MERGED: Death Squads

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Scarletwine

New Yorker
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
2,753
Location
Outside it's Amerika
Death Squads Are Us

Winning at all cost shouldn't be our policy. I'm ashamed of what this admin. has led us into.

http://207.44.245.159/article7645.htm

El Salvador-style 'death squads' to be deployed by US against Iraq militants

From Roland Watson in Washington

01/10/05 "The Times" -- THE Pentagon is considering forming hit squads of Kurdish and Shia fighters to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency in a strategic shift borrowed from the American struggle against left-wing guerrillas in Central America 20 years ago.
Under the so-called “El Salvador option”, Iraqi and American forces would be sent to kill or kidnap insurgency leaders, even in Syria, where some are thought to shelter.

The plans are reported in this week’s Newsweek magazine as part of Pentagon efforts to get US forces in Iraq on to the front foot against an enemy that is apparently getting the better of them.

Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, was said to be one of the most vigorous supporters of the plan.

The Pentagon declined to comment, but one insider told Newsweek: “What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are. We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defence. And we are losing.”

Hit squads would be controversial and would probably be kept secret.

The experience of the so-called “death squads” in Central America remains raw for many even now and helped to sully the image of the United States in the region.

Then, the Reagan Administration funded and trained teams of nationalist forces to neutralise Salvadorean rebel leaders and sympathisers. Supporters credit the policy with calming the insurgency, although it left a bitter legacy and stirred anti-American sentiment.

John Negroponte, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, had a front-row seat at the time as Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85.

Death squads were a brutal feature of Latin American politics of the time. In Argentina in the 1970s and Guatemala in the 1980s, soldiers wore uniform by day but used unmarked cars by night to kidnap and kill those hostile to the regime or their suspected sympathisers.

In the early 1980s President Reagan’s Administration funded and helped to train Nicaraguan contras based in Honduras with the aim of ousting Nicaragua’s Sandinista regime. The Contras were equipped using money from illegal American arms sales to Iran, a scandal that could have toppled Mr Reagan.

It was in El Salvador that the United States trained small units of local forces specifically to target rebels.

The thrust of the Pentagon proposal in Iraq, according to Newsweek, is to follow that model and direct US special forces teams to advise, support and train Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shia militiamen to target leaders of the Sunni insurgency.

It is unclear whether the main aim of the missions would be to assassinate the rebels or kidnap them and take them away for interrogation. Any mission in Syria would probably be undertaken by US Special Forces.

Nor is it clear who would take responsibility for such a programme — the Pentagon or the Central Intelligence Agency. Such covert operations have traditionally been run by the CIA at arm’s length from the administration in power, giving US officials the ability to deny knowledge of it.

The Pentagon refused to be drawn on the issue yesterday. “We don’t discuss specific future operations or specific tactics,” a spokeswoman said.

This week Gary Luck, a retired four-star general, will arrive in Iraq to review American policy in the country, looking particularly at the recruitment and training of Iraqi forces. The key to Washington’s exit strategy is the ability of Iraqi forces to take over security roles. The general has been asked by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, to deliver an “ open-ended” review of how US aims can better be met.

His visit comes after two weeks of increased violence in Iraq in which scores of Iraqis and more than a dozen Americans have been killed in the run-up to the country’s elections.

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
 
Bringing back the death squads, aka The Salvador Option

"The Salvador Option
" ... [T]he Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal.

...

"Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions.

...

"Shahwani also said that the U.S. occupation has failed to crack the problem of broad support for the insurgency. The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." He said most Iraqi people do not actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help, but at the same time they won’t turn them in. One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

This is horrible. Absolutely horrible.

The moral decay of the Bush administration laid bare. We cannot let it happen again.
 
Hmmm. The Pentagon is debating a strategy against the insurgents.

Should we discuss the effectiveness of this strategy? Should we discuss appropriate guidelines for implementing the strategy? Should we discuss ways to discourage public support of terrorism?

Or, should we scream "Salvadorian Death Squads!!!!" real loud?

Maybe we could simply invite the insurgent leaders to a multicultural sensitivity training down at the local YMCA. I'm sure they would show up, with open heart and minds ready to see the bigger world out there.


/endsarcasticrant
 
I don't even know where to begin with this, really.

I remember reading about the four nuns that were killed in El Salvador. My college was doing a weekly Stations of the Cross called "Walking the Way with Contemporary Martyrs"--they were up alongside people like Edith Stein (St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross--a Carmelite nun who was killed at Auschwitz because she had been born Jewish and later converted), Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero, and a lot of others. As I read the Newsweek article, I couldn't get that picture out of my mind--that my government supported the slaughter of those women, and others like them.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not starting a rant about how brutal the U.S. government is, because I know many other regimes are even more brutal. But I don't think that's an excuse, either. You just know these death squads will kill innocent people, and not just a handful, either. I don't see this ending well for the States if this policy is adopted--not in terms of the war itself, and not in the court of international opinion, as it were.

I wonder if these "death squads," if such a policy is implemented, will be trained at the School of the Americas (Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). I know some sisters from the regional Sisters of Mercy community near me who have gone to the protests that are held down there (Fort Benning), and they have some amazing stories to tell--some people who go to protest are friends or relatives who have been killed by SOA/WHINSEC "graduates." They've been trying to get the place shut down, but I certainly don't see that happening anytime soon--not under this administration.

To learn more about atrocities committed by SOA/WHINSEC "graduates" and to learn about SOAWatch, check out:

www.soaw.org

(Biased information? Maybe, but what kind of "nice" things can you say about the place?)
 
From the UN Truth Commission's Report on El Salvador (1993):


The Commission finds that death squads, often operated by the military and supported by powerful businessmen, land-owners and some leading politicians, have long acted in El Salvador and remain a potential menace. The Commission received testimony on more than 800 victims of death squads.

This problem is so serious that the Commission calls for a special investigation of death squads in order to reveal and then put an end to such activity. The Commission is especially concerned by the close relation between the military, hired assassins and extremists within the Salvadoran business community and some affluent families, who resorted to killing to settle disputes. This practice must end.

The Commission also is concerned that Salvadoran exiles living in Miami helped administer death squad activities between 1980 and 1983, with apparently little attention from the U.S. government. Such use of American territory for acts of terrorism abroad should be investigated and never allowed to be repeated.


(All emphases mine.)

Read the whole report at:

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=225

"Bullet the Blue Sky," indeed.
 
I don't find anything wrong with tactics and strategies designed to destroy the terrorist leadership in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. By killing or capturing the leadership of these terrorist organizations, an unknowable number of innocent lives are saved. The Terrorist will use any tactic to accomplish their goals and the coalition must make sure it is using all tactics that are capable of defeating terrorist that use the local civilian population to hide themselves and their operations.
 
If as we are told to no end by those who oppose democracy that the US cannot win with its current tactics is considering all other options not a wiser course of action? I am not saying one thing or another about this particular plan or the way that the writer is staging it but constantly reevaluating tactics to adapt to a fluid situation is how the pentagon has managed to keep casualties so low (21 months of conflict and less than 2000 KIA is a substantially lower rate than that of most wars.
 
Also why is it that guerrillas who kill people are called "insurgents" and compared to Minutemen when they're anti-American, and "death squads" when they're not?

p.s. The casualty count listed above does not include the 20,000 or so Iraqi civilians who have been killed or the many more wounded and crippled because it was in the context of the US millitary.
 
STING2 said:
By killing or capturing the leadership of these terrorist organizations, an unknowable number of innocent lives are saved.

Read it again. Going after the terrorists is not the plan here. The plan is to go after the population at large, who are supporting the insurgents. This plan is designed to kill innocent people, not save them.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Also why is it that guerrillas who kill people are called "insurgents" and compared to Minutemen when they're anti-American, and "death squads" when they're not?

What difference does it make?

But if you really think the comparison is apt, I say that's all the more reason to oppose this plan as firmly as possible.
 
nbcrusader said:


Maybe we could simply invite the insurgent leaders to a multicultural sensitivity training down at the local YMCA. I'm sure they would show up, with open heart and minds ready to see the bigger world out there.


/endsarcasticrant

Please, grow up.
 
Okay, please can we stop this pettiness? This is an incredibly serious, sad issue, and I'd like to see some real debate on it instead of just name-calling.

Thanks.
 
strannix said:


Read it again. Going after the terrorists is not the plan here. The plan is to go after the population at large, who are supporting the insurgents. This plan is designed to kill innocent people, not save them.


I would say there are two parts to the draft plan:

1. Eliminating insurgent leaders

2. Creating a cost for those who support them.

Obviously, the second point needs far more detail in how it will be applied. Indiscriminate killing of innocents does not appear to be what is contemplated.

What should happen to those who directly support insurgent/terrorist leaders? The people who supply the weapons? The people who transport the weapons? The people who hide the killers?
 
nbcrusader said:



I would say there are two parts to the draft plan:

1. Eliminating insurgent leaders

2. Creating a cost for those who support them.


OK, this is not a "plan". These are "goals". The plan is pretty clear in the article I referenced - we create Shiite and Kurdish "so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers."

Before this discussion goes any further, I feel it's important for one question, which I feel cuts right to both the moral and practical issues at stake, to be answered: How, exactly, can we expect Shiite and Kurdish forces to accomplish things that our military has not been able to?
 
I protested against the Latin American policies of the Reagan Administration. The problem was that so many of the casualties were civilians. Some of the most notorious killings were of aid workers and nuns. I met the first nuns I ever met in my life in those protests, because many Catholics, including many nuns, were involved in the protests. I'm a member of Pax Christi, although I haven't been active lately, admittedly, because I've been burned out on politics due to the election overkill. I'm sure if the government starts death squads it'll be a wake-up call, I'll probably be specifically asked to protest, and I will.
Another worry is that this controversial stuff will do more to split the American people rather than the unification which is so desperately needed right now. This could be bad for us, too, not just the Iraqis.
 
nbcrusader said:



Indiscriminate killing of innocents does not appear to be what is contemplated.


I doubt this was contemplated the first time it was tried, either, but we've seen disastrous consequences for this kind of action before. I guess what I'd like to know is this:

1.) How will this help to convince people that the U.S. is bringing peace and stability to the region?

2.) How will we guarantee that (notoriously unreliable) regional militiae carry out their "duties" ( :shudder: ) as carefully and ethically as possible, to absolutely minimize risks of killing innocent people?

I don't have a lot of trust in this administration to begin with, and knowing that this kind of thing is being "contemplated" sure as hell doesn't make me feel any better.
 
verte76 said:
...Some of the most notorious killings were of aid workers and nuns. I met the first nuns I ever met in my life in those protests, because many Catholics, including many nuns, were involved in the protests. I'm a member of Pax Christi, although I haven't been active lately, admittedly, because I've been burned out on politics due to the election overkill. I'm sure if the government starts death squads it'll be a wake-up call, I'll probably be specifically asked to protest, and I will.

Pax Christi is a great organization. :up: A lot of my nun friends are involved with it. They are some radical babes!
 
nbcrusader said:
Has our military engaged in this type of plan?

Or does this open a new front in the military effort?

Not sure what you mean. If you're asking if our military has tried to eliminate insurgency leaders, then I'd say the answer is a pretty big "yes".

At any rate, that's what I'm asking: how can we expect Shiite and Kurdish forces to end the insurgency, when our military cannot?
 
nbcrusader said:
Hmmm. The Pentagon is debating a strategy against the insurgents.

Should we discuss the effectiveness of this strategy? Should we discuss appropriate guidelines for implementing the strategy? Should we discuss ways to discourage public support of terrorism?


I think the first two questions cut right to my feelings on this strategy. NO! IMO there are no reasons to even considering this stategy especially in light of what history has shown.

There should be firm moral boundaries for even war and especially "terrorist" situations. Assassinations, death squads, extreme bombings, and nuclear alternatives should not even be on the table.

This admin. is big on maintaining morality, but only of a sexual nature. Human rights aren't even on the radar.
 
Assassination is a legitimate means of targeting terrorists, it is the polar opposite of collective punishment as it only kills the guilty party. This is not a war against geneva convention obeying uniformed members of a millitary, this is a war against enemy combatants who hide behind civilians when fighting and murder civilians by the hundred and as such the actions that can be used when fighting are different.

"Extreme bombings" make little sense when fighting asymetrical warfare and there is absolutely no "nuclear alternative" on the table - both of these propositions seem to be ill founded fear mongering on behalf of the anti-democratic left. Fighting and winning a war requires considerations of all possibilities; I do not think that there is anything wrong with these considerations.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Assassination is a legitimate means of targeting terrorists, it is the polar opposite of collective punishment as it only kills the guilty party. This is not a war against geneva convention obeying uniformed members of a millitary, this is a war against enemy combatants who hide behind civilians when fighting and murder civilians by the hundred and as such the actions that can be used when fighting are different.


So what is different about this and the Viet Cong, or the Nazi's, or the Japenese or any other foe hiding among civilians. The uniform excuse is just that. This is a guerilla war from their perpective. "Enemy combatants" is a f**king name invented to excuse American breaking treaties it's signed and it's own laws.
 
The difference is that both the Wehrmacht and Japanese Imperial Army were uniformed, for the most part they fought in accordance with the rules of war, they were fighting on the battlefield and did not put on civilian clothing in order to ambush allied forces.

The terrorists within Iraq in their tactics and deeds violate articles 4 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,

Some of the criteria that must be met to be afforded status as lawful combatant are as follows:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


Those groups operating within Iraq do not comply with any of the above and hence are disqualified from lawful combatant status. Spin it as guerilla warfare where the ends justify the means as much as you want the fact remains that they do not obey the laws of war, they work to maximise rather than minimise civilian casualties, they simply torture and execute any captured US or Iraqi soldiers. Compared to these groups the Wehrmacht amd Japanese Imperial Army were paragons of virtue when fighting wars - they were uniformed, they had a clear chain of command and accountability, they took POW's and didn't just execute them, they fought on the battelfield in a manner consistent with the rules of warfare.

It is not done to excuse America breaking treatise, it is done to highlight the enemy that is being fought and to allow for a more effective counter-insurgency campaign to be run.
 
paxetaurora said:


Pax Christi is a great organization. :up: A lot of my nun friends are involved with it. They are some radical babes!

I'll never forget seeing a nun (no doubt) burning up in the hot June sun at a protest at Fort Benning, wearing her full traditional habit. There were other nuns at the protest who didn't wear habits. They had "Benedictines For Peace" on their signs. That, in fact, is when I started to think of becoming a Catholic, and five years later, I did.
 
I'm sorry but thats BS. The enemy should not define us.

You didn't apply my question to the Viet Cong or many other guerilla armies operating in the world today. By your standards the Sudanese are correct in their actions for the civilians possible harboring of insurgents. Or the French in Algiers, or for that matter our wiping out of Native American warriors. Or does that only apply to the ones we are fighting.

Don't get me wrong I don't want my soldiers killed, but stooping to death squads is wrong under any circumstances.
 
strannix said:


Read it again. Going after the terrorists is not the plan here. The plan is to go after the population at large, who are supporting the insurgents. This plan is designed to kill innocent people, not save them.

Any member of the Sunni population that aids terrorists in their operations which kill and wound people are not innocent and are in fact terrorist themselves.
 
No they are not, there are fundamental statutes of law that must be obeyed and the rights of unlawful combatants have been outlined, the Sudanese are engaged in Genocide - deliberate extermination of an entire section of their population by proxy, the French in Algeria tortured to death suspected terrorists and led to many war crimes.

I am saying that the US must comply with its treaty obligations and that there is slightly more leeway in dealing with this enemy - for instance assassination, something that wouldnt be considered when fighting a conventional war becomes a more attractive and in many ways saner option than Fallujah type operations. I am not saying that they should form death squads and this logical path does not justify war crimes.
 
strannix said:


OK, this is not a "plan". These are "goals". The plan is pretty clear in the article I referenced - we create Shiite and Kurdish "so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers."

Before this discussion goes any further, I feel it's important for one question, which I feel cuts right to both the moral and practical issues at stake, to be answered: How, exactly, can we expect Shiite and Kurdish forces to accomplish things that our military has not been able to?

All Shiite and Kurdish people speak the language, know the culture, and look much the same as most Sunni's, at least when compared to Americans or Europeans. The goal here is to infultrate the population in order to find the terrorist who are using the civilian population to hide themselves and their operations. A group that is native to the area and dressed as civilians has a much better chance in this arena than foreigner who does not know the language, looks completely different, and has a uniform on.
 
Back
Top Bottom