![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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:
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)
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. [1] 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. [2] [3] 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. [4] Prior to and during Noriega's trial, Frank A. Rubino claimed that Noriega had received $11 million in payments from the CIA. [5] [6] 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. [7] 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. [7] References
|
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." [1] 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". [2] [3] Turner declined to state when Noriega was returned to the payroll or how he acquired the information. [2] [3] Bush's press secretary Stephen Hart said the allegation was "patently false". [2] [3] Questioned as to whether Noriega was on the payroll during the Reagan administration, Hart refused to comment stating that it was "a CIA matter". [2] 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." [2] Inman said Noriega was not on the payroll during his tenure and said William Casey — reported to have a close relationship with Reagan [4] — would not have allowed Bush to play any role in such a decision. [2] Inman stated that Casey had no appreciation for Bush and that two men "came from opposite ends of the party." [2] 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. [2] 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. [5] He added that he was certain that a break had been made with the Noriega, but did not recall making that decision himself. [5] 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. [5] In February 1990, Turner said that the CIA under Carter used Noriega as an intelligence contact, but was not on the payroll. [6] 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. [6] References
|
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
"Between 1981 and 1987 the relationship between Noriega and the U.S. grew considerably. It was driven both by the U.S.'s pursuit of its security interests, and Noriega using these as an effective means of gaining favor"
This needs to be changed. 45.225.90.31 ( talk) 00:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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:
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)
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. [1] 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. [2] [3] 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. [4] Prior to and during Noriega's trial, Frank A. Rubino claimed that Noriega had received $11 million in payments from the CIA. [5] [6] 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. [7] 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. [7] References
|
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." [1] 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". [2] [3] Turner declined to state when Noriega was returned to the payroll or how he acquired the information. [2] [3] Bush's press secretary Stephen Hart said the allegation was "patently false". [2] [3] Questioned as to whether Noriega was on the payroll during the Reagan administration, Hart refused to comment stating that it was "a CIA matter". [2] 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." [2] Inman said Noriega was not on the payroll during his tenure and said William Casey — reported to have a close relationship with Reagan [4] — would not have allowed Bush to play any role in such a decision. [2] Inman stated that Casey had no appreciation for Bush and that two men "came from opposite ends of the party." [2] 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. [2] 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. [5] He added that he was certain that a break had been made with the Noriega, but did not recall making that decision himself. [5] 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. [5] In February 1990, Turner said that the CIA under Carter used Noriega as an intelligence contact, but was not on the payroll. [6] 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. [6] References
|
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
"Between 1981 and 1987 the relationship between Noriega and the U.S. grew considerably. It was driven both by the U.S.'s pursuit of its security interests, and Noriega using these as an effective means of gaining favor"
This needs to be changed. 45.225.90.31 ( talk) 00:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)