Clark and the SOA

General Clark was invited to give the graduation speech at the School of the Americas in 1996, six months after Clark was promoted by Bill Clinton and assigned to be the commander of the Army's Southern Command. The SOA was therefore a part of his command, which included with all of South and Central America.

Rather than associating Clark with the actions of some graduates of the SOA because they both have connections with the school, please read the text of his speech, and judge him by his own words.

I think you'll find, as I do, that he talks about the constructive things the nations of the Americas can do when they work together. I think you'll find that he is reminding those graduating from the SOA of the importance of setting an example for their communities, and of being of service. But don't take my word for it, go read it yourself.

NOTE: I think the transcript incorrectly refers to a General "Ortegas" in Uruguay in 1816; that should be a reference to Jose Gervasio Artigas, the liberator of Uruguay from Spanish rule. That makes much more sense with the date (1816) and when combined with references to the other liberators of South America from Spanish rule, Simon Bolivar and Jose san Martin.

Even though the previous thread was 2+ days old

Put 'Clark' in your username.

Cutting through the pablum and the freeper-like typing, though, this stands out:

"TODAY WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO BUILD THAT ECONOMIC POTENTIAL FOR OUR CHILDREN. REFINING TRADE PROCESSES, BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS, DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTS AND SERVICES."

It seems inserted by someone else, and is plainly referring to Free Trade agreements.

No reference to state terrorism and what the US did to Central America in the prior decade (practically yesterday).

Can you imagine what this speech might have looked like if, say, Oliver North was the one who had given it? I frankly can't imagine North talking about building libraries, schools, and the other institutions of stable societies. I can't imagine him talking about South America's history of revolution against the Spanish empire, and about Locke and Rousseau who gave the philosophical underpinnings of our civil liberties. North would have talked about the Glory of the United States, and how the graduating students were priviledged to learn the trade of a soldier at the benevolent guidance of the US Armed Services.

Seriously, this is about the least Republican, flag-waving speech I have ever seen from a military source!

The main fact I'm pointing out in this thread is that the Big Connection between Clark and the SOA is that Clark gave this speech at a graduation there, six months after he took a very high-level command that happened to include the SOA.

I see no evidence in the speech that Clark supports human rights violations. I see no evidence of anything whatsoever in that he was asked to speak at the SOA; he was a new general whose command included the SOA, so they invited him.

Dick Gephardt was in the House when the SOA did most of its dirtiest work; John Kerry was in the Senate. Why is the SOA any more of an issue for Clark than for Kerry or Gephardt? The fact that Clark once gave a speech there, and a truly benign speech at that, shouldn't make Clark any more associated with the SOA than Kerry or Gephardt--at least not in any negative sense.

Clark has nothing to fear in the truth about his past.

Excerpts from Clark's SOA speech:
"AS IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE IN PROVERBS, "KINDNESS SHOWN TO THE POOR IS AN ACT OF WORSHIP." "

Very nice words, and also-

" AS I TRAVEL THROUGH THE AMERICAS, I'VE FOUND THAT THEY ARE DRAWN TOGETHER BY INTERESTS, INSTITUTIONS AND DREAMS. THEY ARE NOT BONDS OF IRON AND STEEL. THEY ARE BONDS NOT OF LAWS. THEY ARE BONDS OF RESPECT AND HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS."

Can he be more complex than that suggests? Yes. Can he change? Yes. Has he been deep in the belly of the beast? Yes. Does that mean that he is the most able to tame it? Umm...

Heck, * and his cabal say nice fluffy things about FREEDOM, too.

The thing about judging someone by their words is that they can say anything. The context of US foreign policy, which is absolutely Machiavellian, combined with Clark's being promoted and rewarded for carrying it out does not indicate a track record of progressive values or deeds in the whole. He remains enigmatic at best to many of us who wish he were our saviour from the BFEE.

I'm not sure that fighting fire with fire is a good idea when you are in a boat on fire. Uh-oh, here come the flames...

and women in the military? Or updating and getting funding for schools for children of soldiers? Or see the problem of domestic abuse and then doing something about it? Or not giving lip service but taking a personal interest in endangers species protection? Or, on his own initiative, fileing a brief on- OH forget it, these ad nasuem attacks on the same issues are getting old.

Tell you what, show me how the five things I have state are NOT progressive, and I'll list more.

AND IT'S DEMOCRACY THAT HELPS US FOCUS SQUARELY ON THE CENTRAL DREAM THAT I THINK EACH OF US SHARE -- THE DREAM OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND JUSTICE AS WELL AS FREEDOM.

AS IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE IN PROVERBS, "KINDNESS SHOWN TO THE POOR IS AN ACT OF WORSHIP."

Question: Do you know off hand when the Leahy Amendment went into effect? I know it was 1996, but do not know how this falls into the dates of Clark's command.

So many of these SOA threads post a confusing mish-mash of quotes and sources dating from before 1996, while ignoring the implications of that date. In theory, the idea of an exchange program that includes human rights concerns would actually be a good thing.

I can't imagine that Leahy would sign on to death squads; do you?

The concept of the school also results in a better understanding of who is rising to the top in many of the Latin American countries. This can also be a good thing.

BTW, Hitler was a master of torture and never attended this school.

http://writers.forclark.com/story/2004/1/12/101338/648
here are the laws accomplishing it:
The law changing the mission of the School of the Americas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.5408:
Evidence that the School of the Americas is emphasizing human rights and democracy:  http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96178.pdf

So I'm going to assume if I may, that the changes of 8/1/96 were formulated and proposed prior to Clark's promotion. Safe bet. That means that Clark as J-5 worked on the new policy. Leahy sponsers the bill which passes and guantees congressional over sight and human rights training. Clark then takes over and gives a speech emphasizing the hoped for positive results of the venture. And after months of listening to and watching Clark, I do think he would want an exchange program to work in positive ways. "If you can do good, you should."

Still with me?

Now the crimes and criminals all occurred before the reform attempts. 1996

Can the people who continue to negate Clark's every action understand why I'm having difficulty with your branding him a liar for what he says in that in that speech, or for the actions prior to the Leahy amendment?

To those who will come armed with the 1989 etc links:

Have any of you read Samatha Powers? I was fortunate to see that wonderful woman this weekend. She is not a person who would give her support to someone promoting a school for blood thirsty thugs. And she knows Clark far, far better than anyone here. If I may be so bold as to say, your assertions are insulting to one of the world's most outspoken critics of the very actions you seem to be against. Please examine your research and especially your motives. Clark is on your side in this, and willing to listen to honest complaints.

I hope this post gets read. These threads always seem to disolve into the worst kind of demoguery with lots of links to issues dating back to 1989 and signifying nothing.

BTW, I believe the problem has shifted to the "stans" and your efforts, if not already there, need to focus.

Which is why I'm the only one who has followed up! Sad...

In discussions (usually rapidly spiraling downward) that I've had with Dean supporters in a tizzy over Wes Clark's involvement in lobbying for Acxiom, being the NATO Commander during the Kosovo conflict, and with his overall command of SOA/WHSOS (whatever the acronym is now) while commander of Southern Command, reason is definitely not on the menu.

Wes Clark is a military man who spent most of his adult life between combat, command, and promotion in the military which is too much for more left-leaning liberals to stomach. So any excuse, no matter how sticky the details of time might be, is acceptable to snag him. As if his military background where not enough, he has had the temerity, the audacity to run against Howard Dean! How dare he!

No doubt if Wes Clark were another General in Dean's stable of foreign policy advisers, or a former Director, Central Intelligence, like Admiral (ret.) Stansfield Turner, another Dean foreign policy adviser, Wes would be just swell with the Dean campaign.

I've decided to post this text here, in the latest thread on the SOA, in an attempt to foster a "clean" approach of this apparently recurring controversial issue that some detractors regard as a demerit to Wes Clark's presidential bid.

Obviously, my views are just that - my opinion. But I would appreciate it if you'd consider this text in its totality: before hitting the "reply" link, please award me the courtesy of at least reading the whole thing first. I honestly didn't write this because I had nothing better to do, but because I deeply care, as I'm sure other participants in this topic do, regardless of where we stand.

I'll tee off with my point of departure. More than twenty years ago I developed a profound interest in "the pointed end of U.S. foreign policy," with special attention to what was unfolding in Central and South America. During Reagan's reign of terror, I was often simultaneously disgusted and mystified. Disgusted by the Goebbelsian marketing of wholesale genocidal massacre under the brands of "freedom fighters" and "contra rebels." And mystified, by the apparent complacency with which Reagan's lies were consumed, and how the sparse and meekly framed news reports on atrocities committed by his command were swept aside by a willingly ignorant nation.

To this day, I haven't seen serious attempts to pursue the crimes he instigated, which weren't restricted to the Americas. Compassionate forgiveness for that level of debauchery, my ass. Instead, Reagan's fellow criminal Oliver North gets away with paid appearances on the airwaves; even on CBS. That is arguably the largest certificate of cowardice and corruption that media carry around in this country. And now there's an airport and a carrier to perpetuate Reagan's perverted infamy, seemingly taking a nauseating pride in thumbing the nose simultaneously at reality, the world's opinion, and national selfrespect to boot.

So yes, I'm still pissed after all these years. And yes, that's anger at a heartless geezer and the handlers behind him, for whom a large number of people voted twice - in landslide elections no less. There you go again...

And yes, among those voters was Wes Clark, whose voting record I learned to understand, and accept. Just as I learned to accept and embrace a much more nuanced and overall benign view over the past twenty years towards the great majority of people that live in the United States. I came to believe that Joe and Mary Average deserve a reward for their high hopes and trust, with a decent, humane, hard working and utmost capable man in the White House, committed to improve their lives, and making their country a repository of hope for this world again, in short: proving that Kennedy's spirit is alive and kicking.

It's a few ferociously rotten appels that I have a big problem with.

In a sense, my journey of the past twenty years serves as a metaphore for the SOA/WHISC case and my support for Wesley Clark's presidential bid. But that argument is strictly based on personal opinion. Before I go further into the issue with more tangible arguments, I'd like to first offer a more documented premise for the subject of the SOA, for the sake of those unfamiliar with it.

There are a number of solid sources that look into the grim past of the SOA and the atrocities committed by its most unsavory graduates. Without prejudice towards other excellent resources around the Net, I recommend the two following introductory places: a PBS Online NewsHour special, and a CNN feature on the SOA that was aired as part of their Cold War series. I believe that these two places give a reasonably fair and accurate bird's eye overview of the problem with the SOA's history.

For an introduction to the critical view, there is an ample site maintained by the School of the Americas Watch (SOAW) a watchdog organization: it is available here.

Then, there's the site of the "old" SOA itself, which was formally closed on December 15, 2000: it can be found here. The "new" SOA, named the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC) is here. It opened its doors in the same Fort Benning, GA, in the same main building: Ridgway Hall. (Anecdotally, the SOA is abbreviated into USARSA, and the WHISC is referred to as WHINSEC in milspeak - go figure. But I'll continue to use SOA and WHISC anyway.)

There's a very brief, factual dates-and-places-only overview of the SOA's history here:

The School of the Americas originated at Fort Amador in 1946 <in Panama - ed. NV1962> as the Latin American Training Center - Ground Division. Four years later it was renamed the U.S. Army Caribbean School and transferred across the isthmus to Fort Gulick, where Spanish became the official academic language.

In July 1963, the school was redesignated the U.S. Army School of the Americas, to more accurately reflect its hemispheric orientation. Under the provisions of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty, USARSA was relocated to Fort Benning, Georgia, in October 1984 and designated an official U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command school.

Annual student enrollment is around 1,000 students, and since its inception the school has graduated more than 57,000 officers, cadets, noncommissioned officers and government civilians from 22 Latin American countries and the United States.

Ridgway Hall, the former Infantry School Headquarters, serves as the USARSA Headquarters. In December 1991, the USARSA Helicopter School Battalion was activated at Fort Rucker, Alabama.

(The number of graduates shown clearly indicates that the site hasn't been updated in a long time.)

With this factoid introduction, I hope the pointers and issues I'll address below will provide for a more substantiated, if not at least a more clearly defined discussion to sift through our differences, and hopefully reach a better mutual understanding.

I believe that a distinction should be made between the following three separate issues, which I often see lopped together in this context. They are:

1. The SOA's legacy versus present-day accountability;
   
2. Wes Clark's role and implication in the SOA;
   
3. The present-day role for an institute such as the SOA.

I'll go point by point now:

1. I believe that the references I provided earlier are crystal clear: the SOA carries a past which overshadows whatever positive things it may have accomplished during its fifty years of existance. Directly or indirectly, way too many graduates have left the SOA at Ft Benning in Georgia to proceed committing some of the worst atrocities. While it's true that well over 60,000 graduates passed through the SOA and its curriculum, and while the widely accepted number of approximately 500 "rotten apples" among those graduates amount to just below 1%, I believe that having five hundred war criminals among its ex alumni remains a staggering and indicting fact.
   
   However...
   
   Those cases pertain mostly to the 60s, 70s, and especially the 80s; as far as I know, there aren't documented cases of direct or indirect SOA involvement during the 90s.
   
   One relatively "new" case, which emerged during the 90s but in fact refers to the late 80s through 1991, is often highlighted as the latest smoking gun: the infamous manuals. I believe it is fair to refer to an older article that is reproduced by the SOAW, taken from the September 1997 issue of Covert Action Quarterly magazine. That piece, titled "Textbook Repression: US Training Manuals Declassified" is a long text, available http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=270">here. That article summarizes the manuals case as follows:
   
   On September 20, 1996, the Pentagon released seven training manuals prepared by the US military and used between 1987 and 1991 for intelligence training courses in Latin America and at the US Army School of the Americas (SOA), where the US trains Latin American militaries.
   
   This release/revelation of those manuals prompted an internal inquiry. That same article describes it thus:
   
   On February 21, 1997, the Department of Defense's inspector general completed another investigation. It admitted that in creating and using the seven army manuals "from 1982 through early 1991, many mistakes were made and repeated by numerous and continuously changing personnel in several organizations from Panama to Georgia to Washington, D.C."
   
   Neither the public acknowledgement and release of those manuals by the Department of Defense (DOD) itself, nor the DOD's admission that those manuals shouldn't have been used, nor even the corrective ("censoring") measures taken afterwards can make the suspicions go away completely; I don't presume to do so, either.
   
   But I'd like to point out a significant statement in that same article, reproduced by the SOAW to document its charges against the SOA. And that is the following text, which immediately precedes the previous quote about the Inspector General's findings of 1997:
   
   While none of the manuals was written or used on the Clinton administration's watch, the administration so far has failed to send a clear message repudiating such training methods and to take decisive action to ensure that such materials are never developed again.
   
   I highlighted the bit about the Clinton administration’s passive stance, because it places the emphasis where I believe it should be: on the federal government, the heart of civilian oversight of the military. That's where the buck stops. I believe the principle of accountability warrants a publicly visible attitude in pursuit of exemplary behavior. Therefore, I think it's regrettable that towards the end of the SOA, the most "significant" change in its structure was introduced during the Presidency of George HW Bush. That's more than a decade ago.
   
   The word "significant" is placed in quotes to signify my opinion of a rather cosmetic make-over conducted in the very early 90s. Being diplomatic, I call this is a sin of omission: a clear opportunity missed by the Clinton administration, to draw a sharp contrast with the criminal biddings of prior administrations - and most notably, Reagan's.
   
   All in all, I think there's very little merit in attempts to deny the SOA's grim legacy. But that is a far cry from stating that the present-day WHISC is guilty of perpetuating that past. If, absent proof of present-day wrongdoing, the WHISC is considered "guilty" of past wrongdoing by its predecessor, the SOA, then I believe prosecution of the politically responsible parties should come first and foremost. Not doing so is tantamount to holding only the military accountable for crimes ordered by their political bosses - which negates the principle of civilian oversight.
   
   
2. As to the role of Gen. Wesley K. Clark: he was only indirectly involved with the School of the Americas (SOA) in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief (CIC) of the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM, headquartered in Miami, FL) from June, 1996 until September, 1997 (see this listing of all past SOUTHCOM commanders; scroll to the bottom of that page to see his name.)
   
   Earlier, I provided a quote to highlight the Clinton administration's passive stance after the public revelation of those infamous manuals. But that same quote contains another, highly significant element, which at the very least denies Wes Clark's direct involvement:
   
   none of the manuals was written or used on the Clinton administration's watch
   
   Again, this article was published in September, 1997. That also happens to be the same month that Wes Clark's command over SOUTHCOM ended. Now, I don't think much of attempts to make a connection there, with that article. But I do make a connection between the news of manuals and the "open document" policy that characterized the Clinton administration, certainly when compared with its predecessor, and most certainly with the secretive cabal that occupies the White House since.
   
   I was really amazed by the openness with which many certainly sensitive documents were made available during the Clinton years. I strongly suspect that -- were a similar case to arise today -- the very existance of the manuals would be denied, and reports of it suppressed. All under the guise of the oft-heard excuse of "national security." Clinton's openness implied a greater vulnerability / exposure to criticism; that's another finer point I would like to make.
   
   There is also documental proof that Wes Clark visited the SOA on one occasion, in his capacity as CIC of SOUTHCOM. This was on December 16, 1996, when he delivered a graduation speech at the SOA. The text of that speech is available here but since it (unfortunately) is published entirely in all caps, I took the liberty of copying it and presenting a more legible version, here. I recommend reading it, as it gives a fair impression of Wes Clark's view on the SOA's role and mission.
   
   That speech, delivered directly to its graduates at the SOA, is clearly at odds with the suggestion that he somehow, in any way "supports" institutionalized teaching of human rights abuses. I think it is germaine here to also briefly refer to his passionate efforts, roughly two years earlier, to intervene in the infamy of Rwanda, and also roughly two years later, then successfully convincing the Clinton administration to finally intervene in Kosovo.
   
   My firm conviction is that Wes Clark and "teaching torture" don't belong in the same sentence. I believe it's reasonable to conclude that the SOA's grim past isn't connected to Wes Clark's actions or decisions, past or present. What remains is his campaign pledge to close the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC) -- the institute that emerged after the closing of the SOA, on December 15, 2000 -- provided it can be established that human rights abuses still occur there:
   
   "If you find anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know, and I promise you, we'll close the School of the Americas when I'm president," <Wes Clark> said.
   
   In essence, the critics maintain that the WHISC should be closed now, without further discussion or evidence. This takes me to the third and last core issue: what's the point of the WHISC?
   
   
3. As to the purpose of the WHISC: in spite of WHISC's self-advertised assurances that the WHISC's curriculum contains no reprehensible content from a human rights perspective, I believe that concern over the SOA's legacy is legitimate. But I see that rather as a basis for ongoing concern over which/how values and principles are taught to the US' military partners, such as in the Organization of American States (OAS) - a concern that is best served by proper and transparent oversight. I don't think it is served by closing down WHISC without evidence of current, ongoing misdeeds: doing that misses out on an important opportunity to engage and lead members of allied armed forces in the right direction: protecting and serving democracy.

In closing, and with all due respect to the intentions and integrity of the arguments used by opponents of the SOA/WHISC, I think there's some irony in the SOAW's criticism of Wes Clark's position. On their pertaining page http://www.soaw.org/new/newswire_detail.php?id=407">here, they point to an article taken from the tabloid and clearly right-wing New York Post, which according to them "exposes" Wes Clark. That NYP article is http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/13799.htm">here. Perhaps unknown to the SOAW, the New York Post weighed in on the SOA issue just a few days after that news report, with an editorial article available http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/44195.htm">here. I think it is fitting to reproduce the final part of that editorial:

We can think of any number of reasons why Wesley Clark shouldn't become president.

But his past association with the School of the Americas isn't one of them.

Odd as that makes me feel, on that last point I agree with them.

I've stayed away from these threads in the past because they simply became to scattered.

Have you posted this on the clark04 blog?

BTW, one fact I think it is important to add is the current system of congressional oversight (Leahy).

No, I haven't posted it on the Clark blog - I'm not sure if it belongs there, if it's decent enough, and if the zpulling mistakes I spotted afterwards disqualify its republication.

But I could reformat it into HTML, and make that available, if you think it's worthwhile...

As to congressional oversight: you're 100% correct - I should have mentioned that more explicitly, instead of referring obliquely to "civilian oversight" alone. The reason I didn't do so is that, in the end, political responsibility starts and ends in the White House, albeit with public accountability towards Congress.

...it went much farther than my simple attempt to get the truth out in a conspicuous place.

I believe the right place to repost your work is here, which was set up for the purpose of debunking false accusations of Clark by the good people at the Clark blog. I don't know what the process is for getting things posted there, but ask at the Clark blog and they'll set you up.

It's very well-thought out and could give others a clear idea as to how all these things work in relation to Clark.

Find it at http://nv1962.forclark.com/

'Twas a "beeatch" to reformat into HTML, but I think I got it right now...

I agree with what you say, for the most part, and I think it's unjustified to hold Wes Clark responsible for the many misdeeds of the school's prior graduates. However, his "challenge" to the opponents of SOA/WHISC is dishonest.

"If you find anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know..."

OK, but first these people have to gain access to the base! Critics of the SOA/WHISC are routinely arrested when they "cross the line", so in what manner are independent human rights activists supposed to gather said evidence? Under the FOIA, several manuals WERE obtained, and roundly criticized for their content, and then redacted by the Pentagon. This disclosure of training material needs to be an ongoing process, not a one-time watershed event, if WHISC has any hope of showing a serious change of course from its established legacy.

I agree that there IS a place for a common training ground for American military partners, but it needs to be under direct control of the OAS, operating with absolute openness, to avoid even the suggestion of such taint. The current incarnation, WHISC, is still suspect: Critique of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. Graduates from 10 years ago are even now committing atrocities; do we have to wait another decade for the current crop of students to prove their honor? I don't want to be reading this kind of article in 2010:

SOA Graduates Cited for Recent Human Rights Atrocities and Paramilitary Ties

According to the 2000 State Department Report on Human Rights in Colombia, SOA graduates Major David Hernandez Rojas (1991 grad) and Captain Diego Fino Rodriguez (1989 grad) are being prosecuted in civilian courts for the March 1999 murders of Antiqua peace commissioner Alex Lopera and two others. Both men are members of the Colombian Military’s 4th Brigade, which has been extensively linked to paramilitary groups.

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=205

Maybe closing WHISC isn't the answer; maybe the school really has changed its tune. But IMHO, Wes Clark has an obligation to acknowledge the past record of brutatlity and do what he can to oversee the school's reforms himself, and that means more than showing up to deliver a graduation speech in 1996. I have not seen any indication that he gives serious credence to the many complaints against the SOA/WHISC. At the very least, he needs to facilitate open access to an independent oversight committee with a strong interest in human rights.

Not meant as a platitude, but the congressional expression "...and remain seized of the matter" applies - but that's up to the voters, as well: another reason to work hard for a Democrat as President, with a Democratic congressional majority. We can't afford a repeat of 1994.

I'll post (at the end of this topic) Wes Clark's recent formal statement about the SOA. I believe he is very clear that he himself also intends to keep an eye on it (and also acknowledges the important role played by NGOs.)

Just a few months ago, 102 duly elected public servants from both parties voted to close the WHISC- and study it to determine if it should be reopened. As convincing as your considerable writing skills are, I think it wise to side with our elected servants, who - having more information than ANY of us have (classified info not in the public domain) - are voting to close it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR01258:@@@P

His position is clear.

Show me proof, and it gets shut down.

And I have known about, and despised the SOA, since the 80's.

I won't hold this over his head.

Because some people don't like the truth.

:kick: We will just keep this kicked...FOREVER.

ditto

especially for those wanting as much smear out of this topic as possible. Be prepared though, in the next week Clark will be at the top of the slime smear list of Kerry and Dean but do we really expect anything else from these 2 campaigns?

I sure as hell would have to be an apologist for this stuff.

:kick:

not sitting on the sidelines.

:kick:

:kick:

ty =)

And study whether or not it should be reopened ? ( I think it's still in committee )

I should trust the YOUR opinion that it needs to be kept open - over the 100 duly elected public servants who say to close it ?

HA HA HA !

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR01258:@@@P

KICK - is right !

point. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thank you and the others who posted informatively on this difficult issue. This has been very needed here.

also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=319593&mesg_id=319593

Not to worry. :)

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...

The more things change, the more they stay the same...


You can't spin this one. There's not enough flax in the world for that.

Source: http://clark04.com/issues/soa/

• Statement of General Wesley Clark on the School of the Americas
  (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation)
  
  I strongly condemn human rights abuses of any kind. Throughout my career, I have fought to protect the fundamental rights of all people and to promote democratic values that empower people to prevent abuses of power and combat them when they occur.
  
  It is unacceptable that some who passed through the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) committed human rights abuses. Those that did should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - as should all who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. In order to prevent such abuses from happening in the future, we must promote a policy of engagement and education with friends and allies in the region.
  
  I strongly support the reforms that have been implemented at WHISC and encourage careful vetting of students. I strongly support oversight measures that ensure that antidemocratic principles are not taught at the school. Thanks to the work of human rights campaigners and others, WHISC is constantly improving the way it teaches the Army's values of respect for human rights, for civil institutions, and for dissent.

I added this to "my" blog, too.

Here is one of the people appointed to make sure the WHISC was 'clean as a whistle' !

What a sick joke !


In the 1980s, Otto Reich was chief of a department in the State Department that was ; called the Office of Public Diplomacy and staffed with CIA and Pentagon "psychological ; warfare" specialists. The function of the operation was to fool the American public about the nature of the conflicts in Central America by disseminating false information, discrediting reporters whose work the Reagan administration did not like, and using other means of mist leading propaganda. In short, the Office of Public Diplomacy was in the business of producing disinformation of the kind that is generally used to mislead an enemy during conventional warfare, except that during the unconventional and illegal Contra war it was being used to lie to journalists, Congressional committees, and the U.S. people. Reich "helped plant stories and opinion pieces praising the Contras in U.S. newspapers. It wasn't just the stories that were phony, so were the authors. Reich's office wrote them all." Congress, once it uncovered the illegal operations of this office, closed it down and Otto Reich barely avoided indictment.

Otto Reich was sent off as Ambassador to Venezuela after the Contra war, where he was able to secure the release of the jailed Cuban exile terrorist, Orlando Bosch. This man had been jailed for eleven years for his role in the worst instance of airline terrorism in the Western Hemisphere (up until September 11, 2001, that is). This was the bombing of a Cuban plane which killed all 73 civilians on board in 1976. The U.S. Justice Department had evidence of Bosch's involvement in more than 30 other terrorist acts, some of them committed within the United States, including a rocket attack on a Polish ship in Miami. With the help of Otto Reich and Jeb Bush, who was busy ingratiating himself with right-wing Cuban Americans in Florida, Bosch was pardoned by George Bush I in 1992.

He's a big part of the nasty 80s.

Maybe Wes Clark had him in mind, too, when he clearly stated:

<...> should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - as should all who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity

You don't find this troubling ?

And I'm sure that you'll be able find quite a few other nasties where they absolutely shouldn't. But instead of seeing bad apples that spoil the basket threatening in turn to taint the house, I see things in reverse order.

I start by looking at the folks surrounding Bush. Trouble starts right there. From reinstating / pardoning / protecting / bumping misfits into places they shouldn't be, to locking and sealing any bit of documentation (er, incriminating evidence) to pulling the rug from underneath civil liberties and due process... The whole damn list.

That's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the specific case of the SOA, even beyond the US Army, even beyond the Pentagon... It's the whole concept of government and good governance and public accountability gone totally awry, on purpose.

Which is why re-election of Bush is totally out of the question, unthinkable, unacceptable. People die, lots of them: their misfortune is that they simply happen to live in other countries. I'm not taking their life for granted. But this is a totally different subject; as is the topic of environmental justice with its disproportional effects, which also "just happen" to hit harder in the unseen corners of the US' own back yard.

But that's not attributable to the SOA, either: the rot is at the top, way up. This evening's SOTU was quite the eloquent proof for that.