Wikileaks: Latest US Death Squad Operations Manual

For declassified U.S. government documents explaining the role of Third World countries, see for example, N.S.C. [National Security Council Memorandum] 144/1, "United States Objectives and Courses of Action With Respect to Latin America," March 18, 1953, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, Vol. IV ("The American Republics"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. The Memorandum begins (pp. 6-7, 9):

Aiming to avoid this "drift in the area toward radical and nationalistic regimes" the Memorandum then lists the objectives and proposed courses of action for the United States:

A later N.S.C. document, N.S.C. 5432/1 of 1954, repeats much of the same language. See N.S.C. 5432/1, "United States Objectives and Courses of Action With Respect To Latin America," September 3, 1954, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, Vol. IV ("The American Republics"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983, pp. 81-86

Continued..

 

In the Middle East..

The reference to using Israel as a counterweight to "radical Arab nationalism" and to "hold Persian Gulf oil by force if necessary," is in a declassified policy paper prepared by the National Security Council Planning Board commenting on the Memorandum. See "Issues Arising Out of the Situation in the Near East," July 29, 1958, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Vol. XII ("Near East Region; Iraq; Iran; Arabian Peninsula"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993, pp. 114-124 at p. 119 (the exact words are:

The Memorandum identifying "Arab nationalism" as "inimical to Western interests" is N.S.C. [National Security Council Memorandum] 5801/1, "Statement By The National Security Council Of Long-Range U.S. Policy Toward The Near East," January 24, 1958, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Vol. XII ("Near East Region; Iraq; Iran; Arabian Peninsula"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993, pp. 17-32. An excerpt (pp. 18, 20-22, 31):

There is also, "Petroleum Policy of the United States," Memorandum of U.S. Department of State, April 11, 1944, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1944, Vol. V ("The Near East, South Asia, Africa, The Far East"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965, pp. 27-33. An excerpt (p. 30):

 

The Clinton administration's National Security Strategy declares:

Taken literally, Clinton's National Security Strategy goes far beyond the Bush doctrine but they were quiet about it so there wasnt much protest.

Continued..

 

I would respond in kind, but would be summarily banned, so I wont.

 

I really do not see why you feel the need to underline things as if it proves anything. It is obvious that the guy knew what was going on that the guys who were torturing and killing people knew who he was and let her go on his command. They knew him enough to joke around with him about having some fun. He also had contacts in the US Embassy and I believe it is safe to say he is US government,CIA etc. This proves one of your points wrong that the Americans supposedly were not hands on in any of their interventions in Latin America.

 

Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;

If the Contras were not armed,trained,equipped,financed, supplied and unified by the United States of America then the atrocities that took place would not have. If a paramilitary force does not have any of these things then would you say it is virtually impossible to wage a war?The United States of America is therefore complicit in the events that led to the murders of so many innocent people and I believe there is really no getting around that.

I think you will find that the International Court of Justice found the United States of America guilty of waging a war on Nicaragua.

Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&code=nus&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&k=66&p3=5

I believe that Adolf Hitler never killed anyone after WW1,so are we now claiming he is innocent? The German army got Ukrainians to kill Jews so are the German Army innocent? No they are not.

You mean covering your eyes while you know exactly what is going on and continue to still arm,train,supply and feed murderers. Well that makes you guilty in any court.

Oh I am so sorry,I guess I should just stand by while government supply arms to and train murderers. How bad of me to be so self righteous. The self inflicted atrocities would not have been committed if the USA government had not been arming,training,supplying and uniting the Contras. So you are trying to tell me that the USA has done nothing wrong and that the Nicaraguans have some kind of cultural nuance that makes them butcher each other. What a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

The Third Man, et al,

I disagree.

(COMMENT)

It proves nothing. It doesn't even say the individual was there during the event. What it says is that when the individual came into the room, the proceedings were stopped.

If you have ever worked in an Embassy, you'll know that even the janitor has contacts. For all we know the unidentified individual could have been referring to the ConGen's Office (American Citizen Services).

You are jumping to conclusions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I've already shown many examples of direct US instruction to it's death squad forces to carry atrocities and acts of terror.

You may have missed these..

Murdering civillians was the primary US strategy for it's terrorist war in El Salvador, in part, because over 90% of the country was passively supporting the FMLN. The war was essentially against the population who were trying to topple a Nazi-style military junta. It was an armed and passive resistance. All were treated as traitors to the country and labeled "communists" which was a license to murder at the time, even years after the Cold War. Atrocities continued into the mid 90's. The new pretext became the so called "war on drugs." Trade unionists were all drug lords accoring to Washington. Yeah, how convenient.

The Associated Press Reports:

And in case you didnt know, Washington was "running the war." The CIA and US special forces had more control over the Salvadoran military, paramilitaries, and police than the regime.

The New York Times reports:

 

The Christian Science Monitor was the first major newspaper to expose the CIA-death squad link.

 

Horhey; et al,

There are very few countries that we don't provide military advise and assistance to, when asked. There is a long list of countries for which the US has helped to finance, train and equip police and military forces.

But what the leadership of these corrupt governments and forces do with that aid and assistance is most often beyond our control.

The US doesn't train foreign military activities to conduct death squad operations. It is the brutality of the society that takes that training and converts it to atrocious purposes. There is a difference. Yes, the ICJ did not like the US participation in the civil war or the counterinsurgency effort. But that does mean we conducted human rights violations.

This argument is going no where. You have an idea in your mind and will not objectively look at your own material and comprehend its meaning. You just want to make accusations in place of evidence. You are doing a very grave injustice to those you falsely accuse and even a greater injustice in the fair reading of the material you present.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Beyond their control? You didnt read anything.

I am virtually strangling you right now. Im gonna start highlighting from now on. Here we go..

Continued..

 

Oh really? Under the cover of US government aid programs (USAID), "public safety missions" trained local police forces to carry out death squad activities:

 

You need to start reading those materials before you make comments like this because other people do and you just make a jerk out of yourself ..

The true nature of US-death squad forces in El Salvador should be fully appreciated.

See for example, Reverend Daniel Santiago [Catholic priest working in El Salvador], "The Aesthetics of Terror, The Hermeneutics of Death," America [Jesuit journal], Vol. 162, No. 11, March 24, 1990, pp. 292-295. An excerpt:

Continued..

 

Raymond Bonner (Co-founder, National Security Archive), correspondent of The New York Times (he quit after editors punished him for his exposing of the truth on this and other events) published an interview with another deserter from the Salvadoran Army who describes a class overseen by US military advisers where severe methods of torture are demonstrated on teenage prisoners. According to Mr. Gómez:

 

The meaning of "the era of counterinsurgency" and "internal security" is vividly described by Charles Maechling Jr., who led counter-insurgency and internal defense planning from 1961 to 1966 while in the State Department and later became an associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

 

For the sake of argument, I do not see either of the two ideologies as comparable. Seriously.

That is not entirely accurate. The US federal government was supposedly reluctant to involve themselves in Lybia and Syria because of the two boondoggles of Afghanistan and Iraq so they "took the backseat" when in actuality, it took the lead and the European powers literally took the backseat. Did the US gain a benefit from Lybia? Of course they did, it is called control over the AU (African Union). With Gadaffi dead, the US and European powers have an open road to regaining and maintaining control over conflicts and natural resources on that continent.

People are not as naive as you think we are.

 

It does not matter if it says he was not there at the time of her torture as it is clear that he had been there many times before and was a superior of the people killing and torturing.,that is obvious because he had the power to get her released. The proceeding stopped because he told them to stop which again says he has the power to get them to stop.They are also on first name terms.

I find it funny that you would run some flannel about the janitor in the US embassy. The guy was an American who had superiority over the people doing the torturing and he had contacts in the US embassy,he was US government and I have no doubt about that as they were involved there up to their asses.You are just making a very weak argument.

This happened in Guatemala and the whole mess in that country was organised by the CIA back in the 1950's when they overthrew the government because of land reform and United Fruit.

 

Im just waiting for him to deny that too. He's just one of those people that went his entire life being romantisized by the epic lie created by the public relations industry.

 

What happened in 1961-66, does NOTHING for your arguments regarding the manual from 94 or 2003.

 

Kandahar Death Squads - Afghanistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL5OrU-G5sY&feature=player_embedded#!

 

Read it again. He's mostly talking about the current US terrorist wars in Central America at the time. He only mentions the 60's ONE TIME. The rest of the article is about the dirty wars in Central America. It's like you see the number 66 and you focus only on that to make your counter argument. All he said was in 1961, the military role was changed from "hemispheric defense" to "internal security" and this policy has continued for 20 years (the time the article was written). READ IT AGAIN.

 

????uuuuuhhhhh and what happened in the 80s does nothing for your assertions regarding the manual written in 1994 or 2003.

 

Those wars didnt end untill 1990, 1992 and 1996. And I was responding to RoccoR's claim that the US never encouraged death squad activities. You need read before you comment. You need to read more, period.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL What happened in 1990,1992 and 1996 does NOTHING for your arguments regarding the manual you allege to be written in 2003.

 

It was written in 94. Let's look US policy in Haiti in the 1990's..

Recall the core element of the Bush doctrine: "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves," meaning we'll bomb and invade you. So according to this doctrine, Haiti should've been setting off bombs in New York and Washington DC.