Death Squad Democracy - Page 2




View Poll Results :Are death squads ever justifiable?
Yes 8 42.11%
No 11 57.89%
Don't care because it isn't happening in my country. 0 0%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
July 1st, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
USMC03 I would argue that there is an element of responsibility when you train someone how to do something and then they go out and do it. Whether or not they complied with YOUR intent of how that training is to be used.

In that vain of thought you would have to hold the US responsible for every Goverment they trained at any point in the last 40 years.

Example: For 30 years the US military provided Advisory Aid and Military Aid to Venezula. Recently Hugo Chavez ended the realtionship and advisors have been removed.

Now. If the troops trained in COIN or SpecOps are Used by Chavez to eliminate his opposition then is the US cuplable? Not in my mind. It's on Hugito.
July 1st, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
I was actually thinking more in line with the training of Kopassus troops in Indonesia that were directly linked and involved in the May 1998 raping and murdering of ethnic Chinese in Jakarta and other major cities. Troops that continued to be trained by US SF troops after the US senate declared an end to this training. The DoD circumvented the order from congress and the training continued under a different name after a short "cooling off" period. Troops that even prior to this heinous act were involved in the same activities on the island of East Timor and the Pentagon in search of the almighty dollar through arms sales chose to overlook and help them refine their interrogation techniques, sniper skills and the like. Known death squads, the Kopassus troops were well documented by even the US troops that were training them and it continued ANYWAY.

Sources:
Blowback: Consequences of American Empire Chalmers Johnson
2001 ISBN 0-050-6239-4 pages 74-84

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/...indo101001.htm

http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0600/062k18.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/news/spec...res/usaid.html

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/...iltraining.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...000/460702.stm

http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/indo001.htm

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/199806/980604.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...a/kopassus.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_1998_Revolution

As for Hugo, he finally figured out the dual purpose behind all that subsidized military training he was getting from US troops. He found out its primary role for the US was to gain intel on the capabilities and techniques of the host military and to make contacts within the officer corps who might be "of use" in the future. Strike one up for sovereignty and having the courage of his convictions. That took some serious fortitude.
July 1st, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Sources. For one who is quite active in pursuing the sources of other members, I believe that you are aware of their necessity.


In the future, members should avoid using any possibly derogatory nicknames for national leaders.
--
Boots
July 1st, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Roger that, slight oversight, keep forgetting this stuff isn't common knowledge to most people. I ask people for sources not because I doubt them but rather to read things for myself. I am looking for answers and always open to sound arguments.
July 1st, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
Redneck, bear with me as I dig up the sources because I have in the last month come across some first person accounts from US soldiers on the web of American troops (themselves) engaged in kidnapping in Iraq in order to persuade someone suspected of being an insurgent to turn himself in. This is a clear and open, verifiable, instance of American troops under orders violating the Geneva Convention, Iraqi Law, US Law and International Law.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/12/8/12233/8105
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_061505C.shtml
http://www.peoplejudgebush.org/kidnapping.shtml

Still looking for the one that is an interview with a 101st SSG that clearly states he had been participating in the kidnapping of family members and leaving a note behind for the father saying if they want to have their family released to turn themselves in.
Quote:
The cable said the 116th Brigade Combat Team, which oversees security in Kirkuk, had urged Kurdish officials to end the practice. "I can tell you that the coalition forces absolutely do not condone it," Brig. Gen. Alan Gayhart, the brigade commander, said in an interview.

Quote:
Maj. Darren Blagburn, intelligence officer for the 116th Brigade Combat Team in Kirkuk, acknowledged that Arab and Turkmen detainees were surreptitiously transferred to Kurdish prisons without judicial oversight. He denied any U.S. role in the transfers and said they were necessary because of crowding in Kirkuk's jails.

Blagburn said he and other U.S. officers intervened with Kurdish leaders after discovering the practice nearly a month ago. He said he was "pretty sure" the practice had ended.

"We put a stop to it," Blagburn said, adding: "One of the myths is that it is spiraling out of control and nobody is doing anything about it and nobody cares. That is absolutely not true."
(from your own sources)

I won't even address your third source, the internet address and the first sentence of the story were enough to prove its lack of value. However, what is seen in the other sources is that the "kidnappings" are being carried out by non-U.S. forces, so I am unclear what your purpose was with providing them as "proof" of U.S. culpability. But just to play along, say they were in fact U.S. servicemen running around kidnapping folks in Iraq, how would these detentions make them "death squads?"


And bulldog, the sources I was referring to were ones about the apparently obvious ulterior motives of our military trainers in Venezuala. If you are going to make accusations against a nation/national leader/any other targets of opportunity you must either provide sources for those accusations or clearly state that it is your own personal opinion.
July 1st, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Redneck, read the friggin sources. It is stated in there explicitly that one of the major purposes for JCET an IMET programmes is to gather intelligence. Anyone who has served in a JCET or IMET programme knows this. It is clearly stated in the congressional record by high ranking officers who argued before congress against shutting down JCET and the School of the Americas.
July 1st, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
As for Hugo, he finally figured out the dual purpose behind all that subsidized military training he was getting from US troops. He found out its primary role for the US was to gain intel on the capabilities and techniques of the host military and to make contacts within the officer corps who might be "of use" in the future. Strike one up for sovereignty and having the courage of his convictions. That took some serious fortitude.

Or he got in bed with like minded Communists/Socialist's China and Cuba and is now or will soon be receiving the same type aid from them. Chavez is all about being seen as Anti-US and the Democratic Peoples Savior and Reformer.
July 1st, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
Redneck, read the friggin sources. It is stated in there explicitly that one of the major purposes for JCET an IMET programmes is to gather intelligence. Anyone who has served in a JCET or IMET programme knows this. It is clearly stated in the congressional record by high ranking officers who argued before congress against shutting down JCET and the School of the Americas.
In your previous posts you implied that the U.S. was basically using the training as a front for spying, setting up connections and observing capabilities does not a spy make, particularly if, as you said above, these actions are done openly.

And as 03 said, Chavez is far from the noble defender of sovereignty you paint him as, he either a) was too stupid to realize that such such activity was occurring all along, or b) waited until the time was right for his own agenda to suddenly "discover" and become outraged by it.
July 1st, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Chavez was a Lt. Col in the Parachute Infantry. You can bet he knew about the US Military Advisors and I'd bet a pay check received COIN training from them.

He pulled out when it it suited him to give action too his rhetoric.
July 7th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
It is not done openly in the sense of "Hi we're here to train your troops and by the way we are going to conduct an assessment of your fighting strength, capabilities and weaknesses in case we ever need to dismantle your butt." It is well known in the US but they dont announce it to the host countries receiving the training.

The connections with the officers would be just human nature but they are assessed in a way that shows whether or not they could be turned. Who is a rising star and who is corrupt etc. Normal stuff that is done but you don't do it in a Dudley Do Right kinda way.

Now, back on topic...

Noticeably absent from this conversation has been the protagonist of this thread. I really did want GtoACommo to elucidate his views especially since he said it was one shared by his friends, the Iraqis.