Wikileaks: Latest US Death Squad Operations Manual

The CIA Instructs the Contras to Attack Civillians

On the CIA instructions to the Contras to attack "soft targets," (undefended civilian targets) see for example, Fred Kaplan, "U.S. general says contra chances improving," The Boston Globe, May 20, 1987, p. 9. An excerpt:

Julia Preston, "Rebels Still Seeking a Win," The Washington Post, September 8, 1987, p. A1 (quoting a U.S. military analyst that the contras are "'still going after small, soft targets,' like farmers' cooperatives"):

Editorial, "America's Guilt -- Or Default," The New York Times, July 1, 1986, p. A22 (noting that the World Court ruled unanimously "that the C.I.A.'s manual encouraging 'contra' attacks on civilians breached humanitarian principles"):

Washington ordered it's Death Squads to attack "soft targets," with horrific results. An eyewitness to a Contra raid in Jinotega province said:

For additional accounts of contra atrocities, see Reed Brody [Assistant Attorney General of New York State], Contra Terror in Nicaragua -- Report of a Fact-finding Mission: September 1984-January 1985, Boston: South End, 1985. This book reprints 150 affidavits and 140 pages of testimony gathered in a fact-finding mission conducted in the early 1980s, the results of which were independently corroborated by the Washington Office on Latin America, a private church-supported human rights organization, and other human rights organizations. In the affidavits, a mother of two from the Nicaraguan village of Esteli reports (p. 120):

A man describes a contra attack on his cooperative in April 1984 (p. 71):

When asked by the House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs to define US policy in Nicaragua, former CIA Director Stansfield Turner responded with with following statement:

See also, Thomas Carothers, "The Reagan Years: The 1980s," in Abraham F. Lowenthal, ed., Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991, pp. 90-122 at p. 104:

Continued..

 

The World Court finds the United States Guilty of International Terrorism against Nicaragua

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOsDwFo2EhM"]Nicaragua takes US to World Court[/ame]

Nicaragua did not respond to the terrorist attacks with bombings in the US. Rather, it went to the World Court for relief.

In 1986, the court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, dismissing US claims and condemning Washington for "unlawful use of force" - international terrorism, in lay terms. The ICJ also held that the U.S. had violated international law by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The decision had little effect. The World Court was condemned as a "hostile forum" by the editors of the New York Times, and therefore, irrelevant, like the U.N. US aid to the contras was described as "humanitarian" in violation of the court ruling.

Despite the careful and authoritative reasoning by whitch the Court reached it's decision, the New York Times Editorial page denounced the ruling and even accused many of the judges of being Communists. It wrote:

The following is the evidence the World Court based it's decision on..

Case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) by The International Court of Justice

On December 29, 1984, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs issued a report condemning the CIA-Contras:

Human Rights Watch concurs:

Another report, prepared by Reed Brody, a United States lawyer who spent four months in Nicaragua collecting over 40 sworn affidavits from victims and eyewitnesses, dsiclosed a "distinct pattern" of abuses by the Death Squads, including:

A report published jointly by the International Human Rights Law Group and Washington Office in Latin America, two private United States organizations that monitor human rights compliance, made the following statement based on an investigative mission they sent to Nicaragua in February 1985:

The following is part of former CIA analyst, David MacMichael's testimony at the World Court hearings:

Continued..

 

The Reagan and Bush Administrations were deliberately attacking the popular and successful anti poverty programs and institutions like cooperatives and health clinics developed by the Sandinistas to eliminate the "threat of a good example". A Department of Defense official informed the press that one of the major goals was to destroy and discredit Nicaragua's successful independant development:

The Los Angeles Times added that:

Horatio Arce, one of the Contra rebels destabilising Nicaragua, admitted in 1988 that:

For Cranston's statement, see U.S. Senate, Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Policy Toward Nicaragua: Aid to Nicaraguan Resistance Proposal, 99th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 27 and March 4, 1986 (C.I.S. #S381-20), p. 5 Cranston stated:

On Nicaragua's economic devastation by the late 1980s, see for example, Richard Boudreaux, "Poor Pay, Inflation Spur Exodus; Nicaraguans Leaving in Droves as Economy Sinks," The Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, part 1, p. 1 (quoting economic advisor Francisco Mayorga that:

Mark Uhlig, "A Sandinista Promise Gone Sour Alienates Nicaragua's Working Class," The New York Times, November 7, 1989, p. A10. An excerpt:

The article also notes the connection drawn by Nicaraguans between the election result and ending the embargo:

Continued..

 

Julia Preston, "Contras Burn Clinic During Raid on Village," The Washington Post, March 7, 1987, p. A25 (reporting that the contras, "reportedly in high spirits and outfitted by the C.I.A.," among other things "burned down a church-sponsored health clinic that had been the pride of the community" in the isolated Nicaraguan village of Tapasle);

Ellen V.P. Wells, "Letter," The New York Times, December 31, 1988, section 1, p. 22 (describing a contra attack on a coffee-harvesting cooperative, in which two people were killed, the coffee equipment was ruined, and ten houses and a health clinic were destroyed):

Continued..

 

The Nicaraguan Voters Chose a Candidate of Washington's Choice with a "Gun Held to their Heads."

Carter's Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Viron Vaky outlined "the principal arguments" for supporting the fascist Contras against the newly formed Sandinista government:

Terrorizing the population into submission became the primary strategy adopted by the incoming Reaganites..

A Training Manual designed for the CIA-Contra forces attacking Nicaragua advised:

The International Court of Justice ruled that:

During the run up to Nicaragua's elections in 1990, the Bush administration continued the strategy of trying to terrorize the population into "throwing the (popular) government out themselves" so the terror would stop.

Human Rights Watch reports:

On the White House's announcement that the embargo against Nicaragua would continue unless Chamorro won, see for example, A.P., "Bush Vows To End Embargo If Chamorro Wins," The Washington Post, November 9, 1989, p. A56. The opening paragraphs:

The "election aid package" mentioned in the above article would be equivalent to a flow of $2 billion into a U.S. election campaign. The United States spent more than $10 per Nicaraguan voter, in a country where the average wage is $20 per month. The U.S. -- as distinct from totalitarian Nicaragua -- does not permit any monetary contributions from abroad for such purposes. See C. Scott Littlehale, "U.S. ignores most candidates in Nicaragua," C.O.H.A.'s [Council On Hemispheric Affairs] Washington Report on the Hemisphere, November 8, 1989, p. 5.

New Republic editor Micahael Kinsley critisized human rights organizations for becoming too emotional about State Department justifications for terrorist attacks on "soft targets":

Thomas Walker, one of the leading specialists on Central America observes:

Continued..

 

Ex-Contra Leader: U.S.-Backed Terrorism Won in Nicaragua in 1990, Not Democracy

 

Notice how I challenge your assertions regarding "death squads" and your only response is to run to assertions of torture. Typical.

 

I included death squads in what I wrote,I even linked to an article on them. You can read? You just ignored it to try and make a point that I have just dismissed.

Here is the link again.
Battalion 3-16 (Honduras)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion_3-16_(Honduras)#Links_with_the_United_States

 

So full of it. The article doesnt even make the assertion.

 

You have a problem reading. First off you could not even see an article on death squads in what you quoted and now you cannot even read what the article says.
From the very first line of the article.

Intelligence Battalion 3-16 or Battalion 316 (various names: Group of 14 (1979–1981),[1] Special Investigations Branch (DIES) (1982–1983),[1] Intelligence Battalion 3-16 (from 1982 or 1984 to 1986),[1][2] Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence Branch (since 1987)[1]) was the name of a Honduran army unit responsible for carrying out political assassinations and torture of suspected political opponents of the government during the 1980s.

That is a definition of a death squad.

and further

Battalion members received training and support from the United States Central Intelligence Agency both in Honduras at U.S. military bases

Using freedom of information laws, efforts were made by various people to obtain documentary records of the role of the United States with respect to Battalion 3-16. For example, on 3 December 1996, members of United States Congress, including Tom Lantos, Joseph Kennedy, Cynthia McKinney, Richard J. Durbin, John Conyers and others, asked President Bill Clinton for "the expeditious and complete declassification of all U.S. documents pertaining to human rights violations in Honduras" and claimed that "The U.S. government ... helped to establish, train and equip Battalion 3-16, military unit which was responsible for the kidnapping, torture, disappearance and murder of at least 184 Honduran students, professors, journalists, human rights activists and others in the 1980s."

 

You are the only one having difficulty reading. Im not disputing the existance of death squads. AND NOTHING you present about the 80s can possibly support the assertions of the thread regarding an operations manual written in 1994.

 

I would have to say that your previous two posts prove you do indeed have a problem reading. Thanks.

They are not talking about a 1994 manual,they are talking about a manual from 2003,says that on the link,top of the page.

 

No, it is you having problems. If only you could get past the top of the page, you would see that its originally from 1994

And a date of 2003 makes your accounting of the 80s EVEN MORE IRRELEVANT sooooo not sure of your point.

 

Wikileaks is talking about the 2003 manual. It says so in the very first line fo the page. Seems you cannot read at all.

From your own link,the very first line. What does it say????

US Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces, FM 31.20-3, 2003

Also introduction of parts of the manual.

DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors only to protect technical or operational information from automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program or by other means. This determination was made on 5 December 2003.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Special_Forces_counterinsurgency_manual_FM_31-20-3

 

Aaaaand the second line says

And when you download the file, prominately displayed we see

It is ORIGINALLY from 1994. And even if it was from 2003, that makes your historical accounting of the 80s even more irrelevant. [/QUOTE]

 

What do you mean and if even? It is from 2003,it states at the top of the page what they are talking about. It says the 2003 manual. You were wrong,just except it. I do not think America training and arming deaths squads is irrelevant,you might but then you support everything they do.

 

Noooo, it was simply more widely distributed in 2003. You still havent even taken a moment to click on the link to the manual. Trapped in your wikileaks summary.

 

Noooo they are talking about the 2003 version. Get a grown up to help you read what it states on the very top of the page.

 

Here you are. 2003.

 

The Third Man, et al,

You must know that what is on the WikiLeaks Page is not a true representation of a US Army Field Manual, let alone the one it depicts. Oh hell, they didn't even get the Manual Number format correct.

The Field Manual contains much more information in it than is depicted in WikiLeaks. It is a full Manual. It too is formatted differently.

(COMMENT)

But, let us get down to Brass Tacks. You are making a claim.

• What exactly is the claim you are making?
  
• Other than the WikiLeaks Document, what law (US of International) do you claim is violated?
  
• What are the elements of the offense?

Whatever the allegations are (that you are preferring), let's break them down and examine them, one by one. You are in the lead.

Please be clear and distinct. I don't want to be confused.

Let's be objective and not cloud it with political rhetoric.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I believe I have made my points perfectly clear in the posts already made and I cannot see any point repeating them. I suggest you go back and read through them if you need to see where I stand. Thanks.

 

The Third Man, et al,

Yes, let's examine that!

NOTE: Our friend "HORHEY" makes a couple of good points. But I'm still trying to figure out if his position is opposing US Policy on a political basis; or if "HORHEY" is just generally opposed to the utilization of the military in these cases. He is all over the map in his rant; and I'm waiting for him to land - and calmly discuss his objections.​

(ALLEGATIONS)

Yes, I've read every single post, made by everyone. I can understand the inferences made by the exuberant "HORHEY." I've seen this many times in anti-War demonstrators and those opposed to US Foreign Policy. But you (The Third Man) have "seemed" to have made a very specific claim and allegation. And I want to make sure that I'm not mistaken; with your help.

(QUESTION)

Does this accurately represent your allegation? It seems to be centered on the creation, training, equipping, and utilization (to include Command & Control) of "the" --- "Death Squad." I just want to make sure I have this right before I jump in. I don't generally engage on a route basis. But I think I'm going to make a point here.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Pretty much sums it up. Please do jump in anytime you want. Cheers.

 

It's kinda like when a pedefile gets out of prison and moves into your nieghborhood. You know what he wants. You know what he's gonna eventually try to do because he's sick. The United States has been doing the same thing since 1948. I know what the true "purpose of American power" is so that's the lens I see these things in. This is not unique to the US. Any country that becomes as powerful as the US will naturally become an imperial superpower. That is the way of things. The best thing we can do is be aware of it and try to limit it's reach. Washington cant get away with much of what it used to be able to do, so that's progress.

 

The Third Man, et al,

(PREFACE)

We are talking about the US Army Special Forces (SF). Who are they?

"The Third Man" calls them "murdering scum." I call them US Army Soldiers who have been trained US Army JFK Special Warfare Center and School (USAJFKSWCS); organized and equipped to conduct Special Operations (SO) with an emphasis on Unconventional Operations (UO), as a subset of SO.

Whether in peace time or in war, the SF belong to the US Ambassador to the country in which they are deployed. They operate under the Ambassador's guidance and authority. In turn, the US Ambassador is the President's personal representative in that foreign country and leads the entire Embassy complement; called the Country Team (everyone, every agency represented, including the SF). It is actually one of the shortest chains-of-command. Every action, mission and operation undertaken by an SF unit is under the closest scrutiny at the highest levels. A deployed SF unit is a direct extension in the implementation of US Foreign Policy, and directly reflects on the civilian leadership in every aspect of their mission.

I take grave exception to the SF being referred to as "murdering scum." It is a totally unwarranted and the most grievous of the fallacious claims made. In addition, it implies (by extension) the complicity of the US Diplomatic Corps, the National Security Council and the Presidential Administration which bare the responsibility for SF and their activities. How dare you slander any organization for which you are not remotely qualified to stand on the same ground with - and face the perils and dangers they face daily in the service of our nation. They answer the nations call to duty.

(Fallacy: Ad Hominem)

Having said that, I will open later on the issue of SF and foreign military interface.

Most Respectfully,
R