Talk:Manuel Noriega/Archive 1

Question
'''I've got a question. In the first section of this article, it says that Manuel Noriega is due to be released in 2007, but on the right hand column it says that he has been sentenced to 30 years in prison as of 1992. How does this work?'''

I love this bit:

"In the best selling Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, published in 2004, John Perkins claims that a bomb was planted aboard the plane by U.S. interests, with Panamanian control over the Panama Canal being the point of contention. This is disputed, as Colonel Diaz Herrera, a former associate of Noriega, claimed that Noriega was behind the bombing."

First of all: Poor Writing.

Second of all: Can someone explain how "Noriega was behind the bombing" and "by US Interests" are mutually exclusive? How is this a "dispute"? To pose these as contrary and/or mutaully exclusive scenerios is misinformed and misleading.

For the record:

It has been reported that Noriega was recruited by the Defense Intelligence Agency while still a young military cadet studying in Peru as early as 1959- (See Life Magazine article "Our Man In Panama" 1990 by Seymore Hersch).

And whether or not that is true, it plain public record that Noriega has been on the CIA payroll since 1967, that CIA Director George H.W. Bush arranged to pay Noriega $110,000 a year as an agent, that Carter cut him off financially but alledgedly turned a blind eye to his drug trade to America, and that the Reagan Administration had put him back on the payroll, to the tune of $200,000 per year, for his 'services'- (ummmm, see the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Commitee Report entitled: "Narcotics Review in Central America" - Washington D.C. U.S. Govt Printing Office, 1988)

Not to be redundant but to summarize...

The article clearly poses that the notion of Noriega being "behind the bombing" (of Omar Turrijos' plane) is somehow contradictory to the concept that the U.S. was involved. While Noriega's loyalty has been openly questioned by U.S. officials as well as Fidel Castro (o yeah, he paid him too), the notion that Noriega's involvement discludes U.S. involvement is erroneous, ...not to mention counter-intuitive. --JB


 * The one fact that no one seems to dispute is that Noriega was personally close to Torrijos. The idea that he would have Torrijos killed is a bit far-fetched. -- HK  21:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in no way claiming Noriega did the deed but his loyalty to anything or anybody is the most far fetched thing I've heard yet. He played Fidel and the US simultaneously and the man was an obvious sociopath...  A cursory look at his career leaves me doubting his ability to be genuinely close to anyone.  He sold out anything or anybody around him again and again.


 * But my original point was simply that his involvement was asserted as 'spoiler' proof that the U.S. was not behind the explosion on Torrijos' plane. Thats laughable.


 * That said, Its also hard to overlook the fact that Torrijos' plane blew up as soon as he began to get serious about nationalizing his country's oil. Its got CIA written all over it thats for sure, Not proven or even claimed known by any credible source I can find but fairly obvious.  At the same time Noriega was a paid CIA "dirty deeds" guy in South America.  ...I'm not claiming that he did it, but If I'm investigating this case, he's on my short list.  --JB


 * I agree with JB and in fact came to this discussion page in response to this exact point. The lines: "He was initially a strong ally of the United States, and also worked for the CIA from the late 1950s to 1986." in the intro and:


 * "Omar Torrijos died in a plane crash in 1981. In the best-selling Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, published in 2004, John Perkins claims that a bomb was planted aboard the plane by U.S. interests, with Panamanian control over the Panama Canal being the point of contention. This is disputed, as Colonel Diaz Herrera, a former associate of Noriega, claimed that Noriega was behind the bombing."


 * Cannot both be correct. If he worked for the CIA in 1981, then he could very well be behind a CIA planned bombing. I would change it now, but since this page seems to be controversial I will come back in a few days.--Chinawhitecotton 06:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article should not speculate about whether the bombing was done by the CIA. As I recall, Perkins does not make that allegation. "U.S. interests" does not equal CIA; it is a common error to conflate the two (as Maxine Waters did with the crack cocaine scandal in Los Angeles.) The article can include properly sourced theories from reputable sources (such as Perkins), but should not feature the opinions or theories of Wikipedia editors. -- HK  08:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not imposing my own theories here - read my comment carefully. Regarding the CIA issue, well, Perkins says:


 * "I had no doubt that Roldos's death had not been an accident. It had all the markings of a CIA-orchestrated assassination...The jackals [CIA opperatives] were back, and they wanted Omar Torrijos and everyone else who might consider joining an anti-corporatocracy crusade to know it..." (p. 185)


 * "I could not have known that on another dark night [Torrijos] would be killed during a routine flight...or that most of the world outside the United States would have no doubt that Torrijos's death...was just one more in a series of CIA assasinations." (p. 188)(Perkins, Confessions, 2006 Plume paperback edition)


 * Read the chapter 27 as a whole and Perkins's allegations are clear, so this is a published source. I agree that "U.S. Interests" is wrong - it should say, "CIA" when discussing what Perkins suggested.


 * But really, HK, you do not respond to my actual objection (and JB's), which is that of the contradiction: if Noriega worked for the CIA, than the idea that Noriega was involved in Torrijos's death does not contradict CIA involvement. Read the sentence in the article - it does not make sense.--Chinawhitecotton 09:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the words "This is disputed" because they didn't make sense given other material in the text (see discussion above). --Chinawhitecotton 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

An event in this article is a January 3 selected anniversary

What's a flamer? --Heron

That's American derogatory slang for "obvious homosexual"; it was just a childish bit of vandalism. --LDC

Where is Noriega now (2004)? Is he still in jail in US or extradited to Panama or released or dead? (Most articles end with his conviction.)

This article is full of a lot of nonsense. First of all, Noriega was running guns (to Contras etc.) and smuggling drugs with the knowledge, support and (the extent of which could be debated) involvement of US military and intelligence for many years. It was OK for Noriega or his allies to run drugs while they followed the US central American foreign policy line 100%, but as soon as he deviated from it he became a "drug runner" and a lot of other nonsense. The ludicrousness of it is on so many levels, imagine if the Panamanians invaded the US and kidnapped Bush for Phillip Morris exporting tobacco to Panama.

I love this paragraph "In December 15, 1989 Noriega declared a state of war with the U.S. government. His forces soon after shot and killed an U.S. Marine stationed in Panama City." I know there's a propaganda need to always say that some tiny little country declared war on the US so the US just had to respond, but obviously no leader in their right mind would declare war on the US until the US invaded his country which is exactly what happened. As far as the Marine supposedly stationed in Panama City, that is like a Panamanian soldier stationed in Chicago - there are no Marines stationed in Panama City. The US soldiers are stationed in the canal zone, his group had wandered into the sovereign nation of Panama and began stopping cars in the middle of Panama City with machine guns (oops, a little point that people forgot to make).

These Wikipedia articles all look like they were written in the bowels of the US State Department. Of course, I'm the bad guy since I am not following the party line that has been put out and that all the good little white yuppie US Wikipedia commissars are trying to hold to. That way, Wikipedia can just spew the same crap that the US corporate media lords decide to put on their TV channels all day. HectorRodriguez 07:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You sound like you're regurgitating poor Panamanian textbooks. Your notion of history is badly mistaken, and seems most reasonably explained as the result of a shitty education in some America-hating backwaters. I'm not American, by the way, just commenting on some more idiotic anti-Americanism.

HectorRodriguez added blatant NPOV comments to this article, and when I reverted them, Wik re-reverted them because he wants to spite me. The information that was added is ridiculously POV and should be changed, but because Wik is stalking me, it's impossible for me to do so. RickK 04:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * HectorRodriguez generally makes more sense than Anthony DiPierro. Rick said I couldn't revert Anthony without explanation so let's have Rick explain each of his reverts too. --Wik 04:35, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

This is utterly disgraceful. I'm restoring the last stable version of this article, going back as far as 22:34, 30 Jan 2004. Since Hector is not a hard-banned vandal, RickK and VV can't go around removing large chuncks of text without backing up their actions.

There are several approapriate courses of action. First, they can systematically prove why Hector's additions here are all rubbish and warrans quick removal. Second, if some of the facts are indisputably correct, they can salavage select portions after a major copyedit. And finally, if they're just acting on a huntch that the content's invalid solely by virtue of the source, their best option is putting up a neutrality dispute heading and a facutal accuracy dispute heading, allowing users better versed on the subject to jump in.

However, their revisions are clarely arbitary. From time to time, I notice that they remove straight-forward, fairly well-known facts presented by Hector. In the French Communist Party article, e.g., either RickK or VV (I forget who in particular) removed a sentence stating that the party was once the largest in France. Why did this have to be removed!??? 172 06:16, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I consider this page to be incredibly POV before I made any edit. Here is the prelude to Operation "Just Cause" given in a paragraph.

"In December 15, 1989 Noriega declared a state of war with the U.S. government. His forces soon after shot and killed an U.S. Marine stationed in Panama City."

This is like saying the US declared war on Japan without mentioning Pearl Harbor. Why would the leader of a small country whom the US could crush in a few days (as it did) declare war on the US unless he was completely insane? This makes absolutely no sense. I try to add some POV and make many statements here and put facts in the page. What is the response, to start a discussion going? "HectorRodriguez added blatant NPOV comments". You know, like that the US gave millions to Noreiga's opponents, or that there ARE no US Marines stationed in the sovereign country of Panama, including Panama City. That the Marine and his buddies had wandered off to sovereign Panama with machine guns and had been pulling over cars and searching them I guess was too POV of a fact to include. Currently this article reads like it is a dossier on Noriega out of Reagan's State Department, I try to fill in some background on what happened and I am suddenly "blatant...ridiculously...POV". Whatever. HectorRodriguez 07:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think we should explain the cause of Noriega's declaration of war (as Hector argues). However, Hector's revisions were somewhat biased: e.g. "the US wanted a staunch ally to Washington DC in place before that handover happened." (possibly true, but references are needed to prove this). Also, the description of troops "pouring" into Panama seems NPOV. I vote for: 1. Using lots of references (consider all claims to be false unless proven by fact). 2. Post proposed revisions here in Talk. Have fun! Connelly 22:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like the little info box thing on the right, with the stats and so forth. But according to what style guide was it implemented? I have not seen any other article with similar boxes. Should it be added to other pages? And if so, what sorts? user:J.J.

I'm putting all of you on notice. If I see even one bit of unfounded anti-American propoganda in an article about this oppressive dictator, I will remove it.


 * By definition, propaganda must be incorrect, and admixture of truth,lies and half-facts placed in such a light as to mislead. Therefore, by definition, propaganda is unfounded. Therefore by definition, pro-American propaganda has no place in any article. I do hope you are not suggesting otherwise? --BrianWalker 00:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, You know that the U.S. put Noriega in power and payed him millions of dollars for his services right? Thats fact, on public record.  When we delete the facts that don't support a pro-American POV we start becoming a lot more like North Korea and a lot less like America. --JB


 * I think most of us can agree Noriega was a slimeball. But for years and years he was OUR slimeball.  I think its important to view these facts with humility or risk making the same mistakes in places like Haiti. --JB

NPOV
This article, like any other, is subject to Wikipedia NPOV policy. Therefore, I have attempted to balance it with Noriega's views, as elaborated in his book. He is entitled to his side of the story. (I also removed more profanity -- there must have been a lot at one time.) --Herschelkrustofsky 03:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

School of the Americas
In the Biographie (first sentence) it says "School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia", in the fact box under the picture it says "School of the Americas, Panama". Which one is right? BigBen212 16:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

School of the Americas and other items
The School was based in Panama (actually on the former U.S. Air Force Base in Albrook) for most of its history including when Noriega attended it. When the U.S. Bases reverted to Panamanian control, the School was moved to Fort Benning. It has since been renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001, in an attempt to avoid the negative associations people have with its history. The way the sentence reads it implies he attended the school in Georgia, which is definitely wrong.

As for Hector's comments on the U.S Marine that was killed.... No he, was not stationed in Panama City, he was stationed at a US base like any other of the troops there. He and his party were returning from a Resteraunt in Panama City and got lost on their way back. It was not uncommon (indeed it very common) for U.S. Personnel stationed there to spend time off duty in Panama City or elsewhere in the country. They were stopped at a check point of some sort. Around that time Noriega had his forces regularly harass U.S. Citizens and there had been a kind of tense staring down situation going on in various degrees for some months leading up to that time. The way I understand it is the guy panicked and took off (running the checkpoint) and they shot him. I certainly have not heard in any version of the story in which he had a machine gun with him or was stopping cars.

Nicknamed "Pineapple Face" by the American Press? He was called "Cara de Piña" (Pineapple Face) in Panama long before he was more than a blurb in the American Press, both in the Panamanian Press (La Prensa in particular) and in common day-to-day speach in Panama just about anywhere except to his face.

This article has a lot of slant. For example:

" The U.S. media gave sympathetic coverage to accusations by a former colleague that Noriega had played a role in the killing of leading critic Hugo Spadafora."

is all it mentions of one of the biggest roles in the entire opposition campaign to Noriega. General Diaz Herrera's accusations, which broke in the Panamanian paper La Prensa (not the US Media), were what basically kicked off the civic crusade, in it he related how Noriega had Spadafora killed, and earlier how he had Torrijos killed. Spadafora had been brutally tortured, and his decapitated head found in a U.S. Postal Bag near the Costa Rican border. The calls for investigation and the repeated stonewalling by Noriega's regime on this matter were a key element in this story, slant or no, it needs to be mentioned in greater detail than I can go into here. A good accounting of the torture and murder of Spadafora can be found in the book In the Time of the Tyrants, Panama 1968-1990 (New York: Norton, 1990), by R. M. Koster and Guillermo Sanchez.

note - I'm biased, Hugo Spadafora was a classmate of my mother's in high school in Panama City. 151.132.206.26 Aapold (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no ban on primary sources reporting. Just that they verify their assertions with secondary sources, and not rely on their own experience in reporting. Anarchangel (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "... received intelligence and counterintelligence training at Fort Gulick in 1967, and also a course in psychological operations (Psyops) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina as well as the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia" is currently so inaccurate and (sort-of) redundant with the 'School of Americas, Georgia' part that I'm correcting it immediately. If I'm somehow wrong and he went to Georgia and time traveled to a point where the School of the Americas was there, well...  --AmazingKnifeboy 141.209.29.183 (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

POV
Going from: to does not seem to reduce the POV of the article. In fact it sems to present a definite POV. -Willmcw 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * By the late 1980s relations had turned extremely tense between Noriega and the United States government, and the general was overthrown and captured...
 * By the late 1980s his actions started to defy the policies of the United States agencies that helped to put him in power, and he was overthrown and captured...'

POV terminology
Calling Noriega the "ruler" of Panama is contentious. Many might regard George Bush, or perhaps more appropriately Dick Cheney, as "ruler" of the U.S., but it would be an inappropriate term for Wikipedia. I have substituted "military leader." --HK 22:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the Neutrality of de Article Manuel Noriega
It has obvious nationalistic bias due to american chauvinism. The fact is Noriega was declared innocent of drug smuggling and is detained as a prisoner of war by the US, in defiance of the Geneva Convention, which states a war must be fair, just or even to be called war and not, for example: invasion.


 * Um, no. Reliable secondary sources indicate that Noriega was in fact convicted of Federal charges of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering.  I am editing the article to indicate as such.  Gblaz 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Em, how reliable? And how "secondary"? You don´t mean CIA propaganda sources, by the way? That´s not neutral point of view! Drcaldev 17:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And how can it be that several sources "wrong" when assuming him the president of Panamá. Where´s the "error" of those sources? Aren´t they panamanian or something?

So I think an unverifiability tag should be added. 200.91.136.129 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP Photo
Drcal may have overreached his case somewhat, but the current primary BLP photo does not speak of neutrality. I find it hard to believe that a better photo than this can't be found. And of course it is impossible that a better one doesn't exist; the CIA would have a few, for a start, even if there isn't one of him as a Federal employee, and he did run a country for a few years, maybe he showed up in a newspaper, somewhere? Big credibility hit. I find much more of this stuff and you betcha, it's tagged. Anarchangel (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I also have a problem with this photo being the main (and only, as of this writing) photo in the article. Flickr has many images of him, but the first 10 pages (all I skimmed) shown today said "All rights reserved" on every photo.  A Google Image Search of "manual noriega site:.gov" yielded nothing useful.  Tempshill (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So find another image in the public domain. Of course he was in newspapers, which are copyrighted.Why would you even wonder about that? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

True
"After a demonstration a few days later by thousands of U.S.-paid Panamanians demanding he stand trial for human rights violations, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990."

Is this true?

"It is believed that Noriega owes rap star Rick Ross around one hundred favours."

Really? Vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.182.8 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Muse
Somewhere along the line the material about Kurt Muse was removed. I am restoring it, along with other deleted material that balances it. I'm not clear on why anyone would object to this material. -- HK  21:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2007 or 2029 ?
In the Drug Trial section the article states:

"His sentence was reduced to 30 years in 1999, making Noriega eligible for parole in 2029."

and then

"The Federal Bureau of Prisons website currently gives a projected release date of 09-09-2007."

So which is it? When is he eligible to be released from prison? 2007 or 2029 ? -- noosphere 17:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably the latter, since if Noriega was sentenced to 30 years in 1999, he wouldn't be eligible for parole in 2029 - he would be unconditionally freed, since he would have served his time (assuming that he isn't on the hook for any other, longer or consecutive sentences.) At an rate, it would be helpful to clear this up. --Zonath 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I went back and looked again at the article, and also at a couple different sources. Noriega has been in jail since 1990, and he was sentenced to 40 years back then, meaning that under the original terms of his sentence, he would have been released in 2030. Since he got a reduction to a 30 year sentence in 1999, he should be out of jail by 2020, not 2029. In addition, he could be paroled sometime next year. Of course, the most likely course of action the US will take is that he will be extradited to one of the other countries where he has been convicted of crimes, and serve more jail time in one of those countries, meaning that in all likelihood, Noriega will never be freed. At any rate, the 2029 figure is completely wrong, and should be removed, although the rest of the facts in the sentence are fine (although they could use citations.) --Zonath 16:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Loud music, psychological warfare
The article had the formulation that the loud recorded music directed at the Vatican embassy was "specifically Panama by Van Halen," which is misleading, since it makes it appear that there was a political message involved. In fact, various accounts provide a long list of songs that were played, including Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It,"  and "Paranoid." It was also implied that the music was directed specifically at Noriega, when other accounts suggest that the psywar was directed against the Vatican staff. I have provided a source quote to that effect. -- HK  15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * pictures of the scene show the loudspeakers pointed away from the embassy toward the media. don't discount the possibility that the loudspeakers could be used to disrupt parabolic microphones from being used to listen in to conversations between Noriega and the vatican staff. Jocosetad 08:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's a bit of a stretch to describe Nothings Gonna Change My Love For You as hard rock? 67.161.123.190 05:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I was present in Panama during Just Cause and present outside the Papal Nuncio. One of the initial discussion with Noriega was 'overheard' by a news crew using a parabolic mike. Parts of that conversation were immedaitely aired. As a result, the loudspeakers were employed to ensure there would be no unintentional sabotage of the negotiations. Media reps on scene claimed that the world had a right to monitor the negotiations. It is sufficient to note that no police negotiator would permit his discussion with a hostage taker to be televised while the negotiations were still in progress - so it is logical that negotiators dealing with Noriega in this context would not permit it either. I don't know whether the psyops explanation begain with the military (perhaps trying to avoid a direct confrontation with the media)or if it originated with the media itself (the US media was still sufferring from the black eye it gave itself when it aired - in a program broadcast in Panama - notice that the operation would comence in 4 hours, an alert which cost US lives). The psyops angle is so transparently ridiculous I am surprised it endures. Were there any validity to it, the staff and the residents of the Papal Nuncio would have been driven crazy, as would those of us who were on the cordon with the speakers turned towards us - not the Nuncio. Finally, as for the type of music played, there was a variety, country, rock, rap, etc. The suppositions that the playlist was intended to convey a political message is groundless because, as noted above, the music was not directed towards Noriega. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.98.232 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The songs that were played were played on the local US army radio station, part of the Southern Command Network. Most of the songs were call-in suggestions by people in the area (soldiers, other US personnel, canal zone, etc). You can view a complete list of the songs that were played on this southern command document Aapold (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Noriega and CIA
The intro says he worked for the CIA. I googled and found this [http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/thistle/v9/9.07/2CIA.html As far back as 1959, he was reporting on Panamanian leftists to the Americans. By 1966, he was on the CIA payroll.] Any better sources? Añoranza 01:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second this request for better sourcing. I don't doubt that it is true, mind you, but the sourcing of the "involvement with CIA" section isn't making me comfortable.  Ideally, we'd like to see a source that explains how we know this to be true.  I found a reference to his lawyers claiming that the money he used to buy stuff in Paris came from his CIA contracts, but I don't think that anyone would accept that claim at face value.  ("I didn't steal the money, the tooth fairy / CIA gave it to me!")  But a quick google for "Noriega CIA" reveals that the story is widely understood to be true.  But as someone interested (for the first time, to be honest, based on following a news headline about Noriega being extradited to France) I'm curious about how this fact came to be known.
 * I don't think the CIA would have ever confirmed it directly, but perhaps FOIA requests confirmed it? Or evidence at trial?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the source in the section about his trial help? " Noriega insisted that "the actual figure approached $10,000,000, and that he should be allowed to disclose the tasks he had performed for the United States". The district court held that the "information about the content of the discrete operations in which Noriega had engaged in exchange for the alleged payments was irrelevant to his defense". It ruled that the introduction of evidence about Noriega's role in the CIA would "confuse the jury"." That is sourced from the court record. That decision was then appealed and the appellate court ruled in favor of Noriega, but didn't feel it would change the verdict. The federal courts recognized his being paid to perform tasks for the CIA (call it employment), so that does seem pretty reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yachts
On a decidedly trivial note, I read Noriega had three yachts, all named the Macho (Macho I, Macho II, and Macho III). 64.12.116.68 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican embassy is NOT Vatican soil
''He finally turned up in the Nunciature, the Holy See embassy in Panama, where he had taken refuge. U.S. troops set up a perimeter outside this building, which as an embassy was considered sovereign soil of the Vatican and could not be taken directly, as this would be considered an invasion of the Vatican City.''

This is a common mistake. Under international law, embassies are not soil of their home country, even though they do enjoy a special status (but they are still part of the host country's territory). --Virso —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.39.91.196 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC).


 * The preceding comment was actually signed (by me, Virso). --Virso2 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
Wasn't he selling arms supplied by the US to Communist bloc countries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.49.164.225 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

US jurisdiction?
Can someone explain how he was tried under US federal laws? 216.165.95.5 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incident involving US soldier
Under Capture, Trial, Imprisonment, the article says "The matter came to a head in December 1989: a U.S. Marine, returning from a restaurant in Panama City, was stopped and harassed to the point where he panicked and attempted to flee, and he was shot and killed." It is implied, but not stated, that he was killed by Panamanian security forces. Is this true or not? This statement needs to be sourced. Notmyrealname 18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is correct but not complete. 1LT Paz (originally a Colombian national, but then serving in the US Armed forces) was indeed killed by members of the Panamanian Defense Forces. The incident took place near the Commandancia on a street which was a main thoroughfare to several popular restaurants. Because Noriega had just given his declaration of war speech - and the Panamanian National Assembly had passed a resolution stating that a state of war existed with the US - the previous day, PDF troops were out in force, and, as events showed, more than a little itchy. The shooting of 1LT Paz probably would have caused an initial uproar, but then been largely forgotten, because the American driver panicked and tried to escape the roadblock, prompting the gunfire from the PDF. Running a roadblock usually opens you to the risk of being shot, so the PDF response might not have been seen as disproportionate or unreasonable. The reason it was not forgotten was what else happened. Also stopped at the roadblock at that moment was a car occupied by a US Navy SEAL and his wife, who had arrived that day to visit her husband for the Christmas holidays. With the car of Marines having escaped, the PDF turned its anger on the SEAL and his wife, dragged them out of their car, handcuffed them, duct-taped their eyes, put them into an unmarkd van and took them to a PDF building, which the SEAL believed to be the Commandancia. The SEAL was beaten and forced to watch as the PDF sexually molested (but did not rape) his wife. This was observed by and appeared to have been directed by a PDF colonel. At the same time, the PDF snatched 2 US MPs at Torrijos-Tocumen airport. In light of Noriega's declaration of war speech, The Assembly's declaration of war resolution, the abuse of the SEAL and his wife, and the capture of the 2 MPs - all within the space of 30 hours - the shooting of 1LT Paz took on additional significance. As for sources, varying accounts are in: Just Cause, by Malcolm McConnell; Divorcing the Dictator, by Frederick Kempe; Operation Just Cause, by Thomas Donnelly, et al; and Battle for Panama, by LTG Edward Flanagan. At the request of the family, public accounts of the SEAL's wife's ordeal have been publically downplayed; I only learned of the full extent when I served with him some years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.98.232 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

SOURCE?
PENDING RELEASE SECTION "It is thought Noriega will get preferential treatment by the Panamanian government; even a presidential pardon.[citation needed] "

Someone verify this, or take it off please.. I thought wikipedia didnt post gossip... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.67.243 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard Rock
Does anyone know the play list ? Or any requests or suggestions ?--Streona (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * as mentioned above, you can see the playlist at this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapold (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dates of his rule
The infobox lists him being in office until Jan 3, 1990. But Endara was sworn in as President of Panama on Dec. 20, 1989. At that point, Endara was the recognized president of Panama. How can we consider Noriega still being the "defacto ruler" of Panama? After Dec. 20, he was running and hiding, not ruling anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

sourcing..
this article need lot more citations.. If anyone wants to tag a stab at it.. feel free -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I put in two that state the part you removed about his cell being referred to as the presidential suite. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongman
Didn't American media start referring to him frequently as "strongman" back in 1989? Where did this nickname come from? I recall Johnny Carson joking about it on one of his monologues. -76.4.49.201
 * That is a common term used to refer to dictators in Latin America... I think it stems from the them being in power through force. 151.132.106.25 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really true. See Strongman (politics). A number of people sometimes called strongman were continously democraticly elected (the democracies may have had flaws but there was still some reasonable semblence of one). Strongman refers more to their authoritarian style then how they came to power. As the article notes, the term is distinct from warlord Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Conversion to Christianity
The article claims Noriega converted to christianity in prison. What was his former religion? The text implies it is not christian. If he was, in fact, catholic (as I suspect but do not know for sure) this text is inappropriate. Also, I think the lenghthy excerpt from his "conversion" letter should not be in the article.84.176.233.157 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the meantime, though, I tried to put the conversion into chronological order within the context of his imprisonment, but someone reverted it as vandalism...  Maybe it should go into its own section?207.112.26.247 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind! It's been fixed. 207.112.26.247 (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would a "Christian" oppose the baptism of someone? According to the article at arm.org, the Catholic clergy on site was in opposition.  If this man was seeking salvation, the priest, instead of looking to cause issue, needed to back away, and allow this man to be repentant and follow through with his new acceptance of faith.  So who in this case wasn't the Christian?  Perhaps we need to look at the situation closer!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brorob (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He was known to have dabbled in Santaria or something similar to that, and kept a brujah (sp?) on call. Aapold (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Barob, review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#Validity_considerations_by_some_Churches. So if the Catholic Church did object, it would be consistent with their own beliefs of a proper baptism.  This is based on the presumption Noriega was baptized Catholic, but they wouldn't give any input if he hadn't been.  IMHO (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I question the A.R.M. webpage as a source, but I think this link from the NY Times gives a better, if general, picture of Noriega's religious beliefs:  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFD71738F932A15750C0A967958260&scp=1&sq=+noriega%20+jesus&st=cse    It'd be good if someone checked some of the dates and incidents in the A.R.M. web page in newspaper archives at the library (or better, anyone with NEXIS access?) about the bit of Noriega being transported to and baptized in a court chamber.  Not impossible under certain factors, but something that should be backed up.  At the least there should be coverage in major papers and certainly public documents/court records.


 * For now, I am just going to change the title to indicate Noriega declared himself born again or and Evangelical Christian. I'll leave the body until I can type up something coherent and sourced.  I'm also inclined to remove the text of the letter and move to before the trial section, as all of this started after his capture but before the trial commenced.  Objections, comments, etc?


 * And sorry for the long web link. I'm not code savvy enough to embed it.  IMHO (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Decided to make some additions since the body of the article never specified a denomination itself. Cleanup welcome as 1) I'm not sure of the citation format on the linked article, and 2) born-again as a denomination never seems to parse out for me.IMHO (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the "conversion to Christianity" should be viewed in the light of books such as "The Family", by Jeff Sharlet, ISBN 978 0-06-055979-3 . I believe his "conversion" is really nothing more than agreeing to play ball with the powers that be again. 173.74.10.89 (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Panama's ex-ruler says US framed him
Hi, From a Paris courtroom Manuel Noriega has made the following statements from this link: http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=132727&sectionid=351020706

"The once close US ally, added that Washington's approvals quickly turned to condemnation, when he refused to participate in a US plan against leftists in Central America.

"That's when the propaganda started against me after so many years of cooperation with the United States," he told the court on Tuesday."

cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Question: Nothing about Noriega's family. Did he marry? Have kids? Can anyone complete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.205.67 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Date formats
There are at least 2 different date formats being used in this article: March 17, 2010 and 17 March 2010. I suggest we pick one, and use it throughout the article? Any opinions on which one should be used?--Rockfang (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures?
I noticed the only picture we have of him is a mug shoot. Why dont we have pictures of him as him when he was dictator or in Military clothes? Spongie555 (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Panama Canal Treaty was signed by President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian Dictator Omar Torrijos on 7 September 1977, not 1980.

The opposition "National Civic Crusade" was created in 1987, not 1981. It was established after COL Roberto Diaz, the former number two officer in the Panama Defense Forces, denounced the Noriega regime.

PRD is the Democratic Revolutionary Party.

Carlos Duque was not the publisher of La Estrella de Panama. The publisher was Tomas Altamirano Duque.

I would not label Noriega a "politician." He was a dictator and military officer.

17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have found a good picture of General Manuel Noriega, it is a picture of the portrait they found at his complex just after the invasion. I have uploaded the picture to wikimedia so that it can be used in his article. (I put the picture below, in a template on how I believe we could improve this article).


 * The current picture, a mugshot, should not be the lead image. See WP:MUG.   Will Beback    talk    06:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, the problem is that we haven't been able to locate one that we know we can use. I'm not sure WP:MUG is applicable here. It doesn't show him in a false light since he is, in fact, incarcerated and has been for over two decades. Then, considering that an entire country was invaded in order to put him in jail, I really don't think that a mug shot is really going to damage his reputation. The picture in the example has dubious origins and should not be used unless we are certain. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there are two main issues with using mugshots. First, they are usually unflattering, capturing the person on one of the worst days of their lives, often poorly groomed or clothed. We wouldn't use a photo of someone picking their nose or sneezing as their main photo, no matter how accurate those pictures may be. Second, they have the effect of characterizing the person foremost as a convict. The lead says
 * Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno ... is a Panamanian politician and soldier. He was military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989.
 * It doesn't say, "Noriega is a convicted drug trafficker". That comes later, in context. I'd support keeping the photo in the article, but moving it to the section on his arrest. If need be we can leave the box empty until we find an appropriate replacement.   Will Beback    talk    09:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The leade can easily be changed :) As for the "we don't use mug shots", the primary pic in the Rush Limbaugh article is his mug shot and it is just cropped, which is something we could consider doing here. But there was discussion over there about how unflattering the candid photo used in the article was. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cropping is an option, though the basic picture here is significantly lower quality than the Limbaugh picture.   Will Beback    talk    07:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is lower quality, however we know it is available for use. I do not think we should be even considering the other one when we can't establish the origin. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Improvements
This thread is for discussions of improvements.  Will Beback   talk    01:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have found some information regarding to the titles the national assembly of panama (which he controlled) gave him, thus I propose we edit the article like this:

By doing so we will include more information regarding the titles he obtained, and how he took total power just a few days prior he was deposed. Do you guys agree about this changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajatty (talk • contribs)
 * Like many issues, it comes down to sources. What are the sources for his titles and his assumption of total power?   Will Beback    talk    02:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this information here: Eytan Gilboa, "The Panama Invasion Revisited: Lessons for the Use of Force in the Post Cold War Era," Political Science Quarterly, (v110 n4), p539." http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gilboa.htm

A quote from the text: "Noriega continued to provoke the United States and particularly to harass the American armed forces in Panama. On 15 December 1989, the Panamanian National assembly appointed Noriega chief of the government and "maximum leader of national liberation." The assembly also declared Panama to be in a state of war with the United States. The departure of Noriega seemed to be delayed indefinitely. After the Giroldi fiasco, a PDF coup was unlikely, and Panamanians were tired and weak."

Also, we can compare the article in English with the article in Spanish, which includes his titles and reference from where they obtained the information: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega If we scroll to the end of the article, we can see the different titles he hold.

Also, from the other wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Leader We know that Manuel Noriega had the title of Maximum Leader (there is a reference for that in that article as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajatty (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to concern ourselves with a title he made up for himself for 5 days? And the title in the info box ("Highest Chief of Panamanian State") doesn't match the source ("maximum leader of national liberation"). Niteshift36 (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

True, the problem was translation, I took the title which was mentioned in the Spanish wikipedia article, and translated it to English, but we can keep it to "Maximum Leader of National Liberation". And it is important, because even though it was only for 5 days, it implied he formalized his power over Panama, as before he has been de facto leader (there were a number of presidents who were the head of state), however at that point, when he got the title, he was the de jure head of state. That was the point in which he ultimately achieved total power over the government. Also, it was this event that finally ruled out all other non-militaristic methods to remove Noriega from his post (all the missions coded Panama 1 through Panama 5, which failed). For example, making the actual president of Panama fire Noriega, which happened once, but failed due to Noriega making some political manipulations. Thus the fact that he became de jure head of state is important to know, as that forced the military intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajatty (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what went on. I was there before, during and after the invasion. Aside from some blabbing on the TV and Noriega banging a machete during a speech, nobody cared about hsi new title because nothing really changed. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I have changed his title to "Maximum Leader of National Liberation", and I think that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to ensure all the facts are shown, so if he got de jure political power, even if it was for 5 days, we should show it so that people that read this article are informed. I have also shown the references, so if there are no further comments regarding that issue in a few days, I will proceed and update the article.--Kajatty (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The real joke here is that he already had all the power. There was nothing new. He had already nullified the elections and refused to transfer power. You can't refuse to transfer what you don't have, can you? Honestly, I don't think it should be in the info box at all. It should just be mentioned in the body of the text. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Demonising reports in US media
I found this quote, which I think very efficiently summarising some of the many claims that the US war machine made in American media to demonise Noriega - and think it is relevant to the article, but one editor seems to disagree and removed it - so rather than editwar, I figured I would come here to the talkpage. If we can find another quote that references 5-6 different demonising stories told in mass media over the days when it mattered...I'm all for using it instead. But I think it's a niche that's left empty right now without the quote - and it does help balance the article which currently seems to just take US claims at face value and not point to some of the sillier claims that were also made. Scaledoorstoclimb (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First, the author is simply a report/editor at UPI. This is an opinion piece. If he were reporting, that would be one thing, but he is editorializing and that is a problem. Just being a reporter doesn't make him any sort of expert that we should be quoting. Second, you've changed what the source is. First you said it was the Bryan Times, now you cite it as UPI. Third, putting this as a block quote highlights it, giving it more weight than we should be giving a reporter who decided to write an opinion piece. If he were an expert on propaganda or diplomacy, it might be arguable that his opinion should carry more weight. He wasn't an expert that I can find. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source could be listed as UPI, for whom Leon Daniel wrote the piece, or Bryan Times which ran it (along with other papers which run UPI stories) - both are "correct". How about if we removed the first part of the quote, that would seem to nix the "editorializing" concern - and leave it as a listing of facts? Scaledoorstoclimb (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still just an editorial by a reporter. Nothing more. Why should his opinion be showcased any more than that of any reporter who decides that he has an opinion? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The URL of this article
is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineapple_face." Not sure if anyone was aware of this, but it made me laugh. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have the URL read "/Manuel_Noriega"? :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.206.73 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Surrender
The rock music used during the surrender period was not intended as psychological warfare. The speakers were aimed away from the compound at the media to interfere with the use of parabolic microphones listening in on the surrender negotiations. It wasn't until after the fact that US forces found that they played an annoyance role in getting Noriega to surrender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.121.72 (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some have suggested that it was to keep things from being heard, but the selection of the music, like "I Fought the Law" and "Nowhere to Run" suggest there was a planned annoyance factor too. Additionally, the Nuncio talked about the music and how loud and sleep preventing it was during the incident, not after. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Call of Duty
We should have a section about his fictional appearance, Call of Duty has information in Call of Duty: Black Ops II. Egon Eagle (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

House
A dozen years ago, I saw the house where he lived before the Americans came. It's now a tourist attraction. They had left it empty, the windows smashed, plants growing in it, and rats living in it.(84.236.152.71 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

The American Invasion
Panama's tiny local army only had ancient rifles so stood no chance against the heavily armed American invasion force. Just to make sure the police did not put up a fight, the Americans without warning bombed Police HQ, killing many of them. This from people there at the time who saw it all.(84.236.152.71 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

Tiny Local Army??
Per Capita the PDF was one of the larger militaries in Latin America. Now, granted they didn't stand much of a chance, they were more skilled in bullying and intimidating the local population than actual combat, and were outnumbered and outgunned. They did not just have "ancient rifles" though, they had many modern automatic rifles, uzis, etc. As for without warning, in several cases such as Rio Hato they dropped a bomb nearby then demanded a surrender (and got it). The Commandancia though was critical to neutralize from the start, doing so prevented the action from dragging on longer and probably resulted in less casualties. And for the record I was there when this took place. Aapold (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Abbreviation - FDP
What's FDP?Midnightguy (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive the page.
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=tftW9A5cUNsC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=drugging+america+a+trojan+horse%2Bricardo+bilonick&source=bl&ots=sYIZaBqJsH&sig=x_f16jv9AJql0Q0ZPkIBFz0Jwwo&hl=en&ei=96G9TInlDsP38AasnMD7Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CB0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources modified on Manuel Noriega
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Manuel Noriega. I managed to add archive links to 3 3 sources, out of the total 3 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090629061517/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120603155912/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1220.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1220.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140105204001/http://generalnoriega.com/ to http://generalnoriega.com/

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

MG Cisneros
MG Cisneros was not deputy commander of Southern Command at the time of the invasion. He had previously been The J3 (Operations) for Southern Command but in mid-1989 had left to become Commander of US Army South - a service component command under Southern Command. In that role he was also dual-hatted as Commander of Joint Task Force-Panama, and responsible for operations short of war in Panama. He held both of those positions when the invasion occurred. It was in that capacity that he made the comment you cited about LT Paz and his friends. 12.185.186.3 (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Revisions in Aftermath of Noriega's Death
Greetings Fellow Wikpedians-

I was looking for something that was changed in the recent revisions, and came across this:

Vanamonde93 (→‎Relationship with Soka Gakkai: removing because this seems like undue weight/borders on conspiracy; if we can verify all of it, it can be reinstated.)
 * Revision as of 07:38, 30 May 2017

Vanamonde93 (→‎Involvement with CIA: irrelevant here)
 * Revision as of 07:41, 30 May 2017

Not wishing to step on anyone's toes-

I believe that revisions should be discussed before any one person decides an item is either 'irrelevant' or their opinion has decided that an entry(ies) appears to show 'undue weight/borders on conspiracy'. Discussion in the talk section has seemed to be the practice on Wiki (ad nauseum at times), and in light of Noriega's recent death, shouldn't these revisions be done with a certain amount of careful study and discussion?

I have a limited ability to make edits on Wiki, my profile disappeared while I was very ill, could an experienced editor review and possibly halt any further revisions that reduce pertinent information on this page?

Thank you for reading and handling this, answering, etc. 76.99.239.77 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC) BrattySoul


 * Under normal circumstances, I'd have discussed first and removed later; but this needed to be speedily knocked into shape because it was an ITN/C, and is currently on the main page. I'm happy to discuss these removals if people feel the need (though I think them somewhat self-explanatory) and reinstate the content if consensus says it should not have been removed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)