DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTION
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
"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 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
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
On June 10,1932, McFadden denounced the Federal Reserve
"one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever
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
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
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
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
to be "a company man."
When did doubts begin to arise on Wall Street and in Washington
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
The DEA characterized "Operations Pisces" as,
"the largest and
most successful undercover investigation in federal drug enforcement
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The following people lent their support to the Civic
In the United States:
Alvin Weedon Gamboa
Cesar and Ricardo Tribaldos
Carlos Rodrigues Milan
Lt Colonel Julian Melo Borbura
The Robles brothers
General Ruben Darios Parades
James Baker III
Senator Alfonse D'Amato
John R. Petty
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
"The OAS has not acted firmly enough to dislodge Noriega. Speaking
for myself, I believe this is the moment for a military intervention
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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