Talk:CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why only Hitz report?

 Done

Wasn't this question investigated by Congressional committees in the 1980s also? And there are other reports on the Webb revelations too, including the Sherrif Block report. Also, Volume II of Hitz's report is mentioned here but not cited or quoted; there is a lot more information there worth pursuing.--csloat 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

power to ya commodore sloat, you are the first person to show an interest in this page, since I created. Please be my guest, and welcome. 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename

 Done

I think that this page should be renamed to just Contras cocaine..., because it is not proven that the CIA was involved.--Atavi 18:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It has been thoroughly documented (and, indeed, admitted by the CIA, including in sworn court testimony) that the CIA knew about the drug trafficking and allowed it to occur. This article is about the CIA connection here, not just about the Contras. And the contras were in fact an army created and funded by the CIA, so we really shouldn't pretend the two exist totally independently -- without the CIA there was no contra army.--csloat 21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right on all points, but I think that the title suggests that the CIA participated in the drug business actively, which isn't proven (which isn't to say it didn't happen).

--Atavi 03:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean did CIA agents actually deal drugs, you're right, though CIA assets certainly did (again, this has been admitted by the CIA itself). I agree in general though CIA involvement was indirect; the question is how to explain that in the title. "Contras and Cocaine" eliminates CIA;s role altogether, but the page seems to be about CIA involvement. How about "CIA involvement in cocaine trafficking"? The "in the US" part is pretty much redundant; there's little question about where the biggest market in the world is for the white powder...--csloat 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need Contras in the title as well. Perhaps "CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking". But the title you suggested is also good.

--Atavi 11:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

direct/indirect & whats the real crime

N Expired/invalid

direct or indirect...whatever...it makes a good story of course, mainly as it was the Reagans & Bushes that were involved in it all, and it somehow shows some serious hypocrisy coming from them & their just say no stance yet the the bigger crime is with tobacco, you can harp on the CIA all you want for dealing heroin and coke, only some were involved of course, and anyways they just follow orders from the higher intelligence networks, (which are themselves split on such issues somewhat, Kerry in skull and bones apparently against this type of thing, old man Bush in skull and bones all for it)... yet really the blatant dealing in a substance that kills near a half million americans every year, tobacco, was the greater crime, including thousands of birth defects and unborn infant fatalities each year. The hypocrisy on top of the hypocrisy.......special DEA agent:83.78.169.134 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

When did the truth campaign start posting on the talk pages?Jeek X 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Note

N Expired/invalid

I hereby dispute the factual accuracy of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.199.20 (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sentence do you dispute? I'm not being facetious; if you can't point to what you dispute and explain why, you can't expect the tag to stay on the article. This is actually one of the better documented articles; the sources are mostly the Associated Press and the US Government. Explain your specific dispute if you wish to dispute the article. csloat (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP130.88.199.20: Stating that you "hereby dispute the factual accuracy" of the article is not sufficient. As editor Commodore Sloat has indicated, if you find a statement in the article that is incorrect, you can discuss that statement here on this talk page. If another editor disagrees with your assessment, you would then have a dispute. Even then, a "dispute" tag on the article might not be appropriate. Tagging the article in the way you attempted to do is sometimes referred to as "drive-by tagging," and is generally not permitted. Instead of tagging the article, you may want to consider discussing the specific language of the article on the talk page, and citing reliable, previously published third party sources that show that the specific language is incorrect. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for editing

 Done

I was a little surprised to see the following in the article Federal drug policy of the United States:

many senior officials of the Reagan administration illegally trained and armed the Nicaraguan Contras, who were funded by the shipment of large quantities of cocaine into the United States using U.S. government aircraft and U.S. military facilities.

Can an editor of this article edit or confirm the appropriateness of this statement and its sources? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I went back to the Federal drug policy of the United States and looked at the paragraph on Contra drug smuggling. I finally deleted it, as not supported by the sources cited. I left note on the talk page explaining what some of the problems were. I suggest that whatever controversy there is about this subject is better handled in this article. Rgr09 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References