I think its that RGS has trouble figuring out the difference between making a claim (I think X is true) and stating the possibility of truth (I think X COULD be true). You did say that the US might want to fuel a war on drugs, which I think is untrue, but I don't consider that a claim. Also considering how incompetent the US has been in waging the war on drugs, I think that it could use some looking into, but I think it would be found to be untrue.
AH- No sweat.
I dont think its exactly an all or nothing on that particular point. It has been one dept that has been caught actually doing it and one dept who would find it beneficial in certain circumstances, that is of course the CIA. We dont have a cohesive govt that are all working towards the same goal or aware of each others actions.
My criteria to have strong suspicions (which is what I have here about CIA involvement in drug trafficing and/or supporting drug trafficers) is to have compelling evidence. Many theories can have plausability but that isnt compelling evidence. The compelling evidence that makes me strongly suspect that we have one dept trying to stop the flow of drugs and another dept helping the flow of drugs is ..
1. They have been caught. They have given support and protection to very well known drug trafficers (contras, noriega etc).
2. Overwhelming amount of CIA agents who have admitted so and DEA agents who have reported CIA interferrence in their investigation (and even had to back completely off) and the DEA also claiming that many of their larger international drug investigations lead them directly to the CIA who would then shut the investigation down. Too many eye-witnesses.
3. In those cases the REASONS for the CIA being involved makes sense. I will use an example of where they were caught. The contras were given support, training, weapons etc. from the US. They were horrible and brutal guys who murdered, raped and trafficed in drugs (you probably know this already). This was too well known but the US didnt like the economic plans that the sandanistas had and the sandanistas had the popular backing so we, the US, support the Contras. The CIA was paying people who were under investigation for drug trafficing and supporting a group that was trafficing drugs and the CIA did this because they didnt want the sandanistas to take power, the opposition were the contras so thats who we supported and backed. If the contras drug trafficing was stopped, funds would dry up and so would the opposition to the sandanistas.
The DEA were given a list of airfields they were not allowed to keep under surveillence for the drug trafficers and later as the scandal breaks we find out that those airfields were being used for the illegal weapons to Iran and drugs coming into the US courtesy of the Contras.
http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/outline.html#Micheal Levine
In 1985 and 1986, Ayers surveilled airplanes (parked at Miami International Airport) belonging to two CIA-related airlines ("formerly owned" by the CIA) under contract with the Dept. of Defense to transport materiel for the Contras.
He repeatedly found traces of cocaine and marijuana inside the planes.
Ayers' findings became court evidence in a lawsuit by the airlines against a Miami TV station, and was found to be truthful and accepted as evidence.
His affidavit is available right in the link.
There are numerous other DEA agents who provide information, documents, provided court testimony etc. Its a pretty good link if you feel like reading it.
I find it all to be compelling evidence that the US tax payer is paying for one dept to try and stop or slow the flood of drugs into the country and another one who helps groups get drugs INTO the country for geo-political reasons.
same here.
