RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Operation Condor: US, Latin American Slaughter, Torture Program Print
Sunday, 18 June 2017 12:38

Rhymes writes: "It is altogether fitting to begin any analysis of Operation Condor with its birthplace: Chile. Thousands of people were imprisoned and killed after Augusto Pinochet's 1973 military coup against democratically-elected socialist President Salvador Allende."

Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (L) greets U.S Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (R) in 1976 as Operation Condor was in full swing. (photo: Reuters)
Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (L) greets U.S Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (R) in 1976 as Operation Condor was in full swing. (photo: Reuters)


Operation Condor: US, Latin American Slaughter, Torture Program

By Edward Rhymes, teleSUR

18 June 17


The United States was a major backer of the military dictatorships during the 1970s that overthrew some Latin American democracies.

t is altogether fitting to begin any analysis of Operation Condor with its birthplace: Chile. Thousands of people were imprisoned and killed after Augusto Pinochet’s 1973 military coup against democratically-elected socialist President Salvador Allende.

The Nixon administration had helped undermine Allende and then supported Pinochet as he dissolved parliament and began a brutal campaign against Chile’s left that lasted 17 years. His regime conducted raids, executions, abductions, arrests and torture of thousands of Chilean citizens.

More people were killed in the four months following the coup (through December 1973) than in any other year of the dictatorship. According to Amnesty International and the U.N. Human Rights Commission, 250,000 people were detained for political reasons during this period.

In 1974, DINA, the Chilean secret police was officially recognized. During this time, foreign nationals in Chile, including diplomats, were among the killed or "disappeared." In 2011, a Chilean commission investigating human rights abuses under the former military dictatorship said there were much more victims than previously documented.

The Valech Commission’s second report identified another 9,800 people who had been held as political prisoners and tortured. The new figures brought the total of recognized victims to 40,018. An earlier report by the commission documented 27,153 people who suffered human rights violations under military rule. The official number of those killed or disappeared went up to 3,065.

Rand Paul’s childish examples and suspect motives aside, the issue of the targeted assassination of U.S. citizens is not a matter of insignificant importance. Especially when placed in the context of DINA’s 1976 assassination in Washington, D.C. of former Allende foreign minister Orlando Letelier, who opposed Chile’s military regime.

Operation Condor was facilitated through a series of government takeovers in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s: General Alfredo Stroessner took control of Paraguay in 1954; the Brazilian military overthrew the democratic and popular government of Joao Goulart in 1964; General Hugo Banzer took power in Bolivia in 1971 through a series of coups; Chilean forces loyal to General Augusto Pinochet overthrew President Allende in 1973; a military junta headed by General Jorge Rafael Videla seized power in Argentina in 1976.

Although cooperation among the participating nations’ intelligence programs took place before Condor, it was during the Conference of American Armies held in Caracas on Sept. 3, 1973, that Brazilian General Breno Borges Fortes, head of the army, proposed to “extend the exchange of information” between various services in order to “struggle against subversion.”

In March 1974, representatives of the police forces of Chile, Uruguay and Bolivia met with Alberto Villar, deputy chief of the Argentine Federal Police and co-founder of the Triple A death squad, to implement cooperation guidelines in order to destroy the “subversive” threat represented by the presence of thousands of political exiles in Argentina. In August 1974, the corpses of Bolivian refugees were found in garbage dumps in Buenos Aires.

Military dictatorships in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay worked together to track down, kidnap and kill people they labeled as subversives. This list includes leftist activists, labor organizers, students, priests, journalists, guerrilla fighters and their families.

Because of the covert nature of Operation Condor, its full extent may never be known, but researchers estimate that 50,000 were killed, 30,000 were “disappeared” and presumed killed, and 400,000 were jailed and/or tortured, according to the Center for Justice and Accountability.

The United States was a major backer of the military dictatorships during the 1970s that overthrew some Latin American democracies and less than stable governments.

To be clear, there has been little evidence that suggests that the U.S. had operational control of the program. John Dinges, the author of "The Condor Years," stated, "The U.S.’ involvement is described as the green light, red light policy. Kissinger was in Santiago talking to Pinochet and the other leaders talking about human rights publicly — that’s the red light but privately giving them the green light by saying ‘Don’t worry too much about this, we support you’ … You can condemn the CIA all you want for its complicity but to say that the CIA had operational control of Operation Condor, there is simply not the evidence there.”

Nevertheless, there is documentation that shows that the United States was complicit in the actions carried out through Operation Condor in that it was aware of its existence and did nothing to stop it. And it gave organizational, as well as physical support to the program’s participating countries.

Two extremely compelling discoveries about U.S. links to Condor have recently come to light. First is a 1978 Roger Channel cable from Robert White, then ambassador to Paraguay, to the Secretary of State, which read, “By July 1976, the Agency was receiving reports that Condor planned to engage in ‘executive action’ outside the territory of member countries against leaders of indigenous terrorist." This declassified State Department document links Operation Condor to the former U.S. military headquarters in the Panama Canal Zone.

Peter Kornbluh, an analyst with the National Security Archive, also uncovered a 1976 classified document (declassified in 2010), that shows that then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger halted a U.S. plan to curb a secret program of international assassinations by South American dictators.

The document, essentially, a set of instructions cabled from Kissinger to his top Latin American deputy, ended efforts by U.S. diplomats to warn the governments of Chile, Uruguay and Argentina against involvement in Condor.

In the cable, White reported a meeting with Paraguayan armed forces chief General Alejandro Fretes Davalos. Fretes Davalos identified the Panama Canal Zone base of the U.S. military as the site of a secure transnational communications center for Condor.

According to Fretes Davalos, intelligence chiefs from Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay used “an encrypted system within the U.S. telecommunications net(work),” which covered all of Latin America, to “coordinate intelligence information.”

This U.S. base was the same base, by the way, that the U.S. Southern Command, the U.S. Special Forces and the Army School of the Americas called home. The School of Americas connection is salient as tens of thousands of Latin American officers were trained at the SOA, which used the infamous torture manuals released by the Pentagon and the CIA in the mid-1990s.

A case that highlights U.S. involvement in the Condor program was that of Chilean Jorge Isaac Fuentes Alarcon, who was seized by Paraguayan police as he crossed the border from Argentina to Paraguay in May 1975. Fuentes, a sociologist, was suspected of being a courier for a Chilean leftist organization.

Chile’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission later learned that the capture of Fuentes was a cooperative effort by Argentine intelligence services, personnel of the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires and Paraguayan police. Fuentes was transferred to Chilean police, who brought him to Villa Grimaldi, a notorious DINA detention center in Santiago. He was last seen there, savagely tortured.

When looking at the horrors that took place in Latin America, all with undeniable U.S. support, it is easy to see why someone such as Hugo Chavez was so strident in his fight against foreign influence in his nation’s affairs. This is the ignored history; the forgotten context, through which U.S. relationships with Latin America is viewed. This is the hypocrisy that Latin Americans are profoundly cognizant of and U.S. citizens are abhorrently ignorant of.

Let us remember that the current group of leftist Latin American leaders, remember the atrocities committed through Operation Condor, they don’t have to consult a history book. The ghosts of Condor’s victims will inevitably be invoked, but let us hope that it will also exorcise the demons of brutality and injustice as well.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Health Care Should Be A Litmus Test For Democrats Print
Sunday, 18 June 2017 12:24

Galindez writes: "I am so tired of hearing people say they don't support litmus tests. If you can't judge candidates by their positions on issues, then how do you know who to vote for?"

Single Payer Now! (photo: Michael Fleshman)
Single Payer Now! (photo: Michael Fleshman)


Health Care Should Be a Litmus Test for Democrats

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

18 June 17

 

am so tired of hearing people say they don’t support litmus tests. If you can’t judge candidates by their positions on issues, then how do you know who to vote for? Too many people supported George W. Bush because he was a “good Christian man.” George Will is a great guy at a baseball game, but I disagree with him on the issues, and it is those disagreements that will cause me to not vote for him.

Healthcare is important to me, and if a candidate does not support single payer healthcare, they will not get my vote. I am not a single-issue voter; healthcare is not the only issue I care about. It is, however, a deal breaker.

I do not have time or money for any politician who does not support single payer healthcare. I don’t want to hear anyone say all we have to do is tinker with Obamacare. I do not support the current repeal efforts, only because they are not replacing it with single payer or a step in that direction.

I am working, paying for health insurance, and the current system is failing me. My insurer would rather pay for dialysis three times a week than pay for a kidney transplant. The private insurance system is not sustainable without allowing them to deny treatments. That is what Trumpcare would do. Young, healthy people would pay less for health insurance while older Americans would pay more and receive less.

Single payer has to be the ultimate goal. Currently, you get sick, go to the doctor if you have insurance, and the doctor gives you the treatment the insurance company approves – and even then you could go into debt paying your co-pay. Under single payer, you go to the doctor and get the treatment he thinks is best, and it is paid for by the government out of your taxes.

It is not free ... we pay for it out of our taxes. I want the government to guarantee me healthcare, education, electricity, clean water, and public safety. The market can take care of everything else. The market can determine the cost of my TV set, not my healthcare.

What would happen if the police started checking your ability to pay before accepting a call to your house? Healthcare is a necessity and should be the right of every human being on the planet.

Any Democrat who does not support single payer healthcare should be opposed in the next primary. On Election Day we sometimes have to hold our nose and vote for candidates who are better than the alternative, but on Primary Day we need to be running candidates we believe in. That is how we will create a Democratic Party we believe in. If your elected official or candidate for office does not support single payer healthcare, look for one who does.

The current healthcare fight is a little more complicated. Obamacare is not sustainable, and it needs to be replaced by single payer. Trumpcare, however, is not the answer. We must oppose repealing Obamacare without replacing it with single payer. Senate Democrats appear to be united on that, and it will only take a couple of Republicans to block replacing Obamacare with the cruel plan the GOP is proposing.

We do have to be careful, though, to make sure a Democrat like Joe Manchin doesn’t betray us. Medicaid expansion seems to be the key to killing the effort to repeal Obamacare this year. Conservative Democrats like Manchin do not want to explain why they gave up federal funding for expanded Medicaid. That will likely be why a few Republicans vote with the Democrats against repeal.

We should fight to stop a move backward on healthcare, but that should not be the end of our struggle. Single payer healthcare is the issue that progressives can unite around to take back the Democratic Party and then the country.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott moved to Des Moines in 2015 to cover the Iowa Caucus.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: What Would an American Police State Look Like? Are Your Eyes Closed? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 18 June 2017 10:35

Boardman writes: "A country doesn't need a monolithic totalitarian government to have an effectively working police state. The United States has had a partial police state in place since before it existed as a 'free country.'"

ICE. (photo: ACLU/Wikimedia Commons)
ICE. (photo: ACLU/Wikimedia Commons)


What Would an American Police State Look Like? Are Your Eyes Closed?

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

18 June 17


The police state impulse is as American as cherry pie

country doesn't need a monolithic totalitarian government to have an effectively working police state. The United States has had a partial police state in place since before it existed as a “free country.” Slavery required a police state structure to maintain “order.” Segregation required a police state structure. Ethnic cleansing of native peoples required police state management that still exists, most obviously in North Dakota, but also across the country. Fear of immigrants has fostered police state responses, especially under the Trump administration. Fear of Communists has produced police state responses since 1917, most notoriously during the 1950s McCarthy era. Fear of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and their very real dangers, has produced a permanent police state security network. Fear of terrorism, spiked by 9/11, has produced a host of police state responses such as the 2001 Patriot Act (ready and waiting before the attack); such as expanded citizen surveillance by the NSA and some 16 other, more secret agencies; such as unprecedented punishment of whistleblowers for their truth-telling; and such as a unified police state structure euphemistically called Homeland Security, that encourages citizens to spy on each other.

The American police state has evolved relentlessly for decades, with surges of state control when the opportunity presented itself. It's not perfected yet, but it's working reasonably effectively and flexibly as a hybrid governmental/private sector control mechanism. The American police state has always been more cultural than political, with incremental controls added by whatever elected party happened to be in office at the time. So far, the tension between centralized absolute authority and constitutional checks and balances has preserved something like a democratic republic. Now we're in a zeitgeist where a huge minority of Americans want autocratic government and the party in control of all three branches of the federal government is inclined to deliver. Among the signs (far from an exhaustive list):

Leader worship. Cult of personality is familiar to Russia, China, North Korea and other countries, but not so much the US – until the Trump cabinet meeting of June 12. Flattery and fawning is not a new thing in history, but such over-the-top boot-licking as the president got from his mostly white, male assembly of courtiers may be unique to American government, where "supreme leader" does not usually apply. Figuratively on their knees like a cult group, the assembled Trump flunkies each said things like: “We thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda and the American people.” What was this? What's the opposite of Lincoln's team of rivals? Even conservative stalwart Bill Kristol was appalled, tweeting this obituary: “The American experiment in honorable and dignified self-government. July 4, 1776 - June 12, 2017.”

Secret legislation. Republicans won't hold hearings on their so-called healthcare bill, the main features of which are to strip healthcare from millions of the neediest Americans while delivering billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest (while stripping veterans of tax credits). Under-the-radar regulatory rollback proceeds both by decree (executive order) and through the Congressional Review Act (used only once before Trump). Now, thanks to Republicans, mentally impaired Social Security recipients can buy guns and coal companies can more freely dump mining waste into streams and rivers (four Democratic senators supported more water pollution: Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, and McCaskill). In an autocracy (like the Michigan emergency manager system) everyone has the right to be Flint.

Death threats to determine elections. Death threats – direct, anonymous, personal death threats have long been a staple of right-wing politics, although not exclusively, from college campuses to New Orleans to Congress, usually delivered through social media (easier than cross burnings). The right complains about threats, too, but mostly these are symbolic. Recently real death threats drove an Iowa Democrat out of a Congressional race and a New York Democrat (who was also assaulted) out of the Binghamton Mayoral race.

Normalizing injustice. Randomly killing unarmed black, brown, and white people with impunity, randomly rounding up and deporting immigrants, randomly and illegally arresting and overcharging protestors – these are all police state tactics. Arrest journalists. (Hasn't the bully in the pulpit told us the media are “the enemy of the people”?) Criminalizing harmless behavior. Charging even nonviolent protesters with the most serious offense possible. Over-charging unpopular (or despised) minorities helps make official lawlessness acceptable. Sometimes intimidation works.

Privatizing government. “Government contractor” is a benign sounding phrase that often means “the right to loot the US Treasury.” Defense contractors are notorious examples and have been for years. The Pentagon has never been audited, even though it can't account for somewhere around $125 billion to more than $6.5 trillion (according to its own Inspector General). Outsourcing government responsibilities like justice doesn't seem like a responsible idea, but it's a lucrative one when it comes to private prisons. Private prisons don't save the government money, but they enrich selected politicians and their friends at the expense of inmates. This violent corruption is not new news, but private prisons have paid handsomely for political protection from the Trump administration. Private security forces (mercenaries) have been profitable and problematic at least since Blackwater Worldwide was slaughtering civilians in Iraq. Blackwater's founder helped to set up the Trump-Putin back channel. Mercenaries do government (and corporate) dirty work in the shadows. Their methods are ruthless and corrupt, as shown by TigerSwan International memos treating the peaceful, unarmed Standing Rock protesters opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline as a “jihadist insurgency model.” The peaceful protest was crushed by force even though the government acted illegally. In a police state, the government can't be held to account. And a police state needs to protect its police from accountability as well. The Washington Post reports that's just what US Senate Republicans propose to do with their Back the Blue Act of 2017 – “If this bill passes, it would become nearly impossible to sue the police in all but the most egregious instances of abuse, and even then, only in cases where the victim is basically beyond reproach.”

No doubt readers can think of other active elements of the American police state – two decades of rampant voter suppression comes to mind. The pieces are in place to make America safe for police state governance. Whether the Trump forces will be satisfied with just a qualified dictatorship remains to be seen. And it also remains to be seen, should the Trump forces try to take full dictatorial powers, whether there is enough of America left to prevent their succeeding.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Latest US Shootings Are an Awful Reminder of How Normal They Feel Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30488"><span class="small">Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 18 June 2017 08:25

Valenti writes: "In a time when shootings are commonplace, this week didn't necessarily feel remarkable. It felt normal."

Friends and family members embrace outside the Orlando Police Headquarters during the investigation of a shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., on June 13, 2016. (photo: Steve Nesius/Reuters)
Friends and family members embrace outside the Orlando Police Headquarters during the investigation of a shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., on June 13, 2016. (photo: Steve Nesius/Reuters)


The Latest US Shootings Are an Awful Reminder of How Normal They Feel

By Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK

18 June 17


In a time when shootings are commonplace, this week didn’t necessarily feel remarkable. It felt normal and that makes me fear for my daughter

y daughter is in first grade, but she’s been doing “lockdown drills” since she was two years old – her pre-school started them a few weeks after the massacre of 20 children at Sandy Hook. She knows how to keep quiet when her teachers shut the lights, and that she’s hiding from “robbers” or “bad guys”; she’s not quite old enough to understand the full implications of what the drill means.

This week we mourned the one-year anniversary of the shooting at Pulse in Orlando that left 49 people dead, protested against Megyn Kelly’s interview with a man who believes the Sandy Hook shooting was faked, and tried to make sense of two mass shootings – one that left House majority whip Steve Scalise injured. And yet, in a time when shootings are commonplace, this week didn’t necessarily feel remarkable. It felt normal.

That makes me fear for my daughter more than any lockdown drill could.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Question Isn't Whether or Not Trump Has Committed an Impeachable Offense. It's Whether or Not Congress Will Act. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Saturday, 17 June 2017 14:13

Reich writes: "President Donald Trump's Washington hotel saw almost $20 million in revenue during its first few months of operation - a period that coincided with his election and inauguration. His Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, which he's visited seven times as president, pulled in millions of dollars more than it had previously."

Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)
Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)


The Question Isn't Whether or Not Trump Has Committed an Impeachable Offense. It's Whether or Not Congress Will Act.

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

17 June 17

 

resident Donald Trump’s Washington hotel saw almost $20 million in revenue during its first few months of operation — a period that coincided with his election and inauguration. His Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, which he’s visited seven times as president, pulled in millions of dollars more than it had previously.

The “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution – essentially, an anti-bribery provision -- forbids officials from profiting from their office by taking in money from foreign governments eager to curry favor by, for example, sending their top officials to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend, or putting up their diplomats at Trump’s Washington hotel.

Trump refused to divest his business holdings. To the contrary, he put them under the control of Donald Trump Jr., from whom he can take back control at any time. He’s also free to withdraw cash from them as he pleases. His promise give the Treasury any hotel profits resulting from payments by foreign governments was a lie; the hotel has said it’s not keeping such records.

Trump is knowingly and brazenly violating Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution – another impeachable offense.

This issue is not whether Trump has committed an impeachable offense. It's when and whether Congress will commence an impeachment proceeding.

What do you think?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 Next > End >>

Page 1610 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN