Talk:Manuel Noriega/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

CIA involvement and U.S. support

I understand that this article is undergoing peer review elsewhere, but I will leave my comments here. The section titled "CIA involvement and U.S. support" currently states:

"At Noriega's trial in 1991–1992, the U.S. government stipulated that it had paid $322,000 to Noriega. Journalists and historians have suggested the figure was much higher: Kempe suggested $110,000 annually, while others have posited $200,000 per year. Kempe suggested that the budget provided to Noriega for his intelligence activities was $200,000 every year."

Kempe seems to equivocate on whether it was Noriega or his intelligence service receiving money from the United States government, but Kempe is not an outlier here. (Page 26 states: "Then they put him on the payroll, paying his intelligence service up to $200,000 a year by 1985..." Page 28 states: "Bush [as DCI in 1976] not only let the officers and Noriega go unpunished, he also opted to continue paying Noriega some $110,000 annually for his liaison relationship with the CIA." Page 419 states: "And when Noriega came to power in 1983, the Reagan administration was already paying him some $185,000 to $200,000 annually...") I'm not sure who is citing whom here - the passages by Kempe (1990), Cockburn/St-Clair (1998), and Galván (2012) don't seem to have footnotes on this - but all three sources seem to be giving the same information that the payments to Noriega climbed from around $100,000 to $200,000. - Location (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a bit of timeline here that may or may not be important to the article, but it can change the impression the reader gets. Kempe came out with the $110,000 to $200,000 figure in 1990. (I assume that this is where Cockburn/St-Clair and Galván got their information.) As stated in the NYT article, federal prosecutors provided the $322,000 figure in January 1991 BECAUSE the defense attorneys believed the CIA had given Noriega "millions of dollars". Placing the figures of journalists and historians second gives the impression that they were somehow fact-checking the numbers provided by the government. -Location (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, now we have an October 1988 report stating that it was "Panamanian opposition leaders" in February 1988 who claimed the CIA gave $200,000 to Noriega.[1] Rather than suggest that the CIA is fudging their numbers, we might want to introduce this source as it suggests that there might be bias in inflating the amount of money Noriega received. - Location (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

In this article, Stansfield Turner stated that he removed Noriega from the CIA payroll upon succeeding Bush as DCI but that Bush put him back on the payroll when he became Vice President (January 1981). Bobby Ray Inman said Noriega was not on the payroll during his tenure (February 1981 to mid-1982) and that William Casey would not have allowed Bush to do what Turner claimed. All of this discussion was going down just before the 1988 election and there appears to be a HUGE political bent to all.

@Rgr09: I would love to find a link to the hearings mentioned in this article. Do you happen to have any more information on them? I'm trying to find out out where Kempe may have gotten his numbers. In Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1, you mentioned that Dinges and Kempe "are so relentlessly U.S. oriented in their presentation that the effect is often to make Noriega appear nothing more than another U.S. paid stooge. This fundamental POV is reflected in the article." I am starting to think it would take hours and hours of work to get this to reflect a NPOV, so I don't think it is something I would want to put much work into. - Location (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

For future reference: February 3, 1988, NBC News reports "congressional sources say [CIA] has had Noriega on its payroll for $200,000 a year for at least ten years."[2] No names for the congressional sources are given. José Isabel Blandón Castillo also interviewed. - Location (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

For future reference: February 3, 1988, UPI reports "The CIA paid Panamanian strongman Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega $200,000 a year for at least a decade in an attempt to woo him away from Soviet influence, U.S. intelligence sources said Wednesday." Also: "'The CIA funds any leftist dictator that will take the money,' an intelligence source told United Press International." Also: "The U.S. payments, made over the last 10 years, totaled about $2 million, sources said." No names for any of these sources. - Location (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

How much of this points back to Kerry? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing very many unnamed congressional sources/intelligence sources being quoted in these articles for the $200,000 a year figure, which Kempe echoes; but even acknowledging that there's a strongly political dimension to their statements, the only other figure I'm seeing is the 322,000 that seems to trace to Noriega's defence during the trial...and the possibility that there were years in which the payment was not made, but we only have quotes from intelligence figures for that. Location, I'll dig some more, but is there a different point you're making with these sources that I'm missing? [[User:|Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] (Talk) 17:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Vanamonde93: I am not trying to make any particular point, but I am skeptical of ideological or political biases making their way into articles that mention the CIA because I have seen it so many times. For example, many authors appear to run with the idea that the CIA gave $200,000/year to Noriega without there being any clear idea of where that figure actually came from... and conveniently NONE of them even bother to mention the official numbers given by the CIA. Rgr09 can speak to this better than I can, but I imagine that Kerry had his biases and was open to hearing whatever might reflect poorly upon the Reagan administration. I have not yet found the hearings with the aforementioned "Panamanian opposition leaders", so maybe that will give us some more information on this. - Location (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Location: I fully recognize several folks in the US were interested in getting any ammunition they could use against the Reagan administration; but what sources would you have us use, then? Note that the CIA also has its agenda; its statements aren't necessarily particularly reliable either. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: CIA's agenda. And this is where we start to tread close to "deep state" cover-ups and conspiracy theories. Noriega's defense claimed that he was paid $10 million by United States intelligence sources. Federal prosecutors filed a report stating that the United States Army paid Noriega $162,168 from 1955 to 1986 and that the CIA paid him $160,058 from 1971 to 1986; they also stated that he signed receipts for the majority of the payments. Why was this $9.7 million discrepancy covered-up, who in the United States was responsible for covering it up, and how was the cover-up coordinated over multiple administrations and with various DCIs (and whomever heads Army intelligence) at the helm? If Bush was trying to cover his ass in an election year he had to get a lot people involved... and hope no one in the future would release documents contrary to that à la the Family Jewels. (By the way, Bush was getting it from both sides. Shortly before Super Tuesday in March 1988, an unnamed official for Bob Dole's campaign said two "people with access to knowledge" - both of whom he refused to name or give other identifying information other than to say one was not with the CIA - contacted him with reliable information that Noriega was paid millions over a 20 year period, including the time when GHWB was DCI.[3] There are other sources out there with Michael Dukakis making similar claims later in the year.)

Re: sourcing. I think the claims in all the sources can be used, but my preference would be to present the material in chronological order as it was revealed. I would drop Cockburn/St-Clair and Galván in that they are just referencing earlier material. I found the Kerry Committee hearings, but I cannot find the claims by the "Panamanian opposition leaders" referenced above. - Location (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Location: About sourcing; that sounds reasonable, okay. About conspiracy theories; I'm not certain you're accusing me of propagating them, but it sounds a bit like that. All I'm saying is that the CIA is as much of a primary source as any government official, and has as much of an agenda as any politician. This isn't a criticism of the CIA, it's an observation based on how we treat primary vs secondary sources. We treat involved sources as we do, because almost by definition, they have an agenda. If we get statements from the CIA about how much they paid Noriega, we can include them; I'm just saying they're not more definitive than commentary from independent sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that you are propagating conspiracy theories, but I would say that conspiracy theories are spread when all sources are viewed as equally credible. I do think it is more common for guilty people to make shit up or for politicians to run with incomplete information than it is for innocent people to be framed.

To be clear, it was the federal prosecutors - not the CIA - who filed the information about government payments to Noriega to counter claims from his attorneys that the CIA paid him "millions". Apparently this was done voluntarily and the filings made public, but the article's use of "stipulate" indicates that it was done as part of a legal agreement. This seems to suggest that the U.S. government was not forthcoming. As far as I know, the CIA had no comment on Noriega's prosecution, so I guess we can assume that it was the prosecutors who requested information from the CIA and US Army. - Location (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not saying statements by Noriega's defence should be taken at face value, but the motivations here aren't that straightforward; Noriega presumably had a vested interest in showing he was valuable; figures outside the Reagan administration want to make it look incompetent; but conversely, the administration itself would like to dissociate itself from Noriega as far as possible. Hence my insistence that we stick to the secondary sources, which is something we seem to agree on. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are in agreement. I wish there was better information on where Kempe got his numbers. I apologize that all this seems a big to-do over one or two sentences in a very lengthy article. - Location (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

For future reference: I found this article in the News & Record. This is a relatively small newspaper, so I am guessing that the story may have originated with some other news service. There is no author of record and it is dated "Jan 6, 1990 Updated Jan 25, 2015". It states:

One persistent report claims Noriega had a $200,000-a-year stipend from the CIA. Dinges, who spent the last two years researching his biography of Noriega, said he found no one willing to confirm that figure but said there were indications he received payment from different U.S. sources for carrying out or assisting various projects on a case-by-case basis.

In the absence of dependable sources within government, Dinges, a Latin American specialist on the staff of National Public Radio in Washington, has become a leading arbiter of the confusing data on Noriega. By a stroke of publishing luck, Random House is bringing out his book, ``Our Man in Panama,' next month.

``There's a lot of conspiracy theories about reasons why the United States cannot move against Noriega,' Dinges said Friday. ``If you check them out, a lot came from Noriega himself.'

It might be worth working that in somehow. If Dinges couldn't find anyone to back up the $200K, I doubt I am going to find it sitting at my computer. - Location (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

United States involvement and support: Discussion regarding amount of payments to Noriega from United States sources

There are varying reports to the amount of payments Noriega received from United States sources. Soon after his indictment in February 1988, congressional committees and reporters were told by Panamanian opposition leaders that Noriega had received $200,000 to supply information to the CIA. In early 1990, Noriega biographer Frederick Kempe reported that the United States gave Noriega or his intelligence services annual payments in the range of $110,000 in 1976 increasing to $185,000 to $200,000 when he came to power during the Reagan administration 1983. Around that same time, John Dinges, another biographer of Noriega, said there were indications that various US sources paid Noriega for his assistance on a variety of projects, but he could find no one willing to confirm persistent reports that he received a $200,000 per year stipend from the CIA. Prior to and during Noriega's trial, Frank A. Rubino claimed that Noriega had received $11 million in payments from the CIA. In January 1991, federal prosecutors filed a financial report indicating that that Noriega had received a total of $322,000 from the United States Army and the CIA over a 31-year period from 1955 to 1986. They stated that the release of information was to rebut allegations from defense attorneys that Noriega had been paid "millions of dollars" from the CIA. References

I offer the above for consideration for inclusion in the article. Somethings probably need to be fine-tuned. I recommend changing the title of the section to "United States involvement and support" because other parts of the US government besides the CIA dealt with Noriega. (Although I have not been able to find any other information regarding the "opposition leaders" referenced in the first citation, I imagine that José Isabel Blandón Castillo was one of them. Eric Arturo Delvalle and Steven Kalish might have been responsible for similar allegations, but I am just not sure.) - Location (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

United States involvement and support: Discussion regarding "political football" between Democrats and Republicans

In August 1988, US Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was offered and received an intelligence briefing from the CIA. The following month at a Presidential debate when presented a question about narcotics, Dukakis charged Reagan and Bush of "dealing with a drug-running Panamanian dictator". Bush responded that seven administrations had engaged with Noriega, and it was their administration that "brought this man to justice". Discussing the exchange, former CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson wrote: "CIA officers worried not about the facts of their activities in Panama, which they believed perfectly defensible, but were concerned that the Agency's briefings and programs were about to become a political football once again." On September 30, 1988, former CIA director Stansfield Turner told UPI that he removed Noriega from the government payroll when he succeeded George H. W. Bush, but that Bush as Vice President “met with Noriega and put him back on the payroll". Turner declined to state when Noriega was returned to the payroll or how he acquired the information. Bush's press secretary Stephen Hart said the allegation was "patently false". Questioned as to whether Noriega was on the payroll during the Reagan administration, Hart refused to comment stating that it was "a CIA matter". Bobby Ray Inman, who had been Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the early part of the Reagan administration, said "Admiral Turner's remarks are false or misleading." Inman said Noriega was not on the payroll during his tenure and said William Casey — reported to have a close relationship with Reagan — would not have allowed Bush to play any role in such a decision. Inman stated that Casey had no appreciation for Bush and that two men "came from opposite ends of the party." Richard Bond, a strategist for the Bush campaign, said the issue was politically motivated and that it appeared as though Turner had been speaking with John Sasso, vice chairman for the campaign of Michael Dukakis. Two days later, Turner backed off on the assertion in an interview with The New York Times saying that he did not know if Bush was involved in the decision to rehire Noriega. He added that he was certain that a break had been made with the Noriega, but did not recall making that decision himself. The newspaper also reported that unnamed former intelligence sources said Army intelligence and other agencies had maintained a relationship with Noriega through the Carter administration when Turner was CIA director. In February 1990, Turner said that the CIA under Carter used Noriega as an intelligence contact, but was not on the payroll. He said Noriega was a "nefarious, unethical character" who was "doing illegal things", but he denied that he was aware of Noriega's ties to drug trafficking. References

I am not certain any of the above information is necessary to place in the article, but it does help to understand there was/is a political bent to understanding the issue of the US support of Noriega. - Location (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Legal proceedings

I have made a start on adding legal proceedings in Panama, and trimming those in the US/France, to give the article more balance in this respect (a substantive point mentioned in the peer review). I will continue to work on this, but more sources/suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

POV

It does not seem that any of the POV detailed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1 has been corrected yet. I realize that the work needed is considerable and will take some time, but months have passed with no progress. A complete rewrite to reflect a balance of sources, to account for unused sources, and to lessen the undue balance on one journalistic source (Dinges) is needed. The article neglects substantial issues and gives undue balance to others, detailed at length in the peer review with additional commentary on this talk page, above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I had put the above on the back burner. Hope to have something for review within in a few days. - Location (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The pandemic made more time available for some people, and less for others...regrettably, I'm in the latter category. It is on my to-do list. I will get to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I also note a chunk of the comments were addressed in November. It is strictly incorrect to state that no progress has been made. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I got a copy of Dinges, and had to set this aside for being at a loss for what to do next because the book (and footnoting) was so much poorer even than I imagined it might be, relying heavily on his versions of personal interviews with certain parties. I no longer have in memory the examples of how poorly footnoted and apparently rushed to publication it appears to be, so I would have to re-visit and re-do a lot to re-engage this. I only recall that once I got hold of Dinges, I realized the work needed here was more substantial than I first thought and would not be an easy fix. So I stalled and procrastinated in despair.

By the way, I have this page watchlisted, but I have disabled web pings because I so hate that pingie-thingie. I finally decided to tag the article because it will be highly viewed on the anniversary 3 Jan, so we should let readers know there are some problems here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Vanamonde93: I placed some material above for your review. - Location (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Location: got it, on my list (see this discussion for what that means :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Location: Thanks for writing that up. My initial reaction is that the first set chunk of material seems reasonable, but I want to ask whether you mean it as an addition or as a replacement, and if the latter, for what. The second chunk is fine as content, but I think it is too detailed for an article this length. A summary would be useful; certainly a reader should not be left with the impression that any relations with Noriega were restricted to one political party in the US; but in an article this long, discussions of allegations and counter-allegations seems like too much detail. I may have some time to look into this on the weekend, but I cannot promise anything; RL work keeps me on my toes for ~60 hours a week, usually... Vanamonde (Talk) 19:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that the first chunk might replace the first two or three sentence in the third paragraph of the applicable section. I, too, don't think the second chunk is necessary, but it is what I found when trying to find the origins of the claim that Noriega was receiving $200,000 years. (I guess I'm just preserving for the record what I found on that.) This hardly makes a dent in improving the article, but maybe it helps to resolve one POV claim. I'm not up for the task, but I imagine there is a lot that could be written about how many US administrations worked with Noriega to one extent or another. - Location (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, a sub-article is likely justified, but god knows I do not have the stomach to write it. I'd be happy to replace the first three sentences of para 3 of the relevant section. I'd suggest that a) the Panamanian oppositin allegations not be included; we can't give them too much weight; and b) that Rubino be glossed as Noriega's lead attorney; also perhaps avoid the word "claim", per WP:CLAIM. Otherwise, I'm fine with the modification; I'm assuming we're in agreement that Koster&Sanchez, and Galvan, are not sources we're giving much weight to going forward? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A separate lack of balance is that Carter's role is specifically highlighted in several sources (I'd have to re-read everything to figure out which sources), and yet the article has a flavor of leaving him out while singling out Reagan/Bush. Similar to how one review of one book source mentions that Castro is left out of list of dictators ... balance is needed for factors like this. But more importantly, balance is to add Panamanian viewpoints to the prevailing Dinges "Noriega as nothing more than US puppet" POV, and absence of Panamanian internal factors POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I'm completely fine with what you suggest. I believe Rgr09 has read Koster/Sanchez and Galvan, but my understanding is that he is taking a bit of a wikibreak. SandyGeorgia: I think Bush's role DCI has something to do with the increased scrutiny. As Vanamonde has suggested, a separate article discussing Noriega's relationship with many US administrations could be made. - Location (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Location: I've implemented the text we agreed on, with a slight ce to the first sentence; please take a look. I would also be interested to hear your perspective on the tag; what do we need to do to address it? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the lead paragraph, I think there should be something more substantive between the first sentence and the third about his role as a dictator and drug trafficker and the reasons why he fell out of favor wit the US. Regarding the third sentence, it might be more neutral to mention that he had a relationship with seven different US administrations to one degree (CIA asset) or another (the head of state of another nation). (Other biographies/obituaries refer to him as an ally or part-time ally of the United States.) It might also give a bit better context if there is some statement that he annulled an election and declared that there was as state of war with the US. - Location (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Location: I've implemented some tweaks to the lead, which in retrospect were very necessary; it helps to take a break from the article, and come back with fresh eyes...I agree with the substance of what you wanted added, but I think content in the first lead paragraph needs to be very sparing, else it's difficult to avoid redundancy; and perhaps mention of seven administrations is too much detail; at the moment no administration is named in the lead, which I think is appropriate. Take a look, if you would. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Location, thanks for the revert. I stared and stared at that odd edit, and could not decipher what it was doing, so completely missed that it had removed the tag.[4] It is odd that an editor's first edit would be re-arranging templates in such a way (while demonstrating knowledge of good articles) so I couldn't sort what was up, and missed the point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm beginning a second pass on your PR comments. You have listed a lot of sources there; while I hope to get to all of them in time, it would be helpful to know which ones you feel need to be prioritized to address the POV tag, as against ones necessary for comprehensiveness but not necessarily for NPOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

On my list, maxxed out for the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please take your time, there are other things I can work on. I saw some of the unpleasantness brought up at Mike's talk and elsewhere, and I recognize that's a lot to deal with. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that and more (I am requested to submit some private evidence in an arbcom case, so I will be delayed a few more days ... ugh). As I understand your query, what is needed is for me to sort the mess I left on the PR because of iPad/hotspot editing in to what is POV/balance-related from what is WP:WIAFA-related, so we can get the tag removed soonest. But to do that, I really should go back and just sort the whole mess I made of the PR, so full focus is required. If I have not replied within a few days, do PESTER me vociferously :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: working under the assumption that the article does not have to be at FA standard for the tag to be removed, I'd rather deal with the tag first, and get to FA-level comprehensiveness at my leisure. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Got it ... if I am able to make progress on the arb case, and get a Spanish-language FAC source review at least started so that the Coords can know if it's dismal or doable, I will try to at least get some starting points here next. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)