Talk:Kiki Camarena/Archive 2

Content discussion: CIA and Camarena
There seems to be a split in views on the sources appropriate for the article. I suggest discussing some of the content that is getting inserted and removed so rapidly in the article. I hope we can come to a consensus on at least some of that material and get back to a more stable article. Please leave the disputed content up somewhere so that we can discuss it, I don't care where. Here is my list of things I would like to discuss about it. Since this is mostly Darouet's material, I hope D. could respond.
 * There is a sentence about halfway down that says:
 * "Former cartel kingpins told USA Today that a DEA official and CIA operative participated in meetings with the cartel where Camarena's abduction was discussed."

This is not right. The USA Today article (Updated 4:27 a.m. TST Feb. 29, 2020) says "former Mexican police officers Ramon Lira, Rene Lopez and George Godoy, who had worked as security guards for cartel kingpins spoke with USA TODAY and recounted that they told investigators a DEA official and a CIA operative were present at meetings where Camarena’s abduction was discussed." So this needs fixing if it is to stay. I hope there is consensus on that. Note that these were not police officers investigating Camarena's murder, they were police hired by the traffickers as gunmen.
 * The disputed last sentence of the lead paragraph says:
 * Some Mexican journalists, historians, and witnesses, including former CIA agents, state that Camarena was killed with the complicity of the CIA after he uncovered its drug trafficking operations in Mexico, which were used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

First, who are the former cia agents (plural)? This is not answered anywhere in the article. Please explain and give a source so I can check it. Second, who are the Mexican journalists (plural)? They are not cited anywhere in the article. Please explain and give a source so I can check it. Third, who are the historians? are you referring to the Bartleys? Or do you include others? Do you include Panster in this group? If so, please cite where Panster explicitly says that he believes that Camarena was killed with the complicity of the CIA because etc. Fourth, who are the witnesses that say they believe Camarena was killed with the complicity of the CIA because etc. What were they witnesses to? Is this an opinion, or did they see or hear someone do or say something. Look forward to a careful, thorough discussion Rgr09 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

Specific issues and sources

 * these are specific issues, all of which can be addressed by reliable sources. First of all, as a matter of policy in this discussion and in the article we need to rely upon reliable sources (WP:RS - I'm sure you know the policy — so that we and readers can verify all statements made in the article mainspace, and also here on the talk page. This means relying upon academic books, journal articles , and high quality newspaper articles (e.g. well known papers and investigative reporting, as in ,,). It also means avoiding primary sources, e.g. from US intelligence agencies (e.g. ).
 * 1-2 CIA and DEA agents/assets) You are correct that the last sentence of the lead paragraph is inaccurate. It should state "including two DEA agents and two persons stating they worked for the CIA," instead of "including former CIA agents." These include Berréllez and Jordan of the DEA, and Harrison and Plumlee of the CIA. The citations for this would be:
 * the historians Bartley and Bartley (p. 394 notes Berréllez, DEA, and Harrison, CIA; p. 407 notes Héctor Berréllez, Phil Jordan, DEA, and Robert "Tosh" Plumlee, CIA),
 * the historian Wil Pansters (2018 notes Harrison p. 153 and "former DEA agents" p.154)
 * this LA Weekly article (both Berréllez and Harrison),
 * and USA Today (Berréllez).
 * Note that perhaps even more important than statements from former DEA and (apparently) CIA agents are statements from Mexican police and officials, which also deserve a mention in the lead, and discussion in the article body.
 * 3 Journalists) You ask what Mexican journalists have written that the CIA was involved in the killing of Camarena. This is surprising since so many of the English-language academic sources discuss Mexican reporting:
 * Above all the famous article from Proceso whose title frankly declares "Camarena was executed by the CIA." The article begins, "Three former US federal agents decided to end a 28-year silence and simultaneously entrusted this newspaper and the US station Fox News with the following: Enrique Kiki Camarena was not assassinated by Rafael Caro Quintero - leader who served a sentence for that crime - but by a CIA agent. The reason: the DEA agent discovered that his own government collaborated with the Mexican drug trafficker in his illicit business. In interviews with Proceso, Phil Jordan, former director of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC); Héctor Berrellez, ex-agent of the United States Drug Administration (DEA), and Tosh Plumlee, ex-pilot of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), claim to have evidence that the United States government itself ordered the execution of Kiki Camarena in 1985, and they also point out the sinister Cuban character Félix Ismael Rodríguez as the murderer... In separate interviews Jordan, Berrellez and Plumlee agree on many of the details of the reconstruction of the events that would have led the CIA to decide upon the elimination of Camarena." A good summary of Proceso's reporting can be found in Spain's El Pais.
 * Wil Pansters summarizes, "In a painstaking investigative process, the authors [Bartley and Bartley] along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together." (p.152)
 * Another worthwhile investigative piece can be found here.
 * You are wholly correct that text on "cartel kingpins" is inaccurate, and I have corrected this. I regret the error, which I originally introduced here . The full quote from the USA Today article is, "The Justice Department began reexamining the case last year after admitting that forensic evidence used to convict two men in Camarena’s death was badly flawed. A federal court tossed their convictions in 2017. Weighing whether to retry the men, federal authorities reinterviewed witnesses. Some told startling stories, alleging that U.S. officials had secretly been involved with a cartel that was delivering huge quantities of marijuana and cocaine to the USA, according to people familiar with the case who were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly. Three of the witnesses – former Mexican police officers Ramon Lira, Rene Lopez and George Godoy, who had worked as security guards for cartel kingpins – spoke with USA TODAY and recounted that they told investigators a DEA official and a CIA operative were present at meetings where Camarena’s abduction was discussed. They claimed the DEA official accepted money from the cartel."
 * 4 Witnesses) Lastly, the "witnesses" refers to:
 * the USA Today piece, which reports that "U.S. Justice Department agents and prosecutors obtained statements from witnesses implicating a Central Intelligence Agency operative and a DEA official in the plot to torture and murder Camarena, according to the witnesses, Camarena’s widow and others familiar with the case who were interviewed by USA TODAY... Prosecutors and agents confirmed to Camarena’s widow, Mika, that witnesses provided the accounts allegedly connecting the CIA operative and DEA official to the plot, she said in an interview... " The article names some of the witnesses.
 * The Bartley book discusses these witnesses on pages 425-434. As far as I can tell, by "CIA" these witnesses mean Félix Rodríguez in particular. According to that book there are 4-5 witnesses, perhaps more who were less credible, who either observed Rodríguez involved in planning the abduction, or saw him participate in Camarena's torture.
 * Historians in addition to the Bartleys) The Pansters and Freije reviews don't criticize Bartleys' hypothesis that the CIA was involved in Camarena's killing: Pansters endorses it and Freije considers their evidence "compellng... but circumstantial." Pansters' main critique is that the Bartleys are overly personal in their account. Pansters summarizes as follows:
 * Freije summarizes,
 * If there are any specific modifications of text that you propose, based on reliable sources, I'll be happy to contribute. I won't be involved in unreferenced and personal speculation about the reliability of academics or journalists who are writing on this topic. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Note: I have added numbers to annotate my post, so that they can be referenced according to the numbers given by Rgr09 below. -Darouet (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are any specific modifications of text that you propose, based on reliable sources, I'll be happy to contribute. I won't be involved in unreferenced and personal speculation about the reliability of academics or journalists who are writing on this topic. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Note: I have added numbers to annotate my post, so that they can be referenced according to the numbers given by Rgr09 below. -Darouet (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are any specific modifications of text that you propose, based on reliable sources, I'll be happy to contribute. I won't be involved in unreferenced and personal speculation about the reliability of academics or journalists who are writing on this topic. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Note: I have added numbers to annotate my post, so that they can be referenced according to the numbers given by Rgr09 below. -Darouet (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Response

 * Thanks for the prompt answer to my questions. I'll summarize my understanding of your answer: 1) former CIA agents referred to Plumlee and Victor Harrison. 2) DEA agents refers to Phil Jordan and Hector Berrellez. 3) Mexican journalists refers to Luis Chaparro and J. Jesús Esquivel, authors of the Proceso article. 4) witnesses refers to persons named in the USA Today article (there were 3), and/or 4 or 5 witnesses mentioned in the epilogue to Bartley's book, 5) you say the witnesses either observed Rodríguez involved in planning the abduction, or saw him participate in Camarena's torture. 6) Historians refers not just to the Bartleys, but to Panster and Freija. Let me know if I got any of this wrong.


 * You cite mostly the epilogue of the Bartley book. Have you read all of the book? You also linked earlier to a webpage in the Tucson Sentinel. This is not a newspaper article, but an excerpt from an unfinished book by Charles Bowden called "Blood on the Corn," discussed in Bartley (p. 430-431). I do not think it belongs in the article, if you want to include it please explain why.


 * Now for my response.


 * I agree that enough is in print to include something in the article about the various claims floating around, but these various claims, by different parties, are inconsistent, contradictory, and mostly hearsay. It is all marginal material and should be treated by WP with circumspection since most of it involves claims about living persons.


 * Chronologically, these claims were all made after multiple trials of various people accused of involvement in the Camarena kidnap/murder. There is still no adequate description in the article of these long, involved proceedings. A good description of these is much more important than this material. In fact, you need to know about the trials to really understand the material proposed for insertion.


 * D. wants to put it in now, however, and apparently is not interested in adding material about the trials, only Bartley and Berrellez. If no one else does it, I may eventually get around to it. In the meantime, if we are to add this material now, I do not agree that ANY of it belongs in the lead. Chronologically and in terms of its importance it does not belong there, and placing it there is undue weight. I hope D. could respond to this.


 * We should also talk about other basic issues. Going back to the sentence from the lead, D. has changed it to:
 * Some Mexican journalists, historians, and witnesses, including former DEA agents and CIA assets, state that Camarena was killed with the complicity of the CIA after he uncovered its drug trafficking operations in Mexico, which were used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.


 * I do not accept much of this. The DEA agents are not witnesses, they should be described as former DEA agents, that is all. By witness, I mean someone who might testify to this claim in court. Jordan did not testify in ANY of the trials. He agrees with Berrellez, that is all. Please provide a source for Jordan as a witness of any kind or drop him as a witness. Berrellez believes the claim you give: "Camarena was killed with the complicity of the CIA after he uncovered its drug trafficking operations in Mexico, which were used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua" (I will call this claim 1). This does not make him a witness for claim 1. Please provide a source that Berrellez is a witness for any portion of claim 1 or drop him as a witness.


 * Nor do I accept the description of Plumlee and Harrison as CIA assets. Plumlee is a well-known figure, who has made well-publicized claims that he took part in a CIA attempt to "abort" the assassination of President Kennedy. Not many reliable sources discuss him or his claims because they are so absurd. However, his claims are discussed by Vincent Bugliosi in the endnotes to his book Reclaiming History (p. 587-588). Bugliosi calls him "a fraud so pathetic that he is an insult to those who make their living by fraudulent means."


 * What does Plumlee claim about Camarena? He claims that he was the pilot of the plane that on February 8th 1985 dramatically took Caro Quintero out of Guadalajara airport while a squad of the MFJP watched him get on the plane and depart, to the fury of 4 DEA observers (an event portrayed in Narcos Mexico s1e9 for fans).


 * There is not an iota of proof that Plumlee did this. Plumlee has never produced a molecule of evidence that he was EVER associated in any way with the CIA. Yet it is true that Bartley describes as Plumlee as a former CIA contract pilot (p. 407). He gives no reason for saying this. He also fails to acknowledge anywhere in his book Plumlee's incredibly dubious prior claims.


 * This is a problem with Bartley that neither review you cite mentions. Probably none of them, Bartley included, were aware of how problematic Plumlee is. Sooner or later, however, the issue of Plumlee's credibility is bound to be raised by a reviewer, or other historians discussing Bartley in related matters. This is a problem with inserting Bartley in the article now. The book is under reviewed, and obvious problems, exemplified by the book's treatment of Plumlee, have not yet been discussed by reviewers. This means it is not a good basis to add the extraordinary claims Bartley makes to the article.


 * If Plumlee is to be mentioned in the article he should be described only as someone who CLAIMS he was a contract pilot for the CIA. His dubious prior claims should be mentioned. I hope D. could respond to this issue here.


 * Victor Harrison was a witness at one of the Camarena trials. He set up a communications net for the Guadalajara drug lords and was later recruited by the DEA as an informant, thereby avoiding potential legal problems in Mexico and the U.S. Bartley is convinced that Harrison was CIA and this is the foundation of Bartley's belief that the CIA was involved with the Guadalajara cartel.


 * This differs from the Berrellez-Jordan-Plumlee claims, which were the basis for the Proceso story. As a result, Bartley is dubious of at least some of the Proceso story. He is critical of Berrellez's 2013 claims in several places in his epilogue. He accepts Plumlee's claim that he was a CIA contract pilot, apparently based on nothing more than Plumlee's word, but I think it is also fair to say he does not necessarily accept everything Plumlee said.


 * The claim that Harrison was a CIA asset is basically unsourced in Bartley. Yet Harrison is certainly very important for his conclusions. This causes problems again with treating Bartley as a reliable source. I hope D. could respond to this as well.


 * One more place I disagree with the sentence is how it characterizes what the witnesses saw. As I read it, the sentence says that all these people all state the entirety of claim 1. This is not true. The witnesses, whether it is three or four (I can't find five mentioned), do not suppport all of claim 1.
 * Bartley's epilogue discusses who saw what, and the USA Today article tells us more. Based on these sources, however, one thing the witnesses do not do is support all of claim 1. A couple apparently say they saw Rodriguez at a meeting. One apparently says he saw Rodriguez interrogate (not torture) Camarena. I find no source for the claim that they say Rodriguez did these things because he represented the CIA and CIA wanted to find what Camarena knew because they were engaged in drug trafficking with one or all of the cartel members. How could they know this? Did the CIA tell them? Please give a source that says the witnesses' observations, not opinions, support ALL of claim 1 or recast the sentence.


 * Finally, stated in this way, the sentence seems to deny that Camarena's death had anything to do with financial losses the cartel's product, transportation, or sales incurred from Camarena's work. In other words, he was killed only to cover up the CIA link and that's all. I do not believe this is so, I do not know of any other work on the subject that makes this claim. I am browsing through the book again to see if that is really what Bartley thought. I didn't have this impression before. Rgr09 (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My problem with this sentence, then, wherever it appears in the article, is that it confounds what people saw with what they thought and with who said what. I think it also mixes up two or three different stories, specifically Bartley and Berrellez et al. Just one sentence, but it sums up many things we disagree on. Rgr09 (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I'll respond to your additional considerations shortly, but a few brief points are in order:
 * The Tucson Sentinel piece by journalists Molly Molloy and Charles Bowden is listed as a "report" and described by the paper as "a three-part series." It might be based upon work for an unfinished book, but it is incorrect to state that it is not an investigative report.
 * Your summary of my response to your initial objections is almost correct. 1-2 DEA-CIA agents) These are the agents named by the Bartleys, some of whom are also named by Pansters , LA Weekly and USA Today . 3 Journalists) the Bartleys do reference the Proceso article , but there's additional coverage in the international press (e.g. El País), and Pansters also writes, "In a painstaking investigative process, the authors [Bartley and Bartley] along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked." Therefore ascribing this merely to Proceso is wrong. 4 Witnesses) The USA Today article  names three witnesses, but does not state that the named witnesses are all the witnesses described by the sentence, "U.S. Justice Department agents and prosecutors obtained statements from witnesses implicating a Central Intelligence Agency operative and a DEA official in the plot to torture and murder Camarena, according to the witnesses, Camarena’s widow and others familiar with the case who were interviewed by USA TODAY." The LA Weekly  writes that "Twenty-three informants from Operation Leyenda were murdered while Berrellez was supervisor or shortly thereafter. Nevertheless, he managed to bring over to the United States as many as 200 informants and place them in witness protection, quarantined from one another — indeed, unaware of who was in this country — as a precaution to prevent them from comparing notes. Ten of the informants were eyewitnesses to the kidnapping and murder of Kiki Camarena." 5 Felix Rodriguez) I didn't say witnesses observed CIA agent Rodriguez involved in planning the abduction and torture (really, interrogation): that's what was reported by the Bartleys and journalists. 6 Historians) Yes, historians refers to the Bartleys, Pansters and Freije.
 * I'm deeply skeptical of any approach that tries to assume greater expertise on this topic than that of historians who have spent their lives studying the cartels and drug violence in Mexico and the region. Relying upon the summaries provided by historians is what we should do. For my part I have read substantial portions of the Bartley book, but it's around 500 pages long, and I've focused on the epilogue, because it provides a summary of the authors' findings. -Darouet (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, you make a few additional points. You write a, Plumlee) that Plumlee is an unreliable source, but is treated by historians as trustworthy, thus compromising their findings. However, if you read the Barley book, the Pansters and Freije reviews, and the newspaper articles, you see that Plumlee is just one source among many, including documentary evidence from the trials you reference, that allow the journalists and historians to come to their conclusions. You also write that b, Harrison) "the claim that Harrison was a CIA asset is basically unsourced in Bartley," so that any conclusions that involve Harrison may also be suspect. However, Harrison describes himself as an employee of the CIA, and Pansters repeats this claim in his own voice . c Rodriguez/CIA You write that Rodriguez was not seen torturing Rodriguez, merely interrogating him while he was tortured. You also write that Rodriguez might not have represented the CIA, and so any claim that the CIA was involved in Camarena's death because Rodriguez was is flawed. In response I must say that from the naive perspective of a biologist who has never been involved in torture, the moral distinction between interrogation and torture while torture is ongoing escapes me. I'll also note that in every one of the sources we're discussing, the authors very prominently state that the evidence indicates CIA involvement in Camarena's death, whether they discuss Rodriguez or not. That is, statements being made here rely upon exact phrases taken from reliable sources, not and not upon reading into Rodriguez's specific role. Lastly, you write that a lead sentence implicating the CIA d Cartel finances) implies that Camarena was not killed because of his impact on the finances of the cartels. In response, I'd just say that I don't think the text implies any such thing. And I think any educated historian / journalist / reader would understand that the CIA and cartels could theoretically both collaborate to kill a DEA agent for their own reasons. -Darouet (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"CIA agents"
I'm going to jump in here. Various versions of the lede have stated that "CIA agents" have claimed that Camarena was killed with the complicity of the CIA. There are various issues with this. First of all, the meaning of "CIA agent" is vague and I would think professional historians and journalists would be a bit more careful using the term. Robert "Tosh" Plumlee has claimed in various places that he was an employee of the CIA (i.e. a CIA officer) and as far as I can tell, Lawrence Victor Harrison did not make that same claim. Darouet cited the LA Weekly's interview of Hector Berrellez in writing "Harrison describes himself as an employee of the CIA". This is what the LA Weekly article states:
 * Once in the safety of Berrellez's office in L.A., Harrison told his story. He said he was a CIA agent who was trained in Virginia and assigned to pose as an English instructor at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara. He was to infiltrate the leftist student groups on campus and point out their leaders to the Mexican authorities. He said the students he identified invariably disappeared. Harrison found he didn't have the stomach for the political espionage, so his control agent reassigned him to handle radio communication between DFS and the drug traffickers in Guadalajara they were assigned to protect.

Harrison may have described himself as an employee of the CIA at some point in time, but the LA Weekly article only indicates that Berrellez said Harrison made that claim. In 1990, Harrison was reported to be a DEA informant who claimed he trained Guatemalan guerrillas at Rafael Caro Quintero's ranch. This AP report is in line with other news accounts of the time reporting on his testimony:
 * In testimony Harrison has said he audited classes at the University of California, Berkeley, in the late 1960s, went to Mexico for the first time in 1968 during a student rebellion there, and settled there in 1971. He has denied ever working for a U.S. government agency.

You would think that if Harrison claimed to be a "CIA agent", that would make it in to the story. (By the way, the AP report also states: "'The whole story is nonsense,' [CIA] spokesman Mark Mansfield said. 'We have not trained Guatemalan guerrillas on that ranch or anywhere else.'") So, on the point of whether Harrison was a "CIA agent" are we to believe Bartley and Bartley who are relying on Berrellez's claim (Pansters is clearly citing Bartley and Bartley), or are we to believe Harrison himself? And on the point of whether Tosh Plumlee was a "CIA agent" are we to believe Bartley and Bartley who are relying on Plumlee's claims, or are we to believe the SPLC who wrote:
 * "[Plumlee is] a self-identified CIA pilot who claims he flew counter-conspirators into Dallas to try to halt the assassination. [Richard] Belzer buys his story. But [Marquette University political scientist John] McAdams and others who have looked into it report that nobody can find a shred of credible evidence that such a thing ever happened. Plus, McAdams cites National Archives material on how law enforcement found Plumlee a frequent, unreliable crank who pestered them needlessly, along with FBI records indicating Plumlee had fabricated crime-related information in the past."

I am curious to see suggestions on how to resolve these statements in sources that are quite divergent. - Location (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not surprising, nor is it contradictory, that a CIA agent declares that they are not in the CIA in 1990, but then tells multiple sources 23 years later that yes, they were in the CIA. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If Harrison was truly a CIA agent when he testified that he did not work for the government, then he lied under oath. On top of that, the CIA officially stated that his story was "nonsense". That is most certainly peculiar.
 * What about Plumlee? Is the SPLC wrong about him? - Location (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on what you and Rgr09 have written, I take no position on Plumlee: he's cited by other sources, but since his own testimony merely confirms what everyone else is saying, I can't see what special importance he has.
 * As to Harrison, the 1990 AP report states, "He has denied ever working for a U.S. government agency." I don't know if that means under oath or not. Now he tells Russell and Sylvia Bartley in their 2015 book that he worked for the CIA ("disillusioned former CIA spy, Lawrence Victor Harrison"), a point repeated by Pansters in his 2017 review  "a former CIA agent, Lawrence Victor Harrison", and Harrison tells journalists he was in the CIA too (2015 story) "Harrison told his story. He said he was a CIA agent who was trained in Virginia." It's also repeated by Chuck Bowden in his 2015 piece : "It is a simple arrangement: He is a CIA operative embedded in DFS and assigned by DFS to assist and guard major drug people in Guadalajara."
 * Lastly, you think it's peculiar that the CIA would describe reports of their participation in a murder as "nonsense?" What response would be normal, in your mind? -Darouet (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) So if Plumlee is directly referenced in the article, or indirectly referenced as an unnamed "CIA agent", then you have no objection to using the SPLC article that mentions "law enforcement found Plumlee a frequent, unreliable crank who pestered them needlessly" and "FBI records indicating Plumlee had fabricated crime-related information in the past"?
 * 2) Harrison "denied in court that he ever worked for any U.S. government agency." Other excerpts from the WaPo report: Harrison was "[o]ne of the most controversial witnesses" in the trial. "Harrison said he had no direct knowledge of CIA involvement with the traffickers but believed that contras had been trained in Mexico. He said the DEA had misquoted him in a February report as having said that the CIA, using the DFS as cover, had trained leftist Guatemalan guerrillas on a Mexican drug lord's ranch." The judge "criticized Harrison's testimony [without the jury present] as 'based on hearsay, gossip and speculation.' The judge did not allow the jury to hear that testimony."
 * 3) No, what I think is peculiar is that Harrison did not claim an affiliation with the CIA at the trial in order to boost credibility to his charges... which implicated the CIA! - Location (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the SPLC article never mentions Camarena once, and we should not use it here. -Darouet (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Harrison denied in his testimony that he had either a formal or informal relationship with any American intelligence agency in Mexico. The transcript of this testimony is given in Eclipse on pages 234-235. The Bartleys discuss this testimony on p. 399: "While Harrison has never stated explicitly that he was a CIA agent, in the same way that he knew Dale Stinson was CIA he let us know that he, too, had been with the agency. 'You’re going to ask, and I’m not going to tell you,' was the way he acknowledged as true what he had denied on the witness stand." In other words, Bartley acknowledges that Harrison never told Bartley he was a CIA agent. Bartley believes that Harrison was a CIA agent based on what Bartley thinks Harrison implied in their conversations. Bartley also believes that Harrison committed perjury on the witness stand, describing Harrison's perjury as prevarication. He bases this, too, on what he thinks Harrison implied in their conversations, not on an actual admission of perjury from Harrison. Rgr09 (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since journalists and historians conclude that Harrison was in the CIA, we should write the same. And he explicitly tells the Bartley that his 1990 testimony, where he denied knowledge of the CIA, was both scripted and false.
 * Harrison's 1990 testimony that you reference is helpful, so I'll just cite it here:
 * However, Harrison also told the Bartleys in a 2005 phone conversation that the testimony you're referring to is false. According to Harrison,
 * The Bartleys go on to describe newspaper reports from 1990 that elaborated upon CIA-cartel connections, and their relevance to Iran Contra. They write, for instance:
 * -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Bartleys go on to describe newspaper reports from 1990 that elaborated upon CIA-cartel connections, and their relevance to Iran Contra. They write, for instance:
 * -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Another response
I have caught up with comments from Darouet and Location on the talk page. My response follows, sorry for the delay. Anything else from me will take at least a week, sorry about that too. I will abide by any consensus reached in my absence, no problemo.


 * The primary source for the claim of CIA involvement is Berrellez, Jordan, and Plumlee (BJP), as discussed above. Almost all of the news stories, and books too, are based on interviews with them and, to a lesser extent, the witnesses they are touting. Just because El Pais and Fox and Oct 12 Proceso and LA Weekly all covered BJP claims does not give us multiple sources. Most of these stories are regurgitations of BJP interviews without any independent verification. None of these stories cite interviews with other DEA agents or officials for example. Almost all of them simply give a bald restatement of the basic claim (claim 1 cited above), but no coherent story that explains who said what.


 * Let me give two examples of what I mean. Basic claim 1 includes the sub-statement that Camarena was killed with the complicity of the CIA after he uncovered its drug trafficking operations in Mexico. Who said Camarena uncovered CIA drug trafficking operations in Mexico? What evidence is offered that this is true? None of the news stories discuss this. There was nothing about this in any of the trials. If you feel the lack of testimony about this in the trials is "CIA coverup", congratulations, you are now in conspiracy theory land.


 * Another substatement is that the CIA had "drug trafficking operations in Mexico, which were used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua." Again, who said this? What evidence is offered that this is true?


 * This is a big problem. I have looked hard at the "CIA used drug trafficking operations to fund Contras" claim, and I have seen many many people maintain that this is true, with virtually no evidence to back it up. The Kerry report says no such thing. Do not cite Peter Dale Scott, Gary Webb, Bill Conroy, Martha Honey. Do not, for heaven's sake, cite Daniel Sheehan's absurd affidavit, I don't care if Bartley does (he does, by the way).


 * There are a few sources that give more than just basic claim 1. Bowden cited above, the B book epilogue, a couple of El Proceso stories in addition to the one cited above. I have not read Esquivel's book,  La CIA, Camarena y Caro Quintero: La historia secreta. Perhaps more is available there.


 * The problem is that putting these bits together into even a basic story is a heavy duty task. I think it is fair to argue that if there is no readily available basic story, anything other than one or two sentences stating the basic claim should not go in the article.


 * The witnesses proferred by BJP, all of whom date back to the 1988-1992 LA trials, do not give a story. (Witness here excludes Harrison and Plumlee). They say I saw so and so at the house, I saw so and so interrogate Camarena, take money from Caro, etc. They are still a vital part of the story. If there is yet another trial, it will be because of them. I think the odds of another trial are low, because of the severe credibility problems all of the witnesses mentioned in the B book and the most recent USA Today stories. This is a topic which I will put in the article regardless of whether the BJP claims go in or not.


 * P (Plumlee) of BJP is not optional in citing or summarizing, and cannot be replaced by other "witnesses" who say they witnessed other things. Witnesses don't work like this. Witnesses cover specific facts, not generalizations. In addition, with witnesses, you have to have people who don't change their story every time they talk to a different person. Moreover, to tell a story, there has to be some common agreement between some people if not all. I am not sure this is so in the case of BJP.


 * Example: B book p. 413 cites a Bill Conroy article which discusses "a late 1984 meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, ostensibly attended by Plumlee and Camarena, where, according to Plumlee, Camarena revealed what he had learned about CIA collusion with the Guadalajara cartel and Nicaraguan contras." This answers one of my questions above. but is this really Plumlee's story? Does Berrellez really buy this BS? Does Bartley? If not, why does B mention it? Just because B cites the non-RS Conroy blog, does that me we should stick it in too?


 * Location commented on the problem of saying Plumlee and/or Harrison are "CIA agents". If the only basis offered for saying this is that Plumlee and/or Harrison claimed it is true, that is what I mean by unsourced.


 * Plumlee is called ex-CIA by most of the sources cited in the article. I don't care how many sources for BJP say this. Plumlee is a well-known figure and no unilateral statements can change the unbelievable character of his claims, only some form of proof. Nor can BJP be separated, as far as I can tell. Give reasons if you know of any. Otherwise, if B and J go in the article, P goes. If P goes in, he claims to be an ex-CIA contract pilot and claims to be involved in the JFK assassination. His CIA affiliation cannot be stated as established fact.


 * Harrison has said he was a CIA contract agent and then again has said he was not affiliated with the CIA. There is no evidence outside his word that he was. Unless there is actually evidence that he was, it should not be stated as a fact. If, on the other hand, he denied he was affiliated with the CIA in court, then later told Bartley he was with the CIA, that should go in the article. I have not found any statements by B, or by news reports, that Harrison stated in court that he was with the CIA. I believe that it is also reasonable to put that in the article.


 * If the BJP claims go in, the InCrime doubts on Proceso and Esquivel go in. The DEA rejection of B and J's claims goes in. The DEA rejection is in the transcript of the DEA museum panel that Location has linked to. A good find. This is mentioned in the B. book, p. 413. B. doesn't like it and calls the panel "a transparent exercise in damage control ... which only serves to increase Berréllez and Jordan’s credibility." B's opinion canno be presented as fact, it is inherently opinion.


 * I understand now that Darouet takes a more expansive view of journalists and witnesses than I ascribed to him. Thanks for the correction.


 * Regarding the two reviews of the B book, Freije says " The evidence for US involvement is compelling but, as Bartley and Bartley acknowledge, circumstantial." This means she does not yet view U.S. involvement as established fact. Pansters's review refers to the book's "core argument", leaving me wondering whether he is totally convinced. Probably he is, add a plus, in contrast to Freije's null. He also finds much to criticize in the B book, if you read the review to the end. I still feel the book is under reviewed; its failure to give a basic story, which I tried to explain above, also makes it a less than ideal material for an article.


 * Finally, if I have understood, D. regards the Bs as "historians who have spent their lives studying the cartels and drug violence in Mexico and the region." I think this is an overstatement. Nor do I agree with the comment that "Relying upon the summaries provided by historians is what we should do", if this means we should ignore obvious issues in selecting and citing sources, such as the B book's failures in regard to Plumlee and various conspiracist works. Rgr09 (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Even after all of this, Darouet is still cherry-picking sources to insert the "Harrison is a CIA agent" bit into articles (see Amiram Nir). - Location (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You should probably report him, I think he's going to keep adding this material until he's blocked or banned.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is necessary to form a consensus, I believe that any mention of Harrison should also reference his testimony in 1990 in which he denied working for any government agency, and that the CIA, the Mexican government, and the judge on the case thought his story was bullshit (e.g. ). - Location (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC) [ edited 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC) )]]
 * I think it is worth mentioning in the article that there are allegations made about Félix Rodríguez and CIA involvement in Camarena's death. It should not be the primary focus of the article, but those allegations are worth mentioning with at least a sentence or two and a wikilink to the Rodriguez article.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Um no, Mentioning it at all alleged or not would violate WP:BLP.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to tread carefully because of the WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG concerns. If the allegations are included, we would also need to include material from something like the aforementioned 2013 InsightCrime article. Regarding Rodriguez, that article states:
 * The Proceso stories argue the CIA had a direct relationship to the Guadalajara Cartel via corrupt Mexican police, which appears, by all accounts, to be true. But it also reconstructs the Matta Ballesteros story to fit its narrative. Specifically, it says a CIA asset named Felix Rodriguez — who famously claims to have presided over the capture and murder of Ernesto “Che” Guevara in Bolivia in 1967 — brought Matta Ballesteros to Mexico and introduced him to the Guadalajara Cartel for the express purpose of moving cocaine to the United States to fund the Contras. However, this is inconsistent with what’s known about Felix Rodriguez’s and Matta Ballesteros’ histories. Rodriguez, according to the independent counsel Lawrence Walsh’s report on the Iran Contra affair, did not become a clandestine coordinator for Contra aid until 1985, well after Matta Ballesteros had begun working with the Guadalajara Cartel.
 * - Location (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And if you're reading this Darouet no this doesn't mean you can add the information back.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now another account is trying to insert the claims, This time using The Last Narc as a source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A9lix_Rodr%C3%ADguez_%28soldier%29&type=revision&diff=974317066&oldid=974308504 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiki_Camarena&type=revision&diff=974316929&oldid=974307469Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi All - sorry for the delay, the semester has begun and this is time consuming. I've spent a long time going through these sources earlier and while there are a few discrepancies, this is common in historical research, and the sources generally paint the same picture. I think it's time to launch an RfC and be done with this debate: enough sources have been presented to allow other editors to make up their own minds. -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A list of references used in the article as well as discussed here would be helpful, with commentary on the quality of each. An easier alternative would be to identify the very highest quality references only. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point I have to agree with Darouet. It's clear we aren't going to reach a consensus so we should launch an RfC to get outside opinions. Classified20 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

in response to your comments above, you state that all of the information connecting the Camarena case to the CIA and the contras comes from three people, "BJP." However, there are in fact three former DEA agents who have testified to this connection, two former CIA agents, multiple witnesses to Camarena's death who state that they worked for the cartels. Then we have five academics who are experts on Latin American drugs and politics who based on this testimony and their own expertise and research takes these claims seriously, and conclude they're almost certainly correct. Then in addition to this we have a host of newspaper reporters from outlets in the US and Mexico who report on this, some of whom describe years of work on the topic, and also take the allegations very seriously. And last but not least, the Justice Department has reopened their case on the matter. I'm not sure how we're supposed to weight academia and journalism versus your speculations here. -Darouet (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rgr09 wrote: "The primary source [emphasis mine] for the claim of CIA involvement is Berrellez, Jordan, and Plumlee (BJP)...". As far as the two people to whom you continue to insist upon as being "former CIA agents", Harrison and Plumlee, one said he never worked for the government and other is an attention hound who has a history of claiming all sorts of things. If Bartley and Bartley cite them, as well as other dubious sources such as Brenneke, Hopsicker, Reed, Webb, and Simkin/Spartacus, then their status as "experts" should be reconsidered. - Location (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you insisting on using only a 1990 AP report for the argument that Harrison was not an agent, but are not even commenting on newer sources and interviews with him? That report came out 30 years ago, and we have articles from the last 10 where Harrison identifies himself as an agent. Why do you trust his 1990 declaration, but distrust his subsequent declarations, and those of secondary, reliable sources? -Darouet (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have answered this above under the discussion of "CIA agents", but I will answer here too. Harrison's 1990 declaration was made in court under oath. His other statements were not. As to secondary, reliable sources, whom do you refer to? Bartley acknowledges on p. 399 of his book that Harrison never told him he was a CIA agent, only implied it. Rgr09 (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * According to Berrellez, Harrison told him he was a CIA agent. The Bartleys definitively describe him as an agent. Other historians do too. It appears that Harrison told Bowden he was a CIA agent as well, though it's somewhat unclear to me in part 3 of the Bowden piece if the Harrison story about the motorbike photograph was told to Berrellez, or Bowden. Nevertheless here's what reliable sources actually write:
 * Russell and Sylvia Bartley's book contains a glossary, summarizing who is who in the Buendia and Camarena murders. There's an entry for Harrison:
 * Here's what historian Wil Pansters writes in his review of the Bartley book :
 * Here's what historian Vanessa Freije writes in her review of the Bartleys :
 * Here's what journalists Charles Bowden and Molly Molloy write about Harrison :
 * This is what journalist Jason McGahan writes about Harrison :
 * This is what reliable sources are writing about Harrison's relationship with the CIA. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's what journalists Charles Bowden and Molly Molloy write about Harrison :
 * This is what journalist Jason McGahan writes about Harrison :
 * This is what reliable sources are writing about Harrison's relationship with the CIA. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what reliable sources are writing about Harrison's relationship with the CIA. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what reliable sources are writing about Harrison's relationship with the CIA. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

CIA and Camarena killing
I've found a host of high-quality academic sources that discuss the role of the CIA in Camarena's killing in detail. The section that we have on this topic should not be a single article from El País, even if that is Spain's flagship newspaper. Here, I'm posting a paragraph from a review of a number of books on the topic. The review is titled "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico’s Cold War", is published in Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (Amsterdam Iss. 103, Jan/Jun 2017, pp.143-155) and is written by professor Wil Pansters, head of the Department of Social Sciences of University College Utrecht.

The review ends up quoting from "Eclipse of the Assassins. The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía," by Russell H. Bartley and Sylvia Erickson Bartley. University of Wisconsin Press, 2015. That book concludes,

I'll work to expand this section in the coming weeks. -Darouet (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for taking on this task. Would you be interested in creating a separate article about this? I feel that if we expand this section, we'll give undue weight to this point of view (POV). The POV is not considered part of the mainstream narrative. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * and : First off, I appreciate your interest in this article. Hopefully we can all work together to improve it. I've been wanting to get to it for years, but now that the Narcos: Mexico series was released, I decided to wait since I know a lot of old information would surface again.
 * Before there's an edit warring, let's try to keep the discussion here. What are your thoughts on creating a seperate article about the alleged involvement of the CIA? We have to be careful with undue weight since I'm sure there's a lot to write about. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 02:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I should point out that  hasn't actually contributed to this conversation and has instead repeatedly removed sourced content, describing it as "fringe" with no justification or sources to support that claim.


 * It appears that Enrique Camarena Salazar is above all noteworthy because of their death. For that reason it is not appropriate to create a separate article about their killing, in my opinion. -Darouet (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a fringe conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence, Two conspiracy theorists with self published books don't count as a reliable source, Also in the news story there's no evidence that the people interviewed were actually who they say they are, I'm not going to let you add conspiracy theories on this article. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest a brief pause before doing major editing of this section of the article. Regarding the El Pais story, The "American television network" it mentions was the Fox Network. Here is a link to the story as broadcast. Here is a link to a print version.  The DEA agents were, of course, Phil Jordan and Hector Berrellez. The "ex-CIA contractor" was Tosh Plumlee.  It is hard to imagine a more dubious or non-RS source than Plumlee. Rgr09 (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi — I've edited with you at another controversial CIA-related article and respect the work you have done there — I don't know if you recall but you actually changed my mind in that case. Though I haven't fully agreed with you there at Operation Mockingbird your interest in the details of the case have improved the article and provided a strong basis for further article improvement in the future. I'm happy to pause here to discuss what should go into Camerena's article.


 * As a basis for discussion, is there any chance you have access to the University of Wisconsin 2015 book, "Eclipse of the Assassins: The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía," by Russell H. Bartley and Sylvia Erickson Bartley? The book is also available online for some university libraries. The last chapter or epilogue of the book provides a long and scholarly account both of the Camerena killing and of the subsequent media stories and revelations. I'm happy to try to share if that's possible. Given your interest in this topic I'd rather you had access to the whole epilogue rather than snippets that I provide through quotations here on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Didn't mean to imply I have dibs on the article! Look forward to reading your comments here and/or article edits as they come.


 * I should have access to the Bartleys' book in a couple of weeks and I will be sure to read it carefully.


 * There have been poorly written and sourced stories making claims of CIA involvement in Camarena's death, hence my concerns. In addition to the 2013 Fox story involving Plumlee (seems nothing further came out of that), there is a book in Spanish by a Mexican writer named Esquivel. Many, many problems with this book. Others may have more to say on that. Rgr09 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Source: InSight Crime
On the issue of sourcing, I found this 2013 article by Steven Dudley and Michael Lohmuller of InSight Crime that came out shortly after the Fox News and Proceso reports. (Per the renowned Wilson Center: "InSight Crime, a joint initiative of American University in Washington, D.C., and the Foundation InSight Crime in Medellin, Colombia, which monitors, analyzes and investigates organized crime in the Americas" and Dudley is one of its co-founders.) A few snippets:

So, there is that for reference. - Location (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "InSight Crime" is not a peer-reviewed academic or well known journalistic source, and all the high quality and journalistic sources we're using here are more recent, published in the last five years. At best, we could note that Steven Dudley from InSight Crime and Michael Lohmuller from the Center for Advanced Defense Studies had earlier written that evidence for CIA involvement was weak. -Darouet (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They have less problematic sources though. I think Location's debunking of the book is enough to not include it in the article.2600:1700:BFA1:AEB0:B960:7AF:BB57:4A82 (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Darouet: InSight Crime is a project affiliated with American University that studies organized crime in Latin America, and Dudley is an expert on Latin America and fellow of the Wilson Center. They are frequently cited by major publications. To pooh-pooh that in favor of a source (i.e. Bartley and Bartley) that relies on Tosh Plumlee, Daniel Hopsicker, Terry Reed, Gary Webb, and John Simkin/Spartacus is almost laughable, especially after the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency Office of Inspector General, and United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have addressed in lengthy reports the conspiracy theory that the CIA was running drugs to support the Contras. - Location (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Source: DEA Museum Lecture Series, October 29, 2013
For future reference, I found this link to "Brought to Justice: Operation Leyenda" in the DEA Museum Lecture Series, October 29, 2013; the transcript is here. The panelists include "Former Administrator Jack Lawn, who led DEA during Operation Leyenda, retired Special Agent Jack Taylor, the Inspector in Charge of the Camarena kidnap/murder case in Los Angeles, and journalist Elaine Shannon whose research into the Camarena case resulted in the book Desperados, the basis of the NBC TV miniseries Drug Wars: the Camarena Story." On pages 39 to 41, the panel addresses a question submitted by a retired DEA agent:

Without mentioning Berrellez or Jordan by name, Jack Lawn replies:

Jack Taylor then states:

Elaine Shannon responds to Taylor's comment:

Taylor replies:

If the claims or Berrellez or Jordan are inserted into the article, then some part of their superiors' views of those claims should be provided, too. - Location (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Great point Location. I may add this to the Felix Rodriguez article. I have to say that this whole allegation smells (to high heaven). For one thing, its got the same problem Gary Webb's allegations had: cartels swimming in money while (supposedly) aiding the Contras....yet the Contras desperate for monetary support at the same time.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't think that verbal comments made at a symposium should be given equal weight to academic publications or even newspaper articles. But I would also want readers to know that Lawn and Taylor made these statements. -Darouet (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I think at least a brief mention of the denial is in order.....but I will also admit I don't see how these allegations getting reprinted in "academic" publication(s) somehow enhances their probative value. At the end of the day you are left with a story. (Not sure how you "study" that academically.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)