America's prison system can be accurately described as an imperfectly 'closed system'. Prisons are surrounded by a variety of devices and safeguards to ensure that nothing gets out... and nothing gets in without the consent of men and women who meticulously watch both interior and exterior activities. Yet, even with the billions of tax dollars spent each year ensuring that no criminal gets out... and nothing illegal gets in, drug addiction remains an open secret in many, if not all, federal prisons. Unmistakably, there are holes in the dike. Since the prisoners are watched constantly, and prevented from managing affairs intricate enough to maintain their daily, expensive drug habits, the only logical culprits 'drilling holes in the dikes'... are the watchers.
America, like its prisons, is an imperfectly closed system to illegal drug imports. Billions of tax dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-hours are yearly spent watching our borders and examining everyone who crosses them. Yet, even with all our anti-contraband efforts massive quantities of illegal drugs pour in. The reason for the holes in America's drug-war dikes can be easily traced to corrupt or selfishly motivated watchers whose priorities are not safeguarding of the Nation they are employed to protect. The operating priorities of these individuals is to lie, cheat and steal for the purpose of protecting their personal interests or rewarding their individual ambitions/desires.
The story you are about to read, and be angered by, is a story of betrayal and sabotage of American national security no less equal... indeed, greater... than the selling of state secrets by people entrusted with their safekeeping. This is a story of watchers whose ambitions imperil the security of our workplaces, homes, churches and schools. This is the story of one American whose betrayal by our watchers endangers us all.
Over the past few months newspapers and media reports across the Nation have closely followed credible -- and some not-so-credible -- allegations that individuals working for the Central Intelligence Agency maliciously took over a little known illegal drug industry called crack cocaine and used that industry, based first in South Central Los Angeles, to raise funds for CIA special operations. Only time and Legislative scrutiny will tell if the allegations are true. However, what we can be certain of at this time is...
CIA could not have sustained foreign drug-import operations without assistance from the Department of State... the only foreign-operating US government agency cleared to provide secure, international/diplomatic-protected travel/transport.
CIA agents could not have conducted street-level narcotic information-gathering operations in foreign countries where DEA conducted 24-hour patrols without in-country DEA agents discovering them.
CIA agents have their own, limited drug-info sources. But in order for CIA to complete their takeover of a drug-infested area they need to know who the DEA's well-planted sources are.
Since DEA agents like Richard Horn would never assist/participate in illegal drug imports the only way for CIA to obtain information on DEA contacts and research would be by eavesdropping on DEA agent's homes and offices.
Once DEA source information is obtained CIA then needs to remove the local DEA agents so they can approach and 'operate' the sources.
According to all international law enforcement sources, including the CIA's own yearly fact books,Burma remains the largest producer of opium and supplier of heroin in the world.
In highest confidence, DEA assigned one its toughest agents, Richard A. Horn, to thwart growing heroin production and traffic in Burma. For a while, Horn appeared successful.
Richard Horn arrived in Burma, the world's largest opium/heroin producing nation, in the summer of 1992. Upon arrival he assumed the post of DEA's highest-ranking in-country representative. Full of energy and overjoyed with his new assignment, Horn wasted no time sizing up the problem, Burma's huge heroin production and, together with his DEA colleagues, he began DEA's work to greatly reduce opium cultivation and heroin production.
Immediately Horn set out to establish an official relationship with the government of Burma (GOB) and confidential contacts with urban and rural informants. Both challenges developed smoothly and productively. Burmese anti-drug officials were not only receptive to Horn's fresh ideas for new programs to convert opium planting to food-crop, within a short period of time both allies were accumulating reports and statistics clearly demonstrating that the new DEA chief was making progress where those before him set the groundwork but had not succeeded in kind. Two of Horn's supervisors applauded his success and agreed with his strategies. The senior United States Charge', Franklin "Pancho" Huddle, however, held an opposite view. In fact, Huddle refused to include Horn's facts and figures (which, coincidentally, were consistent with UNDCP's conclusions) in the Embassy'sInternational Strategy Report (INSR) on Burma. When Horn respectfully pressed for DEA's inclusion Huddle refused to even consult with Horn further, or anyone at DEA. Huddle claimed that Horn should change or withdraw DEA's assessment so that the final report would be"consistent with policy." That is, the INSR on Burma was controlled more by U.S. political strategy than by the facts. What immediately evolved was violent clash of ideas.
Official US policy in Burma at the time was directed at reducing GOB human rights abuses and upgrading the country's overall social structure. DEA and Horn, on the other hand, wanted to separate American foreign policy issues, such as human rights, from America's need to work with the GOB to limit or eradicate opium/heroin production. To DEA and Horn, American national security policy should be directed and exercised with regard to the immediate, larger threat, not always be guided by our contempt for undemocratic practices. To American diplomats working in Burma just the opposite appeared true. Huddle felt working to raise citizen status, education and social identity would enable industrialized nations to exploit Burma's labor force rather than its agriculture dependency... the most lucrative being opium that was in the control of anti-government forces. CIA analysts also disagreed with Horn's "ledger" of success. Or, to put it more correctly, they viewed Horn's "successes' in getting the military government to be more cooperative was nothing more than a GOB ploy to convince the US Government and Huddle they should negotiate on drug issues rather than human rights issues.
As one CIA analyst assessed the Horn/Huddle dispute,"One has to consider what was going on in Burma before Horn arrived. Burma was intransigent and the State Department was relentless. Enter Dick Horn. Horn was ambitious and he was aware that two DEA chiefs before him failed. He also wanted fast results. And he wanted (DEA) headquarters to acknowledge he was a rising star who could accomplish the most difficult assignments. His ambition and zealousness fell right into the GOB's game-plan. The government cooperated with Horn. In fact, it gave him almost everything he asked for. But their goal was not to appease Horn or ridicule Huddle. Their goal was to get Washington to drop its severe human rights stand.
"Horn was the new guy in town and didn't realize what was going on around him. He thought he was making serious in-roads. Unfortunately, Huddle was either unable or lacked the ability to communicate to Horn the fact that he was being used. When Huddle tried to sell Horn on the facts Horn heard words that sounded akin to treason. Because Huddle had to get the manipulating GOB back on the track DOS policy had carefully worked out, Huddle was left with no alternative but to fire Richard... get him out of the country before any more diversions complicated a strategy that had taken decades to arrive at. I think the hardest thing for Huddle to get Richard to realize was that no matter what changes the current government promised DEA it would make, and no matter how many new anti-drug laws it signed, it still lacked the military power to enter the well-defended territory where poppies were grown, let alone hold it for more than a day... at most."
"A reasonable assessment, sure..." a counter-pointer concedes,"but taking into consideration that Horn and DEA agents operate under DEA's single-mission agenda: to stop drug trafficking the most legally expedient way possible, Horn's methodology was not only fully proper and well-intentioned, it was workable. The ball had to get rolling somwhere. Richard and DEA got the ball rolling. What Richard Horn never did, was employ illegal and unethical means to exert DEA's programs." According to documents and interviews, many which take on widely different views, Huddle's inability to compromise with Horn, and vice versus, resulted in Horn's privacy being violated, heated accusations, inter-agency war, and a short time later, Burmese opium production doubling. In the midst of the diplomatic chaos an American, (whose identity is still unrevealed), used CIA equipment to tap Horn's private telephone and relay the contents of one or more conversations to various State Department and CIA personnel.
Prior to discovering that his residence was subjected to audio intercept Horn found himself battling not only with Huddle but also with the CIA station chief in Rangoon. According to documents the CIA chief was "ruthlessly" ambitious. Reports reaching Horn about the CIA chief's campaign to claim CIA credit for all in-country drug-war successes came from Embassy personnel including a CIA employee. In one instance documents reveal Huddle and CIA deliberately disclosed the identity of a DEA informant in an effort to scuttle a potentially significant DEA operation."Disclosing informant identities is a Cardinal Sin in DEA. Informants talk to DEA because they know that we never... and I mean, NEVER reveal a source." A former DEA Special-Agent-in-Charge told DEA Watch."They don't talk to the Feebs or CIA because they know American history. They know other agencies have produced American traitors who would sell-out our country for a handful of silver. The very act of State (DOS) and CIA turning over a DEA contact to the government only proved to everyone, even the Burmese government, why they never have or should trust State or the Agency."
At the same time Horn's contact was disclosed he was being besieged with obstructions and difficulties by the CIA station chief. Other documents show that another Department of State employee, Matthew Daley, DCM at the American Embassy in Bangkok, "encouraged" Huddle to fire Horn to advance the career objectives of a close, female friend and CIA second-in-command in Burma.
With the Cold War ended the CIA, according to both DEA and FBI agents, metamorphosed into a cat-fighting competitor viciously attempting to either ingratiate or slash its way into investigative areas outside its limited Charter and well inside the domains of other agencies. It was this driving desire to continue developing its expertise in narcotics that the CIA chief in Burma, or someone working for him, engineered a wiretap on Horn's living room phone. One wiretapped conversation, occurring on 12 August 1993 at approximately 11:00pm, was discovered, most of it verbatim, in a State Department communication authored by Huddle. Other conversations between Horn and DEA HQ, DEA subordinates in Rangoon, and his attorney (Brian C. Leighton), in Clovis, California (clearly a Constitutional violation of attorney/client privilege) also occurred within the same time period and were certainly recorded and delivered to Huddle or others.
Although the complaint filed by Horn's attorneys in District Court allege that one of the reasons for wiretapping Horn's private residence was to obtain (non-existent) damaging information to justify firing Horn, it was apparent from other machinations that someone wanted to learn more about what Horn knew of Burmese drug production.
Although the CIA has refused to acknowledge factual wiretapping using its equipment, Horn and his attorneys have been "threatened" by the Department of Justice and CIA not to reveal the "method of eavesdropping." In a separate wiretapping incident "the culpable agency" admitted to two senior Department of State representatives that they had wiretapped the conversation of a DEA agent's wife and promised "not to do it again." In Horn's case the CIA resisted every request to recover its equipment, perform an inventory inspection for missing bugging devices in the Embassy, or determine that all devices were accounted for to ensure other American homes were not bugged.
In its reply to Horn's 4th Amendment and civil rights violation lawsuit, the CIA replied that wiretapping outside the United States is legal according to its Charter. However, a review of other documents superseding the CIA charter, such asPresidential (Executive) Order 12333, clearly states that surveillance of Americans overseas can only be done under strictly limited conditions... none of which were met regarding Horn's invasion of privacy. The CIA's World Wide WebFAQ sheet even declares that spying on US citizens is prohibited by the Agency.
A lay argument that questions the CIA's response is the common practice by the Department of State to unhesitatingly cite international law chapter-and-verse when declaring Embassy-sponsored property to be "US soil." Yet, when the CIA asserts that it has the right to spy on an American home or office located on Embassy-protected property, it claims its "legally chartered" spying was done on "foreign soil." The Department of Justice has recently signed-on to CIA's defense.
In a sincere effort to prove his truthfulness to CIA officials Horn and other DEA agents offered to take polygraph tests administered by the Agency. The CIA declined. It also refused to request Huddle take one. Although CIA personnel are required to undergo polygraph examinations in cases where suspicion of spying against the United States is alleged, the agency does not order exams when it receives allegations that one of its personnel spied against a US citizen who worked for a US government intelligence agency.
Both Huddle and the former CIA Station Chief were eventually transferred Washington during the investigation into Horn's charges. When Horn learned that they were in the US he offered the reasonable suggestion that the investigators looking into his charges monitor Huddle's email to and from his assistant in Rangoon in the event discussions between the two might lead to new clues/evidence. The DOS refused Horn's suggestion... despite the fact that email monitoring became common, almost required, practice after the Ollie North discoveries.
Since Richard Horn'sclass action suit was filed he has learned of another serious wiretapping incident. If there are two such confirmed incidents there may well be two hundred. The immediate question arises, Why? In light of increased drug availability in the United States and DEA's reduced operations compared to growing CIA/FBI involvement in drug investigations it may well be, as one retired DEA agent surmised, these two agencies have decided to obtain our informant's identities and other classified information the easy way... stealing it. A more frightening argument would be that the agencies, and the CIA in particular, are gathering DEA information to determine if a DEA agent is 'closing-in' on (discovering) one of its illegal, clandestine operations (as suggested by recent news articles).
In any event, it would appear that no one is being helped by conducting wiretaps on DEA phones. But DEA agents and the American public are being harmed. At the printing of this article DEA Watch has learned that Administrator Constantine, although aware of the Horn case and others, has requested no new funding to provide anti-intrusion equipment for DEA offices or field personnel. Nor has DEA HQ initiated either Presidential or Legislative help in prohibiting intelligence-gathering agencies from spying on one another. Nor has DEA filed its own suit against the CIA or Department of State in the Horn matter or other suspected incidents.
A DEA agent interviewed for this story added this epilogue,"From what I have read and learned a number of my colleagues still mistakenly think the Feeb and CIA intrusion into our sacred territory is motivated purely to grab 'credit' or headlines for our work. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Our so-called brother agencies are not trying to out-media DEA. Their goal is to out-exist DEA... and they will commit any crime, like bugging our homes and offices, to accomplish that goal. Politics and drugs have worked hand-in-hand around the world since the first poppy was discovered. Americans are now learning that corrupt politics is the root of their drug addictions. The only barrier that stood between the American public and dishonest government employees has been The Drug Enforcement Administration. That barrier is being methodically dismantled. It's not the cartels that are the biggest threat anymore. It's the obstructionists, the bureaucrats who, for reasons of politics or profit, are the real threat. If the bureaucrats worked to obtain clearance for us to go after the remaining cartels we could eliminate the source of drugs... post haste. But they aren't doing that. Why? Instead, they're going after the Dick Horn's."
More to follow....
We welcome any information you would like to contribute. If you know of a DEA agent whose privacy was violated, or something related, please contact Richard A. Horn via...
Brian C. Leighton, Attorney At Law
701 Pollasky, Clovis CA 93612
(209) 297-6190 - Fax (209) 297-6194 E-mail Attorney Leighton
WATCH