you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 hours ago* (2 children)

TBF, they "investigated" themselves and found no criminal acts — despite admitting in "an internal report issued by the CIA" they were "at least aware of Contra involvement in drug trafficking, and in some cases dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved."

While I'm sure that's technically factual, (ie. via "classifying" anything they don't want to reveal to the voting public), damning evidence showed that the CIA's "Contra drug links included, among other connections, payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, and in some cases "after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies"

So, even though keeping themselves free of blame is essential to their agency's very existence, we're left with what "facts" they allow to be published.

tl; dr: They're notorious for facilitating crime while technically staying clean of criminality themselves. They may not have cooked it up in their own labs, but they clearly funded and paved the way for those that could, instead.

Ergo, much as a parent is charged in shootings by a minor (finally!)(US), they are wholly complicit at best. 🤢🤕

ACAB, and ofc AFAB, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (1 child)

    keeping themselves free of blame is essential to their agency's very existence

    Depending on your definition of blamelessness, that could logicallymean that it never actually existed 😉

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment