8 - Panama: The Naked Truth

One of the more recent examples is perhaps also the most blatant diplomacy by deception case on record: The Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Treaty. The treaty deserves closer scrutiny than it was subjected to at the time it was drawn up and allegedly negotiated. I hope to bring out important implications that were never fully nor properly explored or addressed which now more than ever, need amplification. One of these is the danger that we, the sovereign people, face of being forced under the jurisdiction of the United Nations in the near future. A slippery deal like Carter's Panama Canal give-away, could be sprung on us again if we don't know what to look for.

Not generally known is that Anglo-Persian, a British government owned oil company, tried to buy a concession from the Colombian government for canal rights flanking U.S. territory, at the time the United States was negotiating with Colombia for these rights. Irving Frederick Yates, a British diplomat, almost pulled off a deal with Colombia that would have thwarted U.S. plans to purchase the land for the canal zone. Yates was stopped at the last minute by a diplomatic incident which invoked the Monroe Doctrine.

A short review of the history of how the United States acquired the land through which the Panama Canal was built, might help us to understand subsequent events:

  • In the period 1845-1849, the government of Colombia concluded a treaty with the United States, granting the U.S. right of transit across the Isthmus of Panama.

  • In 1855 Panama was given federal status by a constitutional amendment Prior to the revolution of 1903, Panama had been part of Colombia.

  • On April 19, 1850, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty between Great Britain and the United States was signed, in which both parties agreed not to obtain or maintain any exclusive control of a proposed canal, and guaranteed its neutrality. At the time Colombian oil was the key issue.

  • On February 5, 1900, the first Hay Pauncefote treaty between Great Britain and the United States was signed. The treaty renounced British rights to a joint construction to build a canal and ownership, and was rejected when it reached the British Parliament

  • The second Hay-Pauncefote treaty was signed in November 1901, giving the United States the sole right of construction, maintenance and control of a canal.

  • On Jan. 23,1903, the Hay-Heran treaty between Colombia and the United States was signed, which provided for the acquisition by the United States of a canal zone. The Colombian Senate did not ratify the treaty.

  • The Hay-Bunua-Varilla treaty between the United States and the new government of Panama was signed on Nov. 18,1903: Panama sold in perpetuity a zone five miles wide on either side of the future canal, with full jurisdiction to the United States.

  • The United States gained the right also to fortify the canal zone, and paid $10 million for the rights and further agreed to pay an annual fee of $250,000.

  • Released from the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty in January of 1903, the United States and Colombia negotiated the Hay-Herran Treaty, which accorded United States sovereignty over the territory five miles wide on either side of the proposed canal.

  • The treaty was signed on Feb. 26,1904. It is of the utmost importance to take cognizance that the land five miles wide on either side of the proposed canal, was henceforth sovereign United States territory, which could not be given away or otherwise disposed of, save and except by a Constitutional amendment ratified by all of the states.

  • Ratification of the treaty was delayed by Colombia and it was not until eleven years later, on April 6,1914, that the Thompson-Urrutia treaty was signed, with the U.S. expressing regret over differences that had arisen with Colombia, and agreeing to pay Colombia the sum of $25 million by which action, Colombia ratified the treaty.

  • On Sept. 2,1914, the boundaries of the Canal Zone were defined and further sovereign rights of protection were conceded to the United States. The Panama Canal Zone then became sovereign territory of the United States.

  • The Thompson-Urrutia Treaty was signed on April 20, 1921. The terms of the treaty were that Colombia recognized the independence of Panama. The previously disputed boundaries were fixed, and diplomatic relations established with the signing of various accords between Panama and Colombia.

  • The U.S. Senate delayed ratification for another seven years, but on April 20, 1928, finally ratified the Thompson-Urrutia Treaty with certain modifications.

  • The Colombian Congress similarly ratified the treaty on Dec. 22,1928.

Previously, in 1927 the Panamanian government said that it did not give the United States sovereignty at the time the treaties were signed. But the League of Nations refused to hear this patently absurd dispute, and the indisputable American sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone territory was reconfirmed when President Florencio Harmodio Arosemena disavowed the Panama government's appeal to the League of Nations.

It is of the utmost importance for every American, especially in these days, when the Constitution is being trampled underfoot by politicians, to take note of how the U.S. Constitution was scrupulously observed throughout the negotiations with Colombia and Panama. Treaties were drawn up and by the Senate and signed by the President. An appropriate period of time was allowed to pass while the agreement was studied before it was ratified.

Later, we shall compare the constitutional manner in which the treaty between the U.S. and Colombia over Panama was handled, with the slipshod, deceptive, crooked, wreathed in dishonesty, unconstitutional, bordering on fraudulent conduct of the Carter administration in giving the property of the sovereign people of the United States to Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos, and actually paying him to accept it.

The only major mistake the United States made in 1921 was in not instantly declaring the canal and land sovereign possessions of the sovereign people of the United States and making it a state of the United States, in terms of the Constitution which mandates that a territory become a State once it is a territory of the United States. Failure to make the Panama Canal Zone a state was to invite the Rockefeller international bankers to come in and steal the Panama Canal Zone from its owners, the sovereign American people, an action aided by President Carter every step of the way under cover of diplomacy by deception.

It is said that if we do not profit from our mistakes, then we are bound to repeat them. This maxim applies to the United States today more than ever when we examine the role of the United States in the Bolshevik Revolution, the First World War, Palestine, the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam. We must not allow the illegal precedents set by the Carter administration and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be used against us in any future treaty negotiations, such as those likely to come up with the United Nations in the near future. Such attempts to subvert the Constitution might take the form of subjugating our military forces to the command of the United Nations.

The precedent set by the successful theft of the Panama Canal from the sovereign owners, we the people, has resulted in wars at great cost in lives and money, an assumption of powers not given to the president by the Constitution, and a widening of diplomacy by deception actions leading to contempt for the Constitution by the secret upper level parallel government such as is occurring in Somalia, Bosnia and South Africa.

This is why I believe it is necessary to ensure that no more Panama Canal give-aways are allowed to occur, and the only way to prevent a repetition of that mass swindle carried out undercover of diplomacy by deception is to examine what happened in the period l965 to 1973. If we know what happened, then our chances of preventing it from happening again are improved.

To understand how the Carter administration was able to swindle the sovereign people of the United States, one must have at least a working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. To interpret the Constitution, we also need to know our form of government and understand that its foreign policies are firmly anchored in Vattel's "Law of Nations," which the Founding Fathers used to shape our Constitution. We must also understand treaties and their relationship to our Constitution. There are only a handful of senators and members of the House who have a clear understanding of these vital matters.

We constantly hear the ill-informed referring to the United States as a "democracy." The print and electronic media is particularly heinous at perpetuating this falsehood, I think, of as part of an deliberate deception designed to mislead the people. The United States is not a democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic, or a Confederated Republic or a Federal Republic, or an amalgamation of all three. To fail to understand this is the first step into confusion.

Madison brought out that we are not a democracy. It was controversy over the form of our government that led to the Civil War. Had secession from the Union not come up, there would, possibly, and very probably, not have been a war. President Abraham Lincoln believed that there was a plot that had its origin in England to dismember the United States of America, and make of it two nations, which could then always be played off, one against the other, by the international bankers. The Civil War was fought to make the point that, once sovereign, always sovereign and that the South could not secede from the Union. The issue of sovereignty and sovereign territory was decided once and for all by the Civil War.

In a Constitutional Republic, the people who reside in the States are the sovereigns. In the House and Senate are the representatives or agents if that is a better description of how they are supposed to function. This is spelt out in the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights which states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The president is not a king, nor is he the commander-in-chief of the military, except during declared wars (there can be no other legal kind.) It is his job and duty to uphold the Constitution, which he swears an oath to do. Many of our agents, including the president, have flagrantly violated the Constitution. Perhaps the most flagrant of these occurred when President Carter and 57 senators, under cover of diplomacy by deception, gave away the sovereign people's canal at Panama, i.e., in effect they attempted to dispose of sovereign territory belonging to the United States.

United States territory, under the U.S. Constitution cannot be alienated. The authority for this statement is found in Congressional Record Senate, S1524-S7992, April 16, 1926. The Founding Fathers passed a resolution that U.S. Territory cannot be alienated by giving it away or ceding it to another party, save and except by a constitutional amendment ratified by all of the states.

There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses the question of political parties. As I have so often said in the past, politicians arose because we, the sovereign people, were too soft, too lazy to do the work ourselves and so we elected agents and paid them to do the work for us, leaving them for the most part, unsupervised. That is what the House and Senate are today; unsupervised agents of we the people, who are running amuck and trampling the U.S. Constitution underfoot.

The Panama Canal treaty enacted by President Carter was a much bigger scandal than the Iran/Contra affair and the Tea Pot Dome scandal, referred to in the chapters on Rockefeller oil politics and the petroleum industry. Who makes the laws? The Senate and the House enact legislation that becomes law when it is signed by the President Are treaties part of the law? First, let us understand that a treaty is defined in the Constitution (under Article 6, Section 2, and Article III,) Section 2 as law after the Senate has written up the treaty, and it has been passed by the House, and signed by the President

The House plays a crucial role in treaty-making, as it has the power to nullify a treaty because they come under international and interstate commerce regulated by the House. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3-"to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.") The Constitution says in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that the legislature makes treaties, NOT private individuals which Linowitz and Bunker were, although purporting to represent the United States.


Article 1, Section 7:

"Every bill which shall have Carter, Bush, and now Clinton have acted as if they were all-powerful kings, when they are not. We had Carter dealing in international law and giving away the sovereign people's property to Torrijos, and we had Bush going to war without a declaration of war, and now we have Clinton attempting to make use of proclamations (executive orders) to legislate. The Constitution is clear on these matters; there is only one place in the Constitution where power is given to deal in international law, and that is the Congress. It is not an expressed power of the President, no matter what the circumstances may be.

(Part 10, Article 1, Section 8.)

What Carter and Bush did, and what Clinton is attempting to do now, is to compress and squeeze the Constitution to make it fit the desires and aims of the Committee of 300. Two examples that come to mind; abortion and gun control. Carter did this compressing and squeezing in the Panama canal give-away. Carter was guilty of perjury in usurping and claiming he had the right to dispose of sovereign U.S. property in Panama.

Carter's power to act as a surrogate for David Rockefeller and the drug banks allegedly under cover of negotiations over the Panama Canal, are neither expressly stated, implied not incidental to another power in the Constitution. Therefore, Carter's actions over Panama were illegal. But Carter got away with violating and trampling the Constitution underfoot as did his successors Bush and Clinton.

If we read Vattel's Law of Nations correctly, on which our foreign policy was based by the Founding Fathers, we see that it never gave a federal power nor a Congressional power to give, sell or otherwise dispose of sovereign territory belonging to the sovereign people of the United States. Treaty power can never exceed that power found in Vattel's Law of Nations.

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and a careful reading of the Constitution, makes it perfectly clear that neither the president, the House or the 165 Senate, is authorized to give, sell, or otherwise dispose of any sovereign territory of the United States, save and except by means of an amendment to the Constitution ratified by all of the States. This was not done in the case of the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Treaty: therefore every one of the 57 senators who signed the agreement violated his oath of office, and that also includes President Carter. Because of their treasonous conduct, the United States lost control of a key element in its defense, our canal at Panama.

What are the facts of the so-called Panama Canal Treaty fraudulently signed into law by President Carter? Let us deal with what it means to negotiate a treaty. Negotiate implies that there is a give-and-take objective by the negotiators. Secondly, those who do the negotiating must own the property or money or whatever it is that the negotiations are about, or be duly authorized by the owners to negotiate on their behalf. Also, when one gives something, in law there has to be a "consideration" for what is given. If there is consideration from one side only, then it stands in law that there can be no treaty, and there is no treaty agreement.

As I have said, when negotiating a treaty agreement, it is, paramount that the parties doing the negotiating are legally entitled to do so. In the Panama Canal Treaty, the negotiators were not empowered by the Constitution to negotiate. Neither Ellsworth Bunker nor Sol Linowitz (alleged to be a U.S. ambassador) were qualified to negotiate; for the first reason that the treaty document was not written up by the Senate, and because there was a total absence of objectivity in the alleged negotiating done by Bunker and Linowitz.

Neither Linowitz nor Bunker should have had a vested interest in the Panama Canal Treaty, but both had a very big financial stake in the project it was to their personal financial benefit that the treaty be successful. This was sufficient reason for the treaty to be declared null and void. The Constitution was trampled underfoot by the Bunker/ Linowitz appointments. Article 11, Part 2, Section 2 states that Linowitz and Bunker had to have "the advice and consent of the Senate," which neither of them ever received.

Linowitz was a director of the Marine and Midland Bank with extensive banking connections in Panama, and had previously done work for the government of Panama. The Marine and Midland Bank was taken over by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, the premiere drug money laundering bank in the world. The Midland Bank takeover was carried out with the express permission of Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, even though Volcker knew full-well that the purpose of the takeover was for the Rockefeller-owned banks in Panama to gain a foothold in the lucrative cocaine-banking trade in Panama. The acquisition of Midland by the Hong Kong and Shangai Bank was highly irregular, and bordered on a criminal act under U.S. banking laws.

The Bunker family did business with Torrijos and had previously done business with Arnulfo Arias and former President of Panama, Marco O. Robles. No matter that both U.S. negotiators allegedly had broken off these relationships; no matter that a a flimsy and transparent deception was carried out (the six-month waiting period), the Constitution says in Article 11, Section 2, Part 2 that the President will appoint an ambassador or ministers "with the advice and consent of the Senate."


There is no talk of a waiting period which was used to get around the conflict of interest surrounding Linowitz and Bunker. It was all just so a gross deception of the American people.

The appointment of Linowitz and Bunker was clouded and fouled in deception, reeking of dishonesty and broke the sacred fiduciary trust the president is supposed to have with we, the sovereign people. Never was diplomacy by deception quite so artfully carried out than in the appointment of Linowitz and Bunker to be the "negotiators" of a treaty that the Senate never wrote up; in outright defiance of the Constitution by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The members of the committee ought all to have been impeached and perhaps even charged with treason at the time they accepted the drug banker's choice of Ellsworth and Linowitz as "negotiators."

We come now to what Bunker and Linowitz negotiated. The Panama Canal and territory could not be negotiated; it was the sovereign territory of the United States which could not be disposed of save and except by means of a constitutional amendment passed by Congress and ratified by all of the States. Also, the two ambassador's credentials, if they had any, were not drawn up by the Senate. Carter and his crooked Wall Street accomplices deceived the American people into believing that Bunker and Linowitz were acting lawfully on behalf of the United States, when in fact they were breaking U.S. law.

The strategy worked out by the Wall Street bankers was to keep the American people in doubt and in the dark making things so hazy that they would say, "well I suppose we can trust President Carter on this one." In this the Wall Street bankers and David Rockefeller were ably assisted by an army of paid, kept and directed political writers; newspaper editors, the major television networks, and, particularly two U.S. Senators.

Sen. Dennis De Concini added reservations to the treaty, which were no more than window dressing to be used to excuse the Senator's failure to uphold the Constitution. The "reservations" were not signed by Omar Torrijos and were of no force and effect, but the action gave voters in Arizona a false impression that De Concini was not wholly in favor of the treaty. This was altogether low political chicanery. Voters in Arizona had informed De Concini that they were overwhelmingly against the treaty.

So what was "negotiated? What was the give-and take, the consideration that must by law be an integral part of treaty negotiations? The startling truth is that there was none. We, the sovereign people, already owned the sovereign territory of the Panama Canal Zone; Torrijos and the Panamanian government had no consideration to offer and gave none to the United States. Thus, the negotiations were patently one-sided, which alone makes the Torrijos-Carter treaty null and void.

If there is no consideration from either side, then there can be no treaty. Contracts often contain a token payment as a consideration to make the contract legal, which it otherwise would not be. Sometimes, as little as $10 is given as a consideration, just to make it legal. It was as simple as that To repeat Torrijos gave no consideration to the United States. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that Rockefeller's hirelings could do what they did, all its members failed in their duty to we, the people, and therefore should have been forced from office.

Before the Senate ratified the misbegotten Panama Canal treaty, it should have been studied for at least two to three years. Consider the length of time taken by the United States and Colombia to ratify the 1903 treaty. That was proper; the rushed study by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the Carter-Torrijos treaty was highly improper. In fact, the treaty should never have been allowed to come up for consideration, since the Senate itself did not write up the treaty, and only saw it after it was already negotiated. This is in direct contravention of the Constitution.

Thus, signing of a nullified treaty by Carter was a travesty and a deception by the President, aimed at harming his own people and for the benefit of the drug banks and their Wall Street counterparts. No matter how long it has been in existence, the Carter-Torrijos treaty remains to this day, null and void. The document contains no less than 15 gross violations of treaty-making in terms of the U.S. Constitution, and perhaps another five more.

Only a Constitutional amendment, passed the Congress and ratified by all the States would have validated the Carter-Torrijos treaty. But the treaty was so badly flawed that it could have been overturned by the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court had a mind to do its duty to we, the people.

All definitions of a treaty state that a treaty has to give something on both sides. The Panama canal already belonged to the United States. Of that there is no doubt, but let us retrace our steps and reconfirm this position. The 1903 treaty was signed by both parties, one gave land, the other received a cash consideration. The United States let it be known that, henceforth, the territory it had paid for was sovereign

U.S. territory. Not a single one of the debates held during the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal hearings disputed that the canal was U.S. sovereign territory and had been since 1903.

The wording of the 1903 treaty is very important to introduce at this point,

"Article 111 'to the entire exclusion of the of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any sovereign rights, power or authority... are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise of the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority...and exercise it as if it were American territory."'

This left no room for doubt that this was a treaty that established the Panama Canal Zone as sovereign U.S. territory from Nov. 18,1903 onwards and in perpetuity.

I have mentioned sovereignty many times herein. A good definition of sovereignty is found in George Randolph Tucker's book on international law. Another good explanation of sovereignty can be found in Dr. Mulford's book "Sovereignty of Nations":

"The existence of sovereignty of the nation, or political sovereignty, is indicated by certain signs or notes which are universal. These are independence, authority, supremacy, unity and majesty... A divisive sovereignty is a contradiction of the supremacy which is implied in all of its necessary conception and inconsistent with its substance in the organic will. It is indefeasible. It can not, through legal forms and legist devices, be annulled and avoided, nor can it be voluntarily abdicated or voluntarily resumed, but involves a continuity of power and action...It works through all members and in all organs and offices of the State..."

What Carter attempted to do on behalf of Rockefeller and the drug banks was to alter the 1903 Panama treaty "through legal forms and legist devices." But the 1903 Panama treaty could not "be annulled and avoided" by such legist devices. That left Carter with a null and void fraudulent document which he passed off on the American people as a genuine treaty, as a new and legally binding treaty, which it was not then, nor can it ever be.

When the Rockefeller drug banks began planning on how to protect their investments in Panama in the 1960s, the cocaine trade in Colombia was booming. Inasmuch as trouble was brewing in Hong Kong as the Chinese government having demanded control of the island and a bigger share of the heroin trade conducted for centuries by the British the Wall Street international bankers began to regard Panama as a newer safe haven for drug money-laundering operations. In addition, the huge amounts of cash generated by the cocaine trade flowing into Panamanian banks needed to be protected.

But to do this, Panama had to be controlled by a representative of the Wall Street banks, and this would not be easy. History shows that President Roosevelt was the first to try and weaken the 1903 Panama Canal treaties by giving away the area of Colon, which subsequently became a hub of commerce and a drug-trafficking center.


President Dwight Eisenhower was the second U.S. official to attempt to weaken the sovereignty of the Panama Canal, when, on Sept. 17, 1960, he ordered the Panamanian flag flown alongside the U.S. flag in the Canal Zone. Eisenhower had carried out this treasonous action on behalf of the CFR and David Rockefeller. However, even Eisenhower's act of treason could not "annul and avoid" the 1903 treaty. Eisenhower had no right to order the flag of a foreign government to be flown in the sovereign territory of the United States; it was in gross violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Encouraged by the treasonous conduct of Roosevelt and Eisenhower, Panama's President Roberto F. Chiari formally requested the United States to revise the Panama Canal treaty. This was one month after the Eisenhower flag incident. If our Constitution means anything, it means that no such action is possible by the United States unless it passes the House and Senate and is ratified by all of the States. In January of 1964, paid agitators stirred up rioting and Panama broke off relations with the United States. This was classic stage-management by the Wall Street bankers.

Then, in April 1964, President Lyndon Johnson, (without the consent of the House and Senate), told the Organization of American States (OAS) that the U.S. "was willing to review every issue involved in the rift with Panama over the Canal" and diplomatic relations resumed. President Johnson had no power to deal in international law, nor did he have the power to do anything to alter the 1903 treaty "by legist" or any other deceptive device.

Johnson actively sought measures that would enable new negotiations over the 1903 treaty to commence. Johnson did not have the power to negotiate on treaties and his actions further attacked the sovereignty of the Canal territory, encouraging the Wall Street bankers led by Rockefeller, to become bolder. Clearly, Johnson's acts were unconstitutional because he was attempting to moderate a treaty covering the sovereign territory of the Panama Canal, which no president has the power to do.

The Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal treaty came about because Panama was in debt to the Wall Street banks for approximately $8 billion. The whole wretched piece of deception was designed to force the sovereign American people to make good on what Panama owed to the Wall Street bankers. This was not the first time that we, the people, were swindled by the Wall Street bankers. It will be recalled that it was the U.S. taxpayers who were forced to pay $100 million for German commercialized reparation bonds in the period 1921 to 1924. As in the case of the Carter-Torrijos treaty, Wall Street bankers were deeply involved in the German bonds, the most notable being J.P. Morgan and Kuhn and Loeb and Company.

Following a carefully scripted Rockefeller scenario, in October of 1968, Arnulfo Arias was ousted by the Panama Defense Force con trolled by Colonel Omar Torrijos. Torrijos immediately abolished all political parties in Panama. On Sept 1, 1970, Torrijos rejected the Johnson draft of 1967 (ostensibly to revise the 1903 treaty) on the grounds that it fell short of complete surrender and control of the canal to Panama.

The stage was set for the Wall Street conspirators to move forward under cover of diplomacy by deception and they began to take steps to put the Panama Canal in the hands of Torrijos, who Rockefeller knew could be trusted not to rip the lid off drug money laundering banks in Panama, as Arnulfo had threatened to do. In return, Torrijos was promised that the Panama Canal Zone would be handed back to Panama.

The new treaty turned control of Panama over to the Torrijos government and was signed by President Carter, who will go down in history as having possibly the worst record of violating the Constitution of any President of this century, with the exception of George Bush. When reviewing the fraudulent Carter-Torrijos treaty, one is reminded of the words of the late, great Congressman Louis T. McFadden.


On June 10,1932, McFadden denounced the Federal Reserve Board as,

"one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known..."

The Carter-Torrijos treaty is one of the most corrupt treaties the world has ever known.

The American cocaine trade had far outstripped the Far East trade in heroin, so Panama became one of the most sheltered banking havens in the drug money laundering world. The booze-barons of yesteryear became the dope barons of today. Nothing much has changed except that the mechanics of concealment are a great deal more sophisticated today than they were then. Now it is in the gentlemanly image of the board room and the exclusive clubs of London, Nice, Monte Carlo and Acapulco. The oligarchists maintain a discreet distance from their court servants; untouchable and serene in their palaces and their power.

Is the drug business conducted in the bootlegging manner? Do sinister-looking men travel around carrying suitcases stuffed with $100 bills? They do, but only on very rare occasions. Mainly the money end of the dope trade is transacted with the witting cooperation of internationals banks and their interfacing financial institutions. Close down the drug money laundering banks, and the drug trade will begin to dry up. Close up the rat holes and it will be easier to get rid of the rodents.

This is what happened in Panama. The rat holes were closed up by Gen. Manuel Noriega. The international bankers could hardly take that lying down. When one hits the drug money laundering banks, repercussions are sure to follow swiftly. To give an idea of what was at stake, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) estimated that $250 million per day changed hands through teletype transfers of which 50 percent was interbank money derived from the drug trade. The Cayman Islands, Panama, Bahamas, Andorra, Hong Kong and the Swiss banks handle the bulk of it with a larger and larger volume going through Panamanian banks since the 1970s.

It was increasingly clear to the drug money laundering bankers in the United States that in Panama they had a winner. With that understanding came great concern that the money launderers had to have an asset in place in Panama whom they could control. Arnulfo Arias had shaken them when he began poking around in their banks in Panama City. The DEA estimates that $6 billion a year finds its way from the United States to Panama. Coudert Brothers, the Committee of 300 "mob" lawyers for the Eastern Liberal Establishment, began steps that would ensure that another Arnulfo Arias did not threaten the increasingly lucrative cocaine business bursting their Panamanian banks with cash.

The man Coudert Brothers chose to oversee the Panama negotiations with Torrijos was one of their own, Sol Linowitz, whom we met earlier. A partner in Coudert Brothers, director of Xerox, Pan American Airlines and the Marine Midland Bank, Linowitz had all the credentials needed to pull off what Rockefeller had in mind, i.e.: to seize the entire Panama Canal Zone. The messenger from the "Olympians" (the Committee of 300) found in Omar Torrijos the right sort of stuff for the purposes of the international bankers.

As described earlier herein, Panama was destabilized enough for Torrijos to seize power and abolish all political parties. The jackals of the American news media painted a glowing picture of Torrijos as an ardent Panamanian nationalist, one who felt keenly that the Panamanian people were wronged by the 1903 treaty which ceded the Panama Canal Zone to the United States. The "manufactured by David Rockefeller" brand that Torrijos bore was carefully concealed from the American people.

Thanks to the treasonous conduct of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in particular, the conduct of Senators Dennis De Concini and Richard Lugar, Panama passed into the hands of Gen. Torrijos and the Committee of 300 at a cost of billions of dollars to the U.S. taxpayers. But Torrijos, like so many of us mortals, seemed to lose sight of the fact of his maker, in his case, the "Olympians."

Originally hand-picked for the job by Kissinger and Linowitz, in the manner of all those who serve the secret upper-level parallel government of the United States, whether it be Secretary of State or Defense, Torrijos conducted himself well during the transfer of the Panama Canal from the sovereign people of the United States to the Wall Street bankers, the drug overlords and their executives. Then, to the dismay of his mentors, Torrijos began to take his role as a nationalist seriously, instead of continuing to be Wall Street's ventriloquist dummy.

Panama must be seen through the eyes of Trojan Horse Kissinger, that is to say, we must look at it as pivotal to Central America as Kissinger's future killing grounds for thousands of American soldiers. Kissinger's orders were to get another "Vietnam War" going in Central America. But Torrijos began to get other ideas. He opted instead to join the Contadora Group. While not perfect, the Contadoras were willing to do battle with the drug barons, so Torrijos became a contradiction to his masters, and for that he was "permanently immobilized."

Torrijos was murdered in August of 1981. The aircraft in which he was flying was rigged in much the same manner as the plane that took the son of Aristotle Onasis to his death. The controls were rigged to operate the aircraft's elevators (controlling climb and descent) opposite to what the pilot wanted. Instead of climbing after take off, the plane carrying Torrijos literally flew into the ground.

Panama's banks came under the control of a number of David Rockefeller's Wall Street banks as a convenient depository for dirty drug money, and was soon adjudicated the world's cocaine banking center while Hong Kong remained the heroin banking center. Rockefeller commissioned Nicolas Ardito Barletta, a former director of the World Bank and the Marine and Midland Bank (the same bank on whose board sat Linowitz) to take control of the banking situation.

Barletta was to restructure banking in Panama and alter banking laws to make it safe for the drug money launderers. Barletta was respect able enough to be above suspicion and had the necessary experience in handling vast amounts of dope cash gained from his connection with the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank the premiere drug money laundering bank in the world which was later to take over Midland Marine Bank in the United States.

Banco Nacional de Panama had by 1982 increased its cash flow of U.S. dollars by 500 percent over 1980 levels, according to U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) documents. Close to $6 billion in unreported money went from the United States to Panama from 1980 to 1984. In Colombia, DEA estimates put cocaine-generated cash at $25 billion for the period 1980 to 1983, with almost the total amount being deposited in Panama City banks. Six months after Torrijos was removed, strong-man Gen. Ruben Parades of the Panama Defense Force, was moved up by the drug bankers.

But like his predecessor, Parades showed every sign of not knowing who his bosses were. He started talking about Panama joining the Contadoras group. Kissinger had to deliver a message to Parades in February of 1983 and the general was smart enough to take notice and do an about-face, kicking the Contadoras out of Panama and pledging full support for Kissinger and the Wall Street international bankers.

Parades took great pains in cultivating the friendship of Arnulfo Arias, who was ousted by Torrijos, lending an air of respectability to his leadership. In Washington, Parades was promoted by Kissinger as a "staunch anti-communist friend of the United States." Not even the merciless execution of his 25-year old son by members of the Ochoa-Escobar cocaine clan deterred Parades; he kept Panama open for the cocaine trade and protected its banks.

Manuel Noriega, who was next in line in the PDF to Parades, had become increasingly concerned about the corrupting of the Panama Defense Force, which he had striven to keep out of the drug trade. Noriega plotted a coup against Parades who was subsequently overthrown by the Panama Defense Force and Noriega assumed the leadership of Panama, becoming commander of the PDF. At first there was little reaction; Noriega had been working for the CIA and the DEA for a number of years and was thought by Kissinger and Rockefeller to be "a company man."

When did doubts begin to arise on Wall Street and in Washington about Noriega?


I believe that it was immediately following the stunning success of a joint PDF-DEA anti-drug operation codenamed "Operation Pisces," which was publicly revealed by the DEA in May 1987.


The DEA characterized "Operations Pisces" as,

"the largest and most successful undercover investigation in federal drug enforcement history."

The drug bankers found that they had good reason to fear Noriega and this can be seen from a letter written to Noriega by John Lawn, head of the DEA, dated May 27, 1987:

"As you know, the recently-concluded "Operations Pisces" was enormously successful, many millions of dollars and thousands of pounds of drugs have been taken from drug traffickers and international money launderers. Your personal commitment to 'Operation Pisces' and competent and professional and tireless efforts of the other officials of the Republic of Panama were essential to the final positive outcome of this investigation. Drug traffickers around the world are on notice that the proceeds and profits of their illegal ventures are not welcome in Panama."

In a second letter to Noriega, Lawn wrote:

"I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my deep appreciation for the vigorous antidrug trafficking policy that you have adopted, which is reflected in the numerous expulsions from Panama of accused drug traffickers, the large seizures of cocaine and precursor chemicals that have occurred in Panama, and the eradication of marijuana in Panama territory."

Gen. Paul Gorman, commanding general of U.S. forces Southern Command, stated during the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearings that he had never seen any evidence of wrong doing by Noriega, nor was there any hard evidence that Noriega was tied to the drug barons. The committee itself was unable to produce one shred of credible evidence to the contrary.


The committee let the American people down by failing to investigate charges made by Noriega, that Adam Murphy, who headed the Florida Task Force under the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System (NNBIS), stated most emphatically as follows:

"During my entire tenure with NNBIS and the South Florida Task Force, I never saw any intelligence that Gen. Noriega was involved in the drug trade. In fact, we always held up Panama as the model in terms of cooperation with the U.S. in the war on drugs. Remember, a grand jury indictment is not a conviction. And if the Noriega case ever comes to trial, I will look at the evidence of that jury's findings, but until that happens, I have no first-hand evidence of the general's involvement. My experience ran in the opposite direction."

It was never brought out that "Operation Pisces" was made possible only through passage of Panamanian Law 29, pushed through by Noriega. This was reported by Panama's largest newspaper, "La Prensa", which complained bitterly that the Panama Defense Force was conducting a publicity campaign against drug, "that will devastate the Panamanian banking center."

No wonder. "Operations Pisces" closed down 54 accounts in 18 Panamanian banks and resulted in the seizure of $10 million in cash and large quantities of cocaine. This was followed by the freezing of another 85 accounts in banks whose deposits were made up of cocaine cash. Fifty eight major U.S., Colombian and some Cuban American runners were arrested and indicted on narcotics trafficking charges.

Yet, when Noriega was kidnapped and then dragged before a federal court in Miami, in a stunning violation of Noriega's civil rights. Judge William Hoevler refused to allow these letters and hundreds of other documents showing the anti-drug role played by Noriega to be admitted to the record. And we dare talk about "justice" in America, and our president talks about "war on drugs." The war on drugs ceased when Gen. Noriega was kidnapped and imprisoned in the United States.

In the wake of "Operation Pisces," a concerted campaign to discredit Gen. Noriega was launched in Panama and Washington. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) threatened that its loans to Panama would be called unless Noriega stopped his "dictatorial behavior," i.e. unless Noriega stopped battling the drug banks and cocaine merchants. Noriega advised the Panamanian people in a televised address on March 22,1986 that Panama was being strangled by the IMF. The IMF tried to pressure the labor unions to force Noriega from office by warning that dire austerity lay ahead for Panama unless Noriega was ousted.

The IMF's position with regard to Panama, Colombia and the Caribbean was made clear by John Holdson, a senior official of the World Bank, who stated that the cocaine "industry" was highly advantageous to producer countries:

"From their point of view, they simply couldn't find a better product."

The Colombia office of the IMF said quite openly that as far as the IMF was concerned, marijuana and cocaine were crops like any other crop that brought much-needed foreign exchange into the economy of Latin America.

The Wall Street bankers and their Washington allies then brought Dr. Norman Bailey to public attention in support of the Civic Group in Panama and the United States. The Civic Group was formed to lend support to the Wall Street bankers attempts to get rid of Noriega, while making it appear as though it was a matter of public concern in Panama.


The following people lent their support to the Civic Group:


In Panama:

In the United States:

Alvin Weedon Gamboa

Cesar and Ricardo Tribaldos

Roberto Eisenmann

Carlos Rodrigues Milan

Lt Colonel Julian Melo Borbura

The Robles brothers

Jose Blandon

Lewis Galindo

Steven Samos

General Ruben Darios Parades

General Cisneros

Guillermo Endara

Sol Linowitz

Elliott Richardson

James Baker III

President Ronald Reagan

Senator Alfonse D'Amato

Henry Kissinger

David Rockefeller

James Reston

John R. Petty

Billy Ford




After the failure of IMF campaign, the State Department Coudert Brothers, the New York Times, Kissinger Associates and the Washington Post launched an all-out campaign of slander in the U.S. and the world press to turn public opinion against Noriega. In so doing, the conspirators sought and gained the support of drug dealers, drug bankers, couriers and assorted criminals. Anyone who would accuse Noriega of wrongdoing, or of being a drug dealer, even without proof, was welcome. The cash flow to Panamanian drug banks of $6 billion per annum had to be protected.

The Civic Crusade, the principle vehicle for coordinating the campaign to discredit, was organized in Washington D.C. in June 1987. Its principle backers and financial supporters were,

  • the Coudert Brothers

  • Linowitz

  • the Trilateral Commission

  • William Colby (formerly of the CIA)

  • Kissinger Associates

  • William G. Walker

Deputy Assistant of State for International Affairs of the U.S. State Department Jose Blandon, the self-described "international representative of Panama's opposition to Noriega," was employed to manage the organization.

Publicity was in the hands of Dr. Norman Bailey, a former Panamanian official of high rank. Dr. Bailey was employed by the National Security Council, whose duties were to study the movement of drug money, which of course gave him first-hand experience on how drug money was moved in and out of Panama's banks. Bailey was a close friend of Nicholas Ardito Barletta. Dr. Bailey collided head-on with Noriega when he tried to enforce IMF "conditionalities" that would have imposed greater austerity measures on the people of Panama. Bailey's partner was William Colby of the law firm, Colby, Bailey, Werner and Associates. It was to this law firm that the panic-stricken bankers and dope barons turned when it became apparent that Noriega meant business.

On taking up his post with the Civic Crusade, Bailey stated,

"I began my war against Panama when my friend Nicky Barletta resigned as President of Panama."

Bailey had been in a unique position to find out about Panama's bank secrecy laws from Barletta, the man who'd set them up. Why was Bailey angry about Barletta losing his job?


The reason was that it robbed the dope barons and their banker allies of having their own "man in Panama," a serious blow to the smooth flow of cash and cocaine in and out of Panama. Barletta was also the IMF's trigger man, and a great favorite of the Eastern Liberal Establishment especially among members of the Bohemian Club. It was no wonder that Noriega collided head-on with Barletta and the Washington D.C. establishment.

Under Bailey's direction, the Civic Crusade turned the full circle from the cocaine barons of Colombia through the elitists of the drug trade in Washington and London. It was through Bailey that the low-class murdering cocaine mafia as well as the untouchable respectable names in the social and political registers in Washington, London, Boston and New York were made.

Bailey claimed that he wanted to oust the PDF "because it is the most heavily militarized country in the Western hemisphere." Bailey stated that a civilian junta would replace Noriega once he was ousted. We shall come to those whom Bailey proposed would run the post-Noriega Panama. In support of the Civic Crusade, six senate staffers flew to Panama in November of 1987 and remained there for four days. On their return, the staffers said it was essential for Noriega to resign, but made no mention of the staggering amounts of cash and cocaine flowing through Panama, nor of Noriega's efforts to interdict the drug trade. Although it did not spell it out, the Senate in a statement about Panama implied that if "the disorders continue," the U.S. military might have to be called in.

What was the nature of the disorders? Were they spontaneous expressions by the people of Panama of dissatisfaction with Noriega, or were they contrived, artificially created situations to suit the plans of the Wall Street bankers? For the answer, we need to examine the role played in Panama's "disorders" by John Maisto. Maisto was the No. 2 man in the U.S. embassy in Panama. He had served in South Korea, the Philippines and Haiti. Maisto had a history of trouble. After he arrived in these countries, unrest and "disorder" soon followed. According to an independent intelligence source, Maisto's influence was behind 90 percent of the street demonstrations in Panama.

Bailey did not try to hide his backing of Maisto. Addressing a forum at George Washington University, Bailey said that only if the people of Panama took to the streets and got themselves beaten up and shot, would Noriega be budged. Bailey added that unless television cam eras were on hand for such events, "it would be a wasted effort "

The final straw that broke Noriega's back came two years later in Feb. 1988, with an indictment handed down by a Miami Grand Jury. This vendetta by the Justice Department would come to seal Noriega's fate and points up the need to get rid of the archaic grand jury system, a hangover from the days of star chambers. Star chamber (grand jury) proceedings are never fair to the accused. The drug barons and their bankers combined with the political establishment in Washington D.C. to rid themselves of Noriega, who was quite properly perceived as a threat to their multi-billion dollar annual income.

Alarm bells began to sound in earnest and calls for action to remove Noriega became strident in 1986 following the forced closure of First Interamerica Bank and the PDF raid on Banco de Iberoamerica, which was owned by the Cali Cartel. Coupled with the destruction of a cocaine processing lab and a huge stock of ethyl ether in a remote jungle in Panama, the Committee of 300 gave the order to proceed with all possible speed have Noriega killed, or kidnapped and brought to the United States.

The Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, chaired by Sen. John Kerry failed to make enough mud stick to Noriega, although buckets of it were slung at him during what was tantamount to a trial of Noriega in absentia. The guardians of the $300 billion dollar off-shore drug trade called for quicker, harsher methods to be used to topple Noriega. Senator Alfonse D'Amato called for direct action: he wanted killer squads to go in an assassinate Noriega. D'Amato also advocated kidnapping.

Then, in response to pressure from Wall Street, President Bush changed the rules of engagement of U.S. forces in Panama; henceforth they were to seek confrontation with the PDF. On July 8,1989, General Cisneros, commander of the U.S. Army South in Panama, made an extraordinary statement, for which he should have been called to account:

"The OAS has not acted firmly enough to dislodge Noriega. Speaking for myself, I believe this is the moment for a military intervention in Panama."

Since when is it permissible for the army to make political agenda? All during October and November of 1989, U.S. military forces in Panama kept up a running harassment of the PDF, which finally resulted in the tragic shooting death of an American soldier at a roadblock. The soldiers were ordered to stop at a roadblock set up by the PDF. An argument broke out and the soldiers drove off. Shots were fired and one of the U.S. servicemen was killed.

That was the signal for President Bush to launch his long-planned assault on Panama. As Panama was preparing for Christmas, on the evening of Dec. 20,1989, a violent act of aggression against Panama was launched, without first obtaining a declaration of war as mandated by the Constitution. Between 28,000 and 29,000 U.S. troops took part in the attack, which resulted in the deaths 7,000 Panamanian citizens, and the destruction of the entire area of Chorrillo. At least 50 U.S. soldiers died needlessly in this undeclared war. Noriega was kidnapped and flown to the United States in an act of brazen international brigandry, the forerunner of many yet to come.

Why was so much attention paid to Panama by the Bush administration? Why was there so much pressure to topple Noriega?


For the United States to go to such extraordinary lengths to get rid of an alleged dictator of a small country ought to tell us something. It ought to make us very curious as to what was behind this saga of diplomacy by deception. It should encourage us to be on the alert, to trust government even less, and not let diplomacy by deception on such a big scale sway us into believing that what the U.S. government does Noriega hit the drug oligarchists where it hurts; in their pockets.


He cost the dope money laundering banks a large slice of their profits. He brought the bankers into disrepute. He upset the status quo by putting teeth into Panama's banking laws. Noriega got in the way of Kissinger's Andes Plan and upset arms sales in Central America. He trampled on the toes of powerful people. For that, Gen. Manuel Noriega was condemned to spend the rest of his life in an American prison.

In the minds of most Americans, Panama is on the back burner, if in their thoughts at all. Noriega is firmly walled up in a prison, no longer a danger to the lawless Bush administration and the Wall Street bankers, or their drug cartel customers. Diplomacy by deception seems to have worked for Carter, Reagan and Bush. Forgotten is the fact that the blatantly illegal invasion of Panama cost the lives of 50 Americans and 7,000 Panamanians. Forgotten is the man whom the head of the DEA, agent John Lawn, once described as the best anti-drug team player he ever had in Panama. The cost to the U.S. taxpayers of keeping Panama open for drug trade business has never been disclosed.

Noriega's crime was that he knew too much about the drug trade and the banks that service it and in 1989 was a serious threat to Rockefeller's drug money laundering banks. So he had to be dealt with. The neighborhood destroyed by U.S. troops still lies in ruins. In Panama, press censorship is still enforced, even three years after the U.S. invasion force departed. In August of 1992, the mayor of Panama City, Mayin Correa, attacked the editor of "Momento" magazine for publishing an article which revealed the goings-on with the mayor and the "special accounts" in a Panamanian bank.

Opposition to Washington's puppet government is not tolerated. Any person who engages in protest demonstrations in Panama risks arrest and imprisonment. Even "planning" a demonstration is a crime, and the planners can be thrown in jail without trial. This is the legacy left behind by Bush and those in the House and Senate who permitted him to get away with flouting the U.S. Constitution.

Bribery and corruption is rife in Panama, with drug-related accusations flying thick and fast, right up to the top levels in Washington's surrogate "Porky" Endara's government, including Carlos Lopez, Chief Justice of the Panamanian Supreme Court The mess left behind by the Bush administration cries out to be investigated, but unhappily, no one in Washington is remotely interested in doing anything about it. The Civic Crusade has disappeared. It seems that the only civic crusade concerned the Noriega threat to the Wall Street bankers and their partners in the cocaine trade.

Will Bush ever be brought to trial for war crimes in Panama? Hardly likely, considering how the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a very modest claim by 500 Panamanian families for restitution of losses suffered during the December 1989 invasion. How about the drug trade that the removal of Noriega was supposed to guarantee to stop? The truth is, it has gone nowhere. According to my intelligence source, Colon, Panama's free trade zone, is handling about twice as much cocaine now than it did during the Noriega years. Intelligence reports tell of five to six ships loaded with drugs passing through there every day. Where before, only the top echelon officials were paid off by the drug barons, now it is everybody; drug trafficking in Panama has reached incredible new heights.

Along with the enormous increase in Panama's drug trade has come a corresponding rise in the crime rate: up 500 percent since Noriega was dragged off by his kidnappers in 1989. Gangs of unemployed youths roam once bustling Colon in search of work, only to be repeatedly turned away and left to their own devices, usually crime. With the PDF smashed, streets and highways belong to gangsters, including a few former PDF members, who cannot get work because they are "blacklisted." Several American companies based in the Colon Free Trade Zone were forced to move back to the United States because their executives were being kidnapped and held for ransom, often for as much as a million dollars. This could never have happened while Noriega was in command.

In fear of a greater crime rate than ever pertained during the rule of Noriega, a large army of private guards has sprung up. President Bush told the world that the Panama Defense Force was "a repressive tool" of the Noriega government, and let it be known that, along with his friend Dr. Bailey, he intended smashing the force. That left Panama without its formerly well-disciplined PDF, and in its place came 15,000 private guards and every member of government with his own private army. Lawlessness runs rampant through the streets of Panama.

Corruption is rife. U.S. grants (read U.S. taxpayers money), supposedly to rebuild destroyed neighborhoods, ended up in the greedy grasp of politicians placed in power by Washington. The result uninhabitable concrete blockhouse-shaped apartments without proper windows, bathrooms or kitchens; unpainted and unfit for human occupation.


This is what George Bush's "democracy" accomplished in Panama.


Back to Contents