¹ Opinions of the task force are drawn from Narcotics, Marihuana and Dangerous Drugs Task Force, Report of the Special Presidential Task Force Relating to Narcotics, Marihuana and Dangerous Drugs, 6 06 1969Google Scholar (mimeographed).

² The State Department rejected the passport proposal on three primary grounds: it would not deter drug traffic, it would irritate many Americans in Mexico on legitimate business, and Mexico might retaliate by restricting the spending of its citizens on the American side of the border. Such a move would have “a very adverse effect” on relations between the two countries and should be considered “as a measure of last resort” only if all other control methods failed. Department of State Airgram, Washington, D.C., 06, 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

³ Associated Press Dispatch, Mexico City, 9 06 1969Google Scholar (mimeographed); and Laredo Times, 10 06 1969.Google Scholar

⁴ Interview: Ministry of Foreign Relations, Mexico City, 14 03 1977Google Scholar. (Note: Upon request, the names of interviewees have been omitted.)

⁵ United States Information Service News Release, Mexico City, 12 06 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

⁶ Letter from PresidentNixon, Richard M. to department heads dated 27 06 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

⁷ Minutes of the 28 June 1969 Action Task Force meeting (mimeographed). The author possesses copies of the minutes from six meetings beginning 28 June and ending 20 August 1969. At no time do they list anyone in attendance from the State Department or the border community. In fact, during the six meetings under study, State is mentioned only twice.

⁸ The FAA's role in combating aerial smuggling was discussed at length by the In tercept Task Force: Minutes of the Action Task Force dated 13 August and 20 August 1969 (mimeographed). As regards the flight regulations, see “FAA Adopts Rules to Combat Flight Hazards of Aerial Drug Smuggling,” 29 08 1969Google Scholar (mimeographed); and “FAA Proposes Restraints on Drug Traffic,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 18 08 1969, p. 112.Google Scholar

⁹ Salazar, Ruben, “Tijuana Put Off Limits to U.S. Military, Then Ban Lifted,” Los Angeles Times, 29 08 1969.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid.; and Los Angeles Times, 14 September 1969.

¹¹ Congressional Record-House, 4 09 1969, pp. 24398–24400.Google Scholar

¹² Interviewed 12 July 1973, an American narcotics official in Mexico City remarked: “As far as I know, no one here knew anything about it until it happened.” Salazar, (Los Angeles Times, 29 08 1969)Google Scholar received a similar response from consular officials in Tijuana. Kleindienst later termed the announcement “an unfortunate release by the Navy Department,” but he still insisted that no definite decision had been reached on placing border cities off limits. See Ostrow, Ronald, “U.S. Reveals Plans for Turning Youths From Use of Marijuana,” Los Angeles Times, 14 09 1969.Google Scholar

¹³ San Diego Union, 15 09 1969.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Semple, Robert B. Jr., “Big Dam Dedicated by Nixon and Diaz on Mexican Border,” New York Times, 9 09 1969.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The words are those of Egil Krough, deputy counsel to President Nixon and a man intimately involved in the administration's law-and-order program. See Epstein, Edward Jay, “The Krough File — The Politics of ‘Law and Order,’” Public Interest no. 39 (Spring 1975), p. 114.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 11 09 1969.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Beiair, Felix Jr., “U.S. Officials Hope That Drive at Mexican Border Will Reduce Use of Marijuana,” New York Times, 14 09 1969.Google Scholar

¹⁸ In line with recommendations of the Intercept Task Force, Kleindienst discussed the plan with selected border congressmen on 13 September in Washington. El Paso Times, 23 09 1969.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Torgerson, Dial, “Border Narcotics Check Backs Autos 3½ Miles into Tijuana,” Los Angeles Times, 19 09 1969.Google Scholar

²⁰ Treasury Department News Release, 21 09 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

²¹ Interview: United States Consulate, Nuevo Laredo, 12 07 1971.Google Scholar

²² Belair, , “Operation Intercept: Success on Land, Futility in the Air,” New York Times, 2 10 1969Google Scholar. His observations were confirmed by the author during 1971 interviews along the border. No one really knows how many unregistered planes crossed the frontier during Intercept, or how many of them were carrying contraband.

²³ U.S. News and World Report, 25 05 1970, p. 42Google Scholar; Makaruska, Andrew, “Traffic About Average,” San Diego Union, 14 10 1969Google Scholar; and Schroder, Richard C., The Politics of Drugs: Marijuana to Mainlining (Washington, D.C., 1975), p. 128.Google Scholar

²⁴ Torgerson, , “Checks Cripple Border Tourism, Trade but Find No Marijuana,” Los Angeles Times, 23 09 1969Google Scholar; Associated Press Dispatch, Mexico City, 25 09 1969Google Scholar (mimeographed); and Editorial, El Mexicano (Tijuana), 6 10 1969.Google Scholar

²⁵ Excelsior, 3 10 1969Google Scholar; The News (Mexico City), 2 10 1969Google Scholar; Villalobos, Ramon, “Operation Dignity Starts Slow,” El Paso Times, 3 10 1969Google Scholar; and Department of State Telegram, Tijuana, 3 10 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

²⁶ Interview: Ministry of the Presidency, Mexico City, 4 06 1973.Google Scholar

²⁷ Interview: Juárez, Ciudad, 14 07 1971.Google Scholar

²⁸ Al R. Wichtrich, executive vice president of the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico, estimated the loss due to Intercept along the entire American side of the border at $500,000 per day, or total of approximately $10 million during the entire 20-day program. Mexican businesses estimated their losses at $400,000 per day, or a total of some $8 million. Inter-Office Memorandum, Mexico City, dated 27 October 1969 (mimeographed).

²⁹ Letter from Holmberg, Donald W., secretary U.S.-Mexico Border Cities Association to Association members dated 24 09 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

³⁰ Congressional Record-House, 23 09 1969, pp. 26651 and 8729Google Scholar; Torgerson, , “Mass Protest Set in Juarez Against Border Drug Check,” Los Angeles Times, 30 09 1969.Google Scholar

³¹ Letter to the HonorableSmith, Preston from González, Antonio dated 26 09 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

³² Ponte, F. Fernández, “Los Burócratas Fueron ‘Demasiado Legos,’” Excelsior, 3 10 1969Google Scholar; El Paso Times, 5 10 1969Google Scholar; and Congressional Record-Senate, 7 10 1969, p. 11977.Google Scholar

³³ Ponte, Fernández, “El que Ordenó Esta Acción Debe ser un Retrasado Mental,” Excelsior, 2 10 1969.Google Scholar

³⁴ Memorandum of 21 September 1969 (mimeographed).

³⁵ Department of State Airgrams, Juárez, Ciudad, 26 09 1969Google Scholar (mimeographed). A similar but less notable incident occurred in Brownsville on 27 September. See El Paso Times, 28 09 1969.Google Scholar

³⁶ Excelsior, 27 09 1969Google Scholar; and Tiempo 6 10 1969.Google Scholar

³⁷ Glance, Homer, “U.S. Opens Full-Scale Border War on Dope,” San Diego Union, 22 09 1969.Google Scholar

³⁸ Regarding these “unexpected” domestic results, see the excellent, detailed analysis of Gooberman, Lawrence A., Operation Intercept: The Multiple Consequence of Public Policy (New York, 1974).Google Scholar

³⁹ Hearings Before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (Washington, D.C., 1969), pp. 611–615.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Jurado, José Manuel, “‘Un Error Burocrático’ Daña las Relaciones con EU: Díaz Ordaz,” Excelsior, 30 09 1969.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Onis, , “Drug Watch on Mexico Adding to Latin Disillusion With Nixon,” New York Times, 8 10 1969.Google Scholar

⁴² Editorial, Excelsior, 7 10 1969Google Scholar. Also note Anda, Lorenzo de, “La Guerra de Vietnam y la Operación Intercepción,” El Norte (Monterrey), 7 10 1969.Google Scholar

⁴³ Department of State Telegram, Washington, D.C., 30 09 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Interview: Ministry of Foreign Relations, Mexico City, 14 03 1977Google Scholar. In reality, it was not the measures of Intercept which so riled the Mexicans, but the harshness of their application.

⁴⁵ Belair, , New York Times, 2 10 1969Google Scholar; and San Diego Union, 5 10 1969.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The News, 7 10 1969.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Washington Daily News, 8 10 1969Google Scholar; and Belair, , “U.S. Rebuffs Mexico on Smuggling Drive,” New York Times, 10 10 1969Google Scholar. State Department spokesmen refused to comment on the Daily News story the following day. See Department of State Telegram, Washington, D.C., 9 10 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Joint Press Release, Washington, D.C., 10 October 1969 (mimeographed).

⁴⁹ Belair, , “U.S. Bows to Mexican Demands; Drugs Smuggling Drive Is Eased,” New York Times, 11 10 1969.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ “Statement of Deputy Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Eugene Rossides,” 23 10 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

⁵¹ “Joint Declaration of the United States and Mexican Delegations,” 30 10 1969Google Scholar (mimeographed); and New York Times, 31 10 1969.Google Scholar

⁵² Letter from PresidentNixon, Richard M. to PresidentDíaz Ordaz, Gustavo, 18 11 1969 (mimeographed).Google Scholar