School of the Americas (Warning, graphic!)

Run time: 03:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd13gZTQkFQ   Posted on YouTube: April 17, 2015 By YouTube Member: YouTube Help Views on YouTube: 6933742   Posted on DU: December 08, 2006 By DU Member: Tiggeroshii Views on DU: 3040

 
A distrubing video talking about the US trained militias that are sent to terrorize Latin America. Tbe wikipedia article on the subject has more current, helpful information on the subject. In 2000 congress defunded the programm so the Pentagon renamed WHINSEC: "World Hemispheric Institute for Security"

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

why there was not a war crimes tribunal for El Salvador... and trust me, there should have been one

They've come close, but no cigar. There needs to be a massive effort to get congress to pull together and get rid of the thing.

Come January there should be a new push to shut down this abomination. Too bad we don't have some folks rich enough to pay for the broadcasting of this video on the major networks.

for this when so much good could be done with it instead. What have we become??

Become? Hasn't it always been this way. The USofA is a band of outlaws.

Everyone here who settled, built, created this land of the "Free" was running away from an intolerable situation. Otherwise, why travel the ocean for another continent? It was riches, they sought. And to live life on their own terms, given the undeniable circumstances.

So. Now the outlaws have been and will continue to train other outlaws. This is not 'Gun Smoke'. The good guys aren't in charge.

The Senate case cited is 13 years old!
'Progressive Democrats' (!) are supporting one of the school's staunches supporters!
General Wesley Clark.

(snipped)
When Wesley Clark was in charge of the U.S. Southern Command in 1997, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was proud to oversee the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), which trains soldiers from Latin American countries, saying that “This school is the best means available to ensure that the armed forces in Latin America and the armies in Latin America understand US values and adopt those values as their own." Today, the school has changed its name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), but its mission remains the same – and Wesley Clark remains one of its staunchest supporters.
(end snip)
Ref: http://www.soaw.org/new//article.php?id=721

edit for emphasis: ... to ensure the armed forces ... understand US values and adopt those values as their own ...

'Our name'? That barely says it. Our VALUES.



The minister was correct. They go in our name.

What might this world be like if men weren't so freaking greedy? And scared. They have to be scared to send out killers. What of? Someone might get ahead a bit? Or enjoy life as a peasant, because life is simple pleasures and does not need nude ice sculptures to feel good. ?
Is their decadence worth it?

No solutions here. I guess another numbing sitcom. (I don't watch tv and find a growing number who are likewise.) Sorry if you are one, but I find even the most brilliant people who regularly ingest 'tv' are amazingly numb. Don't mess with their world or their shows.

Meanwhile, across the border .....

Damnit. Uniforms always bother me. And for a good reason. Now I have to do some homework to find out more about his relationship with SOA.


By the way, I just watched The Grey Zone. Not all tv is bad. Earlier this evening, I watched Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. There IS such a thing as noncommercial tv.

Scratch Clark off my list of Dems I would support

That is one reason I would oppose him even if he gets the nomination. Such filth.

and I don't enjoy bringing this message. The truth hurts sometimes. I'm sorry.

so enthusiastically support Clarke and sing his praises to the sky.

point the finger at, it ain't even funny.

Like Clark invented, funded, and guided the SOA since it's inception in the 1960'S!

Yes, must be Clark's fault; after all he did wear a uniform.....

You need to look that the civilians running our government, good buddy. They make the fucking rules! Doh!

...in the least bit? Most popliticians in some way have done that, and it becomes clear that the ones who haven't tried to eliminate this or gone along with the effort to should be held responsible for that -in itself. Even if they didn't outright support it, the lack of action to get rid of it is enough be shamed. This of course includes a number of the major politicans from both sides of the aisle who havae either ben misinformed or bought out in way or another.

Did you know that the worse abuse in Latin America by those who may have graduated from the SOA occurred in the 70 and 80s way before Clark's time, and the film you have watched is after Clark's time?

Do you know that Wes Clark is not responsible for the SOA and has stated that if anyone can point to abuses there, if he were President, he would shut it down?

Do you know that maybe as opposed to this slamming this Red Herring into Wes Clark's face as though he really is more responsible for its existence, that you might want to concentrate on the folks in the senate, the house and the executive branch....while Wes Clark never had a vote! Maybe you can affect a change now! SO what are you gonna do about it, exactly? Here are a few bills...since congress is who can effect the changes you are crying about! http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/region/news/arc/lasnet/1996/0069.html

Here's a bill you could "work" on! http://go.sojo.net/campaign/05_close_the_SOA


And let us not forget one very important fact; Latin America really has become much more to the left and Democratic since the 90's.....maybe more so than even the U.S.!

So if you want to saddle Wes Clark with the total ridiculous credit for being the sole supporter (that you would accuse) and abater of the SOA based on his one year stint in 1996-97, then it would be fair and appropos that you also give him all of the credit for all of the positive changes in Latin America in them being more to the left than America currently. I mean, if you're gonna go way out there, might as well be all emcompassing in everyway imaginable! :shrug:



Let's tar Max Cleland with the same brush...
KEEPING OUR PRIORITIES WHILE KEEPING THE PEACE - Senator Max Clelandhttp://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1299/ijpe/cleland.htm
Having said that, in my opinion we should and must continue such efforts as military education for our allies through the Marshall Center in Europe, the School of the Americas, and similar programs. It has always been my belief that those who understand war, including the true costs of war, understand peace and all of its blessings. Today, we train our military in the strategy of war and the art of peace. U.S. military personnel are well schooled as students of (Karl von) Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, (Alfred Thayer) Mahan, and the best known writers of conflict and engagement. At the same time, they also receive thorough and effective training in such fundamental American principles as subordination of the military to civilian control and respect for human rights. While our foreign military education efforts have not always succeeded in instilling such values, I believe that recent reforms will eliminate any such shortcomings in the future.
--------------------
Clark's main "support" for the School came in 1996, when he was the CinC of Southern Command for 1 year and at that time the school fell under his leadership.

Second, by the middle of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. had started to clean up its act significantly, with even State Department officials admitting that "they had done a lot of bad stuff in South America" in the '50s-'70s. The School now has a mandatory democratic education and civil rights component. It is a military training center that helps train officers from South American countries: newsflash--by the 1990s, most of the countries in South America had become developing democracies, as opposed to the authoritarian regimes the U.S. had supported in the '50s-'70s. The SoA also went through further reform, with an external independent oversight board. It's supported by countries like Canada--OK, not ALWAYS the paragon of virtue, but hardly an enthusiastic supporter of imperialism in the contemporary era.

Here are the facts on the School (conveniently dating back to around the time Clark was CinC of Southern Command), now renamed the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, from a non-partisan and progressive research institute's project on South America.

People who protest that institution have a right to demand restitution for past injustices, but as far as having real impact, they should turn their attention to the secret detentions and support for anti-terrorism in Asia and so on.The skills that these people were taught at the SOA were not torture, murder and mayhem but strategy and martial expertise. How these folks become twisted is not happening at SOA but in their own countries.

As Clark said, the corporate executives pillaging our economy went to Yale, Harvard, etc. Should we shut down those institutions? Now I agree, it's not the same thing, but, think of a more likely parallel and ask yourself should the institution be closed due to the actions of a small minority of students/attendees? You've listed 18 people out of 63,000 graduates. That's .03%. As General Clark said, a small minority.
----------------------------
There are terrible problems in South and Central America, with the links to the drug trade, human rights abuses by rebel, government, right-wing paramilitary, and plain old criminal groups, corruption, and poverty. Any program that could be used in a positive way, should be. Human rights are certainly not going to served by leaving the worst of these militaries to their own devices.

Link to PBS article with debate-style format on SOA
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec99/sota ...

Posted by Du's Tom Rinaldo a while ago on this subject....

The School of the Americas (now known by the touchy feely name of Western Hemisphere Institute for Cooperation and Security) is a terror training camp run by the Us government, whos graduates go on to organize death squads in Central America, rightwing paramilitary units to overthrow democratic regimes, and commit other terroristic atrocities."

I don't think it would still exist, and it wouldn't have operated openly for at least the last 15 to 20 years after some of those major abuses started coming to light, if that was the sole or even major mission of that institution. Many tens of thousands have received training of all sorts there. In one instance or another, to varying degrees, everything you said though is absolutely true. And I will go further and say that under the likes of Kissenger, and Reagan's Poindexter and Ollie North crowd, covert efforts to do exactly what you said were hatched by some within its confines.

However I am just not enough of a conspiritalist, or a radical I suppose, to buy that that school existed during the Carter and Clinton years with that as it's main intent, and that both of those Democratic Presidents fully supported everything you note went on there and maintained that school for those expressed purpose. I am more likely to accept that Presidents like Nixon, who set up his own "plumbers squad", and Reagan, who gave a green light to Ollie North's covert operations, allowed those shady operatives to use the cover of working inside those institution to further their covert ends, the same way that illegal and immoral operations are conducted through every established Government institution whenever honor and decency is suspended, including the FBI, the IRS, the INS and so forth.

In short I would say that Clark backed that School when he did because he felts that there was still an appropriate mission for it to play. Reforms were already underway when he spoke. A number of people who were trained there have done some terrible things. More didn't. Clark believes that positive lessons and models for multinational military cooperation have been developed in South America for fighting Drug Lords that can be applied to our international struggle against terrorists, operating in places like Pakistan and Yeman.

I would certainly ask of Clark both now, and should he become President, that he ensure that strong curbs be placed on either that institution, or any other that replaces it and attempts to pick up whatever legitimate functions it pursued, to absolutely minimize the potential for human rights violations flowing from training done at that School. It is my limited understanding that much of the reform efforts that were undertaken focused on that problem, which was most acute in the 1980's during Reagan's anti Sandanista days.

I would go further and say that all abuses should be completely eliminated, and guarenteed never to occur again, but I am too realistic to ask for that about anything. The U.S. will never have full control over the actions of agents from other countries that train with our military. Having said that, I acknowledge that elements of our military have been directly involved in terrible actions.
----------
That being said.....I don't believe that Clark actually supports the SOA much more than most other Democratic politician. Period.

You are accusing me of taking a position I have not.

So if you want to saddle Wes Clark with the total ridiculous credit for being the sole supporter (that you would accuse) and abater of the SOA based on his one year stint in 1996-97, then it would be fair and appropos that you also give him all of the credit for all of the positive changes in Latin America in them being more to the left than America currently. I mean, if you're gonna go way out there, might as well be all emcompassing in everyway imaginable!

Not only did I not accuse him of being the sole supporter, I clearly left the blame for all those who did not work to abolish the school. Obviously there has been much like this as a biproduct of Nxon's "war on Drugs," and far too many politicians and people with power on both sides of the aisle have been too passive in letting it happen. That's all I'm saying and frankly anybody who's had a position of power and hasn't worked their asses off to get rid of our involvment in support for these sorts of atrocities(most mainstream politicians) is on my shitlist.

Clearly our mere involvement in Latin America has done far more harm then good, and should cease until a positive solution can be agreed upon concerning actions taken in the region.

Was I born yesterday? Didn't think so.

Who do you think you are fooling?

Your position is that Wes Clark is responsible, and folks like CLinton, Gore, Edwards and Kerry are not. I'm saying that you are full of it, and are talking out of your ass, purposefully.

When did I say

(my) position is that Wes Clark is responsible, and folks like CLinton, Gore, Edwards and Kerry are not?

You are mistakenly(and purposefully) inferring as much without substantial evidence.

In fact, my thinking is completely the opposite. Surely my language about Clark was unnecessary, but it was my impulsive reaction with the (albeit little piece) of evidence of his endorsing the school -and I'm sorry for have saying that.

I hope too that he works, in the future to an effective degree(were he to become president) to close the school down, or support the necessary reforms that will cease the atrociities that have taken place in Latin America in our name.

Seeing the quotes(following my reaction in post 20), I am convinced he does see there is problem with the school and will work to address the humanitarian issues presented by it's existence. I do think that this will need to be done while going further than requiring a couple human rights courses to be taken in the school, and I lack the confidence in ANY politician(including all Democratic potential nominees, those of whom I've supported in the past and otherwise) who will not focus on shutting down the school or ceasing military aid and involvement in Latin America.

Yes, from the time I've learned about this(last couple days), I retract my support for any candidate who hasn't been willing to address these issues to an effective degree -including both OBama and Gore who I've supported int he past.

The events described happened in the 1980s.

13 years later it still operates. I do not understand why we can't leave those people alone to take care of their own lifes. It's barbaric. Shameful. A Disgrace!

And if Dobson's god is going to judge us, he best get started. Cleanse us and make us holy.

I shudder to think of what goes on in the mind of someone training a .45 on an infant.

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

Hint: #9.

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.

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

place and everybody with half a brain and who follows these things knows that otherwise there wouldn't be the annual protest in November every year STILL.

in the majority. Maybe that where those with 1/2 a brain should be concentrating! How about that?

Ted Kennedy has half a brain? Geeze! http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/region/news/arc/lasnet/1996/0069.html

in congress asap

investigate, etc....

Not Wes Clark.

to understand how this helps white males.

Killing women and children across the universe helps how? Bigger profits? More money in the back pocket?

I live to see the day this kind of thing is abolished.

yawn

It would be horrifying to think that most administrations of both parties might have established, supported and financed the SOA for most of my lifetime.

Thank God we can single out Wes Clark for responsibility for an operation he never directly commanded, just like we can blame him for what happened at Waco and stuff like that. After all, he was in the US military when the Branch Davidians got killed, right?

Of course, any general officer in the military should decide what government policies he will choose to accept, and what ones he will just ignore or oppose. We don't need that "civilian" control of the military at all, not really.

I guess my blood sugar must be low this morning but it really ticks me off to see supposed Democrats out-do the GOP in spinning an issue into an attack on one of our own. If the SOA existed in a vacuum as a "black ops" kind of thing that nobody knew about, maybe you could lay it at the feet of the US military. Reality suggests, however, that the responsibility lies at the doors of the various politicians of both parties who endorsed, supported and financed this atrocity for all these years.

If there is blame to be spread around, try spreading it around where it is due, not just where it suits a narrow anti-military bias.

I'm not particularly enthused with our folk in uniform, or with the corporate interests they always seem to be working for in one degree or another, but wIthout them, over the last fifty years, it is extremely unlikely we would have these Internet-tubes at all, or the freedom to use them.

And, yeah, I'm a Clarkista

actually in WACO when they got fire bombed. Wasn't he at control central?
But no one brought that up. Other than you.

reference to SOA.

This is sooo absurd, until it's actually scary. To think that Democrats would even be this simple minded is really amazing! These are probably the same democrats that give Edwards a pass for saying "soooo sorry" after co-sponsoring the IWR and speaking "For" the war in Iraq prior to its start! Grow the fuck up, will ya? :eyes:


Clark had no role at Waco, ex-commander says
1. http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-clark29.ht ...
Commanding officer says Clark had no direct role in Waco siege
Washington-AP -- Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark is facing a flurry of questions over his role in the deadly 1993 siege in Waco, Texas.

His former commanding officer says the now-retired general had "no direct role" in the government's standoff with Branch Davidians -- and that the military didn't help plan it.
>snip
Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."
http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0312/01/politics-3 ...

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/004501.html
Wesley Clark and Waco Rumors are re-surfacing that Ret. General Wesley Clark played a direct or indirect role in the Waco disaster because his army division supplied some military equipment to the siege effort and his deputy attended a high-level meeting five days prior to the fiery end. Response has been swift that the allegations of his playing a role are not true: bq. Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege. Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's,"
>snip
Many are calling on Clark now to make a formal statement about the extent of his knowledge of the Government's plan and any authorization he made for equipment being sent from the First Cavalry. We have no problem with that--we'd like to know too. But we're predicting the answers will be a let-down for the far right

Glenn Reynolds on Clark and Waco:
Nothing there
Glenn Reynolds isn't impressed with the attempt of some wing-nuts to implicate Wesley Clark in the Waco affair . I seem to recall having criticized Glenn once or twice in the pastm, and my astrologer predicts I may do so again someday. But even though he and I often don't see things the same way, Glenn always calls 'em as he sees 'em. That's a virtue less common than it ought to be.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/200 ...

For the past couple of months, I have followed several internet discussions about Wesley Clark's "involvement" in the Branch Davidian Standoff at Waco, but I have not seen it mentioned so prominently in a mainstream website until it appeared today in InstaPundit. I have not responded to the various conspiracy theories about General Clark's role because most seem to be generated by people with little or no contact with reality.
snip<
At the direction of the division's Chief of Staff, I later briefed the division's tank crews before they departed for Waco. My guidance to the crews was they could provide the FBI equipment (10 U.S.C. § 372), they could train the FBI on its use (10 U.S.C. § 373), and they could maintain the equipment (10 U.S.C. § 374). I told the crews, however, that under no circumstances could they operate the equipment in support of the FBI's Waco operation (10 U.S.C. § 375).

Incidentally, my office's written legal opinion and the slides used to brief the tank crews were turned over to Congress during its Waco investigations, to the Danforth Commission, and to the United States District Court that heard the Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuits arising out of Waco.

I would be happy to provide additional information, butI believe too much ink has already been spilled over what is truly a "non-issue." Of course, the normal disclaimer applies: nothing in this e-mail should be construed as an endorsement on behalf of or against General Clark.

Richard D. Rosen
Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired
Associate Dean for Administration & External Affairs
Texas Tech University School of Law
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012794.php

I would read it if I really cared. Wesley Clark has never lived up to the rep given by some DUers. I fought that battle two years ago, and do not wish to revisit it.

You got your leaflet in. Should be proud.

Some of us will never be convinced that he is a good guy. Can you live with that?

However, the truth is still as it is...and the only thing that came out of W's press office are the exaggerated enuendos and the total bullshit you are helping spread. So the question becomes, who's on who's payroll?

As for you being convinced, it ain't about you and I don't need to live with it either......but you will need to live with your bullshit. Enjoy yourself on that! :hi:

You'd need to talk to the Congressmen/women and Senators (including Al Gore) about why they continued to fund such a terrible program year after year after year. Clark spoke at the graduation after Clinton cleaned the place out. Other than that, he didn't have any direct connection.

I'd be particularly interested to hear Gore's answer. Once you can justify why Al Gore (as a Senator) continued to vote to fund this school EVERY YEAR and ALL THROUGH the period of time atrocities were being committed, come back and ask me again. Or do you think he wasn't culpable??? Or would you rather just not think about it.

Justify his parrticipation or call it what it is -- a red herring.

(including FTAs, CIA covert wars, etc) with politicians such as Gore, Kucinich, McKinney,
and a panel of foreign policy analysts and journalists who deal with these matters, such as Chomsky, Parenti, Zinn etc.

Just so that we know how informed these politicians are and where they stand on these issues.

...in his book Rogue States I just read

if there isn't already a US-friendly dictator in power, and if bribery fails.

It's just that I'd like to hear what some of the apparently good guys in politics have to say about it.

is that this "school" some how serves the elites. By killing poor people and missionaries?

What has yet to be explained is why poor people are such a threat to the multi-billionaires. They might eat a little grain? What?

I would agree with holding Gore responsible. I would love to hear how he justifies this.
The older I get, the more I realize that this is a game the big boys play. And I am just a tiny walk on actor. In their splash! so .. nada.

...there are millions more poor than the few rich who are hogging the whole planet. The rich know they are taking up too much room and edging the poor out. They know that if the poor ever get sick enough of it, they would be would overwhelmed and all their gated communities could not hold the teeming anger that would burst through.

The rich know that they are taking too much and hoarding it, they know they are hurting the rest of the world with their greed. So they demonize the poor and try to cause schisms between them such as racial and class divides because the rich know they only leave the crumbs for the rest of us to fight over. That way, maybe we will "forget" that they hold the rest of the world's resources for themselves. Often we fall for this and do forget, sad to say. The School Of The Americas only fight for the rich and privileged, it does little or nothing for the rest of us ~ whether we are American or not.

The School of the Americas is an abomination and anyone, I mean ANYONE who supported it is as guilty of the horrors that were learned there as the people who came out of that school and performed those atrocities in our name (and with our tax dollars). I heard first hand about what was done in El Salvador. I was supportive of the Sanctuary movement. Many of the people responsible are still around today and whether they have taken a leftist bent or right (mostly right) they are little different than those monsters. The only time I would say they were not monsters is if they recanted their support and publicly denounced it.

I am sorry to see other people on this thread seem to forget our history (or are too young to know) that the American Dream is just an illusion that we have tried to foist on brown people almost since our inception. The American Dream is mostly for white males and the white women who ride along with it, but it is Lucy and her football for the poor and for brown people ~ unless elitist whites "let" them in, which is seldom. The School of the Americas epitomizes the lie and it has been the evil seed we have planted all over the world, thanks to OUR tax dollars and the intentionally ignorant Americans who look the other way rather than face what has been done in our name.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

This is being done with our tax dollars... on our soil... in our name. It has been going on far too long and cannot be allow to continue for any longer (in any form -- i.e., we cannot allow the school to be broken up and moved overseas either)

and Accuracy in Reporting:
Link: http://prorev.com/clark.htm

I have quoted highly significant and unambiguously imperialistic ravings by Clark re the Iraq war, when he thought it had been a fantastic success. What is it about the text below concerning the School of the Americas between single apostrophes that you Clarkistas don't understand?

"Weiss also found a quote from Clark's 1997 testimony before the Senate Armed Services on the School of the Americas: 'This? school? is? the? best? means? available? to? ensure? that? the? armed? forces? in? Latin? America? and? the? armies? in? Latin? America? understand? U.S.? values? and? adopt? those? values? as? their? own?'

I'll bet when the 'caudillos' apply for members of their armed forces to attend the School of the Americas, they tell them to find out about the obscure and little-known values of the US, so that they can assess them. Heck, maybe the US even invites them to do so. A sort of Peace Corps.