
crack was on its way here. But whether it would have happened
the same way, whether it would have happened in South Central,
whether it would have happened in Los Angeles at all first, is a
very different story. If it had happened in Eugene, Oregon first,
it might not have gone anywhere. [Restless shuffling and the
sounds of throats being cleared among the audience.] No
offense, but you folks aren't exactly trend setters up here when it
comes to drug dealers and drug fads. LA is, however. [Soft
laughter and murmuring among the audience.]
You can play "what if" games all you like, but it doesn't change
the reality. And the reality is that this CIA-connected drug ring
played a very critical role in the early 1980s in opening up South
Central to a crack epidemic that was unmatched in its severity
and influence anywhere in the U.S.
One question that I ask people who say, "Oh, I don't believe
this," is, okay, tell me this: why did crack appear in black
neighborhoods first? Why did crack distribution networks
leapfrog from one black neighborhood to other black
neighborhoods and bypass white neighborhoods and bypass
Hispanic neighborhoods and Asian neighborhoods? Our
government and the mainstream media have given us varying
explanations for this phenomenon over the years, and they are
nice, comforting, general explanations which absolve anyone of
any responsibility for why crack is so ethnically specific. One of
the reasons we're told is that, well, it's poverty. As if the only
poor neighborhoods in this country were black neighborhoods.
And we're told it's high teenage unemployment; these kids gotta
have jobs. As if the hills and hollows of Appalachia don't have
teenage unemployment rates that are ten times higher than inner
city Los Angeles. And then we're told that it's loose family
structure -- you know, presuming that there are no white single
mothers out there trying to raise kids on low-paying jobs or
welfare and food stamps. And then we're told, well, it's because
crack is so cheap -- because it sells for a lower price in South
Central than it sells anywhere else. But twenty bucks is twenty
bucks, no matter where you go in the country.
Now, one thing I've learned about the drug business while
researching this is that in many ways it is the epitome of
capitalism. It is the purest form of capitalism. You have no
government regulation, a wide-open market, a buyer's market --
anything goes. But these things don't spring out of the ground
fully formed. It's like any business. It takes time to grow them. It
takes time to set up networks. So once these distribution
networks got set up and established in primarily South Central
Los Angeles, primarily black neighborhoods, they spread it
along ethnic and cultural lines. You had black dealers from LA
going to black neighborhoods in other cities, because they knew
people there, they had friends there, and that's why you saw
these networks pop up from one black neighborhood to another
black neighborhood.
Now, exactly the same thing happened on the east coast a couple
of years later. When crack first appeared on the east coast, it
appeared in Caribbean neighborhoods in Miami -- thanks largely
to the Jamaicans, who were using their drug profits to fund
political gains back home. It was almost the exact opposite of
what happened in LA in that the politics were the opposite -- but
it was the same phenomenon. And once the Miami market was
saturated, they moved to New York, they moved east, and they
started bringing crack from the east coast towards the middle of
the country.
"The CIA wants to know about drug trafficking, but only for
their own purposes, and not necessarily for the use of law
enforcement agencies. Torres told DEA Confidential Informant
1 that CIA representatives are aware of his drug-related
activities, and that they don't mind. He said they had gone so far
as to encourage cocaine trafficking by members of the contras,
because they know it's a good source of income. Some of this
money has gone into numbered accounts in Europe and Panama,
as does the money that goes to Managua from cocaine
trafficking. Torres told the informant about receiving
counterintelligence training from the CIA, and had avowed that
the CIA looks the other way and in essence allows them to
engage in narcotics trafficking."
This is a DEA report that was written in 1987, when this
operation was still going on. Another member of this
organization who was affiliated with the San Francisco end of it,
said that in 1985 -- and this was to the CIA -- "Cabezas claimed
that the contra cocaine operated with the knowledge of, and
under the supervision of, the CIA. Cabezas claimed that this
drug enterprise was run with the knowledge of CIA agent Ivan
Gómez."
So, the one thing that I've learned from this whole experience is,
first of all, you can't believe the government -- on anything. And
you especially can't believe them when they're talking about
important stuff, like this stuff. The other thing is that the media
will believe the government before they believe anything.
This has been the most amazing thing to me. You had a situation
where you had another newspaper who reported this
information. The major news organizations in this country went
to the CIA, they went to the Justice Department, and they said,
what about it? And they said, oh, no, it's not true. Take our word
for it. And they went back and put it in the newspaper! Now, I
try to imagine what would happen had reporters come back to
their editors and said, look, I know the CIA is involved in drug
trafficking. And I know the FBI knows about it, and I've got a
confidential source that's telling me that. Can I write a story
about that? What do you think the answer would have been?
[Murmurs of "no" from the audience.] Get back down to the obit
desk. Start cranking out those sports scores. But, if they go to
the government and the government denies something like that,
they'll put it in the paper with no corroboration whatsoever.
And it's only since the government has admitted it that now the
media is willing to consider that there might be a story here after
all. The New York Times, after the CIA report that came out, ran
a story on its front page saying, gosh, the contras were involved
in drugs after all, and gosh, the CIA knew about it.
And the other thing that came out just recently, which nobody
seems to know about, because it hasn't been reported -- the CIA
Inspector General went before Congress in March and testified
that yes, they knew about it. They found some documents that
indicated that they knew about it, yeah. I was there, and this was
funny to watch, because these Congressmen were up there, and
they were ready to hear the absolution, right? "We had no
evidence that this was going on..." And this guy sort of threw
'em a curve ball and admitted that it had happened.
One of the people said, well geez, what was the CIA's
responsibility when they found out about this? What were you
guys supposed to do? And the Inspector General sort of looked
around nervously, cleared his throat and said, "Well... that's kind
of an odd history there." And Norman Dix from Washington,
bless his heart, didn't let it go at that. He said, "Explain what you
mean by that?" And the Inspector General said, well, we were
looking around and we found this document, and according to
the document, we didn't have to report this to anybody. And they
said, "How come?" And the IG said, we don't know exactly, but
there was an agreement made in 1982 between Bill Casey -- a
fine American, as we all know [laughter from the audience] --
and William French Smith, who was then the Attorney General
of the United States. And they reached an agreement that said if
there is drug trafficking involved by CIA agents, we don't have
to tell the Justice Department. Honest to God. Honest to God.
Actually, this is now a public record, this document. Maxine
Waters just got copies of it, she's putting it on the Congressional
Record. It is now on the CIA's web site, if you care to journey
into that area. If you do, check out the CIA Web Site for Kids,
it's great, I love it. [Laugher from the audience.] I kid you not,
they've actually got a web page for kids.
The other thing about this agreement was, this wasn't just like a
thirty-day agreement -- this thing stayed in effect from 1982
until 1995. So all these years, these agencies had a gentleman's
agreement that if CIA assets or CIA agents were involved in
drug trafficking, it did not need to be reported to the Justice
Department.
That said, let me tell you, there are thousands of pages more that
we still don't know about. The CIA report that came out in
October was originally 600 pages; by the time we got ahold of
it, it was only 300 pages.
The interesting thing is, it was run by a CIA agent who had
participated in the contra war, and the reason it was classified is
because it is under investigation by the CIA. I doubt very
seriously that we'll ever hear another word about that.
But the one thing that we can do, and the one thing that Maxine
Waters is trying to do, is force the House Intelligence Committee
to hold hearings on this. This is supposed to be the oversight
committee of the CIA. They have held one hearing, and after
they found out there was this deal that they didn't have to report
drug trafficking, they all ran out of the room, they haven't
convened since.
[Robust applause.]
Question and Answer Session
I'll tell you another thing, one of the most amazing things I
found in the National Archives was a report that had been
written by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tampa -- I believe it was
1987. They had just busted a Colombian drug trafficker named
Allen Rudd, and they were using him as a cooperating witness.
Rudd agreed to go undercover and set up other drug traffickers,
and they were debriefing him.
Now, let me set the stage for you. When you are being debriefed
by the federal government for use as an informant, you're not
going to go in there and tell them crazy-sounding stories,
because they're not going to believe you, they're going to slap
you in jail, right? What Rudd told them was, that he was
involved in a meeting with Pablo Escobar, who was then the
head of the Medellín cartel. They were working out
arrangements to set up cocaine shipments into South Florida. He
said Escobar started ranting and raving about that damned
George Bush, and now he's got that South Florida Drug Task
Force set up which has really been making things difficult, and
the man's a traitor. And he used to deal with us, but now he
wants to be president and thinks that he's double-crossing us.
And Rudd said, well, what are you talking about? And Escobar
said, we made a deal with that guy, that we were going to ship
weapons to the contras, they were in there flying weapons down
to Columbia, we were unloading weapons, we were getting them
to the contras, and the deal was, we were supposed to get our
stuff to the United States without any problems. And that was
the deal that we made. And now he double-crossed us.
So the U.S. Attorney heard this, and he wrote this panicky memo
to Washington saying, you know, this man has been very reliable
so far, everything he's told us has checked out, and now he's
saying that the Vice President of the United States is involved
with drug traffickers. We might want to check this out. And it
went all the way up -- the funny thing about government
documents is, whenever it passes over somebody's desk, they
have to initial it. And this thing was like a ladder, it went all the
way up and all the way up, and it got up to the head of the
Criminal Division at the Justice Department, and he looked at it
and said, looks like a job for Lawrence Walsh! And so he sent it
over to Walsh, the Iran-contra prosecutor, and he said, here, you
take it, you deal with this. And Walsh's office -- I interviewed
Walsh, and he said, we didn't have the authority to deal with
that. We were looking at Ollie North. So I said, did anybody
investigate this? And the answer was, "no." And that thing sat in
the National Archives for ten years, nobody ever looked at it.
Audience Member #1: Well, first of all, I'd like to thank you for
pursuing this story, you have a lot of guts to do it.
Audience Member #1: Still, there's not too many guys like you
that are doing it.
So, I think they took the easy way out. The easy way out was not
to go ahead and do the story. It was to back off the story. But
they had a problem, because the story was true. And it isn't
every day that you're confronted with how to take a dive on a
true story.
The other reason was, you know, one of the things you learn
very quickly when you get into journalism is that there's safety
in numbers. Editors don't like being out there on a limb all by
themselves. I remember very clearly going to press conferences,
coming back, writing a story, sending it in, and my editor calling
up and saying, well gee, this isn't what AP wrote. Or, the
Chronicle just ran their story, and that's not what the Chronicle
wrote. And I'd say, "Fine. Good." And they said, no, we've got to
make it the same, we don't want to be different. We don't want
our story to be different from everybody else's.
And so what they were seeing at the Mercury was, the Big Three
newspapers were sitting on one side of the fence, and they were
out there by themselves, and that just panicked the hell out of
them. So, you have to understand newspaper mentality to
understand it a little bit, but it's not too hard to understand
cowardice, either. I think a lot of that was that they were just
scared as hell to go ahead with the story.
Audience Member #1: Were they able to look you in the eye,
and...
Gary Webb: No. They didn't, they just did this over the phone. I
went to Sacramento.
Audience Member #1: When did you find out about it, and
what did you...
Gary Webb: The question was, the editors are one thing, what
about the readers? Um... who cares about the readers? Honestly.
The reader's don't run the newspaper.
Gary Webb: Well, a number of them did, and believe me, the
newspaper office was flooded with calls and emails. And the
newspaper, to their credit, printed a bunch of them, calling it the
most cowardly thing they'd ever seen. But in the long run, the
readers, you know, don't run the place. And that's the thing about
newspaper markets these days. You folks really don't have any
choice! What else are you going to read? And the editors know
this.
I don't know how many of you remember this, but one night
Ronnie Reagan got on TV and held up a grainy picture, and said,
here's proof that the Sandanistas are dealing drugs. Look, here's
Pablo Escobar, and they're all loading cocaine into a plane, and
this was taken in Nicaragua. This was the eve of a vote on the
contra aid. That photograph was set up by Barry Seal. The plane
that was used was Seal's plane, and it was the same plane that
was shot down over Nicaragua a couple of years later that
Eugene Hasenfus was in, that broke open the whole Iran-contra
scandal.
Gary Webb: I think that George Bush's role in this whole thing
is one of the large unexplored areas of it.
Gary Webb: Well, you know, that whole South Florida Drug
Task Force was full of CIA operatives. Full of them. This was
supposed to be our vanguard in the war against cocaine cartels,
and if those Colombians are to be believed, this was the vehicle
that we were using to ship arms and allow cocaine into the
country, this Drug Task Force. Nobody's looked at that. But
there are lots of clues that there's a lot to be dug out.
Audience Member #3: Thank you, Gary. I lost my feature
columnist position at my college paper for writing a satire of
Christianity some years ago, and...
Audience Member #3: And I lost my job twice in the last five
years because of my activism in the community, but I got a job
[inaudible]. But my question is, I knew someone in the mid-'80s
who said that he was in the Navy, and that he had information
that the Navy was involved in delivering cocaine to this country.
Another kind of bombshell, I'd like to have you comment on it, I
saw a video some years ago that said the UFO research that's
being done down in the southwest is being funded by drug
money and cocaine dealings by the CIA, and that there are 25
top secret levels of government above the Top Secret category,
and that there are some levels that even the president doesn't
know about. So there's another topic for another book, I just
wanted to have you comment...
Gary Webb: The question is, how do you do a story like this,
essentially. Well, thing I've always found is, if you go knock on
somebody's door, they're a lot less apt to slam it in your face
than if you call them up on the telephone. So, the reason I went
down to Nicaragua was to go knock on doors. I didn't go down
there and just step off a plane -- I found a fellow down in
Nicaragua and we hired him as a stringer, a fellow named
George Hidell who is a marvelous investigative reporter, he
knew all sorts of government officials down there. And I speak
no Spanish, which was another handicap. George speaks like
four languages. So, you find people like that to help you out.
With these drug dealers, you know, it's amazing how willing
they are to talk. I did a series while I was in Kentucky on
organized crime in the coal industry. And it was about this mass
of stock swindlers who had looted Wall Street back in the '60s
and moved down to Kentucky in the '70s while the coal boom
was going on, during the energy shortage. The lesson I learned
in that thing -- I thought these guys would never talk to me, I
figured they'd be crazy to talk to a reporter about the scams they
were pulling. But they were happy to talk about it, they were
flattered that you would come to them and say, hey, tell me
about what you do. Tell me your greatest knock-off. Those guys
would go on forever! So, you know, everybody, no matter what
they do, they sort of have pride in their work... [Laughter from
the audience.] And, you know, I found that when you appeared
interested, they would be happy to tell you.
The people who lied to me, the people who slammed doors in
my face, were the DEA and the FBI. The DEA called me down
-- I wrote about this in the book -- they had a meeting, and they
were telling me that if I wrote this story, I was going to help
drug traffickers bring drugs into the country, and I was going to
get DEA agents killed, and this, that and the other thing, all of
which was utterly bullshit. So that's the thing -- just ask. There's
really no secret to it.
Audience Member #6: I'd like to ask a couple of questions very
quickly. The first one is, if you wouldn't mind being a reference
librarian for a moment -- there was the Golden Triangle. I was
just wondering if you've ever, in your curiosity about this,
touched on that -- the drug rings and the heroin trade out of
Southeast Asia. And the second one is about the fellow from the
Houston Chronicle, I don't remember his name right off, but you
know who I'm talking about, if you could just touch on that a
little bit...
Gary Webb: Yes. The first question was about whether I ever
touched on what was going on in the Golden Triangle.
Fortunately, I didn't have to -- there's a great book called The
Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, by Alfred McCoy, which is
sort of a classic in CIA drug trafficking lore. I don't think you
can get any better than that. That's a great reference in the
library, you can go check it out. McCoy was a professor at the
University of Wisconsin who went to Laos during the time that
the secret war in Laos was going on, and he wrote about how the
CIA was flying heroin out on Air America. That's the thing that
really surprised me about the reaction to my story was, it's not
like I invented this stuff. There's a long, long history of CIA
involvement in drug traffic which Cockburn gets into in
Whiteout.
And the second question was about Pete Brewton -- there was a
reporter in Houston for the Houston Post named Pete Brewton
who did the series -- I think it was '91 or '92 -- on the strange
connections between the S&L collapses, particularly in Texas,
and CIA agents. And his theory was that a lot of these collapses
were not mismanagement, they were intentional. These things
were looted, with the idea that a lot of the money was siphoned
off to fund covert operations overseas. And Brewton wrote this
series, and it was funny, because after all hell broke loose on my
story, I called him up, and he said, "Well, I was waiting for this
to happen to you." And I said, "Why?" And he said, "I was
exactly like you are. I'd been in this business for twenty years,
I'd won all sorts of awards, I'd lectured in college journalism
courses, and I wrote a series that had these three little letters C-I-
A in it. And suddenly I was unreliable, and I couldn't be trusted,
and Reed Irvine at Accuracy In Media was writing nasty things
about me, and my editor had lost confidence in me, so I quit the
business and went to law school."
Brewton wrote a book called George Bush, CIA and the Mafia.
It's hard to find, but it's worth looking up if you can find it. It's
all there, it's all documented. See, the difference between his
story and my story was, we put ours out on the web, and it got
out. Brewton's story is sort of confined to the printed page, and I
think the Washington Journalism Review actually wrote a story
about, how come nobody's writing about this, nobody's picking
up this story. Nobody touched this story, it just sort of died. And
the same thing would have happened with my series, had we not
had this amazing web page. Thank God we did, or this thing
would have just slipped underneath the waves, and nobody
would have ever heard about it.
Audience Member #7: I'm glad you're here. I guess the CIA,
there was something I read in the paper a couple of years ago,
that said the CIA is actually murdering people, and they
admitted it, they don't usually do that.
Gary Webb: It's a new burst of honesty from the new CIA.
Gary Webb: I guess the question is, what could you do to keep
from being hypnotized by the media message, specifically on the
Drug War? Is that what you're talking about?
What I'm seeing now is that a lot of people are finally waking up
to the idea that this "drug war" has been a fraud since the get-go.
My personal opinion is, I think the main purpose of this whole
drug war was to sort of erode civil liberties, very slowly and
very gradually, and sort of put us down into a police state.
[Robust burst of applause from the audience.] And we're pretty
close to that. I've got to hand it to them, they've done a good job.
We have no Fourth Amendment left anymore, we're all peeing in
cups, and we're all doing all sorts of things that our parents
probably would have marched in the streets about.
Gary Webb: Well, the question was, how can I say on one hand
it was a chain reaction, and on the other hand say the drug war
was set up deliberately to erode our rights. I mean, you're talking
about sort of macro versus micro. And I do not give the CIA that
much credit, that they could plan these vast conspiracies down
through the ages and have them work -- most of them don't.
What I'm saying is, you have police groups, you have police
lobbying groups, you have prison guard groups -- they seize
opportunities when they come along. The Drug War has given
them a lot of opportunities to say, okay, now let's lengthen
prison sentences. Why? Well, because if you keep people in jail
longer, you need more prison guards. Let's build more prisons.
Why? Well, people get jobs, prison guards get jobs. The police
stay in business. We need to fund more of them. We need to give
bigger budgets to the correctional facilities. This is all very
conscious, but I don't think anybody sat in a room in 1974 and
said, okay, by 1995, we're going to have X number of Americans
locked up or under parole supervision. I don't think they mind --
you know, I think they like that. But I don't think it was a
conscious effort. I think it was just one bad idea, after another
bad idea, compounded with a stupid idea, compounded with a
really stupid idea. And here we are. So I don't know if that
answers your question or not...
Gary Webb: The question was about the Christic Institute, and
about how the Iran-contra controversy is probably one of the
worst scandals. I agree with you, I think the Iran-contra scandal
was worse than Watergate, far worse than this nonsense we're
doing now. But I'll tell you, I think the press played a very big
part in downplaying that scandal. One of the people I
interviewed for the book was a woman named Pam Naughton,
who was one of the best prosecutors that the Iran-contra
committee had. And I asked her, why -- you know, it was also
the first scandal that was televised, and I remember watching
them at night. I would go to work and I'd set the VCR, and I'd
come home at night and I'd watch the hearings. Then I'd pick up
the paper the next morning, and it was completely different! And
I couldn't figure it out, and this has bothered me all these years.
So when I got Pam Naughton on the phone, I said, what the hell
happened to the press corps in Washington during the Iran-
contra scandal? And she said, well, I can tell you what I saw.
She said, every day, we would come out at the start of this
hearings, and we would lay out a stack of documents -- all the
exhibits we were going to introduce -- stuff that she thought was
extremely incriminating, front page story after front page story,
and they'd sit them on a table. And she said, every day the press
corps would come in, and they'd say hi, how're you doing, blah
blah blah, and they'd go sit down in the front row and start
talking about, you know, did you see the ball game last night,
and what they saw on Johnny Carson. And she said one or two
reporters would go up and get their stack of documents and go
back and write about it, and everybody else sat in the front row,
and they would sit and say, okay, what's our story today? And
they would all agree what the story was, and they'd go back and
write it. Most of them never even looked at the exhibits.
And that's why I say it was the press's fault, because there was
so much stuff that came out of those hearings. That used to just
drive me crazy, you would never see it in the newspaper. And I
don't think it's a conspiracy -- if anything, it's a conspiracy of
stupidity and laziness. I talked to Bob Parry about this -- when
he was working for Newsweek covering Iran-contra, they weren't
even letting him go to the hearings. He had to get transcripts
messengered to him at his house secretly, so his editors wouldn't
find out he was actually reading the transcripts, because he was
writing stories that were so different from everybody else's.
The other question was about the Christic Institute. They had it
all figured out. The Christic Institute had this thing figured out.
They filed suit in May of 1986, alleging that the Reagan
administration, the CIA, this sort of parallel government was
going on. Oliver North was involved in it, you had the Bay of
Pigs Cubans that were involved in it down in Costa Rica, they
had names, they had dates, and they got murdered. And the
Reagan administration's line was, they're a bunch of left-wing
liberal crazies, this was conspiracy theory. If you want to see
what they really thought, go to Oliver North's diaries, which are
public -- the National Security Archive has got them, you can
get them -- all he was writing about, after the Christic Institute's
suit was filed, was how we've got to shut this thing down, how
we have to discredit these witnesses, how we've got to get this
guy set up, how we've got to get this guy out of the country...
They knew that the Christic Institute was right, and they were
deathly afraid that the American public was going to find out
about it.
I am convinced that the judge who was hearing the case was part
and parcel to the problem. He threw the case out of court and
fined the Christic Institute, I think it was $1.3 million, for even
bringing the lawsuit. It was deemed "frivolous litigation." And it
finally bankrupted them. And they went away.
But that's the problem when you try to take on the government
in its own arena, and the federal courts are definitely part of its
own arena. They make the rules. And in cases like that, you
don't stand a chance in hell, it won't happen.
Voice From the Audience: But if you cannot get the truth in the
courts, if you cannot write it in the papers, then what do you do?
Gary Webb: Well, let's let these people who have been standing
in line...
But I think that's what the whole thing with Noriega was about
-- they wanted him out of there, because they wanted somebody
that they could control a little more closely in power in Panama
for when the canal gets reverted back to them.
Gary Webb: Well, what Noriega had done was sort of create an
international banking center for drug money. That was his part
of it. Nicaragua was nothing ever than just a trans-shipment
point. Central America was never anything more than a trans-
shipment point. Columbia Peru and Bolivia were the producers,
and the planes needed a place to refuel, and that's all that Central
America ever was. The banking was all done in Panama.
Audience Member #10: You talk about how they sat on their
stories, the newspapers? Why did they suddenly decide to
pursue the stories?
Audience Member #10: The stories about the crack dealing and
the CIA. Why did they suddenly decide that, well, actually...
Gary Webb: The turning point that made them decide to pursue
the story was the fact that it had gotten out over the Internet, and
people were calling them up saying, why don't you have the
story in your newspaper? You know, I don't think the subject
matter frightened the major media as much as the fact that a
little newspaper in Northern California was able to set the
national agenda for once. And people were marching in the
streets, people were holding hearings in Washington, they were
demanding Congressional hearings, you had John Deutch, the
CIA director, go down on that surreal trip down to South Central
to convince everyone that everything was okay... [Laughter from
the audience.] And all of this was happening without the big
media being involved in it at all. And the reason that happened
was because we had an outlet -- we had the web. And the people
at the Mercury News did a fantastic job on this website.
Gary Webb: I think the general question was about the state of
the journalism schools. The one thing journalism schools don't
teach, by and large, is investigative reporting. They teach
stenography very well. That's why I consider most of journalism
today to be stenography. You go to a press conference, you write
down the quotes accurately, you come back, you don't provide
any context, you don't provide any perspective, because that gets
into analysis, and heavens knows, we don't want any analysis in
our newspapers.
But you report things accurately, you report things fairly, and
even if it's a lie you put it in the newspaper, and that's considered
journalism. I don't consider that journalism, I consider that
stenography. And that is the way they teach journalism in
school, that's the way I was taught. Unless you go to a very
different journalism school from the kinds that most kids go to,
that's what you're taught. Now, there are specialized journalism
schools, there are master's programs like the Kiplinger Program
at Ohio State, that's very good.
So, I'm not saying that all journalism schools are bad, but they
don't teach you to be journalists. They discourage you from
doing that, by and large. And I don't think it's the fault of the
journalism professors, I just think that's the way things have
been taught in this country for so long, that they just do it
automatically. I'd be interested in hearing the professor's
thoughts about it, but that's sort of the way I look at things. I
spent way too many years in journalism school. I kind of got
shed of those notions after I got out in the real world.
[End of transcript.]