digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at dailykos.com

CIA Torture Jet wrecks with 4 Tons of COCAINE

dailykos.com — This Florida based Gulfstream II jet aircraft # N987SA crash landed on September 24, 2007 after it ran out of fuel over Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula it had a cargo of several tons of Cocaine on board now documents have turned up on both sides of the Atlantic that link this Cocaine Smuggling Gulfstream II jet aircraft # N987SA that crashed in Mexico

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theNazz, on 12/13/2007, -22/+562The CIA using drug money for White House black project funding?
    Say it ain't so...
    • ufia, on 12/13/2007, -8/+241Wrong, the CIA was torturing the cocaine to extract information from it.
    • Chirp08, on 12/13/2007, -6/+31He could at least use it to fix the ***** economy
      • objectcode, on 12/13/2007, -3/+83maybe we can back the USD with cocaine
        • Mononuclear, on 12/13/2007, -2/+50Forget gold standard.. Cocaine standard!!!!
        • mydigga, on 12/13/2007, -1/+31and then we can snort the cocaine with USD?
          • supermanred, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Snort it with Canadian dollars, our bills have a coke strip.

            Seriously, there is a plasticy strip on one side of the bill used for "security purposes" It also keeps cocaine from penetrating into the paper and helps it slide up into your nose.
        • h0m3styl3, on 12/13/2007, -2/+18This is so sad.
        • heystoopid, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2It already is since powdered cocaine is such a sticky substance most US currency in circulation and in use daily is heavily contaminated with trace amounts and many non users would actually fail the chemical finger residue test because of the excessive contamination !
      • Lennalf, on 12/13/2007, -5/+18As far as the super-rich are concerned, the economy is fine. It's only the rest of us who are getting royally *****.
        • CabesMojo, on 12/13/2007, -4/+5Really? How has the economy royally ***** you? Last I check I don't make that much and life is going great. Just don't take out loans you can't afford and mortgage lenders shouldn't give those loans to people who can't afford them in the first place.
          • card51short, on 12/13/2007, -3/+8just watch as the prices get higher and higher and the pay rates for your job stay the same.
      • OwdenBowden, on 12/13/2007, -3/+4http://www.serendipity.li/wod/bush_gotcoke.jpg
    • snatchmstr, on 12/13/2007, -67/+16Wow, that didn't take long to blame the president. If an employee of a trucking company did the same thing the CEO must be in on it right? Asshats
      • Bhima, on 12/13/2007, -3/+44You trying to tell us that, if they found a UPS cargo plane stuffed to the gills with coke, congress wouldn't be calling for an investigation of everyone in management?
        • GiggleStick, on 12/13/2007, -49/+5The CIA didn't do anything bad until Bush became president.
          • seand, on 12/13/2007, -2/+22BWAHAHAHAHAhAhA

            oh, you are serious....
          • Ricky8765, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Yeah, he's definitely a *****
          • nitramlliw, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4you are not an intelligent human being are you?
          • patch6, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Operation Gladio, Operation Ajax, Iran-Contra affair.
            Three "bad things" the CIA took part in that I know of, as a layperson.
          • wakananda, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4In your fantasies, you are Jeff Gannon, at a White House pajama party.
      • bahamutxd, on 12/13/2007, -3/+18That's not a good analogy because legally, the company would be held liable for their employees actions. The CEO would most certainly be involved.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/13/2007, -2/+17Good point, fire the CIA. Sue them for the 2 trillion dollars they "lost" shortly before 911.
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/13/2007, -2/+8That was the Pentagon.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/13/2007, -2/+9Same difference these days.

          Pentagon = CIA = White House = IRS = DEA = Congress = Supreme court
        • patch6, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Yeah, that was the DoD.
          Still, fire the CIA for everything else they've done. Their rap sheet alone is long enough to base a college course on.
        • wakananda, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Don't forget the Dept. of "Justice," now essentially a political brothel for neofascism.
        • 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1It was the DOD. Under the watchful eye of Dov Zakhiem.
      • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -9/+9This actually goes WAY back. Check out "The Clinton Chronicles" It has lots of info.
        • Timetheos, on 12/13/2007, -1/+11Perhaps you forgot about Iran-Contra?
          • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -5/+4Drugs were involved there too? I don't remember too much about that whole mess.
          • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -2/+7LOL!!! I get what you are trying to do. You are turning this into let's blame the presidents thing. The CIA drug running seems to have been going on for a VERY long time. As far back as the Vietnam War at least. But then that would require you to do some real research and knwo more than the bits you get spood fed by the media and bloggers. As I said elsewhere, if you wanna blame Bush then you need to hold all past presidents accountable for this as well. This was going on before either Bush became president and it will continue to go one long after they are out of office.
        • mightydavefish, on 12/13/2007, -5/+9Dragging out Clinton, but not bothering to remember Reagan?
          You right wingers are so dishonest it's revolting.
        • wakananda, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1People, we have to stop defending one side or the other. They truly are two limbs of the same beast. They are the crook and flail of the Pharaoh. "MY corrrupt, globalist, anti-American drug-smuggling party-politician is better than YOUR corrupt, globalist, anti-American drug-smuggling party-politician" is unworthy of us. "This is nothing new. Get used to filth and lies and thievery" is not an acceptable rejoinder when confronted with the scale and depth of the corruption here. We need to understand that America needs a carbolic enema. It needs a major overhaul. We can elect a candidate who will do it - Ron Paul - or we can defer the inevitable, and let things get worse - much worse - until we are not fighting at the ballot box to win our country back, but fighting, where and how we may, for our very lives. Please review the history of the twentieth century; for all our superficial innovation, we are not long out of it.
      • MWeather, on 12/13/2007, -1/+15Did you sleep through the 80's? Or were you just not born yet?
      • YogiWanKenobi, on 12/13/2007, -8/+5Why are people digging down snatchmstr? His argument is spot-on. People in the dirty business do whatever pays no matter what the cargo is: coke, blindfolded and zip-tied arab guys, it doesn't matter. Money talks, ***** walks. I don't like Bush, but I seriously doubt he had anything to do with this. If anything, he read the original article and said "That's one bad pilot".
        • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -8/+4Because the truth hurts. It takes away from the anti-Bush club.
          • mightydavefish, on 12/13/2007, -4/+8It's not much of a club.
            All you need a brain and 30 seconds of thinking to join.
            Pretty much as soon as you stop watching Fox news you get a clue.
            Try it sometime.
      • mydigga, on 12/13/2007, -1/+6Asshat, that's brilliant. I'm going to manufacture thousands of asshats. Their will be an ass on every man woman and child's head by next Christmas. I can see it now! I will have $$ coming out the ass with Asshats!
      • source1984, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4WELCOME TO THE C.I.A. - They protect us and keep us safe and also sell drugs on the side to make some major cash.
        • patch6, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Drug money isn't even the worst of it.
          Look into "Operation Gladio" and "Operation Ajax" for two documented examples.
        • JonForTheWin, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Lets not forget the part where they shot kennedy in the front of the head because he signed executive orders that would begin to phase out the federal reserve and dismantle the most notorious terrorist organization it the world even today al-CIAda.
      • card51short, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2are you kidding me? Do you know how many times a CEO had to step down because of actions within their company not directly caused by them? Happens all the time...terribly analogy
    • TSK05, on 12/13/2007, -9/+57Maximum payload on a Gulfstream is 2.7 tons .....

      Sorry for comment abuse.
      • knobtwiddler, on 12/13/2007, -8/+2more about this: http://madcowprod.com/
      • Bob042, on 12/13/2007, -1/+39Well, then maybe that's why it crashed!
        /sarcasm
        • halavais, on 12/13/2007, -1/+12Actually, it's entirely possible it was over gross. Also, the published weight is probably making space for a couple-hundred pounds in interior seating, etc.--not clear if it had been stripped down.
          • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8It most likely was if it was being used to carry large cargo loads like this.
      • gernblansted, on 12/13/2007, -1/+51That's the rated max payload (Gulfstream II Max payload: 5,456 lb) not the possible payload - it can carry much more in an 'unsafe' manner.

        In any case, since a full fuel load for a Gulfstream II is about 23,000 pounds, they need only have a reduced fuel load to make up for the extra 4 thousand pounds. It is a very simple task to carry 4 tons on that aitcraft, you just have to consider you have a little less fuel to work with. Uh, how did they crash again?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_II
        http://www.optisky.com/pdfs/N622RR.pdf (note typo, fuel load is 3451 USG, not lbs; the 23,125 lb fuel load is correct)
        google shows same or similar ratings everywhere.
        • kooft, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5"The Gulfstram bizjet was circling the Mexican town of Tixkokob. When being chased by Mexican military helicopters, the crew carried out a crash-landing. No bodies were found in the wreckage, but soldiers found 132 bags containing about 3.6 tons (3.3 metric tons) of cocaine."

          The aviation site doesn't list why the pilots crash landed, but it does raise an eyebrow that the occupants of the plane crash laded safely and left between $40-150 million of cocaine to be captured. You'd think there would be considerable support behind a shipment of that size. Perhaps the people doing the smuggling feared something worse than loss of capital, like maybe public scrutiny...
      • mydigga, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5It's OK, really... your comment abuse about the CIA's plane abuse on it's way here to support drug abuse. See what you started now? Comment abuse is serious stuff man.
      • Chirp08, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4brings new meaning to that song "flying high again"
    • sindex, on 12/13/2007, -3/+57Black projects? I thought George Bush didn't care about black people?
    • theutopian, on 12/13/2007, -1/+9It wouldn't be the first time.
      • hiphoc, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3True Iran Contra. Cathrine Austin Fitts used to work at HUD I think. She basically laid out how the US economy and the world economy is run on drug laundering money. She said wall street makes money on this and somehow its connected to the low income house flipping in poor neighborhoods. Her website Solari.com has more information on this. She also said she was hired at HUD to fix this problem, but soon realized she was supposed to cover it up. Interesting how former government whistle blowers are ignored by the MSM. Oh yea, she also has said that all the major banks make money laundering drug money, she also talks about the Cayman Island Corporation scam. A

        Solari.com
        http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/CAFmrl.html
    • quisp, on 12/13/2007, -32/+2RTFA - The PLANE was linked to the CIA, not the drugs. Just like a $20 bill being linked to drugs, does not implicate those that possessed the bill before or after.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 12/13/2007, -3/+24Riiiiight...

        CIA: "That's not my 4 tons of coke, man. I don't know what you're talking about. There were some black guys hanging around the plane before we took off...maybe they had something to do with it."
        • Tilon, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6Yeah man, my plane dissapeared from my hangar last night, dude. I haven't seen it.

          It crashed in Mexico, you don't say? Coke? What Coke?
      • Mononuclear, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8Your analogy is horrible.. A closer analogy would be if a company car had a dead body or 20 kilos of cocaine in the trunk..
      • coyoteblue, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1....what?
      • DiggzDE, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6A better analogy would be if I had a 20 dollar bill with a 1/2 gram of coke folded up into it. The dollar bill is mine but I drop it on the ground as a cop pulls me over. He finds the bill and unfolds it to find the coke. I claim no wrong because I only owned the 20 dollar bill briefly until I dropped it, not the coke. Thus I get off free of any charges.

        Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaahhhhh, not gonna work.
        • rthakidn, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I did not read anywhere in the article that the plane was owned or exclusively used by the CIA. Probably more accurate (from the article), the plane is a charter that was hired by the CIA to transport prisoners the CIA would rather not document on a military transport. This happened on three different occasions (again from the article). I know everyone would like to think the worst about the CIA, but making up facts is wrong and I'm sure everyone will agree. If you make up facts about Iraq, its wrong, so its wrong in this situation as well.
          • Tilon, on 12/13/2007, -0/+34. Tons. Of. Cocaine.

            So the CIA doesn't have any agents or anything riding along with these dangerous, secret prisoners?
        • quisp, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1DIggzDE, you missed the fact that the plane is not owned by the CIA and the CIA was not chartering it at the time it had the drugs. So, back to your example, The $20 bill you have now, contains 1/2 gram. Last week when the CIA had that $20 bill it was empty.
      • pintomp3, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8LOL, nice one. the car is mine, the drugs in the glove box aren't. try that one in court.
        • rthakidn, on 12/13/2007, -7/+1did the article say the craft was owned by the CIA? No, it was used on three ocassions.
          • diggingaround, on 12/13/2007, -0/+7You are so right... the Police only drives the "Crown Victoria Interceptor" - Ford company is the owner :)))))
        • DiggzDE, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2You keep bringing up the concept of that. But what about a rental car. That is not in the drivers name? Happens a lot of the time with drug runners. What makes you think it doesn't happen with planes as well.

          Btw: The CIA doesn't just up and ask random companies to fly their secret prisoners to a secure location. It isn't like they found them by pointing randomly in the yellow pages. There are screening processes and procedures. To think that is not the case is ignorant of you. If a company that was used by the CIA is also running drugs, there is something wrong with that.
      • darkcooger, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Haven't you ever watched COPS? That's what they all say, and they all get arrested anyway.
      • patch6, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Cognitive dissonance is quite a trip, isn't it.
        • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1It's a helluva drug...
        • sherrife, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I'm curious as to how you're applying that concept to this guy's thinking process. Not sceptical, just interested.

          I would say s/he's clinging desperately to a false schema of the government/CIA as 'good guys' and is interpreting everything s/he reads to protect it. See, Piaget's still usefull!
    • phybere, on 12/13/2007, -1/+15The maximum payload of a G-1159 (the one that crashed) is 7500lbs. Your payload of 2.7tons assumes it was completely filled with fuel.
      • Slayback, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7Which obviously, it wasn't. ;)
      • heystoopid, on 12/13/2007, -0/+7Unfortunately you are both right and wrong at the same time , as the payload you quote is for a flight for maximum range at maximum fuel load at a specific runway length at sea level with standard fuel reserves !
        If you allow for lesser fuel loads a far longer take off roll to achieve V2 or flying speed and a reduced range you can up the payload figures quite massively !
        Any dumb ass backward half trained idiot pilot can figure that one out quite easily using his circular slide rule or programmable calculator in an instant !
    • slantyeyed, on 12/13/2007, -12/+10well if people didn't bitch so much about taxes, the CIA would have enough funds to not have to sell drugs.
      • vbullinger, on 12/13/2007, -6/+17If we did away with the IRS and Federal Reserve, as well as decreasing the size and power of the CIA and ending the feigned war on terror, we'd have enough funds for the CIA as well as tons of other things (like balancing the budget) and all Americans (save for the international bankers, who aren't really American anyway) would have more money to live their lives the way they wanted to.
      • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -3/+5Nice fantasy world you live in.
      • rarson, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7Yes, because complaining about taxes has an effect on government funding, which seems to increase whenever government feels it is necessary, regardless of what the people say.
    • diggingaround, on 12/13/2007, -6/+21Finally - the hard proof that government "black projects" are funded with drug money... I can't wait to read the spin on this story.
      • inane, on 12/13/2007, -11/+3Hard proof? Hardly.
        • Tilon, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8To get real hard proof would take civilians custom-making a jet and chasing a plane down, shooting it down out of the sky and finding a dead dude with a CIA badge and CIA brand sunglasses along with 10 tons of coke in the back.

          Get real.
        • heypetray, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Yeah, just look the other way.
      • caleb4mj, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5Black projects funded by drug money sounds like it would involve a conspiracy. /ducks/
        • card51short, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6conspiracy?! ha! those never happen! Everything that has ever been done nefariously is one guy acting alone..
      • patch6, on 12/14/2007, -0/+8The Iran-Contra affair is documented proof of CIA drug ties which came to light 20 years ago.

        Not saying that scandal is the oldest proven connection, just that the proof has existed for years.
    • diggingaround, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8*sarcasm*

      On the other hand... I think this is the part of the very successful government project "War on Drugs". The government is helping out unload the drugs here in US, therefore saturating market so much that will force the price on drugs to fall so extremely low. How low? Let's say the kilo of cocaine will cost less then a gallon of milk. By doing so, we will successfully bankrupt all drug lords and other low life scumbags, and finally win the "War on Drugs".....yeeee...
      • BoneheadFarker, on 12/13/2007, -2/+7Cool...more money for hookers. I like the way you think...
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 12/13/2007, -2/+19What, people are really just finding out that the CIA has been shipping in and protecting drug smugglers in the U.S for over 30 years and then enacting draconian 3 strikes drug laws to arrest those same people using those drugs they shipped in??

      Am I the only one that can read?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 12/13/2007, -8/+2Or as they used to call this; "Air Ollie North."
      ;-)
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 12/13/2007, -1/+10Or as they used to call this; "Air Ollie North."
      ;-)
      • heystoopid, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4And a man named Colin who later became Secretary of State who told the world a pack of lies just happened to be Ollie's boss too !

        Co-incidental is it not ?
      • Rich711, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4you mean the one that flew out of Little Rock, Arkansas while Clinton was Govenor?
    • BlazinEurasian, on 12/13/2007, -2/+10The War on Drugs is probably is funded by the same people who benefit from drug money? Wow.
      • misterRobot, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2No no, the war on drugs is funded by US citizens. The drug money pays for hookers and golden toilets...
    • rarson, on 12/13/2007, -1/+10Duh, of course they're using drug money to fund the CIA. Why else would they be so adamant about keeping drugs illegal? ***** freedom, there are profits to be made!

      I mean it's certainly not because Bush doesn't LIKE drugs...
    • Rich711, on 12/13/2007, -11/+1I heard they were waterboarding 9/11 truthers on the plane while doing cocaine to extract informatioin about Dennis Kucinich's alien spotting so that they can discredit him so that he can't legalize pot so that they can make money of keeping drug prices higher to fund black ops projects to the moon where they want to plant nukes to oppress the whole planet and finalize thier new world order.

      It's true, I read it on the DailyKoz
      • sherrife, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Creative, but lame premise.

        Even the contra affair would have been 'just a conspiracy theory' at some point.
        • Rich711, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Lame? If that's not the pot calling the kettle black on this webpage. Oh I'm sorry, you only must be one of those cospriacist who only by into conspiracies that only make the right look bad.

          So how do you feel about the whole contra thing now that they know the planes that were supposedly being loaded with weapons and unloaded with drugs were flying in and out of Little Rock while Clinton was the govenor? Or was it a big surprise to you when suddenly the unknown hillbilly with his powerhungry wife is democratic candidate for president?
    • sollycardy, on 12/13/2007, -0/+10CIA = COCAINE IMPORT AGENCY

      I don't know why everyone is so surprised.
    • slash1890, on 12/14/2007, -2/+0your drug is a heart breaker!
    • Xill, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Everyone should research about the Black Project.
    • fixedcoma, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1"Flyin the plane high on cocaine, co-pilot co-pilot what's you speed?"
  • ChristPissed, on 12/13/2007, -80/+480George Bush's Cocaine Importing Agency has been caught with Georgie's stash in a torture rendition plane. Can we please IMPEACH, INCARCERATE, TRY FOR TRASON and EXECUTE this little ***** perverted, drug addicted, drug peddling traitor?
    • rhabd0mancer, on 12/13/2007, -12/+64Bush enjoys snorting lines off of Jeff Gannon's asscrack.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/13/2007, -3/+15Incorrect. It is *out of* Jeff Gannon's asscrack.
    • TSK05, on 12/13/2007, -32/+15Maximum payload on a Gulfstream is 2.7 tons .....

      Sorry for comment abuse.
      • psyckboy, on 12/13/2007, -22/+1Saying you're sorry for comment abuse is akin to a rapist apologizing to their victim while raping them. It really doesn't count for much.
        • GunDownCCL, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Your right in principle, but that analogy is a little harsh.
      • phybere, on 12/13/2007, -1/+11The maximum payload of a G-1159 (the one that crashed) is 7500lbs. Your payload of 2.7tons assumes it was completely filled with fuel.
      • Mononuclear, on 12/13/2007, -0/+9as someone else said when this comment was already made.. maybe that is why it crashed?
    • gd1z, on 12/13/2007, -15/+31I think you're being a tad bit overdramatic.
      • sj200, on 12/13/2007, -6/+4I don't! He's right on!!
      • tyywebb, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6I SUPPORT this man's RIGHT to randomly CAPITALIZE words in his COMMENT!!!!
    • swr1ght, on 12/13/2007, -10/+5I don't know you can prove that he is a pervert...now the rest of that stuff is certainly up for debate based on the evidence.
      • yodaj007, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4All of that stuff is up for debate based on evidence. Doesn't a "proof" require "evidence" too?
      • vbullinger, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4I can prove he's a pervert: Bohemian Grove.
    • eclipse007, on 12/13/2007, -4/+52You forget that drug trafficking, torture, starting illegal wars, killing thousands and ruining economy are not anywhere as serious a crimes as getting a blowjob, so they do not warrant impeachment.
      • echolalia, on 12/13/2007, -9/+3Perjury isn't a big deal?
      • CabesMojo, on 12/13/2007, -3/+4Perjury was what the impeachment was about, but just saying blow job makes your point sound much better.
        • amirbd, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Lucky for the Bush administration then, as it is pretty much impossible to cite executive privilege or national security when the allegation is a blow job. No, when the matters are far more serious but "official" such as condoning torture, lying to begin war, etc.. then you can avoid directly perjuring yourself because it is all deemed confidential.
          • CabesMojo, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Waterboarding got ya down? Lies to begin the war? There is a difference between inaccurate information and lies, but too many people can't realize that. Remember everyone in Congress had the access to the same information Bush did and the vast majority of them voted for the war. Funny how only he is called to hang for it.
        • Calcularius, on 12/14/2007, -3/+1OH PLEASE GOD SHUT THE ***** UP YOU PEDANTIC ASSHEAD
      • tyywebb, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2perjury != blowjobs
        • Calcularius, on 12/14/2007, -2/+3WHO CARES ABOUT A ***** BLOWJOB AND WHO CARES IF HE ***** LIED ABOUT IT
          NOBODY EXCEPT ASSHOLES LOOKING FOR A NON-LOGICAL REASON TO ***** WITH SOMEONE THAT'S WHO
      • Calcularius, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1You forget that drug trafficking, torture, starting illegal wars, killing thousands and ruining economy are not anywhere as serious a crimes as getting a blowjob, so they do not warrant impeachment.

        perjury about a blowjob < blowjob * 1000000000000 < starting wars for oil
    • bwa236, on 12/13/2007, -12/+7I don't like Bush either but you sound like a little kid on a rant
    • DiggzDE, on 12/13/2007, -3/+18Jesus, what are we? The Middle East?
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5Remember Lawrence of Arabia? That's right. We MADE the Middle East what it is today. Lawrence was a real person and his lineage stretches throughout the entire Arabian peninsula and their loyalties are obviously to Britain.
    • Lennalf, on 12/13/2007, -2/+9Hey, let's not be so harsh on coke.
    • reb42, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5Let's prosecute for everything except drug peddling. Throw in some pedophilia charges, and torture a confession on those out of him.
    • santacruzach, on 12/13/2007, -0/+10Impeachment will only eliminate the figurehead. It won't stop the tide.
      • manc4, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2Impeachment proceedings will lead to martial law and a permanent neocon government. The laws are in place, waiting and baiting them to try it.
        • chirox901, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4At which point... Nobody revolts, and we all go on living as we are, because we either don't give a ***** about government, or we're too occupied with American Idol to notice.
    • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -0/+12You are an uninformed fool. The allegations of CIA drug running goes all the way back to the Vietnam War. If you wanna hold Bush accountable for this then you must do the same with every past president.
      • obliviousfool, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Cool! I'll start with president Ford!
      • rudyghouliani, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Obviously there is no point in starting with the dead ones, so can we at least start with the ones that are alive, Bush, Clinton, Bush
    • dweekly, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Objecting to policies and expressing displeasure at the quality of the executive branch's decisions are wonderfully protected under the First Amendment. It's awesome that we live in a country where it's perfectly permissible to rant about how stupid our leader is. But...concretely supporting the assassination of our head of state is not.

      Seriously, folks, ixnay on death threats to the president. It's not just poor taste, it's illegal.
      • canUdi9it, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2He wasn't advocating assassination, but a trial for treason with a probable guilty verdict, followed by a legal execution. There's a difference. GW presided over many legal executions. The CIA is the agency that covertly assassinates people.
    • dizznit, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Wasn't aware Christ used such language. Have a brownie...
    • Jumba990, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3You spelled treason wrong...
    • mcnab32, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1Watch out now ChristPissed when the CIA shows up at your door, takes you in for "Questioning", doesn't have to tell you what you're being charged with, doesn't have to tell your defending lawyer (if they decide to give you one) what evidence they might present. Hell maybe they'll even waterboard you to get more info out of you!
    • bryceman111, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Yeah, killing the guy will fix it. Violence is always the answer! Maybe you could declare unnecessary war on him as well?
    • tryangles, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1not sure how valid the date is on this clip. I was in Cancun a week before this date and locals were talking about this incident about a plane crashing with tons of coke.
  • Rotzooi, on 12/13/2007, -277/+31And once again the liberal cry babies have made up some new lies. Will it never stop?!

    Vote Republican!
    • blackmage439, on 12/13/2007, -17/+106I'll vote Republican only if

      a) Ron Paul is in the final running and
      b) you quit being an ignorant, spamming, right-wing child, and if you find some new material
      • eclipse007, on 12/13/2007, -4/+16Ron Paul is awesome and all but just a little warning: when you vote republican, remember that you are threatening the safety of public restrooms.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -24/+6Ron Paul sucks.
        • darkcooger, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7@EditorResponse: Yes, yes, Ron Paul sucks because he won't go to war to save the RAM. We know.
        • bolognium, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2no - all restrooms will be privatized.
    • JohnFive, on 12/13/2007, -6/+58Rotzooi, be careful about this Left/Right paradigm because it distracts well-meaning conservatives about the truly important issues facing our nation. Continue this paradigm and Americans will continue to be divided about the tyranny that is quickly enveloping our country.
      • chicofaraby, on 12/13/2007, -36/+9Right wingers are responsible for the mess the country is in. Of course you guys want to ignore the "Left/Right paradigm." It's not like Republicans can run on their successes. Ron Paul is just another Republican and the Republicans are at fault for their poor job of governance.
        • 01l0, on 12/13/2007, -6/+11"Of course you guys want to ignore the "Left/Right paradigm."

          LOL its so true...its a low and desperate spin, especially hilarious after the past years of ONE PARTY GOVERNMENT. "all parties are the same, vote everyone out and start over" ....no, YOUR party ***** up, and now its up to the other side of the isle to fix your *****.
        • BadseedJR, on 12/13/2007, -2/+19I like how you all are attacking each other saying that each is wrong based on party affiliation, yet that is what you're suggesting the other is doing. Politicians, in general, are corrupt. GOP or Dem, Left or Right, most are in it for themselves, money, power, or all of those things. So far the only candidates I can see that aren't are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.... who are opposing parties. Quit crying about parties and think for yourself.
        • blackhawk919, on 12/13/2007, -9/+4@ 01l0,

          It's sort of funny that I can't tell which party you're saying messed up. Based on general accomplishments (or lack there of) and approval ratings you must be talking about the democratic congress.
          • chicofaraby, on 12/13/2007, -9/+6I guess if you are a total dumbass and think the Democrats have had the White House for the last seven years... or just another Republican liar on Digg.
          • blackhawk919, on 12/13/2007, -5/+5@ chicoangryboy,

            I'm not sure what relevence your post had in response to mine but here's mine again just because I think reality irritates you:

            It's sort of funny that I can't tell which party you're saying messed up. Based on general accomplishments (or lack there of) and approval ratings you must be talking about the democratic congress.
          • chicofaraby, on 12/13/2007, -5/+1Sorry, Rush, but I can't be held responsible for your poor reading comprehension.
        • NotOptium, on 12/13/2007, -1/+9This mentality is ridiculous, regardless of which side of the "left/right" argument you're on. You're no different, chico, than Rotzooi. You're just opposite sides of the same distraction technique.
          • chicofaraby, on 12/13/2007, -9/+1I know. It's a shame when people can't seem to realize that they need to look beyond party affiliation and see that the failures of 10 years of right wing rule are no reason to hold those failures against the people who failed. Holding the right wing responsible for their actions is "old thinking." Let me guess, Ron Paul supporter?
          • darkcooger, on 12/13/2007, -0/+7@chicofaraby: Following your progression of logic, if Obama served two terms as President and happened to be terrible at it, would you then assume that black people shouldn't hold high office? You're making the grave mistake of assigning the blame of individual action to the groups those individuals belong to. Ever heard of personal responsibility?
          • chicofaraby, on 12/13/2007, -6/+1I'm not blaming all white people for George Bush's mistakes so your analogy fails. I'm blaming the right wing ideology of the Republicans for their failure. The reason they failed is because they are so wrong. Wrong about Iraq, wrong about taxes, wrong about the government, wrong about economics, wrong about foreign policy, wrong about domestic policy. The ideology of the current Republicans like George Bush and Ron Paul is the problem. Not their skin color.

            Senator Obama never chose to be black, but no one is born a right -wing Republican.
          • darkcooger, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5@chicofaraby: My analogy works not because of the particular group that I chose to use, but because I used groups at all. You are saying that all Republicans are the problem, though even a cursory look indicates that they are not. Some are, some are not. You are guilty of stereotyping, "an exaggerated image of the characteristics of a particular group." And just as black people do not all eat watermelon and fried chicken, not all Republicans are Satan-spawn (nor are all Democrats angels who fart rainbow dust).
          • chicofaraby, on 12/13/2007, -6/+1Look, we all understand that Ron Paul doesn't want to be associated with the party to which he belongs and votes with. But the fact is that the Republicans ARE to blame. It is THEIR policies that put us where we are today. You guys are trying to "move beyond party" because your party is a colossal failure. I have not advocated for the Democrats. Frankly, they suck, just not as bad as Republicans.

            And you are trying to make being born black and choosing to be a right wing idiot equivalent. They aren't. It's a crap analogy.

            No one blames you guys for trying to dodge, but it simply won't work.
          • NotOptium, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1I don't get it, chico. How can you say that other people are trying to look beyond party when you yourself say that both parties suck. Ever considered that that might be how a lot of people feel?
      • greenm1981, on 12/13/2007, -0/+12I'd like to point out that you can conservative and not "right-wing." You can also be liberal and not "left-wing." True conservatives would have nothing to do with the neo-con thievery that is the "right-wing."
        • chicofaraby, on 12/13/2007, -5/+1If you voted for the Republicans you deserve to be included with them.
    • EXreaction, on 12/13/2007, -4/+16You do know that by voting for any republican who doesn't want to shrink the government (nearly all of them?), you are voting democrat, because that is exactly what they are, just disguised to make the common dumbass think they are voting for their team, when really it is just one big group now.
    • ryangoff, on 12/13/2007, -3/+47I'd love to vote Republican. The only problem is that they're not Republicans. They're all Neo-Cons. Except for one, that is....
      • Tweekster, on 12/13/2007, -24/+6and he sucks
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5Now... We gotta cut your balls off....
        • solistus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Careful, the Ron Paul mafioso might firebomb your house with comments like that.
    • starkruzr, on 12/13/2007, -2/+25Which part of this is a lie? The connection of the plane to the CIA? The fact that it was carrying tons of coke? Please cite your sources.
      • solistus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6Citing sources would require him to consider facts. Facts are based in reality, and reality has a well-known liberal bias.
    • Delphium226, on 12/13/2007, -5/+7don't take this tool seriously, he/she/it is just trolling. probably a pre-pubescent.
    • diggingaround, on 12/13/2007, -2/+5Dude, take the red pill.. and call us in the morning.
    • shdurham, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2If you take the time to read Rotzooi's page, you will see that he is clearly being sarcastic. He just left off the closing sarcasm tag.
    • source1984, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3ex-CIA agents and ex-DEA agents will testify to the fact that our Protectors in Langley sell coke to make cash.
      • goldfishey, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1really, testify? on record? in court?
    • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1Is that Kool aid good?
    • zachshmack, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7Buried for not using the words "moonbat" or "libtard". Did you flunk out of neocon troll school?
    • vbullinger, on 12/13/2007, -2/+5I agree with the statement "Vote Republican!" Vote Ron Paul!
    • tom256, on 12/13/2007, -4/+2At least liberals don't crash planes full of cocaine.

      Oh and they don't destroy our economy.
    • jellygraph, on 12/13/2007, -3/+2blocked for trolling... im in a bad mood and you piss me off
    • gilbertj99, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3ur blatantly a democrat who is trying to get everyone to hate republicans.
      • cap11235, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Then he's preaching to the chior. However, if he was preaching, he would be a Republican, meaning that he is both a Democrat and a Republican. Thus, he supports Hillary Clinton. QED
    • starmanjones, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2i think its time for republicans to ride off into the sunset. conservatism is a total failure. it attracts people who are trying to cover a wide range of social dysfunction. it needs to die and EVERYONE needs to remember what happened for the last 40 or 50 years of conservative republican insanity so it never reappears. it is the polar opposite of communism and has no more chance of working. neither it or communism has ever worked anywhere.

      i am a liberal and have proudly called myself so since the social darwinists attempted to make it a slander. its your turn- you have proven yourself a bad word.... conservatives bastards. go some place. you embarrass all real americans.
    • bono4u, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Judge for yourself, after looking at the following.
      I don't know what of this stuff are real facts and what not, but hey i am not from america i only found that stuff and watched it. If they are not longer available have a look for the titles(Did i just suggest how ot look for information? mmm, never mind)

      CIA Drug Ops - (Unaired Documentary)
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-537222344 ...

      Former CIA/DEA Drug Trafficker Pilot Beau Abbott Speaks
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5361759159 ...

      BLACK OPS INTERVIEW: CHIP TATUM CHRONICLES
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6394801223 ...

      The MENA Connection
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8615500044 ...

      U.S. Foreign Policy - Secret Wars of the CIA
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8061307149 ...

      YouTube - CFR - The Secret Government (2/2)(find the first part for your self)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQZ56hkKOlk

      From the Wilderness - The CIA Connection
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-772603138 ...

      Why The "War On Drugs" Is A Scam For Prison Profiteers And The DEA
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-228552763 ...

      YouTube - Iran/Contra - George Bush Sr. (Part 1)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhoXKD-6dTI&feature ...
      YouTube - Iran/Contra - George Bush Sr. (Part 2) (Interview)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFE1f4-zRA&feature ...

      YouTube - The Iran - Contra Scandal and Cover-Up (Part 1 of 3)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO9PXN-budo&feature ...

      U.S. Foreign Policy - Secret Wars of the CIA
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8061307149 ...

      Battle Lines in the Drug War
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4430635119 ...
    • starmanjones, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2>And once again the liberal cry babies have made
      >up some new lies. Will it never stop?!

      this is old news. republicans have been financing black operations for years this way. it goes back at least as far as viet nam. helped finance the wars in south america. you know... congress forbid reagan to meddle in south america... gave oliver north his big break... him and secord... air america?
  • rv36116, on 12/13/2007, -12/+111Don't forget about his buddies in the W. House, lil' curious George didn't come up with this crap all by himself. He's a pawn with no other duty than to be the ***** catcher for all the world's angst inside and outside the United States.
    • dullly, on 12/13/2007, -9/+4I am pretty sure Bush shot this plane down, he is an ex fighter pilot. hard to believe, yet I would like to know if Bush can account for this time frame when this happened. Dollars to doughnuts he has no alibi.
      Impeach Now!
    • Altoidsxcore1, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5If you are calling him a scapegoat, then I completely agree. People just throw blame around until it rests on one person, no one cares who really caused the problem.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4The buck stops on the presidents desk. As head of the executive branch he is 100% responsible for the actions, or a failure to act, of every agency under him, as if he was doing the work personally.

        You can only delegate authority, never responsibility.

        Don't want to be responsible? Don't run for president.
      • obliviousfool, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5Yeah, nobody really cares that the CIA has been operating outside the law for decades. No one cares that it operates like a shadow government. No one cares that it has changed the fate of entire nations. (Yes, I'm rolling my eyes at you.)
  • ripstuntz, on 12/13/2007, -38/+20I CAPITALIZE COCAINE BECAUSE I CARE!
  • freecon, on 12/13/2007, -20/+243Our government is totally out of control. We are f'n jokes!
    • hansk, on 12/13/2007, -35/+7yes you are.
    • dukeeeey, on 12/13/2007, -3/+51i'd like to laugh at you, but the UK government is hardly any better. We are essentially run by a gang of criminals
      • KMye, on 12/13/2007, -2/+26So are Canada, Mexico, Russia, Iran, Japan...........it would be a much shorter list if we just named non-criminal regimes.
        • Spelvin, on 12/13/2007, -2/+9Such as? No Really, who are they and do they allow immigration?
          • spawnfree, on 12/13/2007, -2/+7well there is Venezuela but Chavez is starting to turn into the same demon he now knows he is up against.
            basically the elephant in the room is a psycho who will kill anyone that stands up to it.
            They occupy a space in our collective unconscious that we dare not look into, because it saps the very will to live.
            Thanks; all you materialistic thieving psycho *****! You know who you are and you think you are better, but that's just because your brain is not functioning properly, y'know, because of what happened to you.
          • Rickler, on 12/13/2007, -0/+17Norway and Sweden... thats all I got.
        • dracostimpy, on 12/13/2007, -4/+9I'll start:

          #1 Never never land
          • brad3378, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1You can only show that one because Michael Jackson hasn't been convicted of a crime yet.
        • TheHydrogens, on 12/13/2007, -1/+6@dracostimpy.... some would say Hook is the leader there...
          • dracostimpy, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6Okay then uhh lemme try again...

            #1 Candyland?
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6#1 Norway.

          Wow, that is a short list. And it is very difficult to immigrate there.
      • dondara, on 12/13/2007, -3/+6I believe most of the world is. But at least they don't pretend or lie about it. They wear shirts with "death squad" on it. Nothing like a smile, friendly handshake and a shank in the back. Thanks GW, may I have another.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3Essentially? You guys have computerized camera's with talking baby voices that dictate to you what to do. You don't even have real people forcing you to follow rules! lol. I'd say that's a complete futuristic dictatorship, and a terroristic one at that. Next they'll have camera's in bathroom stalls... Oh that's right... THEY ALREADY DO!
    • jabberwolf, on 12/13/2007, -4/+2Ok guys that was 3 years ago a plan .. a type that is usually CHARTERED by many different groups. Dam, if a car was sold in a police action and then parked at a bank, doesnt mean its gonna get robbed. OMFG stupid conspiracy sites!!
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 12/13/2007, -1/+0Understatement.
    • dafragsta, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I think they might differ over who has no control here.
    • johnnykalma, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2hate to break it to you but your government has been doing this since the early 1990's

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#Dr ...
  • Herostratus, on 12/13/2007, -12/+495Meanwhile if I get caught smoking a joint I have to go to jail...
    • eastlondoner, on 12/13/2007, -2/+26You are a slave to your government.
    • Tweekster, on 12/13/2007, -14/+6not really, you get a small fine, maybe some community service
      • mcrose68, on 12/13/2007, -0/+28New York City; 2003, I spent the night in jail for half a joint. Of course the DA choose to dismiss the charges. But before that I had to spend 18 hours in a 20x10 cell with 30 people; and another 6 hours in a 10x10 cell with 40-50 people.
        You are naive if you believe that you won't spend time in jail for a joint.
        • dcorey07, on 12/13/2007, -11/+0i have a friend that was busted at a drug checkpoint with a half ounce and he spent 30 minutes in a cell got a ticket and left... you werent in jail u were in a ***** holding cell but nice try
        • Mononuclear, on 12/13/2007, -2/+110x10 with 50 people? Is that meters or feet? How do you fit 50 people in 10ft x 10ft cell?
        • enginbeering, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Either "[I'm] naive" or I don't live in NY.
        • solistus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2NY is decriminalised. You should not have been taken to a holding cell, or jail, unless you were caught actively smoking the joint in a public place. Mere possession of less than 23 grams is not a misdemeanour in NY state; it's like a parking ticket.
      • Lennalf, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5It entirely depends on where you get caught and who catches you. If the local police catch you outside your home with a personal amount in Madison, Wisconsin, for example, you get slapped with a $109 fine and walk away without any criminal charges. In the suburbs only ten miles west, however, you can get fined $1300 for the same offense!

        If you get caught by a federal agent in either of these places, however... well, it's impossible to say how hard they will ***** you, because they don't appear to give a ***** about the law.

        For more information, check out NORML.
        • solistus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Federal agents don't typically prosecute small possession cases. The only cases I know of federal agents intentionally pursuing non-distributors for pot is in raids of medical marijuana clubs, and that's 100% political.
      • isaactwito, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3It changes drastically based on if you're in a state that has decriminalized it. Unless you have over an ounce and a half in these states it's something up to a $200 fine or something (check NORML for actual figures). But in most other states there's a mandatory sentence you often get.
      • solistus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Up here in NY where I go to school, your first two small possession charges are non-criminal and handled like traffic tickets. For possession of larger amounts, possession with intent to distribute, etc. or if you get caught with pot "burning or open to public view" you might get a misdemeanour, although if it's just burning in public and you don't have much on you you'll probably get off with a ticket anyway.

        In TX where I live, it all depends on the cop. If you get an ***** pig, you're probably goin' to jail. I had a friend on probation who admitted to having a single beer with his dad on the Fourth of July and got thrown in the pen for a month. The judge told him if he failed his piss test for pot too he'd be looking at more like a year. If you're in the wrong state, you can get screwed pretty hard for what ought to be a minor offence.
      • misterRobot, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3In Texas I sat in a ***** cell for possessing a god damn plant. A god damn PLANT!! I held a job *and* went to college successfully and bothered no one! I didn't sell it or parade around the streets with it. Sat on my couch and smoked it. After the judge law-raped me I'm sure he went home and had a beer and smoked a cig. *****.That.*****. /rant
    • dcorey07, on 12/13/2007, -20/+1go to jail for smoking a joint? maybe if its over an ounce in seperate baggies, while you are selling this said joint... know the laws before acting like u do
      • misterRobot, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2In texas if you are found with any amount of weed
      • Herostratus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Dude I got arrested over some unrelated ***** trumped up charge and while I was in I met several people who were there for simple possession under 1 oz. In Florida they ***** with you, so dont pretend you know what you are talking about.
    • nj10ii, on 12/13/2007, -2/+6So when we talk about legalizing drugs and taxing it. Are we also going to legalize cocaine?
      • postalblowfish7, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4that would be awesome.
      • manc4, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3It would be awesome. Awesome because they're keeping drugs illegal precisely because there's so much more money to be made from a black market.

        Look at poppy production in Afghanistan before and after the invasion and ask why did we really invade? How dare the Taliban ban poppy production and cut off our money!
      • solistus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8Yes. Illegalising cocaine does nothing to prevent consumption; it merely adds an extremely dangerous criminal element and funds extremists like terrorist groups or Bush.
      • misterRobot, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6People can get cocaine from a convenience store where their consumption rate can be monitored and the economy will profit or they can get it from a "Young Jeezy" type who doesn't give a ***** about them and rides around Houston strapped to the teeth and his Cadillac will have shinier rims. Either way they will get it, which is the better option?
  • Napoleone, on 12/13/2007, -8/+298Surely this can't be true. The CIA's website says they're a "Drug-Free workplace".
    • HotBaconSauce, on 12/13/2007, -1/+47Yes, as long as each employee is quiet about it, all their drugs are free.
      • objectcode, on 12/13/2007, -1/+17guess that should make it a Free-Drugs workplace
    • georgemason01, on 12/13/2007, -0/+31Yes, it's true. Now stop calling me Shirley.
      • EricAnderton, on 12/13/2007, -2/+20That reminds me: do you suppose the pilot had the fish for dinner?
    • bwdd, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4My school is also in a "drug free zone".
    • corruptionteam, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4You are reading it wrong. it is a WORK-FREE DRUG PLACE.
    • WestonP, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3This just in... cocaine is no longer considered a drug, because a government agency wants to use it. Just like torture is not considered torture.
  • medalian1, on 12/13/2007, -49/+26Why couldn't it be true? You believe everything in the newspaper and on TV don't you? lol most Americans are ignorant. I suggest you go back to being ENTERTAINED and enjoy what's coming!
    • BassMastr, on 12/13/2007, -32/+9I believe the newspaper and the TV before I believe DailyKos...
      • zengonzo, on 12/13/2007, -1/+13Not hard to believe the TV when they devote so much time to celebrities and how to behave at the company Christmas party.
      • bitcloud, on 12/13/2007, -0/+14ever hear the term "sheeple"?

        I'll let you in on a secret... *they're talking about you*
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4You mean the same media that took over 5 weeks to even mention the leaked British government documents called "The Downing Street Memo" after they ran front page on most major British news papers? Daily Kos had coverage the same day.

        Yeah, I trust them. NOT!
    • NikoK, on 12/13/2007, -3/+7Turn on your sarcasm detection
  • hansk, on 12/13/2007, -65/+17You people don't get it! The CIA buys up the cocaine and ships it to the US so it will be destroyed in a furnace instead of it going on the streets.
    • blackhawk919, on 12/13/2007, -44/+6I'm not sure if you're serious but the people at the DailyKOS don't get much of anything. They do however have entertainment value, in a criminal circus clown kind of way.
    • chicofaraby, on 12/13/2007, -5/+61Because there are no furnaces in South America.
    • 4degrees, on 12/13/2007, -3/+28why not use the jet fuel that they are using to fly the ***** to the US to destroy it?
      answer: because it is not being destroyed once it is in the US.

      next question is, If it is not being destroyed once the coke is in the US, then what is happening to it?
    • StrangeFamous, on 12/13/2007, -1/+15You make no sense, hansk.

      Why go directly to the producers in Colombia and PAY THEM, just to be able to destroy their product?

      Why not assist the Colombian government in stopping the cocaine from being exported?

      Funding drug producers isn't how a government gets rid of drugs.
      • Tweekster, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1We did that once, but then a bunch of people bitched about that too.
    • hansk, on 12/13/2007, -4/+8ohh srry, i forgot to add the /s to that. i see everyone's sarcasm detector is busted.
      • StrangeFamous, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7Back when I first started using Digg, I probably would have caught the sarcasm. After months of reading Digg comments and seeing some of the Digg users out there, I no longer have any idea. Maybe if you used more caps and overt exaggerations?
        • hansk, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1like: "ZOmfgzz SEA-EYE-YAY Got wtfbbqkatsPWNZZzzzzzz00000RRrrrrrzzeeddd!!!!11111eleventyone"
          ?
      • Simonft, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3It's not the sarcasm detectors that are broken, its the sarcasm.
        • hansk, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1so I wasnt being sarcastic then? damn, i didnt know that. maybe i was being sarcastic there..OH GOD!! reality is crashing down! YYeeeaaarrrggghhhh!!!!!
        • chirox901, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1My lord, whatever do you mean? Is it possible that Hansk here has virtually no understanding of interweb dynamics? Perish the thought.
      • objectcode, on 12/13/2007, -0/+7there are digg users who would say what you just said and be serious about it
      • Mononuclear, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Sarcasm is hard to detect on digg because often when you think someone can't be that stupid the commenter is 100% serious.
      • pjsk8, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I thought that one was fairly obvious.

        "Let's spend all off this money buying all of this cocaine, just to MAKE SURE that bad cocaine doesn't make it to our children. WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!"
    • DiggzDE, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8By furnace, you mean Bush's nose. Right?
    • Merrick178, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Yea... of course. We put up to USD$50,000,000,000 worth of money into drug dealers hands and took 4 kilos of coke of the market. Not only was it totally worth it, but I bet those drug dealers will never ***** with us again.
      • throop77, on 12/13/2007, -0/+24 kilos? ... try 3,628.73896 kilograms, according to google conversion of 4 tons into kilograms.
  • cashman57, on 12/13/2007, -34/+13I won't believe it until I see it on oprah
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    • cdiggy, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Only when it's on Fox News will I believe it cuz that's where credibility truly lies...
    • bono4u, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Judge for yourself, after looking at the following.
      I don't know what of this stuff are real facts and what not, but hey i am not from america i only found that stuff and watched it. You find it manly on video.google.com

      CIA Drug Ops - (Unaired Documentary)

      Former CIA/DEA Drug Trafficker Pilot Beau Abbott Speaks

      BLACK OPS INTERVIEW: CHIP TATUM CHRONICLES

      The MENA Connection

      U.S. Foreign Policy - Secret Wars of the CIA

      YouTube - CFR - The Secret Government (2/2)(find the first part for your self)

      From the Wilderness - The CIA Connection

      Why The "War On Drugs" Is A Scam For Prison Profiteers And The DEA

      YouTube - Iran/Contra - George Bush Sr. (Part 1)

      YouTube - The Iran - Contra Scandal and Cover-Up (Part 1 of 3)

      U.S. Foreign Policy - Secret Wars of the CIA

      Battle Lines in the Drug War
  • polymath22, on 12/13/2007, -40/+32http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
    background:
    Direct maritime trade between Europe and China started in the 16th century, after the Portuguese established the settlement of Goa in India, and shortly thereafter that of Macau in southern China. After Spanish acquisition of the Philippines, the pace of exchange between China and the West accelerated dramatically. Manila galleons brought in far more silver to China than the Silk Road. The Qing government attempted to limit contact with the outside world to a minimum. The Qing only allowed trade through the port of Canton, what is now Guangzhou. Severe red-tape and licensed monopolies were set up to restrict the flow of trade, resulting in high retail prices for imported goods and limited demand. Spain began to sell opium, along with New World products such as tobacco and corn, to the Chinese in order to prevent a trade deficit.

    As a result of high demand for tea, silk, and porcelain in Britain and the low demand for British commodities in China, Britain had a large trade deficit with China and had to pay for these goods with silver. Britain began illegally exporting opium to China from British India in the 18th century to counter its deficit. The opium trade took off rapidly, and the flow of silver began to reverse. The Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729 because of the large number of addicts.

    The Opium Wars, also known as the Anglo-Chinese Wars, lasted from 1839 to 1842 and 1856 to 1860 respectively,[1] the climax of a trade dispute between China and the United Kingdom. British smuggling of opium from British India into China and the Chinese government's efforts to enforce its drug laws erupted in conflict. France fought alongside Britain in the second war.

    China's defeat in both wars forced the government to tolerate the opium trade. The United Kingdom coerced the government into signing Unequal Treaties, opening several ports to foreign trade and yielding Hong Kong to Britain. Several countries followed Britain and forced unequal terms of trade onto China. This humiliation at the hand of foreign powers contributed to the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864), the Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901), and the downfall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.

    http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/498/afghanista ...

    The United States military is melding counterinsurgency with counternarcotics missions in Afghanistan in what officials called "a basic strategy shift" in its Afghan campaign. Up until now, the US military has shied away from anti-drug operations in Afghanistan, leaving them to the DEA, the British, and Afghan authorities in a bid to avoid alienating Afghan peasant populations dependent on the poppy crop for an income.

    But with Afghan opium production at an all-time high last year and predicted to go even higher this year -- Afghanistan accounted for 92% of the global opium supply in 2006 and will account for close to 100% this year--despite nearly a billion dollars in US anti-drug aid, officials in Washington have decided after long discussion that the Afghan drug war must be ratcheted up.

    check out the graph in the link above. if i'm not mistaken, that is hectacres of opium production in afghanistan. note there was one year that opium production was down. very down. so far down that the people who make all the money on opium trade were not making money on the opium trade. the taliban was successful in slowing opium production, and THAT had to stop.
    i assume that opium grows in the summer, so perhaps it was around the beginning of september, 2001 that this missing crop became a real problem for the global opium trade. So, the CIA and its collaborators do 9-11, rush into afghanistan and make sure opium production rises. sure enough, record crops! how about that...
    i suppose the shortage of opium made the price of its derivatives go up. but when the record crop comes in, the drug merchants can still demand the increased price. like any cartel, they probably agreed with themselves to keep the price high, not to undercut one another. crony capitalism
    • Tyrghast, on 12/13/2007, -16/+5yes, i learned about the opium wars in 7th grade, now go away...
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3I'm copying this and making a separate article.. Hope you don't mind. Great research btw, I am just way too lazy to collate and compile it all. Thank you.

      Did you all know that Fraternities such as Skull and Bones mainly made their money off of Opium in their formative years? They only stopped selling high level drugs within the last couple decades.
    • bono4u, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Judge for yourself, after looking at the following.
      I don't know what of this stuff are real facts and what not, but hey i am not from america i only found that stuff and watched it. You find it mainly on video.google.com

      CIA Drug Ops - (Unaired Documentary)

      Former CIA/DEA Drug Trafficker Pilot Beau Abbott Speaks

      BLACK OPS INTERVIEW: CHIP TATUM CHRONICLES

      The MENA Connection

      U.S. Foreign Policy - Secret Wars of the CIA

      YouTube - CFR - The Secret Government (2/2)(find the first part for your self)

      From the Wilderness - The CIA Connection

      Why The "War On Drugs" Is A Scam For Prison Profiteers And The DEA

      YouTube - Iran/Contra - George Bush Sr. (Part 1)

      YouTube - The Iran - Contra Scandal and Cover-Up (Part 1 of 3)

      U.S. Foreign Policy - Secret Wars of the CIA

      Battle Lines in the Drug War
  • Albionshores, on 12/13/2007, -4/+181Meanwhile, how much has been spent on the 'war on drugs'?
    • dondara, on 12/13/2007, -0/+58"Meanwhile, how much has been wasted on the 'war on drugs'?"

      There, fixed that for you.
      • bahamutxd, on 12/13/2007, -0/+10a few billion more than what's been wasted on the 'War on Terror'
      • tHePeOPle, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8According to the unbelievably good article in Rolling Stone it's $500 Billion. If you havent read the article, you should. It's just astounding.
      • appetite, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5"Meanwhile, how much has been spent on the 'war on drug COMPETITION'?"
    • zorpscorp, on 12/13/2007, -1/+19Meanwhile, how much profit has been made from the War on Drugs?
    • COinOR, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3roughly four tons of COCAINE worth
    • eclipse007, on 12/13/2007, -0/+7It's not an spending in view of people in drug business, they see it as an investment. If drugs were not illegal, they would have been cheap and affordable and drug traffickers (apparently CIA one of them, at least in this story) would have gone out of business.
    • DiggzDE, on 12/13/2007, -0/+12All our ***** money is going to these useless wars. What The *****.
    • misterRobot, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Wasted?! Whoa whoa guys, come on. Those $20Mil commercials are *hilarious* when you're stoned :-D
    • jakobe101, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2$500 billion. And this is how we've done such a nice job using it...

      http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/ho ...
    • YoMahDiggas, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4That's the "War on *Your* Drugs."
    • finmaccool, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1As much as the drug dealers (CIA) want to make because that is were the money went. Feel better?
  • radink360, on 12/13/2007, -11/+73*****.

    but not surprised.
    • captric, on 12/13/2007, -12/+1It actually IS unbelievable because it didnt happen the way these morins from Kos portray it. Unless the CIA also has control over the laws of physics - this jet would have never got off the ground with 4 tons of coke on board
      • radink360, on 12/13/2007, -0/+9Wrong.
        According to this
        http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=237

        It is 65000lbs full of fuel. So they fill 1/2 fuel and plenty of space for the drugs.
        • captric, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1No they couldnt - that would throw tha weight and balance off.
      • misterRobot, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1CIA has hax
      • captric, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1Simple minded DIGG commentors! Look at the MAX PAYLOAD! THATS ALL YOU CAN CARRY! Period! That is a calculated with minimum fuel.
        Length: 79.11 ft (24.1 m)
        Height: 24.6 ft (7.5 m)
        Wing span: 77.1 ft (23.5 m)
        Crew: 2
        Passenger: 19 maximum, 12 normal
        Speed: 459 mph
        Ceiling: 45,000 ft
        Cruise altitude: 39,000 ft
        Rate of climb: 4,350 ft/min
        Max weight: 65,000 lb (29,545 kg)
        Max payload: 5,456 lb (2,480 kg)
        Range with max fuel and reserves 6,880 km (3,715 nm)
        Engine: Two Rolls-Royce Spey 511-8 @ 11,400 lb (5180 kg) each
    • PopularNerd123, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4It can't be unbelievable and at the same time fail to surprise you because the definition of unbelievable clearly means something that you can not completely accept, maybe because it is shocking in nature, or totally far fetched. So which is it? unbelievable or it did not surprise you?
    • potifar, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1It's the other way around. I'm surprised, but it's not unbelieveable.
  • nastronomical, on 12/13/2007, -84/+13Dailykos = garbage.


    so the torture jet was torturing people when it crashed high on Coca?
    • StrangeFamous, on 12/13/2007, -1/+16Thumbs down. You are pulling strings out of your ass of douchebaggery.
    • finickyEater, on 12/13/2007, -7/+2Correction, they were torturing puppies and endangered turtles. It's the CIA, they're evil.
    • Acewrap, on 12/13/2007, -0/+11Riiiiight... Because we all know that any mode of transport can only transport one thing ever. That's why I have separate cars for getting groceries, driving to work, taking vacations, etc.

      You're a dolt.
      • Tweekster, on 12/13/2007, -10/+1and apparently once you own a plane you own it forever and no one else can ever buy it
        • Acewrap, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8Not without a record of the transfer.
  • crazy25000, on 12/13/2007, -5/+26i guess this is democracy and for the protection of the american ppl.......i still cant believe this moron hasnt been impeached or tried for treason against america
    • Groovemaster, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8Who's gonna impeach him? His cabal of cohorts and enablers in congress?

      Sorry America... It all rests on the shoulders of the 300 million people who live there. You'd think that many people could handle the task of overseeing their own public servants in their government, but... guess not.
  • DangerCollie, on 12/13/2007, -5/+118What a recruiting angle. CIA - You can torture people and have rooms full of free blow. Get your freak on with some specially trained service personnel, carry illegal weapons, kidnap people...like your daughter's annoying boyfriend...and pack them off to secret prisons. You can play with explosives stoned out of your ever loving mind.
    Sign me up!
    • Dgen_X, on 12/13/2007, -0/+10Makes my job look like a big bucket of suck.....
    • youdaman, on 12/13/2007, -0/+18dont forget you get to waterboard people
      • misterRobot, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1but not torture them!
      • vbullinger, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1What's "waterboarding?" Sounds like some kind of X-Game sport you do behind a speed boat or something. Sounds awesome!

        /sarcasm
    • Mononuclear, on 12/13/2007, -0/+11You forget sex with underage boys and/or girls
      • pintomp3, on 12/13/2007, -4/+4no, that's the catholic church.
        • heystoopid, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1And here I thought that was your average way of how all things are done in the US Senate called the "Larry Craig Style" !

          Knew there was a good reason why the all US Congressmen and Senators keep under aged aides on the payroll at all times in addition to padding the payroll with assorted mistresses and other concubines !
      • darkcooger, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1That's not the CIA, that's Congress.
      • loganhuddleston, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1wasen't that on law and order a few nights ago?
    • avengingturnip, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Isn't that how the Cheka recruited people back in the day?
    • woohhaa, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Where do I sign?
    • isaactwito, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2I'm okay with being the scum of the earth for that. I'll join. Unless I can get similar benefits in the FBI. I have this little life dream of growing up to be Fox Mulder.
  • majortom1981, on 12/13/2007, -32/+73The article said it belonged to the cia between 2003- and 2005 so its not the cia's anymore. Come on I hate bush too but dont lie to bash him.
    • rs99, on 12/13/2007, -12/+21Exactly what I thought. It was used 2 years ago by the CIA. That does not mean that they were using it.
      Sure, there could be a connection between the two, but 'CIA jet crashes with COCAINE' is jumping to conclusions.
    • otheruser, on 12/13/2007, -7/+32Don't be so naive.

      The CIA is known to be very active in cocaine-related operations, usually in attempts to bolster opposition leaders in Central and Southern America..
    • DiggzDE, on 12/13/2007, -1/+34The funny thing is that this is not the first jet or plane that has been found carrying cocaine that was "previously" owned by the CIA. Most of the ones caught or crashed ended up being owned by some dummy company in the states that no one can link to anything. Either the CIA are just not keeping very good track on who they are selling these planes to or they are involved in a whole lot more than we know. Either way, it shouldn't be allowed
      • Seaseme, on 12/13/2007, -7/+2Which? I've never seen that before. What exactly is a "CIA Torture jet" ? and Otheruser, prove it.
    • thehesiod, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6please read the comments, it stated that all the paperwork was filed after the crash
    • solistus, on 12/13/2007, -1/+121) The ownership was retroactively transferred after the crash. Fishy, eh?

      2) You honestly think the CIA would own up to the plane? How often does the CIA accidentally sell its assets to drug lords? Have you EVER heard of drug smugglers using surplus CIA equipment in their operations? Don't you think that sort of thing would make the news?

      3) Even if they DID sell the plane to an actual third party, that doesn't mean it wasn't intentionally done to bolster the cocaine trade. The CIA has admitted to quite a few coke-related activities in the past, and ex-CIA agents make claims from time to time that there are massive black budget programs funded with cocaine.

      4) If you still can't believe the CIA would do something like this and get its hands dirty with "drugs," do yourself a favour and google "Project MKULTRA" and you will be amazed.
    • heystoopid, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2The problem is as soon as the plane's registration number was mentioned the standard FAA paper file containing details of the planes owners mysteriously disappeared and new fake replacement was substituted with all dead ends leading back to a certain post office box near Langley Virginia for some very strange reason !

      Further to compound the issue the usual voluble fast talking DEA Agent in Chief in Mexico City who you normally could not shut up mysteriously stopped talking and remains tight lipped about all information concerning the plane in question but still prattles on other irrelevant issues !
    • misterRobot, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4So selling planes to coke dealers is OK?
    • bono4u, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Judge for yourself, after looking at the following.
      I don't know what of this stuff are real facts and what not, but hey i am not from america i only found that stuff and watched it. You find it manly on video.google.com

      CIA Drug Ops - (Unaired Documentary)

      Former CIA/DEA Drug Trafficker Pilot Beau Abbott Speaks

      BLACK OPS INTERVIEW: CHIP TATUM CHRONICLES

      The MENA Connection

      U.S. Foreign Policy - Secret Wars of the CIA

      YouTube - CFR - The Secret Government (2/2)(find the first part for your self)

      From the Wilderness - The CIA Connection

      Why The "War On Drugs" Is A Scam For Prison Profiteers And The DEA

      YouTube - Iran/Contra - George Bush Sr. (Part 1)

      YouTube - The Iran - Contra Scandal and Cover-Up (Part 1 of 3)

      U.S. Foreign Policy - Secret Wars of the CIA

      Battle Lines in the Drug War
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/13/2007, -11/+42The CIA is the greatest threat to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    It's still We the People, right?
    • Groovemaster, on 12/13/2007, -1/+9Arnie voice: WRONG.
    • captric, on 12/13/2007, -8/+1Well - thats brilliant -you hav ethe first few words of the constitution memorized. This is a representational government - nit an anarchy.
    • petrodollar, on 12/13/2007, -3/+0"we the people" is from the declaration of independence, not the constitution.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Preamble to the U.S. Constitution


        We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    • solistus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+21. petrodollar is an idiot. Don't correct people if you don't know what you are talking about.

      2. Sure, it's still We the People. Except, much like under Stalinism, it's up to them to decide who counts as the People. If the State is acting contrary to your interests, it's not acting contrary to the People; you just don't get to count as part of We the People anymore. Terrorist!
  • 2bsbc, on 12/13/2007, -2/+57The question isn't "what are we going to do," the question is "what aren't we going to do?"
    -Ferris Bueller
  • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 12/13/2007, -9/+23We've known through hearsay that they've been doing this for decades, but here's the hard proof.

    This isn't going to end well at all. America is spiraling into a black hole of chaos, and the system of laws that once maintained an acceptable degree of civility now can no longer reign in obscene corruption like this.

    Anybody want an over/under on how long America remains a country? I say 7.5 years.
    • captric, on 12/13/2007, -16/+4Another wacko with a word processor!
      • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 12/13/2007, -2/+8awww another poor baby neocon who can't deal with the real world! let me get you your binky!
        • dcorey07, on 12/13/2007, -10/+1You consider the DAILYKOS the real world??? ARE you all ***** stupid... no wonder there is a direct correlation between the 3% of America who vote Ron Paul and the 3% of America who visit digg.com... you are all conspiracy theorists that buy into anything and are complete nuts... absolutely insane... EVERYONE IS IN ON IT.. ALL OF MSM, THE GOVT, CIA, FBI... you name it millions of people are in on all of these consp