DEA whistleblower exposes CIA's 'war of pretense' and proof that interagency cooperation is not happening
By Bill Conroy
The DEA's job is to eradicate illicit narcotics. The CIA's role is to act
as an information broker in the interest of national security.
Most people would conclude that their missions are key planks of U.S.
policy.
Or are they?
Based on court pleadings that recently surfaced in a case previously
cloaked in the shadows of national security, it appears that the DEA
and CIA, at times, have opposing missions and that the so-called
"war on drugs" is in reality a "war of pretense."
Richard Horn is a former DEA agent who in the early 1990s served as
the agency's top man in the Southeast Asian country of Burma, a major
source of the opium poppy - which is used to make heroin.
Horn's mission while in Burma was to thwart drug-trafficking
operations in the country. However, he claims in sealed litigation
that recently became public that the CIA illegally spied on him in an
effort to sabotage that mission.
In fact, Horn's lawyer -- and sources within the DEA -- claim that the
CIA regularly spies on DEA agents stationed in other countries, often
with the intent of stealing DEA sources or disrupting the agency's
drug-eradication efforts.
In the wake of discovering that his home in Burma had been bugged,
Horn sued the top CIA and State Department officials in the country,
alleging they had conspired to violate his civil rights. The court
then promptly sealed the records in the case and later suppressed
critical evidence by invoking a national security mantra called state
secrets privilege.
However, the lid was blown off the whole affair recently when someone
leaked documents from Horn's sealed 1994 legal case to the media.
Those court pleadings indicate that Horn believes the reason the CIA
spied on him is because he had made the mistake of going against the
official U.S. policy in Burma.
Horn was working closely with the government of Burma, a repressive
military junta. Despite its atrocious human rights record, Horn claims
the ruling junta was actively working to stem narco-trafficking in
Burma - which is now called Myanmar.
According to Horn's lawsuit, however, the State Department and CIA
were interested in vilifying the government of Burma in the eyes of
Congress and the public. Horn's cooperation with the government
undermined that policy. As a result, Horn argues in his lawsuit, top
CIA and State Department officials in the country worked to derail
DEA's efforts in the region and eventually got Horn transferred out of
the country.
Sources in the intelligence community, however, say the CIA's motives
in Burma are far more complex.
Back Story
Warlords control a large slice of Burma - in particular, an area
straddling Laos, Thailand and China that is part of the Golden
Triangle. These warlords command vast armies that are funded by
proceeds from narco-trafficking. The military junta that rules Burma,
unable to conquer these warlords, has gone down the path of
compromise, agreeing to ceasefires with many of them.
These agreements of convenience between the government and the
warlords, intelligence sources contend, set the conditions for
corruption to flourish. That corruption fuels the extremely lucrative
drug trade in the country.
In order for the CIA to effectively gather intelligence in the region,
the Agency has to penetrate both sides of the game, which means it has
to cultivate human assets in both the government and the narco-trafficking
groups controlled by the warlords, the sources add.
Former FBI agent Lok Lau understands that game well. Lau drew national
attention last year after revealing he spied on China in the late
1980s and early 1990s for the Bureau.
As in the Horn case, certain pleadings in an employment discrimination
lawsuit Lau brought against the government were later stricken from
the public record under the cloak of national security. Documents
filed in Lau's case show that he was successful in penetrating the
Chinese diplomatic community as well as organized crime organizations
that had strong links to the Chinese government.
Lau says the Horn case is a perfect illustration of how there "is
no coordination at all" between the intelligence community and
other federal law enforcement agencies. Lau adds that if the U.S.
Government really were serious about eradicating the drug trade,
"they would have done it. But they do not really want to."
"Let's say the DEA was successful in eradicating all drug
trafficking," Lau says. "What would be left to prop up pro-U.S.
regimes that rely on the drug trade? " The CIA can use the proceeds
of the drug trade to pay for armies to support a friendly
government."
Lau also contends that a lot of careers in the intelligence community
have been built around human assets who have been planted within the
ranks of the narco-trafficking organizations. If you disrupt the drug
trade, you threaten the assets that are helping to make careers - and
at times, corrupt fortunes - within the intelligence community, Lau
points out.
The Big Game
Given that backdrop, it's not a stretch to conclude that the CIA
had a compelling self-interest in ensuring that Horn's case was sealed
and critical evidence suppressed on national security grounds.
Mark Zaid, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who has represented a
number of high-profile government whistleblowers, says often the use
of state secrets privilege "is an abuse, a way for the government
to cover up wrongdoing or incompetence, and the judiciary goes along
with it because they are intimidated."
Zaid is the attorney representing former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds,
who claims she was fired from the FBI for exposing serious security
and management problems within the FBI's translator program This past
July, a judge threw Edmonds' case out of court after ruling evidence
she needed to prove her claims was protected by state secrets
privilege.
Zaid points out that the Horn case has particularly serious
implications for open government, because not only was state secrets
privilege invoked, but the case itself was sealed, which meant no one
would ever know that national security had been used to scuttle the
case if court documents had not been given to the media.
"The CIA will do what it needs to do to suit its interests,"
Zaid says. "If that means taking steps against another agency
employee, they will do it.
"" But there is a double tragedy in the use of the state
secrets privilege (in the Horn case) in that because the case is
sealed, no one would even know the government invoked the privilege.
" The ridiculous thing is that (Horn's) case is still under seal.
There is very little classified information involved in the case (and
what is there has already been redacted from the record).
"So why is this case being covered up by the government?"
Zaid asks.
Some people will find it easy to dismiss as a whacked-out conspiracy
theory any suggestion that the CIA is complicit with drug-traffickers.
But it's not a conspiracy theory, according to law enforcement
sources. It's a marriage of convenience, with each side getting
something of value in the exchange: money and protection in the case
of the traffickers; information and access in the case of the CIA.
It may well be a pact with the devil, but it's an old bargain in a big
game that is not likely to end without a major reshuffling of the
status quo. However, when that game starts to reach into this
country's courts and subverts the ultimate U.S. interest, the
Constitution, it may be time to start drawing some lines.
(For more information on this issue, go to the following link: http://www.narconews.com/Issue34/article1063.html)
Bill Conroy is a journalist and author of the book "Borderline
Security: A Chronicle of Reprisal, Cronyism and Corruption in the U.S.
Customs Service," which was recently published online by Narco
News (www.narconews.com). He can be contacted at wkc6428@aol.com