Death Squad Democracy

Are death squads ever justifiable?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't care because it isn't happening in my country.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
Depends on how you are going to classify "Death Squads".

If you are going to have the opinion that any Covert Force recruited from the local population and trained in Counter Insurgency Operations by the US is a death squad then I guess that answer would be Yes.

All the old saws were thrown into that article. Salvadoran Death Squads, Terrorizing the Population, Phoenix Program. Ritter as usual is trying to fan the flames of fear. And undermine any program regardless of it's intended purpose upon inception.

The hard fact is that certain elements (of Ritters Ilk) will brand any US trained Foreign Unit/Locally Raised unit as a Death Squad if they are trained in COIN or SpecOps.

From a Military Stand Point these units make a lot of sense and can have a big impact if they are used in the right way.

Because they are raised from the local population they are of value because they.

1. Speak the language
2. Understand the customs
3. Know the Teir Assets
4. Can move about with greater ease than a team of Western Operators.
5. Know and understand the enviroment.

Their intended purpose should be to ferret out the insurgent groups and eliminate them. The above attributes make it easier.
 
Lets forget the old saws and lets focus on the indigenous personnel trained in CoIn. Now if they target and engage enemy combatants and kill them in battle, rock on. However in a democracy one of the key elements is that the rule of law supercedes all else. If these troops take an opposition leader unarmed and kill him, MURDER. If they hold family members and hold them for "ransom", KIDNAPPING. If they take people and they are executed without trial, STATE SPONSORED MURDER. And, if they target not military, but political opposition then you cease to have a democracy but rather a totalitarian regime.
Sucks to play by the rules but that's the way it is if the US is going to continue to lay claim to be a democratic champion of human rights and the rule of law.
So a death squad is the weapon of the state to remove any and all opposition. CoIn troops in theory are not death squads. In practice though time and time again they are used as tools of state sponsored terrorism. And we don't need to go to the old saws to prove it either.
 
bulldogg said:
CoIn troops in theory are not death squads. In practice though time and time again they are used as tools of state sponsored terrorism. And we don't need to go to the old saws to prove it either.

So because of that the US should not provide advisory ODA's or FMTU's to provide COIN training because they might be misused by that Countries Goverment? In the case of Iraq a legally elected goverment.

Friendly Nations should receive an amount of military advisory aid to ensure a professional military capable of defending the legally recognized goverment from internal and external threats. So long as that military is used according to recognized rules of warfare aid should continue.

If the Units are used by the local goverment for other purposes aid should pulled. But once the Advisory teams have trained and turned the Units over to Local Goverment they cannot be held responsible for solely because they provided training that was misused.
 
bulldogg said:
If these troops take an opposition leader unarmed and kill him, MURDER. If they hold family members and hold them for "ransom", KIDNAPPING. If they take people and they are executed without trial, STATE SPONSORED MURDER. And, if they target not military, but political opposition then you cease to have a democracy but rather a totalitarian regime.

So basically your entire argument against these units is based off of supposition about what they might do, entirely unrelated to any fact, correct?
In fact the entire article which you are drawing your information from is unsupported and fails to show in any way beyond "I think so" that A) these squads are operating under U.S. control/authority, or B) that they are in fact doing anything at all. Given the rhetoric and obvious bias of the author I am more than hesitant to believe anything he claims without verification. All in all, it appears to me to be an extremely irresponsible and personal temper tantrum, rather than an article relating any great amount of truth.
 
This would probably fall under "There is a time and a place for everything." but it greatly depends on what you would define as Death Squads. There can and will be circumstances that will arise which would necessitate "Death Squads", depending on the context.
 
I think "death squads" are a great terror tactic and they are very likely to be seen in the future of war as media-driven perception has become more key to morale than victory or defeat in battle.

One could argue that the US is very close to your idea of "death squads" at this moment. We have all sorts of teams scouring Iraq and Afghanistan for Bin-Laddin and other enemy leaders. The only reason they arn't killed outright when found is only because we think they are worth more to us alive than dead. If we thought they would be better dead then the headline would read killed while resisting capture.
 
whats the matter with bad guys dying? theyr fighting dirty, i dont see why we cant. yes, i am only 15, so i may not understand or be as mature as some of you, but thats what i think. and also, as 03 said, why are we responsible for what they do with units that we trained? its not our fault if they misuse these "Death Squads." also, i belive you are biased just becuase of your use of the term "Death Squad" i see death squads as those Gestapo or SS or SA units that rounded up and killed Jews during the Holocaust, a desth squad has one purpose: to kill people, no matter who they are, where they are, what group they are in, how old they are, etc. i surely hope that no US-trained unit ever does anything of the sort.
 
Death squad is too generic to use in this case. I think of groups of soldiers in South America killing street kids during the night when I hear death squad. In a war, a team of SEALS or other Special Ops teams performing an "extraction" by going in harms way to bring back a high ranking officer for interrogation, is fair. The fact that the "extracted" is tortured or killed by the CIA or the Government being supported by our troops does not make the team a death squad. Remember, wars are eventually won through attrition.
 
Right, the team that did the extraction Missileer is NOT a death squad. Nor is killing military targets as long as it abides by the rules of war. No problem there. I am really talking about highly trained teams conducting attacks against political opponents, ethnic groups, kidnapping, torture for ANY reason, etc. The stuff the US State Department villifies other countries for doing, sponsoring and training people to do.

Death squads do not indescriminately kill Ghost, they single out people and it is a calculated instrument of state sponsored terrorism employed by governments to control populations of their country. And the US can't play dirty as long as they continue to tout to the rest of the world that they are a country that abides by the rule of law.

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.

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.
 
bulldogg said:
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.
 
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/arms/reports/indo101001.htm

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

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/east_timor/features/usaid.html

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/miltraining.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_460000/460702.stm

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

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/indonesia/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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
bulldogg said:
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.

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.


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.
 
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.
 
bulldogg said:
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.
 
bulldogg said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top