U.S. Government As Money Launderer For Drug Cartels
Ginger Thompson writes in The New York Times:
Undercover American narcotics agents have laundered or smuggled millions of dollars in drug proceeds as part of Washington's expanding role in Mexico's fight against drug cartels, according to current and former federal law enforcement officials.The agents, primarily with the Drug Enforcement Administration, have handled shipments of hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal cash across borders, those officials said, to identify how criminal organizations move their money, where they keep their assets and, most important, who their leaders are.
They said agents had deposited the drug proceeds in accounts designated by traffickers, or in shell accounts set up by agents.
The officials said that while the D.E.A. conducted such operations in other countries, it began doing so in Mexico only in the past few years. The high-risk activities raise delicate questions about the agency's effectiveness in bringing down drug kingpins, underscore diplomatic concerns about Mexican sovereignty, and blur the line between surveillance and facilitating crime. As it launders drug money, the agency often allows cartels to continue their operations over months or even years before making seizures or arrests.
Agency officials declined to publicly discuss details of their work, citing concerns about compromising their investigations. But Michael S. Vigil, a former senior agency official who is currently working for a private contracting company called Mission Essential Personnel, said, "We tried to make sure there was always close supervision of these operations so that we were accomplishing our objectives, and agents weren't laundering money for the sake of laundering money."
Another former agency official, who asked not to be identified speaking publicly about delicate operations, said, "My rule was that if we are going to launder money, we better show results. Otherwise, the D.E.A. could wind up being the largest money launderer in the business, and that money results in violence and deaths."
Fast & Furious and brought to you by your government.
"...could wind up being the largest money launderer in the business"??
Well, we're already the largest (mostly legal) arms dealer in the world.
Prohibition of alcohol did not work. Prohibition of drugs isn't either. But it supports so many people, and gives politicians great sound bites, so I don't see it going away any time soon.
DrCos at December 7, 2011 2:17 AM
And the Fed is the biggest counterfeiter in the world. This is America - we do things big here.
Pirate Jo at December 7, 2011 5:53 AM
When the law surrenders the moral high ground, regarless of the stated reason, it is no better than the crime it claims to be fighting.
nuzltr2 at December 7, 2011 10:24 AM
"Mexico's fight against drug cartels..."
Looks to me like it was very much the other way around. Now, here's the interesting bit. What is the motivation? When all we knew about was the gun-running, the most popular theory about why Justice got so involved in this was because it was trying to discredit Second Amendment advocates in the U.S. But money laundering doesn't seem to square with that, except in a very indirect way. So what is the script to this bridge?
I'm beginning to wonder if the Obama Administration is trying to destabilize Mexico for some reason. Putting the ethical concerns aside for a moment, why would they want to do that? Let's look at what would happen if the cartels succeeded in defeating the Mexican government. My guess is it would result in the breakup of the country; Mexico would divide into at least three territories and possibly a lot more. The result could be a failed state on our border, plus Mexico's resort and industrial areas becoming sites for large-scale gang wars.
I can't see any scenario where the United States in general benefits by that. However, certain groups might benefit, or at least think that they would benefit. A destabilized Mexico would be a bad place to offshore jobs, and I can see some unions thinking that this will bring union-izable jobs back to the U.S. (It won't; they'll just go elsewhere in South America or Asia, but whatever.)
The only other thing that comes to mind is that, given the administration's refusal to secure the border, it would result in a huge increase in crime and gang activity in the border states, but particularly Texas. Could this whole thing really be some kind of Obama vendetta against Texas, a bit of Chicago Way on an international scale? Sounds far-fetched, but... is he that clever? I don't know, but he certainly has people who are. Is he that petty and vindictive? I think we know the answer to that.
Cousin Dave at December 7, 2011 6:28 PM
Leave a comment