Misplaced Pages

United States and state terrorism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:30, 14 April 2008 view sourceRafaelsfingers (talk | contribs)89 edits previous undo unfair. practice fair editing with consensus← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:31, 24 November 2024 view source XTheBedrockX (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users77,629 edits new key for Category:Terrorism committed by the United States: " " using HotCat 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Terrorism allegations against the U.S.}}
{{semi-protected|small=yes}}
{{about|allegations of US state terrorism|terrorism sponsored by the United States|United States and state-sponsored terrorism}}
{{Articleissues
{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
| citationstyle = March 2008
]
| POV = July 2007
{{terrorism}}
| unbalanced = April 2008
Several scholars have accused the ] of involvement in ]. They have written about the US and other ]' use of state terrorism, particularly in relation to the ]. According to them, state terrorism is used to protect the interest of ] elites, and the U.S. organized a ] system of ], co-operating with regional elites to rule through terror.
| synthesis = April 2008
| original research = April 2008
|}}
The ''']''' has been accused of having directly committed acts of ''']''', as well as funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in ].<ref>More details:
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.austlii.org/au/journals/QUTLJJ/2004/15.html
|title=TERRORISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, SOCIAL JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY: SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE LEGAL AND JUSTICE PROFESSIONALS OF THE ‘COALITION OF THE WILLING’
|last=Ball
|first=Matthew
|publisher=QUT Law & Justice Journal
|date=]
|accessdate=2008-02-14
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.arkibongbayan.org/2006-10Oct24-iapl/iapl.htm
|title=The role of lawyers in defending the democratic rights of the people
|last=
|first=Various
|publisher=International Association of People's Lawyers
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2008-02-14
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.ahrchk.net/ahrc-in-news/mainfile.php/2007ahrcinnews/1130/
|title=Filipina Militants Indict Bush-Arroyo for Crimes Against Humanity
|last=San Juan, Jr.
|first=E.
|publisher=Asian Human Rights Commission
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-09
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091605I.shtml
|title=Venezuelan Leader Lashes at US in UN Speech
|publisher=Agence France-Presse
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2008-02-14
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_v23/ai_4656176
|title=Security Council considers Nicaraguan complaint against United States, takes no action
|publisher=United Nations
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2008-02-07
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/sanjuan180906.html
|title=Class Struggle and Socialist Revolution in the Philippines: Understanding the Crisis of U.S. Hegemony, Arroyo State Terrorism, and Neoliberal Globalization
|last=San Juan, Jr.
|first=E.
|publisher=Monthly Review Foundation
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-09
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/518/518%20roland%20g.%20simbulan.htm
|title=The Real Threat
|last=Simbulan
|first=Roland G.
|publisher=Seminar
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-09
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Piszkiewicz
|first=Dennis
|title=Terrorism's War with America: A History
|date=], ]
|publisher=Praeger Publishers
|pages=224
|isbn=978-0275979522
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-95571886.html
|title=Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism
|last=Cohn
|first=Marjorie
|date=], ]
|publisher=Arab Studies Quarterly
|format=Reprint
|accessdate=2007-07-09
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAL20050703&articleId=627
|title=The UN and its conduct during the invasion and occupation of Iraq
|last=Halliday
|first=Dennis
|publisher=Centre for Research on Globalization
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-09
}}
*{{cite episode
|title=Noam Chomsky Interview on CBC
|series=Hot Type
|network=]
|airdate=2003-12-09
}}</ref>


Such works include ] and ]'s '']'' (1979), Herman's ''The Real Terror Network'' (1985), ]'s ''Western State Terrorism'' (1991), Frederick Gareau's ''State Terrorism and the United States'' (2004), and ]' ''America's Other War'' (2005). Of these, Ruth J. Blakeley considers Chomsky and Herman as being the foremost writers on the United States and state terrorism.<ref name="Blakeley"/>
Terrorism, state terrorism, and international terrorism<ref>Defining international terrorism: A pragmatic approach. Thomas J. Badey DOI:10.1080/09546559808427445. Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume 10, Issue 1 Spring 1998 , pages 90 - 107</ref> remain without a single internationally accepted definition.


This work has proved controversial with mainstream scholars of ], who concentrate on non-state terrorism and the state terrorism of dictatorships.<ref name="Blakeley">{{cite book|last=Blakeley|first=Ruth|date=2009|title=State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South |url=http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415462402/|publisher=]|pages=, , |isbn=978-0415686174|access-date=2015-06-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150614055306/http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415462402/|archive-date=2015-06-14|url-status=live}}</ref>
===Official U.S. definitions of terrorism===
In the context of law, U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113B,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html
|title=18 U.S.C. § 2331
|publisher=Cornell Law School
|accessdate=2007-05-25}}</ref> defines the terms "domestic terrorism" and "international terrorism". Various agencies of the ] government utilize different definitions of terrorism:


==Notable works==
{{quote|'''Domestic terrorism''' refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. <nowiki>]</nowiki>
Beginning in the late 1970s, ] and ] wrote a series of books on the United States' involvement with ]. Their writings coincided with reports by ] and other ] of a new global "epidemic" of ] and murder. Chomsky and Herman argued that terror was concentrated in the U.S. ] in ], and documented ] carried out by U.S. ]s in ]. They argued that of ten Latin American countries that had ], all were US client states. Worldwide they claimed that 74% of regimes that used torture on an administrative basis were U.S. client states, receiving military and other support from the U.S. to retain power. They concluded that the global rise in state terror was a result of ].<ref>Sluka, p. 8</ref>


Chomsky concluded that all powers backed state terrorism in client states. At the top were the U.S. and other powers, notably the United Kingdom and France, that provided financial, military, and diplomatic support to ] regimes kept in power through violence. These governments acted together with ], particularly in the arms and security industries. In addition, other developing countries outside the Western sphere of influence carried out state terror supported by rival powers.<ref name="Sluka, p. 9">Sluka, p. 9</ref>
'''International terrorism''' involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. <nowiki>]</nowiki>|Definition under which the ] operates|<ref></ref>}}


The alleged involvement of major powers in state terrorism in developing countries has led scholars to study it as a global phenomenon rather than study individual countries in isolation.<ref name="Sluka, p. 9"/>
{{quote|The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.


In 1991, a book edited by ] also argued that other ] powers sponsored terror in developing countries. It concluded that the U.S. and its allies were the main supporters of ] throughout the world.<ref>Sluka, pp. 8–9</ref> Gareau states that the number of deaths caused by non-state terrorism (3,668 deaths between 1968 and 1980, as estimated by the ] (CIA)) is "dwarfed" by those resulting from state terrorism in US-backed regimes such as Guatemala (150,000 killed, 50,000 missing during the ] – 93% of whom Gareau classifies as "victims of state terrorism").<ref>
The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
{{cite book

|author=Gareau, Frederick Henry
The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.|]'s definition|<ref>{{cite web
|title=The United Nations and other international institutions: a critical analysis
|url=http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2001/html/10220.htm
|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield
|title=Patterns of Global Terrorism
|year=2002
|date=], ]
|page=246
|publisher=]
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ipWSObZsXYQC&pg=PA246
|accessdate=2007-06-23
|isbn=978-0-8304-1578-6
}}</ref>}}
|access-date=2016-01-05

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160506025300/https://books.google.com/books?id=ipWSObZsXYQC&pg=PA246

|archive-date=2016-05-06
==General allegations against the US==
|url-status=live
], Emeritus Professor of History at Princeton University, has stated that "since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of 'preemptive' state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled."<ref>, also see George, Alexander, ed. "Western State Terrorism",1 and Selden, Mark, ed. "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century, 13.</ref> ] also argues that "Washington is the center of global state terrorism and has been for years."<ref> </ref>
}}
Chomsky has characterized the tactics used by agents of the U.S. government and their proxies in their execution of ] — in such countries as ] — as a form of terrorism and has also described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state."<ref name="barsamian" />
</ref>

After President ] began using the term "War on Terrorism", Chomsky stated in an interview:

{{quote|The U.S. is officially committed to what is called "low-intensity warfare"... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of "terrorism" in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same.|Noam Chomsky|interview, ''Monthly Review''<ref name="barsamian">{{cite web
|url=http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101chomsky.htm
|title=The United States is a Leading Terrorist State
|last=Barsamian
|first=David
|publisher=]
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-10
}}</ref> }}

===State terrorism and propaganda===
Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton, has argued that the U.S. and other first-world states, as well as mainstream ] institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege. He has said that "if 'terrorism' as a term of moral and legal opprobrium is to be used at all, then it should apply to violence deliberately targeting civilians, whether committed by state actors or their non-state enemies."<ref>{{cite book
|last=Falk
|first=Richard
|title=Revolutionaries and Functionaries: The Dual Face of Terrorism
|city=New York
|publisher=Dutton
|year=]
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/Nonviolence/2004/Falk_GandhiNonviolence.html
|title=Gandhi, Nonviolence and the Struggle Against War
|last=Falk
|first=Richard
|publisher=The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-10
}}</ref> Moreover, Falk argues that the repudiation of authentic non-state terrorism is insufficient as a strategy for mitigating it, writing that "we must also illuminate the character of terrorism, and its true scope... The propagandists of the modern state conceal its reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries."<ref name="falk">{{cite journal|title=Thinking About Terrorism|journal=]|date=1986-06-28|first=Richard|last=Falk|coauthors=|volume=242|issue=25|pages=873-892|id= |url=|format=|accessdate=2008-01-30}}</ref>

==Specific allegations against the US by region==
===Cuba (1956-present)===

After revolutionary forces vanquished ]’s forces, a new government was formed in ] on January 2, 1959. The ] initiated a campaign of regime change in the early parts of 1959<ref></ref>, and by the spring of 1959 was arming ] guerrillas inside Cuba. By winter of that year US-based Cubans were being supervised by the CIA in the orchestration of bombings and incendiary raids against Cuba. <ref>Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Henry Holt and Company, 80.</ref>

====Operation Mongoose====
{{Further|], ], ], ]}}

A prime focus of the ] administration was the removal of ] from power. To this end it implemented ], a US program of sabotage and other secret operations against the island. <ref>Domínguez, Jorge I. "The @#$%& Missile Crisis (Or, What was 'Cuban' about U.S. Decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.Diplomatic History: The Journal of the Society for Historians of Foreign Relations, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Spring 2000): 305-15.)</ref> Mongoose was led by ] in the Defense Department and ] at the ]. Samuel Halpern, a CIA co-organizer, conveyed the breadth of involvement: “CIA and the U. S. Army and military forces and Department of Commerce, and Immigration, Treasury, God knows who else — everybody was in Mongoose. It was a government-wide operation run out of Bobby Kennedy's office with Ed Lansdale as the mastermind.” <ref>James G. Blight, and Peter Kornbluh, eds., Politics of Illusion: The Bay of Pigs Invasion Reexamined. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999, 125)</ref>. The scope of Mongoose included sabotage actions against a railway bridge, petroleum storage facilities, a molasses storage container, a petroleum refinery, a power plant, a sawmill, and a floating crane. Harvard Historian Jorge Domínguez states that "only once in thousand pages of documentation did a U.S. official raise something that resembled a faint moral objection to U.S. government sponsored terrorism." <ref>Domínguez, Jorge I. "The @#$%& Missile Crisis (Or, What was 'Cuban' about U.S. Decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis)." Diplomatic History: The Journal of the Society for Historians of Foreign Relations, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Spring 2000): 305-15.</ref> The CIA operation was based in ] and among other aspects of the operation, enlisted the help of the ] to plot an assassination attempt against ], the Cuban president; for instance, ] was one of the CIA case officers who directly dealt with the mafiosi ].<ref>{{cite news | author = Jack Anderson | title = 6 Attempts to Kill Castro Laid to CIA | publisher = The Washington Post | date = ]}}</ref>

Dominguez writes that Kennedy put a hold on Mongoose actions as the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated, and the "Kennedy administration returned to its policy of sponsoring terrorism against Cuba as the confrontation with the Soviet Union lessened." <ref>Domínguez, Jorge I. "The @#$%& Missile Crisis (Or, What was 'Cuban' about U.S. Decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis)." Diplomatic History: The Journal of the Society for Historians of Foreign Relations, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Spring 2000): 305-15.</ref> However, Chomsky argued that “terrorist operations continued through the tensest moments of the missile crisis,” remarking that “they were formally canceled on October 30, several days after the Kennedy and ] agreement, but went on nonetheless.” Accordingly, "the Executive Committee of the National Security Council recommended various courses of action, "including ‘using selected Cuban exiles to sabotage key Cuban installations in such a manner that the auction can plausibly be attributed to Cubans in Cuba’ as well as ‘sabotaging Cuban cargo and shipping, and Bloc cargo and shipping to Cuba." <ref>Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Henry Holt and Company, 80.</ref> ] raised the point that according to the documentary record, directly after the first executive committee (]) meeting that was held on the missile crisis, Attorney General ] “convened a meeting of the Operation Mongoose team” expressing disappointment in its results and pledging to take a closer personal attention on the matter. Kornbluh accused RFK of taking “the most irrational position during the most extraordinary crisis in the history of U. S. foreign policy”, remarking that “Not to belabor the obvious, but for chrissake, a nuclear crisis is happening and Bobby wants to start blowing things up.”<ref>James G. Blight, and Peter Kornbluh, eds., Politics of Illusion: The Bay of Pigs Invasion Reexamined. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999, 125</ref>.

Professor of History Stephen Rabe writes that “scholars have understandably focused on…the Bay of Pigs invasion, the U.S. campaign of terrorism and sabotage known as Operation Mongoose, the assassination plots against ], and, of course, the Cuban missile crisis. Less attention has been given to the state of U.S.-Cuban relations in the aftermath of the missile crisis.” In contrast Rabe writes that reports from the Church Committee reveal that from June 1963 onward the Kennedy administration intensified its war against Cuba while the CIA integrated propaganda, "economic denial", and sabotage to attack the Cuban state as well as specific targets within.<ref>Stephen G. Rabe -Presidential Studies Quarterly. Volume: 30. Issue: 4. 2000,714 </ref> One example cited is an incident where CIA agents, seeking to assassinate Castro, provided a Cuban official, Rolando Cubela Secades, with a ballpoint pen rigged with a poisonous hypodermic needle.<ref>Stephen G. Rabe -Presidential Studies Quarterly. Volume: 30. Issue: 4. 2000,714 </ref> At this time the CIA received authorization for thirteen major operations within Cuba; these included attacks on an electric power plant, an oil refinery, and a sugar mill.<ref>Stephen G. Rabe -Presidential Studies Quarterly. Volume: 30. Issue: 4. 2000,714 </ref> Historian Stephen Rabe has observed that the “Kennedy administration...showed no interest in Castro's repeated request that the United States cease its campaign of sabotage and terrorism against Cuba. Kennedy did not pursue a dual-track policy toward Cuba....The United States would entertain only proposals of surrender." Rabe further documents how "Exile groups, such as ] and the Second Front of Escambray, staged hit-and-run raids on the island...on ships transporting goods…purchased arms in the United States and launched...attacks from the Bahamas.” <ref>Stephen G. Rabe -Presidential Studies Quarterly. Volume: 30. Issue: 4. 2000,714 </ref>

==== Operation Northwoods ====

A secret plan, ], was approved by the ] and ] and submitted for action to ]<ref>, excerpted from ''Class Warfare'' by Noam Chomsky</ref> then ]. This plan included acts of violence on U.S. soil or against U.S. interests, such as plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities; blowing up a U.S. ship, and contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in ] and blame Cuba," and, "The U.S. could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by U.S. fighters 'evacuate' remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plan was rejected by the Kennedy administration after the ].<ref name=PEARL-HARBOUR-COVER-UP-1>{{cite news|title=Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/|date=]|publisher=]|accessdate=27-04-2007}}</ref><ref name=PEARL-HARBOUR-COVER-UP-3>{{cite news|title=U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba|url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662|date=]|publisher=]|accessdate=27-04-2007}}</ref>

] officials have accused the United States Government of being an accomplice and protector of terrorism against ] on many occasions.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2005/12/051207_cubacaricom.shtml
|title=Fidel Castro meets Caricom leaders
|publisher=]
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-02-02
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.granma.cu/miami5/ingles/415.html
|title=The United States is an accomplice and protector of terrorism, states Alarcón
|last=Rodríguez
|first=Javier
|publisher=Granma
|accessdate=2007-07-10
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.granma.cu/cubademanda/ingles/demanda9-i.html
|title=Terrorism organized and directed by the CIA
|publisher=Granma
|accessdate=2007-07-10
}}</ref> According to ], President of ] "Terrorism and violence, crimes against Cuba, have been part and parcel of U.S. policy for almost half a century.”<ref name="landau">{{cite web
|url=http://www.tni.org/archives/landau/alarcon.htm
|title=Interview with Ricardo Alarcón
|last=Landau
|first=Saul
|publisher=Transnational Institute
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-10
}}</ref> The claims formed part of Cuba's $181.1 billion lawsuit in 1999 in Havana's Popular Provincial Tribunal against the United States on behalf of the Cuban people which alleged that for over 40 years, "terrorism has been permanently used by the U.S. as an instrument of its foreign policy against Cuba," and it "became more systematic as a result of the covert action program."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.workers.org/ww/1999/cuba0916.php
|title=Cuba's case against Washington
|last=Wood
|first=Nick
|publisher=Workers World
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-10
}}</ref> The lawsuit detailed a history of terrorism allegedly supported by the United States. The United States has long denied any involvement in the acts named in the lawsuit.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9906/02/cuba.billions/
|title=Cuba sues U.S. for billions, alleging 'war' damages
|publisher=]
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-10
}}</ref>
] operatives including Guillermo Novo Sampol, (left; fourth from camera) wanted in ] for extradition in connection with terrorist acts,<ref name="sanchez">{{cite web
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57838-2004Sep2.html
|title=Moral Misstep
|last=Sanchez
|first=Marcela
|publisher=]
|date=], ]
}}</ref> Mexico City ] ].]]

Cuba also claims U.S. involvement in the paramilitary group ], the CIA undercover operation known as ], and the umbrella group the ]. Cuban ] investigator Roberto Hernández testified in a ] court that the bomb attacks were "part of a campaign of terror designed to scare civilians and foreign tourists, harming Cuba's single largest industry."<ref> Miami Herald </ref>Testifying before the United States Senate in 1978, Richard Helms, former CIA Director, stated; "We had task forces that that were striking at Cuba constantly. We were attempting to blow up power plants. We were attempting to ruin sugar mills. We were attempting to do all kinds of things in this period. This was a matter of American government policy."<ref>House Select Committee on Assassinations Report, Volume IV, page 125. September 22, 1978</ref>

In 2001, Cuban Ambassador to the UN Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla called for ] to address all forms and manifestations of terrorism in every corner of the world, including - without exception - State terrorism. He alleged to the ] that 3,478 Cubans have died as a result of aggressions and terrorist acts.<ref name="United"> since the ]</ref> He also alleged that the United States had provided safe shelter to "those who funded, planned and carried out terrorist acts with absolute impunity, tolerated by the United States Government."<ref name="United"> since the ]</ref> The Cuban government also asserted that in the 1990s, a total of 68 acts of terrorism were perpetrated against Cuba.<ref name="United"/>

====Allegations of harboring terrorists ====
The Cuban revolution resulted in a large Cuban ] community in the U.S., some of whom have conducted sustained long-term insurgency campaigns against Cuba.<ref name = "poptel-Cuba"> Cuba solidarity</ref> and conducted training sessions at a secluded camp near the Florida Everglades. Initially these efforts are known to have been directly supported by the United States government.<ref>Bohning,Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S.Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, Potomac Books,137-138</ref> The failed military invasion of Cuba during the administration of ] at the ] marked the end of documented U.S. involvement.

The Cuban Government, its supporters and some outside observers believe that the group ], whose former secretary general Andrés Nazario Sargén acknowledged terrorist attacks on Cuban tourist spots in the 1990s<ref name = "poptel-Cuba"/> and conducted training sessions at a secluded camp near the Florida Everglades,<ref> . The Los Angeles Times.</ref> has, according to Cuba's official newspaper ], been supported by the ], the ] and, more directly, the CIA.<ref> granma</ref>

The U.S. has also been criticized for failing to condemn Panama's pardoning of the alleged terrorists Guillermo and Ignacio Novo Sampoll, Pedro Remon, and Gaspar Jimenez, instead allowing them to walk free on U.S. streets.<ref name="sanchez" /> Claudia Furiati has suggested Sampol was linked to ] and plans to kill President Castro.<ref>{{Cite book
| edition = 2nd
| publisher = Ocean Press (AU)
| isbn = 1875284850
| pages = 164
| last = Furiati
| first = Claudia
| title = ZR Rifle : The Plot to Kill Kennedy and Castro
| date = 1994-10
}}</ref>

====Luis Posada====
]]]
] has been accused by Cuba of terrorism. He resides within the U.S., and his deportation action was denied by a federal court that cited torture and other concerns.<ref name = "BBC-4289136"> (])</ref> His case is important because he symbolizes what Cuba view as the harboring of suspected terrorists by the United States.

The claims around Posada center on the bombing of ] in 1976 which killed all 73 people aboard and a series of attacks on tourist sites in the 1990s. Some allege some form of US involvement in these acts. For example, the FBI had multiple contacts with one of the bombers but provided him with a visa to the U.S. five days before the bombing, despite suspicions that he was engaged in terrorist activities.<ref name="posada">{{cite web|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/|title=CIA and FBI Documents Detail Career in International Terrorism; Connection to U.S.|accessdate=2007-07-09}}</ref>

The Cubans cite what they describe as the admission by ], a one-time supervisor for the ], and former chemist,<ref>{{cite news
|first = Ann Louise |last = Bardach
|coauthors = Larry Rohter
|title = A Bomber's Tale: Decades of Intrigue
|work = The New York Times
|publisher = The New York Times Company
|pages = Section A; Page 1; Column 3; Foreign Desk
|date = 1998-07-13
|accessdate = 2007-01-20
}} - "After studying medicine for two years and then chemistry, Mr. Posada went to work for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, first in Havana and then in Akron, Ohio, after the revolution. His entire family, including his parents, two brothers and a sister, remained behind, committed to Mr. Castro's revolution."</ref><ref>{{cite news
|first = David
|last = Adams
|url = http://www.sptimes.com/2005/05/18/Worldandnation/Cuban__terrorist__arr.shtml
|title = Cuban "terrorist' arrested in Miami
|work = St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
|publisher = Times Publishing Company
|pages = National; Pg. 1A
|date = 2005-05-18
|accessdate = 2007-01-20
}} - "EARLY 1961: A supervisor for Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., he flees Cuba, first to Mexico, then to Florida."</ref> that he was recruited by the CIA into becoming a trainer of other paramilitary forces in the mid 1960s.<ref> . The Atlantic online.<br />° . Miami herald.</ref> Posada, alongside ], is accused by ], ], ], Cuba and ] of organizing the terrorist bombing of the aircraft Cubana 455.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7679032/page/2/|title=Cuban official demands action on Posada|accessdate=2007-07-09}}</ref> As described by researcher Peter Kornbluh at the non-governmental research institute ], he "is a terrorist, but he’s our terrorist,"<!--DO NOT DELETE THIS REFERENCE UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING. This is a named reference, which may be referred to elsewhere in the article:--><ref name="posada-times">{{cite news|title = Castro Foe Puts U.S. in an Awkward Spot|url=http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/world/americas/08posada.html|publisher=New York Times|date=October 2006|accessdate=2008-01-08}}</ref> referring to Posada's relationship with the U.S. government. In 2006, the U.S. Justice Department described Posada as “an unrepentant criminal and admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks on tourist sites.”

The Cubans also cite the involvement of FBI attaché Joseph Leo, who admitted multiple contacts with one of the convicted bombers of Cubana 455, Hernan Ricardo, before the attack.<ref> . The Nation. </ref>

On May 18, 2005, the National Security Archive posted additional documents that purportedly show the CIA had concrete advance intelligence, as early as June 1976, on plans by Cuban exile terrorist groups to bomb an airliner of the Cuban airline ]. The archive also alleges that while Posada stopped being a CIA agent in 1974, there remained "occasional contact" until June 1976, a few months before the bombing.<ref name="posada"/> The Cuban ambassador to the U.N. stated that Posada had been "doubly employed by the Government of the U.S." both before and after the bombing of the Cubana aircraft.<ref name="United"/> After escaping from prison in Venezuela, Posada, who has boasted of plans to "hit" a Cuban airliner only days before the attack, went to work alongside CIA operative ] under ] supplying the ].<ref>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB157/index.htm National Security archives; The Atlantic, "Twilight of the Assassins," November 2006, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/cuba </ref>

After serving 10 years for his role in the Cubana bombing and other terrorist attacks, Orlando Bosch was released from jail in Venezuela and given permission to reside in the United States with the assistance of ], then U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.<ref>{{cite book|title = Cuba and the United States: A Chronological History |last = Franklin |first = Jane |year = 1996 |month = October |publisher = Ocean Press |pages = 233 |ISBN = 1-87528492-3}}</ref>

On his arrival in Miami in 1988, Bosch was honored with an "Orlando Bosch Day" celebration by the city politicians in Miami. Despite decisions made by the justice department and ] to deport Bosch, they were overruled by President ] and he was allowed permanent residency.<ref name="cnn">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/19/i_ins.01.html Jose Posada Carriles: Hero or Hardened Killer?.CNN.</ref> In an interview in 2001, Cuban Vice President Ricardo Alarcón stated: "The most quoted phrase by President Bush or ever repeated by him refers to the same idea every time he speaks. "'Those who harbor a terrorist are as guilty as the terrorist himself'".<ref name="landau" />

In a series of interviews with the ], Posada claimed responsibility for the bombings at hotels and nightclubs in Cuba in 1997 in which an ] tourist died and scores more were injured. Posada said his activities were directly supported by Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the ]. Posada stated "The FBI and the CIA do not bother me, and I am neutral with them," he said. "Whenever I can help them, I do."<ref name="observer">{{cite web|url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/146.html |title=Posada "I will kill Castro if it's the last thing I do" |publisher=Hartford Web Publishing (Republished)}}</ref> He later denied that he was involved, stating that he had only wanted to create publicity for the bombing campaign in order to scare tourists.<ref name="cnn" />

As more revelations were made public via ] documents and testimonies from involved parties, journalist ] wrote in a column in the ] "For almost 40 years, we have isolated Cuba on the assumption that the tiny island is a center of terrorism in the hemisphere, and year after year we gain new evidence that it is the U.S. that has terrorized Cuba and not the other way around."<ref>http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/98_columns/071498.htm A Startling Tale of U.S. Complicity.</ref>

Mr. Posada was arrested in Miami in May 2005 and held for entering the U.S. illegally.
On September 28, 2005 a U.S. immigration judge ruled that Posada cannot be deported because he faced the threat of torture in Venezuela.<ref name = "BBC-4289136"/> On May 8, 2007 U.S. district judge Kathleen Cardone dismissed seven counts of immigration fraud and ordered Posada's ] removed. The ruling criticized the ] "fraud, deceit and trickery" during the interview with immigration authorities that was the basis of the charges against Posada.<ref name="cnndrop"> , May 8, 2007</ref> He has declared that he no longer believes that the Castro government has long-term viability and he stated "I sincerely believe that nothing would help to go back to the past with sabotage campaigns."<ref name="posada-times"/>

Venezuela has accused the US of hypocrisy on terrorism since the US "virtually" collaborated with convicted terrorist Luis Posada by failing to contest statements that Posada would be tortured if he were extradited to Venezuela. Some U.S. officials, who declined to speak on the record, also deplored the decision by immigration judge William Abbott not to extradite Posada. The administration stressed that Posada may still be subject to deportation to another country, although their efforts thus far to persuade several Latin American countries have proved fruitless.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0929/dailyUpdate.html
|title=Venezuela accuses U.S. of 'double standard' on terrorism
|last=Regan
|first=Tom
|date=], ]
|publisher=]
|accessdate=2007-02-02
}}</ref><ref name=>{{cite news|title= Cuban Terror Case Erodes US Credibility, Critics Say|url=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30459|publisher=]|date=]|accessdate=2007-07-10 }}</ref>

===Nicaragua (1979-90)===
{{Further|] }}

Following the rise to power of the left-wing ] government in ], the ] administration ordered the CIA to organize and train the right wing guerrilla group "]". In 1981 President ] secretly authorized his Central Intelligence Agency under his appointee ], Director of Central Intelligence, 28 January 1981 - 29 January 1987, to recruit and support the guerrillas<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm|title=The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On: Documents Spotlight Role of Reagan, Top Aides|date=2006-11-24|publisher=The National Security Archive}}</ref>. Casey was to have testified before Congress about the disastrous ], in which a third country was to help sell ]'s ] missiles to the Islamic Republic of Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages whom ] kidnapped.{{Syn|date=March 2008}} Deteriorating health made it impossible for Casey to speak to the committee.{{Syn|date=March 2008}}

] professor, Frederick H. Gareau, has written that the Contras "attacked bridges, electric generators, but also state-owned agricultural cooperatives, rural health clinics, villages and non-combatants." U.S. agents were directly involved in the fighting. "CIA commandos launched a series of sabotage raids on Nicaraguan port facilities. They mined the country's major ports and set fire to its largest oil storage facilities." In 1984 the U.S. Congress ordered this intervention to be stopped, however it was later shown that the CIA illegally continued (See ]). Professor Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States.<ref name="Gareau">
{{cite book |last=Gareau |first=Frederick H. |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=State Terrorism and the United States |year=2004 |publisher=Zed Books |location=London |id=ISBN 1-84277-535-9 |pages=16 & 166}}</ref>

In 1984 a CIA manual for training the Nicaraguan ] in psychological operations was leaked to the media, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War".<ref name = "manual"> {{cite web
| title =Declassified Army and CIA Manuals
| work =Latin American Working Group
| url =http://www.lawg.org/misc/Publications-manuals.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-30
}} </ref><ref name="KillingHope">
{{cite book |last=Blum |first=William |authorlink=William Blum |coauthors= |title=Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II |year=2003 |publisher=Zed Books |location=Noida, India |id=ISBN 1-84277-369-0 |pages=290}}</ref>

The manual recommended “selective use of violence for propagandistic effects” and to “neutralize” government officials. Nicaraguan Contras were taught to lead:

{{quote|...selective use of armed force for PSYOP psychological operations effect.... Carefully selected, planned targets — judges, police officials, tax collectors, etc. — may be removed for PSYOP effect in a UWOA unconventional warfare operations area, but extensive precautions must insure that the people “concur” in such an act by thorough explanatory canvassing among the affected populace before and after conduct of the mission.|James Bovard|Freedom Daily<ref name = "FFF"> {{cite web
| title =Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration
| work =The Future of Freedom Foundation
| url =http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406c.asp
| accessdate=2006-07-30
}} </ref>}}

Former State Department official ], has written that "American pilots were flying diverse kinds of combat missions against Nicaraguan troops and carrying supplies to contras inside Nicaraguan territory. Several were shot down and killed. Some flew in civilian clothes, after having been told that they would be disavowed by the Pentagon if captured. Some contras told American congressmen that they were ordered to claim responsibility for a bombing raid organized by the CIA and flown by Agency mercenaries."<ref>Blum 293.</ref> According to Blum the Pentagon considered U.S. policy in Nicaragua to be a "blueprint for successful U.S. intervention in the Third World" and it would go "right into the textbooks".<ref>Blum 305.</ref>

Colombian writer and former diplomat Clara Nieto, in her book "Masters of War", describes the Reagan administration as "the paradigm of a terrorist state" remarking that this was "ironically, the very thing Reagan claimed to be fighting." Nieto describes direct CIA involvement, noting that "the CIA launched a series of terrorist actions from the “mothership” off Nicaragua’s coast. In September 1983, the agency attacked Puerto Sandino with rockets. The following month, frogmen blew up the underwater oil pipeline in the same port- the only one in the country. In October there was an attack on Pierto Corinto, Nicaragua’s largest port, with mortars, rockets and grenades, blowing up five large oil and gasoline storage tanks. More than a hundred people were wounded, and the fierce fire, which could not be brought under control for two days, forced the evacuation of 23,000 people.” <ref>Nieto, Clara. Masters of War: Latin America and United States Aggression from the Cuban Revolution Through the Clinton Years, Seven Stories Press, 2003, 343-345</ref>

Historian Greg Grandin describes a disjuncture between official U.S. ideals and support for terrorism. “Nicaragua, where the United States backed not a counterinsurgent state but anti-communist mercenaries, likewise represented a disjuncture between the idealism used to justify U.S. policy and its support for political terrorism... The corollary to the idealism embraced by the Republicans in the realm of diplomatic public policy debate was thus political terror. In the dirtiest of Latin America’s dirty wars, their faith in America’s mission justified atrocities in the name of liberty.” <ref>Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and ther Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company 2007, 89</ref> In his analysis, Grandin emphasizes that the behaviour of the U.S. backed-contras was particularly inhumane and vicious: "In Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Contras decapitated, castrated, and otherwise mutilated civilians and foreign aid workers. Some earned a reputation for using spoons to gorge their victims eye’s out. In one raid, Contras cut the breasts of a civilian defender to pieces and ripped the flesh off the bones of another.” <ref>Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company 2007, 90 </ref>

The ] accused the Sandinistas of many cases of illegal foreign intervention and supporting foreign militants. One was supporting the ] rebels in ] with safehaven; training; command-and-control headquarters and advice; and weapons, ammunition, and other vital supplies. As evidence was cited captured documents, testimonials of former rebels and Sandinistas, aerial photographs, tracing captured weapons back to Nicaragua, and captured vehicles from Nicaragua smuggling weapons. There were also accusations of subversive activities in ], ], and ] and in the case of Honduras and Costa Rica outright military operations by Nicaraguan troops.<ref name = ussds>{{cite web
|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v86/ai_4549750
|title=Nicaragua's role in revolutionary internationalism - statement by Vernon A. Walters
|author=Vernon A. Walters
|year=1986
|month=October
}}</ref> The Sandinistas has been accused of large scale human rights violations.<ref>'''' (January 24, 1983), TIME.</ref><ref>Richard Araujo, ''{{PDFlink||480&nbsp;]<!-- application/pdf, 491894 bytes -->}}'' (July 19, 1983), Heritage Foundation.</ref><ref> R.J. Rummel, ''Statistics of Democide'' (1997) </ref><ref>J. Michael Waller Summer 2004</ref> The ] writes that after the Sandinistas lost power in 1990 many mass graves were found. "While most of the graves seem to be the result of summary executions by members of the Sandinista People's Army or the State Security, some contain the bodies of individuals executed by the Nicaraguan Resistance."

====Nicaragua vs. United States====
{{main|Nicaragua vs. United States}}
''The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America''<ref name="name">Official name: ''Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ REP. 392'' June 27, 1986.</ref> was a case heard in 1986 by the ] which found that the ] had violated ] by direct acts of U.S. personnel and by the supporting ] guerrillas in their war against the ]n government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The US was not imputable for possible human rights violations done by the Contras.

The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, but the United States was not bound by the Court's decision, on the basis that the court erred in finding that it had ] to hear the case.<ref name="law"> {{cite journal | author= Morrison, Fred L. | title=Legal Issues in The Nicaragua Opinion| journal=American Journal of International Law | year=January 1987 | volume=81 | issue=| pages= 160-166| url= http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/55750.html}} "Appraisals of the ICJ's Decision. Nicaragua vs United State (Merits)"</ref> The court stated that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force"—specifically that it was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state". The ICJ ordered the U.S. to pay reparations, which this court lacked ] to order.<ref name = "icj"> {{cite web
| title =International Court of Justice Year 1986, 27 June 1986, General list No. 70, paragraphs 251, 252, 157, 158, 233.
| work =International Court of Justice
| url =http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html
| accessdate=2006-07-30
}} </ref><ref name=Redress>{{cite web | url=http://www.redress.org/publications/TerrorismReport.pdf | publisher=The Redress Trust | work=Redress | author=Gabriela Echeverria | title=Terrorism Report}}</ref>

The ICJ used the ] CIA manual as evidence in the case.<ref name="ICJ4">{{cite web|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=367&code=nus&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&k=66&p3=5|title=ICJ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)|accessdate=2007-07-09}}</ref> The CIA claimed that the purpose of the manual was to "moderate" activities already being done by the Contras.<ref name = "middle"> {{cite web
| title =International Law PSCI 0236 > International Law PSCI 0236 > Introduction
| work =middlebury.edu
| url =https://segue.middlebury.edu/index.php?action=site&site=psci0236a-f06
| accessdate=2006-09-05
}} </ref>

The U.S. argued that it was acting for the benefit of El Salvador in order to help it to respond to an alleged armed attack by Nicaragua. El Salvador stated that it had asked the United States to exercise for its benefit the right of collective self-defense. The court found evidence for an arms flow between Nicaragua and to the insurgents in El Salvador in 1979-81. However, there was not enough evidence to show that the Nicaraguan government was imputable for this or that the US response was proportional. The court also found established that certain transborder incursions into the territory of Guatemala and Costa Rica, in 1982, 1983 and 1984, were imputable to the Government of Nicaragua. However, neither Guatemala and Costa Rica made any request for intervention by the US and El Salvador only in 1984, well after the US intervention started.

The court findings are summarized below:

:* The United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the Contra forces...acted against the Republic of Nicaragua in breach of its obligation under customary international law.
:* The United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory...which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State.
:* The United States of America...has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State.
:* By laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua...the United States of America has acted...in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce.
:* The United States of America, by the attacks...and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua...has acted in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation...signed at Managua on January 21, 1956.
:* The United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas' ("Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare"), and disseminating it to Contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but did not find a basis for concluding that any such acts that may have been committed were imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America.
:* The United States of America had to pay reparations for the damage.<ref name = "icj"> {{cite web
| title =International Court of Justice Year 1986, 27 June 1986, General list No. 70, paragraphs 251, 252, 157, 158, 233.
| work =International Court of Justice
| url =http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html
| accessdate=2006-07-30
}} </ref>

U.S. foreign policy critic ] argues that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of international terrorism based on this verdict, which condemned the ] for its "unlawful use of force".<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/01/16/chomsky/index_np.html?pn=2
|title=Noam Chomsky
|last=Hansen
|first=Suzy
|publisher=]
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-10
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.zmag.org/content/ForeignPolicy/chomskyglobeterr.cfm
|title=Who Are the Global Terrorists?
|last=Chomsky
|first=Noam
|authorlink=Noam Chomsky
|publisher=]
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-10}}</ref>

{{quote|The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called "unlawful use of force" &mdash; which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism" &mdash; ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim.|Noam Chomsky|interview on Pakistan Television<ref name = "chom"> {{cite web
| title =On the War in Afghanistan Noam Chomsky interviewed by Pervez Hoodbhoy
| work =chomsky.info
| url =http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20011127.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-30
}}</ref>}}

One critic of the is David Horowitz, who argues in the book '']'', that "unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" and that the Court has no ] over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree, which the U.S. did not since the ] states were outside its jurisdiction but they still sent judges to the court.<ref name="Anti-Chomsky">David Horowitz. Chomsky and 9/11. Page 172-4 In ] (2004) Peter Collier and David Horowitz, editors. Encounter Books.</ref> The U.S. did accept the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946, but withdrew its acceptance following the Nicaragua case.<ref name=Redress/>


===Guatemala (1954-96)===
{{Further|], ], ], ] }}

====Background====
The Guatemala Civil War was predominantly fought between the government of Guatemala and insurgents between 1960 and 1996.

In 1999, an independent Guatemalan Truth Commission (the "]") issued a report which, according to Robert Parry writing in Consortiumnews.com, among other things, stated that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some of these state operations." Parry also writes that the report {{quote|...estimate that the Guatemalan conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s. Based on a review of about 20% of the dead, the panel blamed the army for 93% of the killings and leftist guerrillas for three percent. Four percent were listed as unresolved....the army committed 626 massacres against Mayan villages... "eliminated entire Mayan villages... completely exterminat Mayan communities, destroy their livestock and crops."|Robert Parry|Consortiumnews.com<ref name=Guat_Perry>
{{cite web
| title =History of Guatemala's 'Death Squads'
| url =http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011005.html
| accessdate=2007-06-23
| author =Robert Parry
}}</ref>}}

The report went on to term the Guatemalan military's campaign in the northern highlands a "genocide," and that besides "carrying out murder and "disappearances," the army routinely engaged in torture and rape. "The rape of women, during torture or before being murdered, was a common practice" by the military and paramilitary forces, the report found."

In 1984 Human Rights Watch reported on Guatemala, stating: “Previous America’s Watch reports on Guatemala have discussed the murder of thousands by a military government that maintains its authority by terror. The killing continues as we document in this, our third report on Guatemala.”
<blockquote>
“As best as we can determine the rural massacres are smaller in scope, which partly reflects the fact that so many of Guatemala’s villages had already been decimated during the army’s terror tactics in the counterinsurgency campaign that it waged in 1982 and the early part of 1983. On the other hand the number of rural killings remains very high, and the number of killings in the cities has risen sharply, coming to resemble the situation that prevailed under President Lucas Garcia (1978-1982)” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p. 2-3)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“The government of Guatemala continues to engage in the systematic use of torture as a means of gathering intelligence and coercing confessions. There is also evidence that torture is used for exemplary purposes, to instill fear among those who see themselves as potential victims of arrest or abduction. … We do find that between the Rios Montt and Meija administrations there has been no appreciable difference where the use of torture is concerned. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p11.)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“In such places, the army faces a crucial dilemma: the resources are not now available to permanently garrison each village. Yet, should they be totally neglected, they could become an important stronghold for opposing the regime. In such situations, the army exercises several options designed to place the community under military control and hold back the development of any opposition. One frequent approach is terror: the burning of houses, beatings, torture, selective killings and even massacres. Distant communities visited in northwest Quiche, near the Huehuetenango border, have experienced some form of military terror…Not one community is what it used to be; a forced transformation has befallen each one. The terror does not simply stem from the cruelty of the armed forces or from the policies of a specific government- although both factors are obviously involved- but from the systematic application of force to maintain effective military control in remote areas of the country-side…the terror is sufficient to ensure that the population understands that no level of dissent, let alone rebellion, will be tolerated. When a village is burned and its people abused, the message is that this is punishment for real or imagined cooperation with the opposition.” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p.60)</blockquote>

====US involvement====
Declassified CIA documents<ref name="NSAArchive-Guatemala">
{{cite web|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html|title=CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents |publisher=George Washington University NSA Archive (Republished)}}</ref> show that the United States was instrumental in organizing, funding, and equipping the ] which toppled the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954. Analysts Kate Doyle and Peter Kornbluh argue that "After a small insurgency developed in the wake of the coup, Guatemala's military leaders developed and refined, with U.S. assistance, a massive counterinsurgency campaign that left tens of thousands massacred, maimed or missing." Professor of History, Stephen G. Rabe, writes in "In destroying the popularly elected government of ] (1950-1954), the United States initiated a nearly four-decade-long cycle of terror and repression that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans." <ref>{{cite book|title=Managing the Counterrevolution: The United States and Guatemala, 1954-1961 (review) |publisher=The Americas |page=Volume 59, Number 4 |date=April 2003 |pages=601-603 |author=Stephen G. Rabe}}</ref>

After the U.S.-backed coup, which toppled president ], lead coup plotter ] assumed power. Author and university professor, Patrice McSherry argues that with Armas at the head of government, "the United States began to militarize Guatemala almost immediately, financing and reorganizing the police and military."<ref name=" EvolutionofNationalSecurityState "> J. Patrice McSherry. “The Evolution of the National Security State: The Case of Guatemala.” ''Socialism and Democracy''. Spring/Summer 1990, 133.</ref>

Human rights expert Michael McClintock<ref>{{cite web| title = About Michael McClintock | publisher = Human Rights First | url = http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/about_us/staff/mcclintock_m.htm | accessdate = 2007-07-03}}</ref> has argued that the national security apparatus Armas presided over was “almost entirely oriented toward countering subversion,” and that the key component of that apparatus was “an intelligence system set up by the United States.”<ref name="AmericanConnection"> Michael McClintock. ''The American Connection Volume 2: State Terror and Popular Resistance in Guatemala''. London: Zed Books Ltd., 1985, pp. 2, 32. </ref> At the core of this intelligence system were records of communist party members, pro-Arbenz organizations, teacher associations, and peasant unions which were used to create a detailed “Black List” with names and information about some 70,000 individuals that were viewed as potential subversives. It was “CIA counter-intelligence officers who sorted the records and determined how they could be put to use.”<ref>McClintock 32-33.</ref> McClintock argues that this list persisted as an index of subversives for several decades and probably served as a database of possible targets for the counter-insurgency campaign that began in the early 1960s.<ref>McClintock 33.</ref>

Patrice McSherry argues that after a successful (U.S. backed) coup against president ] in 1963, U.S. advisors began to work with Colonel ] to defeat the guerrillas, borrowing “extensively from current counterinsurgency strategies and technology being employed in Vietnam.” Between the years of 1966-68 alone some 8,000 peasants were murdered by the U.S. trained forces of Colonel Arana Osorio.<ref> McSherry 134.</ref> Sociologist Jeffrey M. Paige writes that Arana Osorio "earned the nickname "The Butcher of Zacapa" for killing 15,000 peasants to eliminate 300 suspected rebels." <ref>Jeffery M. Paige, Social Theory and Peasant Revolution in Vietnam and Guatemala, Theory and Society, Vol. 12, No. 6 (Nov., 1983), pp. 699-737 </ref>

McClintock argues that “counter-insurgency doctrine, as imparted by the United States civil and military assistance agencies, had a tremendous influence on Guatemala’s security system and a devastating impact on Guatemala’s people.”<ref>McClintock 75.</ref> He writes:

{{quote|United States counter-insurgency doctrine encouraged the Guatemalan military to adopt both new organizational forms and new techniques in order to root out insurgency more effectively. New techniques would revolve around a central precept of the new counter-insurgency: that counter insurgent war must be waged free of restriction by laws, by the rules of war, or moral considerations: guerrilla “terror” could be defeated only by the untrammeled use of “counter-terror”, the terrorism of the state.|Michael McClintock<ref>McClintock 54.</ref>}}

McClintock writes that this idea was also articulated by Colonel John Webber, the chief of the U.S. Military Mission in Guatemala, who instigated the technique of “counter-terror.” Colonel Webber defended his policy by saying, “That’s the way this country is. The Communists are using everything they have, including terror. And it must be met.”<ref>McClintock 61.</ref>

According to the Center for International Policy, "The CIA established a liaison relationship with Guatemalan security services widely known to have reprehensible human rights records, and it continued covert aid after the cutoff of overt military aid in 1990. This liaison relationship and continued covert aid occurred with the knowledge of the National Security Council, the State Department, and the Congressional oversight committees. Contrary to public allegations, CIA did not increase covert funding for Guatemala to compensate for the cut-off of military aid in 1990."<ref name="guat"> Intelligence Oversight Board. ], ]. In 1995 CIA aid was stopped. </ref> ], a former ambassador to El Salvador and Paraguay, and president of the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C. writes, that the human rights report makes "grim reading", and that:

{{quote|"the United States was not backing one side in a civil war but rather a campaign of official terror. Of the more than 200,000 victims, the commission found that the army and other state agents killed 93 percent. With direct orders from the government's highest echelons and the military high command, soldiers carried out a scorched-earth policy burning Mayan villages and throwing the still-living victims into common burial pits. Declassified documents reveal that Washington knew of these acts of genocide yet our government continued its assistance to the Guatemalan military."<ref>{{cite news|article=Rethinking Foreign Policy: Lessons from Latin America |publisher=Commonweal |date=June 4, 1999 |author=White, Robert E.}}</ref> |}}

He further states that {{quote|"the Guatemalan truth commission was right to single out the CIA for special mention. Between 1965 and 1981, I served in our embassies in Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. I watched as the CIA recruited dozens of paid informants from the right-wing fringes of Central American society. These ideologues regarded labor union leaders threatening a strike or student activists protesting the closing of a newspaper as agents of subversion. I watched as CIA reports to Washington characterized as Communist or Communist sympathizers, brave men and women whose only crime was to work for the restoration of democratic government and against the U.S.- supported military dictator. Worst of all, I watched as the CIA shared its "intelligence" with the leaders of these military regimes. Not unnaturally these authorities regarded any person fingered in an official CIA report as a legitimate target for persecution, even death."<ref>{{cite news|article=Rethinking Foreign Policy: Lessons from Latin America |publisher=Commonweal |date=June 4, 1999 |author=White, Robert E.}}</ref>|}}

Utilizing declassified government documents, researchers Kate Doyle and Carlos Osorio from the research institute the ] document that Guatemalan Colonel Byron Lima Estrada took military police and counterintelligence courses at the ]. He later served in several elite counterinsurgency units trained and equipped by the U.S. Military Assistance Program (MAP). He would eventually rise to command ], the Guatemalan Military Intelligence services who were responsible for many of the terror tactics wielded throughout the 1980s.<ref name="NSAArchive-Guatemala03">
{{cite web|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB25/index.htm|title=Colonel Byron Disrael Lima Estrada |publisher=George Washington University NSA Archive (Republished)}}</ref>

In 1999, the Guatemalan Truth Commission (the "]") issued a report which, among other things, stated that "The CEH recognises that the movement of Guatemala towards polarisation, militarization and civil war was not just the result of national history. The cold war also played an important role. Whilst anti-communism, promoted by the United States within the framework of its foreign policy, received firm support from right-wing political parties and from various other powerful actors in Guatemala, the United States demonstrated that it was willing to provide support for strong military regimes in its strategic backyard. In the case of Guatemala, military assistance was directed towards reinforcing the national intelligence apparatus and for training the officer corps in counterinsurgency techniques, key factors which had significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation."

In their 1998 "Report On Guatemala" Rolando Alecio and Ruth Taylor condemn the "legacy of state terror" the nation has inherited from the U.S.-backed and -trained military.{{Nonspecific|date=March 2008}}

Minor Sinclair writes in the Sojourner that:
{{quote |Recent disclosures have revealed the extent of U.S. support for the Guatemalan army despite its reputation as the most repressive military in Latin America. For years Guatemala's elite military officers have been trained in the United States, and at any given time dozens are on the CIA payroll.<ref name=Guat_Sinclair>{{cite web |title =Sorrow Lifted to the Heavens
|url =http://www.sojo.net/
|accessdate=2007-06-23
|author =Minor Sinclair
}}</ref>}}

Writing for '']'', in 1995 ] argued that "North American C.l. A. operatives work inside a Guatemalan Army unit that maintain a network of torture centers and ha killed thousands of Guatemalan civilians." Nairn stated that Gramajos was a CIA asset and receiving pay from them, and he linked Gramajos to the early 1980s highland massacres.<ref name="Nairn">{{cite news|title=C.I.A. Death Squads |publisher=The Nation |date=April 1995 |author=Allan Nairn}}</ref><ref name="Nairn2">{{cite news|title=The country team |publisher=The Nation |date=June 5, 2005 |author=Allan Nairn}}</ref><ref name="Arnove1">{{cite news|title=An Interview With Allan Nairn |publisher=Znet Magazine |date=June 2005 |author=Anthony Arnove}}</ref>

Gramajos allegedly said that "We aren't renouncing the use of force. If we have to use it, we have to use it, but in a more sophisticated manner. You needn't kill everyone to complete the job. more sophisticated means; we aren't going to return to the large-scale massacres. We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system. We instituted Civil Affairs which provides development for 70 percent of the people while we kill 30 percent. Before the strategy was to kill 100 percent."<ref>Jennifer Schirmer, "The Guatemalan military project: an interview with Gen. Hector Gramajo," Harvard International Review, Vol. 13, Issue 3 (Spring 1991).</ref>}} When the Harvard Crimson asked if these statements accurately represented his views, he retreated, suggesting that the transcript reflected a certain lack of linguistic dexterity, his characteristic use of "broken English." "I really did not mean exactly 'kill,'" but rather that soldiers cannot "renounce coercive action" and that the military is now "going to make a very clear distinction between ." The article also stated:

{{cquote|During his tenure as Guatemalan minister of defense from 1987 to 1990, Gramajo oversaw a military accused of butchering dozens of university students, provoking Anne Manuel of Americas Watch to find "a sort of tragic irony" in Harvard's ardor for educating him. Gramajo is believed to have chosen to come to Harvard as part of his plan to run for Guatemala's presidency in 1995. And Harvard, as U.S. Representative ] (D-MA) observed, appears to be in the business of "laundering reputations."<ref></ref>}}

From the 1984 Human Rights Watch report on Guatemala in a section entitled “The U.S. Role,":
<blockquote>
“On December 4, 1982, President Reagan met with Guatemalan President Rios Montt in Honduras and dismissed reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala published by Americas Watch, Amnesty International and others as a “bum wrap” The following month the Reagan administration announced that it was ending a “five-year embargo on arms sale to Guatemala and had approved a sale of $6.36 million worth of military spare parts to the country. This sale was approved despite U.S. law forbidding arms sales to governments engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984,p. 135)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“During most of 1983, the Reagan Administration continued to dispute reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala. When Americas Watch published its May 1983 report on Guatemala, Creating a Desolation and Calling it Peace, Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, attempted to discredit it publicly. (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, 135)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“In light of its long record of apologies for the government of Guatemala, and its failure to repudiate publicly those apologies even at a moment of disenchantment, we believe that the Reagan Administration shares in the responsibility for the gross abuses of human rights practiced by the government of Guatemala."<ref>Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984</ref>
</blockquote>

], Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development states: "In particular, the U.S. client regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala regularly massacred their own populations, slaughtering over 100,000 civilians during the 1980s and into the beginning of 1990s. Yet the U.S. continued to sponsor such terrorism, propping up the dictatorships responsible for such violence while actively helping them carry it out..."<ref name="Nafeez">{{cite book|title=A Critical Review Of The Objectives Of U.S. Foreign Policy In The Post-World War II Period |author=Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed |publisher=Media Monitors |date=September 24, 2001}}</ref>

A 1996 report on CIA's action in Guatemala by the ''Intelligence Oversight Board'' mentioned that the US helped stop a military coup in 1993, further stating that:
{{quote|"The CIA's successes in Guatemala in conjunction with other U.S. agencies, particularly in uncovering and working to counter coups and in reducing the narcotics flow, were at times dramatic and very much in the national interests of both the United States and Guatemala."}}

The report goes on to state:

{{cquote|"Relations between the U.S. and Guatemalan governments came under strain in 1977, when the Carter administration issued its first annual human rights report on Guatemala. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused U.S. military aid." "Relations between the two countries warmed in the mid-1980's with gradual improvements in human rights and the Reagan administration's emphasis on curbing the spread of communism in Central America. After a civilian government under President Cerezo was elected in 1985, overt non-lethal US military aid to Guatemala resumed. In December 1990, however, largely as a result of the killing of US citizen Michael DeVine by members of the Guatemalan army, the Bush administration suspended almost all overt military aid."

"The US worked with the De Leon government in attempting to strengthen democracy and human rights ... The US also joined the "Group of Friends of the Peace Process," which continues to work to bring an end to Guatemala's 35-year-old internal conflict ... There has been some improvement over time in the Guatemalan military's accountability with regard to human rights violations. Whereas in the 1980's the army acted with total impunity, in the 1990's military personnel were for the first time charged, convicted, and imprisoned for some of their crimes. Senior officers, however, are still rarely charged for their roles in ordering or covering up such crimes. Human rights problems, including cases involving US citizens, remain a serious concern in US-Guatemalan relations."

"US policy objectives in Guatemala since 1984 have included supporting the transition to and strengthening of civilian democratic government, encouraging respect for human rights and the rule of law, supporting economic growth, combating illegal narcotics trafficking, fighting the communist insurgency, and, in recent years, advancing the peace process."}}

The report also goes on to highlight:

{{cquote|"The human rights records of the Guatemalan security services &mdash; the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations) &mdash; were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. U.S. policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations. The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights &mdash; insisting, for example, that Guatemalan military intelligence training include human rights instruction. The station officers assigned to Guatemala and the CIA headquarters officials whom we interviewed believe that the CIA's contact with the Guatemalan services helped improve attitudes towards human rights. Several indices of human rights observance indeed reflected improvement &mdash; whether or not this was due to CIA efforts &mdash; but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem.<ref> Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.</ref>}}


====Sister Dianna Ortiz ====
{{main|Dianna Ortiz}}
Sister Dianna Ortiz is a ] citizen and ] ] who was serving as a ] in ] in ] when she was abducted and brutally tortured. Among other torments she was ]d and suffered over 100 ]s.

In early 1995 Sister Ortiz won a U.S. civil court case against the former Minister of Defense of Guatemala and graduate of the ]&mdash; General ].<ref name="ratner">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wnet/justice/law_background_torture.html|title=Civil Remedies for Gross Human Rights Violations|last=Ratner|first=Michael|accessdate=2007-07-09}}</ref> In its ruling, the judiciary stated that "...was aware of and supported widespread acts of brutality committed under his command resulting in thousands of civilian deaths...." <ref name = "Cambridge-0521580668"></ref> and further stated that Gramajo-Morales “devised... directed... indiscriminate campaign of terror against civilians.”<ref name = "Cambridge-0521580668"/>

Sister Ortiz suspects some involvement by US government personnel. According to Allan Narien's article "Murder as Policy" published in the The Nation, Vol. 260, April 24, 1995, the former United States Ambassador to Guatemala, Thomas F. Stroock (1989-1992), claims that Sister Ortiz's various claims amount to an allegation of U.S. involvement in her rape and torture by right wing para military forces. In the "The Struggle against Impunity in Guatemala," published by the Journal of Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999, by Raul Molina Mejia, author describes, the sister Oriz incident as an example of State Terrorism. He writes: "impunity as concrete legal or de facto actions taken by powerful sectors to prevent investigation or prosecution, such as amnesty laws, pardons, thwarting investigations, the hiding of documents, and tampering with legal samples were abundant in Guatemala. He also mentions the cases of Michael Devine, the El Aguacate massacre, the 1990 surge of killings at the National University of San Carlos, as well as the detention and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz. The author explains the "political/psychological" aspect of this impunity, is "a dimension resulting from state terrorism, by which political options in a polity are restricted and controlled through the state's manipulation of fear."

Professor Farmer argues significant US involvement with state terrorism, and cites this particular case of ], claiming that U. S. complicity contains "deep roots." (Farmer, "Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor" 1994, pp. 237–46. University of California Press).

=== School of the Americas ===
{{main|Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation}}
Professor Gareau argues that the School of the Americas (reorganized in 2001 as Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation), a U.S. training institution mainly for Latin America, is a terrorist training ground. He cites a UN report which states the school has "graduated 500 of the worst human rights abusers in the hemisphere." Gareau alleges that by funding, training and supervising Guatemalan 'Death Squads' Washington was complicit in state terrorism.<ref name="Gareaupp22">
{{cite book |last=Gareau |first=Frederick H. |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=State Terrorism and the United States |year=2004 |publisher=Zed Books |location=London |id=ISBN 1-84277-535-9 |pages=pp22-25 and pp61-63}}</ref>

Defenders argue that the alleged connection to human rights abusers is often weak. For example, ]'s sole link to the SOA is that he had taken a course in Radio Operations long before El Salvador's civil war began.<ref>{{cite web|author=Paul Mulshine|title=The War in Central America Continues|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20021219221936/http:/216.247.220.66/archives/politics/watchwar.htm|accessdaymonth=6 November |accessyear=2007}}</ref> They also argue that no school should be held accountable for the actions of only some of its many graduates. Before coming to the current WHINSEC each student is now “vetted” by his/her nation and the U.S. embassy in that country. All students are now required to receive "human rights training in law, ethics, rule of law and practical applications in military and police operations."<ref>""</ref><ref>{{cite web | author = Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation | title = FAQ | url = https://www.benning.army.mil/WHINSEC/about.asp?id=37 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author = Center for International Policy | title = Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation | url = http://www.ciponline.org/facts/soa.htm | accessdate = May 6 | accessyear = 2006 }}</ref>

===El Salvador (1980-92)===
==== Background ====
The ] was predominantly fought between the government of ] and guerrilla groups between ] and ]. The US accused the ] in Nicaragua, who took power in 1979, of arming and training the guerrillas.<ref>" ''US Department of State Bulletin'', October, 1986</ref>

In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.<ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991</ref><ref>El Salvador: `Death Squads' &mdash; A Government Strategy. New York: Amnesty International, 1988. </ref><ref>From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador:
Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, </ref>A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that "many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population."<ref>Amnesty International Annual Report, 1985</ref> In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992.<ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, ] Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 107</ref><ref> Sunday, 24 March, 2002, U.S. role in Salvador's brutal war, BBC News </ref>

While peasants were primarily victimized, the killing of civilians extended to clergy, church workers, political activists, journalists, union members, health workers, students, teachers, and human rights monitors.<ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, p.vii</ref>The state terror took several forms. Salvadoran security forces, including army battalions, members of the National Guard, and the Treasury Police, performed numerous clearance operations, killing indiscriminately, and perpetrating many massacres and massive human rights violations in the process.<ref>McClintock, Mchael, The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador, Zed Books, p.308</ref><ref>El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 47</ref>

] worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels, and their supporters.<ref>Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110.
</ref> The squads were a means by which members of the armed forces were able to avoid accountability. Typically dressing in plainclothes and using vehicles with smoke-tinted windows and numberless license plates, terror tactics included publishing death lists of future victims, delivering empty coffins to the doorsteps of future victims and sending potential victims invitations to their own funeral.<ref> El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 21 </ref> Cynthia Arnson, a long-time writer on Latin America for Human Rights Watch, argues that “the objective of death squad terror seemed not only elimination of opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfiguration of bodies, the terrorization of the population.”<ref>Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds,86</ref>
In the mid-1980s state terror in El Salvador increasingly took the form of indiscriminate air forces bombing, the planting of mines and harassment of national and international medical personnel- “all indicate that although death rates attributable to death squads have declined in El Salvador since 1983, non-combatant victims of the civil war have increased dramatically.<ref> Lopez, George A.- Terrorism in Latin America in “The Politics of Terrorism”, Michael Stohl, ed.</ref>

The rebels also committed human rights violations. It was considered legitimate to physically eliminate people who were labelled military targets, traitors or "orejas" (informers), and even political opponents. The murders of mayors, right-wing intellectuals, public officials and judges are examples of this mentality.

The ], one guerrilla groups, was also accused of human rights violations, using terrorist tactics such as kidnappings, arson, and bombings to destabilize the regime. It is now one of the two major political parties of the country.

==== US involvement ====
The United States has been accused by scholars and human rights organizations of complicity in support of State Terrorism in the country of El Salvador, in a conflict characterized by rampant ] abuses and ].<ref>Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds, 85</ref> In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commission's Report on El Salvador, Prof. Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments.
{{quote|As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact. By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism.|Frederick H. Gareau|<ref>Frederick H. Gareau, State Terrorism and the United States : From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism / (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2004) 41</ref>}}

The episode of the war responsible for the single largest civilian death toll occurred on December 11, 1981, when the U.S.-trained elite ] of the Salvadoran army killed approximately nine hundred men, women, and children in and around the village of ]. Human rights violations included decapitation, raping young girls before killing them, and massacring men, women, and children in separate groups with U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles.<ref>Menjivar and Rodriquez, State Terror in the U.S.-Latin American Interstate Regime in “When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror”, Menjivar and Rodriguez, eds. University of Texas Press, 2004</ref> A report compiled by the villagers found that more half of the victims were under fourteen.<ref>Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press,155</ref> It is reputed to be the worst such atrocity in modern ]n history,{{Fact|date=March 2008}} but when news emerged of the massacre, the ] administration in the ] dismissed it as ] propaganda.<ref>{{cite book|title=Coffee and Power: Revolution and the Rise of Democracy in Central America |first=Jeffery M. |last=Paige |page=345 |year=1997 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=0-67413649-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=El Salvador: The Massacre at El Mozote : the Need to Remember |author=Americas Watch Committee |year=1992 |publisher=Americas Watch |page=15}}</ref>

The prototype of the El Salvadoran ] was ORDEN, a paramilitary spy network that allegedly terrorized rural regions and which was founded by Col. Jose Alberto Medrano, a former agent on the CIA payroll. Medrano was awarded a silver medal in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, "in recognition of exceptionally meritorious service."<ref>Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union, Report on Human Rights in El Salvador, January 26, 1982, p.183</ref><ref>Chomsky, Noam, Turning the Tide: The U.S. and Latin America, Black Rose Books, p.98</ref>

One of Medrano's proteges, ], a graduate of the Salvadoran military academy, was also trained at The ] and the International Police Academy in the suburbs of Washington D.C. <ref>Bonner, Raymond, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador, New York Times Books,1984, p.308</ref> D'Aubuisson was founder of the ] (ARENA) whose public face was that of a rightist political party, but which allegedly also ran death squads secretly. In the spring of 1980, when D'Aubuisson was arrested for plotting against the administration of ], a mass of documents was found implicating him in numerous death squad activities, including detailed plans linked to the assassination of Archbishop ]. The Reagan administration was accused of ignoring the evidence implicating D'Aubuisson.<ref>Bonner, Raymond, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador, New York Times Books,1984, p.308</ref> Critics of this view argue that ]'s sole link to the SOA is that he had taken a course in Radio Operations long before El Salvador's civil war began.<ref>{{cite web|author=Paul Mulshine|title=The War in Central America Continues|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20021219221936/http:/216.247.220.66/archives/politics/watchwar.htm|accessdaymonth=6 November |accessyear=2007}}</ref>

El Salvador became the fourth largest recipient of U.S. aid, behind Israel, Egypt, and Turkey.<ref>Bonner, Raymond, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador.</ref> In a joint 1982 report on human rights in El Salvador, The Americas Watch Committee and the ACLU place emphasis on U.S. military aid and training because it was "being provided to the same units alleged to be engaged in violations of human rights."<ref>Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union, Report on Human Rights in El Salvador, January 26, 1982, p.179</ref> ] argued that because of the extensive provision of “funding, military equipment, training and military guidance” to the Salvadoran armed forces, as well as the fact that the U.S. “identified itself unreservedly” with the causes and conduct of the Salvador military, the U.S. “bears a heavy burden of responsibility”, and moreover argued that “there may be no place else where the United States is so directly responsible for the acts of a foreign government.”<ref>The Reagan Administration's Record on Human Rights in 1985, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, The Watch Committees (Americas Watch, Asia Watch, Helsinki Watch), January 1986, p. 53)</ref>

Allegations also point to the role that U.S. administrators played in both protecting the responsible military leaders from legal accountability, and the Salvadoran regime from criticism, while simultaneously maintaining the flow of over one billion dollars of military aid. According to the UN Truth Commission report, over 75% of the serious acts of violence reported took place during the Reagan administration’s time in office.<ref> Doggan, Martha, Death Foretold: The Jesuit Murders in El Salvador, 170</ref> Cynthia Arnson argues that when the killing was at its height, “the Reagan administration downplayed the scale of abuse as well as the involvement of state actors.”<ref>Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds, 88</ref> When Congress passed a law, unpopular with the Reagan administration, which placed conditions of assurances of human rights compliance and progress on agrarian reforms, the administration issued certification reports every six months that drew heavy criticism, particularly from human rights groups. The first certification report was submitted on January 28, 1982. On the eve of the reports The Washington Post and New York Times published feature articles by American investigative journalists describing massacres in early December of 1981 in and around the village of ]. The massacres had been mainly perpetrated by the Atlacatl Battalion, the first "rapid response unit" to be trained in the U.S. The certification report was only six pages long. William Leogrande remarked that the report “contained little evidence to support the declaratory judgments that progress had been made in all of the areas required by law. The report refused to acknowledge any government complicity in human rights violations...Moreover the report flatly denied that the paramilitary death squads were linked to the government.”<ref>Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press</ref> Leogrande further stated that "no independent human rights group agreed with the Reagan administration’s portrait of the situation."<ref> Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press</ref> The Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union jointly referred to the report as a "fraud."<ref> America Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union, Report on Human Rights in El Salvador, February 26,1982</ref> Subsequent reports by U.S. agencies on the human rights situation were met with similar incredulity and contempt. A review of the Department of State's 1983 report on human rights in El Salvador by Americas Watch, Helsinki Watch and the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights concluded "all in all, this is a dreadful report."<ref>Americas Watch, Helsinki Watch, Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, Review of the Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1983, March 1984</ref>The Reagan Administration's actions included vociferous denunciations of their critics. In a retrospective report entitled El Salvador's Decade of Terror: Human Rights Since the Assassination of Archbishop Romero, Human Rights Watch summarized the administration's behavior thusly, "during the Reagan years in particular, not only did the United States fail to press for improvements...but in an effort to maintain backing for U.S. policy, it misrepresented the record of the Salvadoran government and smeared critics who challenged that record. In so doing, the administration needlessly polarized the debate in the United States and did a grave injustice to the thousands of civilian victims of government terror in El Salvador."<ref>Americas Watch, El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, p. 119</ref>

The extensive role of military advisers in El Salvador has also been raised as suggestive of wider systemic abuses of ethical and legal norms. According to William Leogrande’s analysis “a great deal of the Reagan administration’s policy toward Salvador was considered on what former Senator Sam Irvin called ‘the windy side of the law’. The president used his emergency powers, even when there was no emergency, to send $80 million in military aid to El Salvador without congressional review.” The Reagan administration carried out circumventions and arbitrary re-definitions of laws stipulating the quantity and role of advisers <ref>Leogrande, William M. Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992, University of North Carolina Press,281</ref>.

US officials say that President Bush senior's policies set the stage for peace, turning El Salvador into a democratic success story. There was substantial developmental aid during the Carter administration but very little military. The Reagan administration pressed for free elections. The Salvadoran right reluctantly joined this process after it became clear that the administration did not favor a conservative military coup.<ref>Library of Congress. Country Studies. El Salvador. Chapter 1 - Historical Setting </ref>

Defenders also justify military aid by claiming it was necessary for defending U.S. National Security Interests. The FMLN guerrillas military efforts, including terrorist acts committed by them, seriously threatened the Salvadoran government. This was deemed a threat to "national security." As president Reagan argued in his historic national television address in 1984, ''"San Salvador is closer to Houston, Texas than Houston is to Washington, D.C. Central America is America; it's at our doorstep. And it has become a stage for a bold attempt by the Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicaragua to install communism by force throughout the hemisphere,"''<ref>Regan Ronald, televised address to the nation, May 9, 1984 from El Salvador:Central America in the New Cold War, Gettleman, Lacefield, Menashe and Mermelstein, eds, Grove Press, New York</ref>. The U.S. State Department provided detailed evidence for the links between the FMLN, Nicaragua, Cuba and the Soviet Union in its White Paper,"The Communist Interference in El Salvador." The document argues that the U.S. chose the most viable middle path between the right and left extremes undermining the country. The U.S. supported the Duarte government which worked with "some success to deal with the serious political and economic problem that most concern the people of El Salvador."<ref>The U.S. State Department, White Paper: Communist Interference in El Salvador from El Salvador: Central America in the New Cold War, Gettleman, Lacefield, Menashe, Mermelstein, eds, Grove Press New York, p.323 </ref> Military aid and training given to Salvador eventually professionalized their armed forces and prevented the insurrection by guerrillas from succeeding. The death of many innocent civilians is regarded as regrettable but necessary for Salvadoran and American security, and future prosperity.{{Fact|date=March 2008}}

===Iran (1979-present)===
An article in the ] by an Indian diplomat asserts that the United States is providing aid to rebels in ], who are currently engaged in a revolt against the ] government. ], a think tank with ties to the American military and intelligence establishments, reported that militant anti-government groups are receiving aid from foreign intelligence agencies. In addition Stratfor stated, "The US-Iranian standoff has reached a high level of intensity&nbsp;... a ] being played out&nbsp;... the United States has likely ramped up support for Iran's oppressed minorities in an attempt to push the Iranian regime toward a negotiated settlement over Iraq." The state controlled ] reported that this is an attempt to stir up sectarian violence inside Iran. An Asian Times article refers to this as part of a U.S. policy of continuous fomenting of ethnic strife and sponsorship of terrorism in Iran.<ref name="Asia Times">{{cite journal
|first=M. K.
|last=Bhadrakumar
|date=], ]
|title=Foreign devils in the Iranian mountains
|publisher=]
|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB24Ak01.html
}}</ref><ref name="ZAHEDAN"> The New York Times</ref>

====Jundullah====
The ] militant organization ] has been identified as a terrorist organization by Iran and Pakistan<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.bombing/|title=2nd blast in 3 days hits Iranian city|publisher=CNN|date=2007-02-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsAug2004/cover1Aug2004.htm|title=Al-Qaeda's New Face|publisher=Newsline|date=2004-08-15}}</ref>. According to an April 2007 report by ] and ] of ], the ] had been secretly encouraging and advising the Jundullah in its attacks against Iranian targets. This support is said to have started in 2005 and arranged so that the United States provided no direct funding to the group, which would require congressional oversight and attract media attention.<ref></ref> The report was denied by ] official sources <ref name="Rood"> Justin Rood and Gretchen Peters, , ], ], ] </ref>.

], one of the sources quoted by Ross and Isham in in their report alleging US support for the Jundullah, resigned from ABC News in June 2007, after ABC officials discovered he faked several interviews while working for the company. <ref name="WP"> ], , '']'', ], ] {{en icon}}</ref>.

Brian Ross, the correspondent who worked most closely with Mr. Debat, said the Jundullah story had many sources. “We’re only worried about the things Debat supplied, not about the substance of that story,” he said in regard to the Jundullah report.So far, ABC has found nothing that would undermine the stories Mr. Debat worked on, Mr. Ross said last night. But he acknowledged that as the stories of fabrications continue to roll in, the network “at some point has to question whether anything he said can be believed.”<ref></ref>

], an Iranian state run news agency, reported that the United States government is involved in PRMI's terrorists acts.<ref></ref> On ], ], ], appeared on the Iranian branch of the ], the official broadcasting service of the United States government, which identified Rigi as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement". This incident resulted in public condemnation by ] communities in the U.S, as well as the Iranian regime.<ref>http://www.alalam.ir/english/en-NewsPage.asp?newsid=018030120070404130601</ref><ref></ref><ref> (in Persian)</ref><ref></ref>

====People's Mujahedin of Iran====
In April 2007, ] reported that the US military and the ] were protecting the ], with the US army regularly escorting PMOI supply runs between ] and its base, ].<ref name="cnn06apr07">{{Cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/|title= U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq|accessdate=2007-04-06|publisher=CNN|year=2007|author=Ware, Michael|work=CNN website, ], ]. }}</ref> The PMOI have been designated as a ] by the United States (since 1997), ], and ].<ref name="eu-fto">{{cite journal | title=COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2005/847/CFSP| journal=Official Journal of the European Union| year=2005| volume=L 314| page=44| url=http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_314/l_31420051130en00410045.pdf}}</ref><ref name="crt">{{Cite web|url=http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm|title=Chapter 6 -- Terrorist Organizations|accessdate=2007-07-15|publisher=US Department of State|year=2007}}</ref> According to the ]<ref name="WSJ"> {{Cite |title= Iranian Imbroglio Gives New Boost To Odd Exile Group |date=2006-11-29|publisher=Wall Street Journal |year=2006|author=Andrew Higgins and Jay Solomon }}</ref> "senior diplomats in the ] administration say the PMOI figured prominently as a bargaining chip in a bridge-building effort with Tehran." The PMOI is also on the ]'s blacklist of terrorist organizations, which lists 28 organizations, since 2002.<ref name="Bonnet"> , ], former director of the French ] {{fr icon}} </ref> The enlistments included: ] by the United States in 1997 under the ], and again in 2001 pursuant to section 1(b) of ]; as well as by the ] (EU) in 2002.<ref>, ], ], ]</ref> Its bank accounts were frozen in 2002 after the ] and a call by the EU to block terrorist organizations' funding. However, the ] has overturned this in December 2006 and has criticized the lack of "transparency" with which the blacklist is composed.<ref> , '']'', ], ] {{fr icon}} </ref> However, the ] declared on ] ] that it would maintain the organization on the blacklist.<ref> , ] website, ], ]. </ref><ref>, NCRI website, ], ] </ref> The EU-freezing of funds was lifted on ], ] by the ].<ref name="lifted">http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp06/aff/cp060097en.pdf</ref> In 2003 the US State Department included the NCRI on the blacklist, under Executive Order 13224.<ref> by ], Acting Spokesman, ], ] </ref>

According to a 2003 article by the New York Times, the US 1997 proscription of the group on the terrorist blacklist was done as "a goodwill gesture toward Iran's newly elected reform-minded president, ]" (succeeded in 2005 by the more conservative ]).<ref name="Rubin">{{cite web| url=http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2003-07-15.html| title= The Cult of Rajavi| first=New York Times| last=Rubin, Elizabeth| accessdate=2006-04-21}} {{en icon}}</ref> In 2002, 150 members of the ] signed a letter calling for the lifting of this designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-71383195.html|title=
U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo: Mujahedin offers hope for a new Iran|publisher=Rocky Mountain News|date=2003-01-07}}</ref> The PMOI have also tried to have the designation removed through several court cases in the U.S. The PMOI has now lost three appeals (1999, 2001 and 2003) to the US government to be removed from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and its terrorist status was reaffirmed each time. The PMOI has continued to protest worldwide against its listing, with the overt support of some US political figures.<ref name="au_act">{{Cite web|url=http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn43.htm|title=Behind the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK)|accessdate=2007-07-15|publisher=Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group, Parliament of Australia|year=2003|author=Nigel Brew}}</ref><ref>United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Argued ], ] Decided ], ], </ref>

Past supporters of the PMOI have included Rep. ] (R-CO), Rep. ], (D-CA), and Sen. ] (R-MO), and former ] ], "who became involved with the while a Republican senator from Missouri."<ref>Michael Isikoff, ": Why the attorney general and others in Washington have backed a terror group with ties to Iraq", ''Newsweek'' (] ]).</ref><ref name="gso">{{Cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050531-terror-list.htm|title=Group on U.S. terror list lobbies hard|accessdate=2007-07-15|publisher=United Press International|year=2005|author=Angela Woodall}}</ref> In 2000, 200 U.S. Congress members signed a statement endorsing the organization's cause.<ref name="newsweek">{{Cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6242223/site/newsweek/ShadesofGray|title=Shades of Gray|accessdate=2007-07-15|publisher=Newsweek|year=2004|author=Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball}}</ref>

===Iraq (1992-95)===
The '']'' reported that, according to former U.S. intelligence officials, the CIA once orchestrated a bombing and sabotage campaign between 1992 and 1995 in Iraq via one of the resistance organizations, ]'s group in an attempt to destabilize the country. According to the Iraqi government at the time, and one former CIA officer, the bombing campaign against ] included both government and civilian targets. According to this former CIA official, the civilian targets included a movie theater and a bombing of a school bus where children were killed. No public records of the secret bombing campaign are known to exist, and the former U.S. officials said their recollections were in many cases sketchy, and in some cases contradictory. "But whether the bombings actually killed any civilians could not be confirmed because," as a former CIA official said, "the United States had no significant intelligence sources in Iraq then."<ref name="NYT">{{cite journal
| first =Joel
| last =Brinkley
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| year =June 9
| month =2004
| title =Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks
| journal =New York Times
| volume =
| issue =
| pages =
| id =
| url =http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0609-02.htm
}}</ref><ref>Counter Currents, 2004 June 19, "Who Is Allawi?" http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hassan190604.htm; World War 4 Report, "Iraq Meets the New Boss" http://ww4report.com/static/iraq5.html</ref>

===Lebanon (1985)===
The CIA has been accused of being the perpetrator of a ] which killed 81 people. The bombing was apparently an assassination attempt on an ] cleric, Sheikh ].<ref name = "Time.com-8816"> Richard Zoglin ''TIME'' October 12, 1987</ref><ref name = "Woodward-CIA-1987">{{cite book
|first=Bob
|last=Woodward
|title=Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA
|publisher=Simon and Schuster
|date=1987
}}</ref> The bombing, known as the Bir bombing after Bir el-Abed, the impoverished ] neighborhood in which it had occurred, was reported by the New York Times to have caused a "massive" explosion "even by local standards," killing 81 people, and wounding more than 200.<ref name="worldbobmade">{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF27Ak01.html|title=The Gates Inheritance, Part 3: The world that Bob made|publisher=Asia Times|date=2007-06-27}}</ref> Investigative journalist ] stated that the CIA was funded by the ]n ] to arrange the bombing.<ref name = "Time.com-8816"/><ref name = "Woodward-CIA-1987"/> Fadlallah himself also claims to have evidence that the CIA was behind the attack and that the Saudis paid $3 million.<ref> Paul Cochrane ''Worldpress.org'' July 5, 2004</ref>

The U.S. ] ] admitted that those responsible for the bomb may have had American training, but that they were "rogue operative(s)" and the CIA in no way sanctioned or supported the attack.<ref name="target"></ref> Roger Morris writes in the Asia Times that the next day, a notice hung over the devastated area where families were still digging the bodies of relatives out of the rubble. It read: "Made in the USA". The terrorist strike on Bir el-Abed is seen as a product of U.S. covert policy in Lebanon. Agreeing with the proposals of CIA director ], president ] sanctioned the Bir attack in retaliation for the ] at Beirut airport in October 1983, which, Roger Morris alleges, in turn had been a reprisal for earlier U.S. acts of intervention and diplomatic dealings in ] that had resulted in hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian lives. After CIA operatives had repeatedly failed to arrange Casey's car-bombing, the CIA allegedly "farmed out" the operation to agents of its longtime Lebanese client, the Phalange, a ], anti-Islamic militia.<ref name="worldbobmade"/> Others allege the 1984 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut as the motivating factor.<ref name="target"/>


Among other scholars, Ruth J. Blakeley says that the United States and its allies sponsored and deployed state terrorism on an "enormous scale" during the ]. The justification given for this was to contain ], but Blakeley contends it was also a means by which to buttress the interests of U.S. business elites and to promote the expansion of ] throughout the ].<ref name="Blakeley"/> Mark Aarons posits that right-wing authoritarian regimes and dictatorships backed by Western powers committed atrocities and mass killings that rival the Communist world, citing examples such as the ], the ], the "]" in Guatemala during the civil war, and the assassinations and state terrorism associated with ] throughout South America.<ref name ="BlumenthalMcCormack">
===Japan (1945)===
Mark Aarons (2007). "." In David A. Blumenthal and Timothy L. H. McCormack (eds). '' {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160105053952/http://www.brill.com/legacy-nuremberg-civilising-influence-or-institutionalised-vengeance |date=2016-01-05 }}'' ]. {{ISBN|9004156917}} pp. &
{{Unbalanced}}
</ref> In ''Worse Than War,'' ] argues that during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the ].<ref>] (2009). ''Worse Than War.'' ]. {{ISBN|1586487698}} p.537
{{main|Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}}
* "During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."</ref> According to Latin Americanist ], the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the U.S.S.R. and its East European satellites between 1960 and 1990.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Coatsworth|first1=John Henry|author-link=John Henry Coatsworth |chapter= The Cold War in Central America, 1975–1991 | editor1-last=Leffler|editor1-first=Melvyn P.|editor1-link=Melvyn P. Leffler|editor2-last=Westad|editor2-first=Odd Arne|editor2-link=Odd Arne Westad|date=2012 |title=The Cambridge History of the Cold War (Volume 3)|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xjTVBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT230|publisher=]|page=230 |isbn=978-1107602311}}</ref> ] asserts that "hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans were tortured, abducted or killed by right-wing military regimes as part of the US-led anti-communist crusade."<ref>{{cite book|last1=McSherry|first1=J. Patrice|author-link1= J. Patrice McSherry|editor1=Esparza, Marcia |editor2=Henry R. Huttenbach|editor3=Daniel Feierstein|title=State Violence and Genocide in Latin America: The Cold War Years (Critical Terrorism Studies)|chapter=Chapter 5: "Industrial repression" and Operation Condor in Latin America |page=|publisher=]|year=2011|isbn=978-0415664578|chapter-url=https://www.routledge.com/State-Violence-and-Genocide-in-Latin-America-The-Cold-War-Years/Esparza-Huttenbach-Feierstein/p/book/9780415496377}}</ref>


==Definition==
Some legal scholars, ], other governments, and human rights organizations have characterized the United States' ] ] against the ] as state terrorism. The ] remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some commentators hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the ].<ref>
{{See also|State terrorism|Definitions of terrorism}}
The ] ] excludes acts done by recognized ].<ref>
{{cite book {{cite book
|author=Gupta, Dipak K.
| last = Frey
|title=Understanding terrorism and political violence: the life cycle of birth, growth, transformation, and demise
| first =Robert S.
|publisher=Taylor & Francis
| title = The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond
|year=2008
| publisher =University Press of America
|page=8
| date =2004
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a5S8tAyPuQwC&pg=PA8
| id = ISBN 0761827439 }} Reviewed at:
|isbn=978-0-415-77164-1
|access-date=2016-01-05
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502065534/https://books.google.com/books?id=a5S8tAyPuQwC&pg=PA8
|archive-date=2016-05-02
|url-status=live
}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite journal {{cite journal
|title=How to Define Terrorism
| last = Rice
| first =Sarah |first=Joshua
|last=Sinai
| title =The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)
| journal =Harvard Human Rights Journal |journal=Perspectives on Terrorism
| volume =Vol. 18 |volume=2
|issue=4
| date =2005
|year=2008
| url = http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss18/booknotes-Genocidal.shtml
|url=http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/33/html
| accessdate = }}</ref><ref>
|access-date=2011-07-06
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111005054712/http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/33/html
|archive-date=2011-10-05
|url-status=live
}}
</ref> According to U.S. law (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2))<ref>{{cite web
|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/422/2656f-
|title=Title 22 > Chapter 38 > § 2656f - Annual country reports on terrorism
|date=February 1, 2010
|author=U.S. Department of State
|publisher=Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute
}}</ref> terrorism is defined as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".<ref>Gupta, p. 8</ref><ref>
{{cite journal {{cite journal
|volume = 2
| last = Dower
|issue = 4
| first =John
|year = 2008
| title =The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory
|title = How to Define Terrorism
| journal =Diplomatic History
|first = Joshua
| volume =Vol. 19
|last = Sinai
| issue =no. 2
|journal = Perspectives on Terrorism
| date =1995
|url = http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/33/html
| url =
|access-date = 2011-07-06
| accessdate = }}</ref>
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111005054712/http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/33/html

|archive-date = 2011-10-05
The role of the bombings in ] and the United States' justification for them has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. J. Samuel Walker writes in an April 2005 overview of recent historiography on the issue, "the controversy over the use of the bomb seems certain to continue."<ref> {{cite journal|title=Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground|journal=Diplomatic History|date=]|first=J. Samuel|last=Walker|coauthors=|volume=29|issue=2|pages=334|id= |url=|format=|accessdate=2008-01-30 }}</ref> Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world.<ref>{{cite web | title=Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945 | url=http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html | accessmonthday= August 6 | accessyear= 2005 }}</ref> The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers.<ref>
|url-status = live
{{cite book
}}
| last = Eisenhower
</ref><ref>
| first = Dwight D.
| authorlink =Dwight D. Eisenhower
| title = The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956
| publisher = Doubleday & Company
| date =1963
| pages = pp. 312-313
| id = }}</ref><ref name="Hiroshima: Quotes">
{{cite web
| title=Hiroshima: Quotes
| url=http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
| accessmonthday = August 6
| accessyear= 2005 }}</ref><ref name="Bard Memorandum">
{{cite web
| title=Bard Memorandum
| url=http://www.dannen.com/decision/bardmemo.html
| accessmonthday = May 8
| accessyear = 2006 }}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
| title=Decision: Part I
| url=http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm
| accessmonthday = August 6
| accessyear= 2005 }}</ref><ref name = "CD"> {{cite journal
| first =Robert
| last =Freeman
| coauthors =
| year =2006
| month =August 6
| title =Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?
| journal =CommonDreams.org
| volume =
| issue =
| pages =
| id =
| url =http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web {{cite web
|work=National Counterterrorism Center: Annex of Statistical Information
| url = http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw
|title=Country Reports on Terrorism - Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
| title = United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report
|date=April 30, 2007
| accessmonthday = July 28
|publisher=U.S. State Department
| accessyear = 2006
|url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82739.htm
| author =
|access-date=2017-06-25
| last =
}}
| first =
</ref> There is no international consensus on a legal or academic definition of terrorism.<ref name="Williamson-38">{{cite book
| authorlink =
|author=Williamson, Myra
| coauthors =
|title=Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001
| date =
|publisher=Ashgate Publishing
| year = 1946
|year=2009
| month =
|isbn=978-0-7546-7403-0
| format =
|page=38
| work =
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZuJIPP9HfRsC&pg=PA38
| publisher = United States Government Printing Office
}}</ref> United Nations conventions have failed to reach consensus on definitions of non-state or state terrorism.<ref>{{cite web|work=U.N. Action to Counter Terrorism |title=The UN's fight against terrorism: five years after 9/11 |first=Javier |last=Rupérez |publisher=]|location=Spain|author-link=Javier Rupérez |date=6 September 2006 |url=https://www.un.org/terrorism/ruperez-article.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110411034734/http://www.un.org/terrorism/ruperez-article.html |archive-date=April 11, 2011 }}</ref>
| pages = pg. 26
}}</ref><ref name = "CD" />


According to professor Mark Selden, "American politicians and most social scientists definitionally exclude actions and policies of the United States and its allies" as terrorism.<ref>Selden </ref> Historian ] wrote that "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for ''state terrorism'', state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defense, not terror."<ref>{{cite book|author=Hor, Michael Yew Meng|title=Global anti-terrorism law and policy|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2005|isbn=978-0-521-10870-6|page=20|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nzQOAR5rqvcC&pg=PA20|access-date=2016-11-12|archive-date=2019-03-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190303234424/https://books.google.com/books?id=nzQOAR5rqvcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA20|url-status=dead}}</ref> According to Dr Myra Williamson, the meaning of "terrorism" has undergone a transformation. During the reign of terror a regime or system of terrorism was used as an instrument of governance, wielded by a recently established revolutionary state against the enemies of the people. Now the term "terrorism" is commonly used to describe terrorist acts committed by ''non-state or subnational entities'' against a state.<ref>Williamson </ref>
The sociologist Kai Erikson has alleged that the attacks "...were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing...the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?"<ref name="ZinnBreakingSilence"> {{cite web|url=http://polymer.bu.edu/~amaral/Personal/zinn.html |title=Hiroshima; Breaking the Silence |accessdate=2008-01-30 |first=Howard Zinn }}</ref>


In ''State terrorism and the United States'' Frederick F. Gareau writes that the intent of terrorism is to intimidate or coerce both targeted groups and larger sectors of society that share or could be led to share the values of targeted groups by causing them "intense fear, anxiety, apprehension, panic, dread and/or horror".<ref>{{cite book|last=Gareau|first=Frederick H.|title=State terrorism and the United States : from counterinsurgency to the war on terrorism|year=2004|publisher=Clarity Press|location=Atlanta|isbn=978-0-932863-39-3|page=14}}</ref> The objective of terrorism against the state is to force governments to change their policies, to overthrow governments or even to destroy the state. The objective of state terrorism is to eliminate people who are considered to be actual or potential enemies, and to discourage those actual or potential enemies who are not eliminated.<ref>Wright, p. 11</ref>
Historian ] writes: "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."<ref name="ZinnBreakingSilence" />


==General critiques==
] wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."<ref>{{cite journal
{{Overquotation|section|date=September 2017}}
| author = Walzer, Michael
Professor ], formerly the ] under President Reagan's administration, wrote:
| name = Dissent Magazine
| title = Five Questions About Terrorism
| publisher = Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc.
| date = 2002
| url = http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/LpB/Lehre/WS%2002-03/Walzer%20on%20Terror.pdf
| volume = 49
| issue = 1
| accessdate=2007-07-11}}</ref>


<blockquote>As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.<ref name="odom_terrorismtactic">
Professor ] is head of the ] ] and studies political violence, ], ], and ].<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.cappe.edu.au/staff/tony-coady.htm |title=Professor Tony Coady |accessdate=2008-01-30 }}</ref> He writes in ''Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World'': "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."<ref>{{cite book|title = Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World |publisher = Melbourne University Publishing |year = 2004 |month = June |last = Coady |first = Tony |ISBN = 0-52285049-9 |pages = XV}}</ref>
{{Cite journal|author=Odom, General William|title=American Hegemony: How to Use It, How to Lose It|journal=Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society|volume=151|issue=4|date=December 2007|page=410}}. Online copy available {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614105156/http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/214721/original/OdomPaper.pdf |date=2011-06-14 }}
</ref></blockquote>


Professor ] holds that the US and other rich states, as well as mainstream ] institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of ] privilege. He has said that:
Mark Selden, professor of sociology and history at ] and author of ''War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century'', writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."<ref>{{cite news | first=Mark | last=Selden | coauthors= | title=Terrorism Before and After 9-11 | date=] | publisher=] | url =http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2310 | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-01-30 | language = }}</ref>


<blockquote>If 'terrorism' as a term of moral and legal opprobrium is to be used at all, then it should apply to violence deliberately targeting civilians, whether committed by state actors or their non-state enemies.<ref name="Falk 1988">{{Cite book|last=Falk |first=Richard |title=Revolutionaries and Functionaries: The Dual Face of Terrorism |url=https://archive.org/details/revolutionariesf0000falk |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=Dutton |year=1988|isbn=9780525246046 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
], professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at ] has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of ]. He writes "The graveyards of ] are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism... Consider the hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays ] as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale... Any counter terrorism policy worth the name must include a convincing indictment of the First World variety."<ref name="falk" />. He also writes:
|url = http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/Nonviolence/2004/Falk_GandhiNonviolence.html
|title = Gandhi, Nonviolence and the Struggle Against War
|last = Falk
|first = Richard
|publisher = The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
|date = January 28, 2004
|access-date = 2007-07-10
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070802103222/http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/Nonviolence/2004/Falk_GandhiNonviolence.html
|archive-date = August 2, 2007
|url-status = dead
|df = mdy-all
}}</ref></blockquote>


Falk has argued that the repudiation of authentic non-state terrorism is insufficient as a strategy for mitigating it.<ref name="falk">{{cite journal
{{quote|Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy.|Richard Falk|''War and State Terrorism''<ref>Falk, Richard. "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law",in Selden,, Mark, editor (November 28, 2003). War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742523913. ,45</ref>}}
|title=Thinking About Terrorism
|journal=]
|date=June 28, 1986
|first=Richard |last=Falk
|volume=242|issue=25|pages=873–892
}}</ref>
Falk also argued that people who committed "terrorist" acts against the United States could use the ].


], reviewing Falk's ''Revolutionaries and Functionaries'', stated that Falk's definition of terrorism hinges on some unstated definition of "permissible"; this, says Schorr, makes the judgment of what is terrorism inherently "subjective", and furthermore, he claims, leads Falk to label some acts he considers impermissible as "terrorism", but others he considers permissible as merely "terroristic".<ref>{{Cite news
While paying tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ] - President of Venezuela - referred to the bombings as "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history."<ref>{{cite news | first=Maria Salomé | last=Campanioni | coauthors= | title=Chavez Calls Dropping of A-Bomb, 'Greatest Act of Terrorism in Recorded History' | date=] | publisher= | url =http://www.watchingamerica.com/radiorebelde000001.html | work =watchingamerica.com | pages = | accessdate = 2008-01-30 | language = }}</ref>
|url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD8133BF932A35756C0A96E948260
|title=The Politics of Violence
|first= Daniel |last=Schorr
|date=1 May 1988
|newspaper=The New York Times
}}</ref>


In a review of Chomsky and Herman's ''The Political Economy of Human Rights'', Yale political science professor ] holds that the authors' case for accusing the United States of state terrorism is "shockingly overstated". Fishkin writes of Chomsky and Herman:
Burleigh Taylor Wilkins states in Terrorism and Collective Responsibility that "any definition which allowed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to count as instances of terrorism would be too broad." He goes on to explain "The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while obviously intended by the American government to alter the policies of the Japanese government, seem for all the terror they involved, more an act of war than of terrorism."<ref>{{cite book|title=Terrorism and Collective Responsibility |publisher=Routledge |last=Wilkins |first=Taylor |isbn=0-41504152-X |pages=11}}</ref>


<blockquote>They infer an extent of American control and coordination comparable to ]. ... Yet even if all evidence were accepted ... it would add up to no more than systematic support, not control. Hence the comparison to Eastern Europe appears grossly overstated. And from the fact that we give assistance to countries that practice terror it is too much to conclude that "Washington has become the torture and political murder capital of the world." Chomsky's and Herman's indictment of US foreign policy is thus the mirror image of the '']'' rhetoric they criticize: it rests on the illusion of American omnipotence throughout the world. And because they refuse to attribute any substantial independence to countries that are, in some sense, within America's sphere of influence, the entire burden for all the political crimes of the non-communist world can be brought home to Washington.<ref name=Fishkin>{{cite magazine
===The Philippines (1990s-present)===
|last=Fishkin|first=James S.
====Background====
|title=American Dream/Global Nightmare: The Dilemma of U.S. Human Rights Policy by Sandy Vogelgesang (W. W. Norton)<br/> The Political Economy of Human Rights Volume I: The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism <br/>Volume II: After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman (South End Press)
The Philippine government, currently headed by the elected President ], is fighting insurgents such as Islamic groups and the Communist ].
|magazine=]
|date=September 6{{ndash}}13, 1980
|volume=183| issue=10/11
|pages=37–38
}}</ref></blockquote>


Fishkin praises Chomsky and Herman for documenting human rights violations, but argues that this is evidence "for a far lesser moral charge", namely, that the United States could have used its influence to prevent certain governments from committing acts of torture or murder but chose not to do so.<ref name=Fishkin/>


Commenting on Chomsky's ''9-11'', former US Secretary of Education ] said: "Chomsky says in the book that the United States is a leading terrorist state. That's a preposterous and ridiculous claim. ... What we have done is ], helped in ] and the ]. We have provided sanctuary for people of all faiths, including Islam, in the United States. We tried to help in ]. ... Do we have faults and imperfections? Of course. The notion that we're a leading terrorist state is preposterous."<ref>
Since the advent of the "War on Terrorism" in 2001, the people of the Philippines have witnessed the assassinations of more than 850 mainstream journalists and other public figures and the harassment, detention, or torture of untold more.<ref name="deadlydirty1">{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IB13Ae01.html|title=Deadly dirty work in the Philippines (page 1)|publisher=Asia Times|date=2007-02-13}}</ref> This has put the Philippines on the human rights watch list of the United Nations and the US Congress. A UN special rapporteur criticized the Arroyo administration for not doing enough to stop the killings, many of which had been linked to government anti-insurgency operations. Interior Assistant Secretary Danilo Valero said the sharp decline, 83%, in the number of political killings last year, as well as the filing of cases against the suspects, “underline the Arroyo government’s strong commitment to human rights and its firm resolve to put an end to these unexplained killings and put their perpetrators behind bars.” Task Force Usig was created in 2006 as the government’s response to the extrajudicial killings. Valero said the yearend statistics showed “the creation of the task force has been a deterrent” to such crimes.<ref name="fell">{{cite news | url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080114-112184/PNP-Extrajudicial-killings-fell-by-83-in-2007 | title=PNP: Extrajudicial killings fell by 83% in 2007 | publisher=Inquirer.net | date=2008-01-14}}</ref>
{{cite news
|title=American Morning with Paula Zahn
|url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/09/ltm.10.html
|newspaper=CNN
|date=May 9, 2002
|access-date=7 July 2011
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121026045701/http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/09/ltm.10.html
|archive-date=2012-10-26
|url-status=live
}}
</ref>


Stephen Morris also criticized Chomsky's thesis:
The human rights watchdog KARAPATAN has documented human rights violations against 169,530 individuals, 18,515 families, 71 communities, and 196 households. One person, it says, is killed every three days under the Macapagal-Arroyo government, or a total of 271 persons over the last three years.<ref name="hrviol">{{cite web|url=http://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-43/3-43-hr.html|title=Human Rights Violations in the Philippines: A Grim Reality|publisher=Bulatlat|accessdate=2008-03-16}}</ref>


<blockquote>There is only one regime which has received arms and aid from the United States, and which has a record of brutality that is even a noticeable fraction of the brutality of ], ], ], or the ]. That is the ] government in ]. But ... the United States was not the principal foreign supplier of Indonesia when the generals seized power (nor is there any credible evidence of American involvement in the coup). Within the period of American assistance to Indonesia, and in particular during the period of the ], the number of political prisoners has ''declined''. Finally, the current brutality of the Suharto regime is being directed against the people of ], a former colony of Portugal that Indonesia is attempting to take over by force ... not as part of its normal process of domestic rule.<ref>Morris, Stephen, Chomsky on U.S. foreign policy, ''Harvard International Review,'' December–January 1981, pg. 26.</ref></blockquote>
Estimates of killings vary on the precise number, with Task Force Usig estimating only 114. It has failed to gain any convictions, and as of February 2007 had only arrested 3 suspects in the over 100 cases of assassination.<ref name="mrzine"></ref> However, Dutch and Belgian legal experts have declared that Task Force Usig "has not proven to be an independent body…the PNP has a poor record as far as the effective investigation of the killings is concerned and is mistrusted by the Philippine people."<ref name="phsilent">{{cite web|url=http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-27/6-27-war3.htm|title=What Drives Macapagal-Arroyo’s "Silent War"?|publisher=Bulatlat}}</ref> Task Force Usig dismissed nearly half of the 114 assassinations as "cold"<ref name"kilusang">{{cite web|url=http://www.kilusangmayouno.org/dilg-should-urge-task-force-usig-really-investigate-all-political-killings-kmu|title=DILG should urge Task Force Usig to really investigate all political killings - KMU|accessdate=2008-04-05}}</ref> and, of the 58 cases where charges were brought, has secured only convictions only twice.<ref name="hrwUsig"> ''Human Rights Watch'' 2003</ref><ref name="mrzine"></ref>

Amnesty International states that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution." The AI report continues: {{quote |the arrest and threatened arrest of leftist Congress Representatives and others on charges of rebellion, and intensifying counter-insurgency operations in the context of a declaration by officials in June of 'all-out-war' against the ] . . . the parallel public labeling by officials of a broad range of legal leftist groups as communist 'front organizations'...has created an environment in which there is heightened concern that further political killings of civilians are likely to take place.|Amnesty International|<ref name="AIreport">[http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa350062006 Philippines: Political Killings, Human Rights and the Peace '''...''' | Amnesty International</ref>}}

Human Rights Watch, in a 2008 report, reported
{{quote |2006 saw a sharp increase in the number of extrajudicial killings, which coincided with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s June 2006 declaration of an “all-out war” against communist insurgents called the National People’s Army (NPA)...the Philippine government is consistently failing in its obligations under international human rights law to hold accountable perpetrators of politically motivated killings....With inconclusive investigations, implausible suspects, and no convictions, impunity prevails....Out of hundreds of killings and “disappearances” over the past five years, there have been only two successfully prosecuted cases resulting in the conviction of four defendants....The number of senior military officers convicted either for direct involvement or under command responsibility remains zero. The doctrine of command responsibility in international law means that superior officers can be held criminally liable for the actions of their subordinates, and also if a superior had reason to know that subordinates under his command committed an offence and failed to use all feasible means under his command to prevent and punish it, he too may be found guilty for the offence.|Human Rights Watch|<ref name=hrwUsig>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/03/10/philip18248_txt.htm</ref>}}

Human Rights Watch writes that the murders and kidnappings are rarely investigated by the police or other government agencies; they often go unreported because of fears of reprisal against the victims or their families. The Philippine National Police blame investigative failures on this reluctance, but as Human Rights Watch writes: {{quote |itnesses are indeed reluctant to cooperate with police investigations, because of fear that they would be targeted by doing so. An extremely weak witness protection program exacerbates this problem....olice are often unwilling to vigorously investigate cases implicating members of the AFP. Families of some victims told Human Rights Watch that when they reported relevant cases to the police, police often demanded that the families themselves produce evidence and witnesses. Even when police filed cases with a court, they often identified the perpetrators either as long-wanted members of the NPA or simply as “John Doe.” Some families told Human Rights Watch that police gave up investigating after only a few days.|Human Rights Watch|<ref name="hrwUsig"/>}}

{{quote |Most of those killed or "disappeared" were peasant or worker activists belonging to progressive groups such as ], ], ], ], ], ], and others (Petras and Abaya 2006). They were protesting Arroyo's repressive taxation, collusion with foreign capital tied to oil and mining companies that destroy people's livelihood and environment, fraudulent use of public funds, and other anti-people measures. Such groups and individuals have been tagged as "communist fronts" by Arroyo's National Security Advisers, the military, and police; the latter agencies have been implicated in perpetrating or tolerating those ruthless atrocities.|Dr. ]|<ref name="classstruggle">http://www.ahrchk.net/ahrc-in-news/mainfile.php/2006ahrcinnews/865/</ref>}}

{{quote |Right from the beginning, Arroyo's ascendancy was characterized by rampant human rights violations. Based on the reports of numerous fact-finding missions, Arroyo has presided over an unprecedented series of harassments, warrantless arrests, and assassinations of journalists, lawyers, church people, peasant leaders, legislators, doctors, women activists, youthful students, indigenous leaders, and workers.|Dr. ]|<ref name="classstruggle"/>}}

According to commentators ] and Robin Eastman-Abaya, "Human rights groups provide evidence that death squads operate under the protective umbrella of regional military commands, especially the U.S.-trained Special Forces.<ref name="petras"></ref>

2006 is also the year President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 which declared a state of emergency and gave the executive branch sweeping, unchecked powers, allowing police and the military to undertake warrantless arrests against "enemies of the state", a category which includes members of the political opposition and journalists from critical media outlets.<ref name="deadlydirty2">{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IB13Ae02.html|title=Deadly dirty work in the Philippines (page 2)|publisher=Asia Times|date=2007-02-13}}</ref> With 185 dead, 2006 is so far (2007) the highest annual mark for extra-judicial government murders. Of the 2006 killings, the dead were "mostly left-leaning activists, murdered without trial or punishment for the perpetrators." The issuance of the proclamation conspicuously coincided with a dramatic increase in political violence and extra-judicial killings.<ref name="deadlydirty2"/>

The Arroyo government initially made no response to the dramatic increase in violence and killings.<ref name="classstruggle"/> In 2007, however, Arroyo was forced by popular outcry to appoint an independent commission led by the Philippine's former Supreme Court Chief Justice Jose Melo. While the Melo commission found "no proof" of an official State policy, it nevertheless established that the military was responsible for the "majority" of the killings and that the superior officers of the perpetrators could be held accountable for the crimes<ref name="deadlydirty1"/> The report "linked state security forces to the murder of militants and recommended that military officials, notably retired major general Jovito Palparan, be held liable under the principle of command responsibility for killings in their areas of assignment."<ref name="inq">{{cite web |title=Melo: Commission report 'complete' |last=Alberto |first=Thea |publisher=] |date=2007-02-15 |url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=49657 |accessdate=2007-06-04}}</ref> Later, in February 2007, UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston implicated the Philippine police and military as responsible for the crimes. Alston charged in his report that Arroyo’s propaganda and counter-insurgency strategy “encourage or facilitate the extra-judicial killings of activists and other enemies” of the state.<ref name="busharroyo">{{cite web|url=http://www.ahrchk.net/ahrc-in-news/mainfile.php/2007ahrcinnews/1130/|title=Philippines: Filpina Militants Indict Bush-Arroyo For Crimes Against Humanity|publisher=Bay Area Indymedia|date=2007-04-28}} Article written by ] for Bay Area Indymedia. Republished by "Asian Human Rights Commission in News".</ref> and that "the AFP remains in a state of almost total denial… of its need to respond effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings which have been convincingly attributed to them"<ref name="hrwUsig"/>.

Publicly, Arroyo has condemned political killings "in the harshest possible terms" and urged witnesses to come forward.<ref name="sona2006">{{cite web |url=http://www.gov.ph/sona/sonatext2006.asp |title=State of the Nation Address of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |accessdate=2007-06-05 |date=2006-07-24 |publisher=The Official Website of the Republic of the Philippines}}</ref>

====US involvement====
The U.S. influence upon the Philippine military has been condemned as sponsorship or support of state terrorism through the policies implemented by the ] and ] it has delivered as part of the ].<ref name="busharroyo"/><ref></ref><ref name="realityofaid"></ref><ref name="mrzine"/><ref name="petras"/><ref></ref><ref></ref>

The Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace documents that most of the human rights violations were committed by the ], the ], and the CAFGU (]) under the mantle of the ] campaign initially created as one arm of the U.S. ]. <ref> ''National Council of Churches in the Philippines'' March 2007</ref>

According to ], in the period from 2000 to 2003, military loans and grants to the Philippines from the U.S. grew by 1,776 percent. As of 2005, according to ] the Philippines were the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in Asia and fourth worldwide; aid since then has continued to increase. U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the Philippines almost trebled from $30 million in 2004 to $80 million in 2005, with the bulk of that money used to upgrade Philippine marine and counter-terrorism capabilities. Allegedly, development aid has been used "to intensify attack...against unarmed civilians including the leaders and members of legal people's organizations.""While development aid may be used for livelihood projects, infrastructure, or social services, we fear that the AFP will only use such projects to gather intelligence or launch special operations in communities that they believe are NPA bases."<ref name="realityofaid"/>

By late 2006, the United States had given roughly US$300 million of aid to the AFP and delivered hundreds of American soldiers to organize and execute extended training exercises with the Filipino police and military apparatus. In May of 2006 the Philippines and the U.S. approved an agreement to establish a formal board to "determine and discuss the possibility of holding joint U.S.-Philippine ] against terrorism and other non-traditional security concerns."<ref name="milmarr">{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HH23Ae01.html|title=US, Philippines weigh new military marriage|publisher=Asia Times|date=2006-08-23}}</ref>.

The United States &mdash; through the person of ] ] &mdash; has broadly "congratulated the government of the Philippines...for achievements while at the same time acknowledging the valuable role of partnership with the United States".<ref></ref>

{{quote |President Arroyo invited thousands of U.S. Special Forces to engage in police actions together with the AFP, thus violating an explicit Constitutional provision against the intervention of foreign troops in local affairs. She followed ] in implementing the Visiting Forces Agreement, together with other onerous treaties, thus maintaining U.S. control of the Philippine military via training of officers, logistics, and dictation of punitive measures against the Moro insurgents as well as the New People's Army guerrillas. The Philippines became the "second front in the war on terror," with Bush visiting the Philippines in October 2004 and citing the neocolony as a model for the rebuilding of devastated Iraq.|Dr. ]|<ref name="mrzine"/>}}

{{quote | U.S....fashioned..."]" to deal with upheavals in the post-Vietnam period. Its military field manuals endorsed tactical tools of...], forced mass evacuations or "hamletting," imprisonment of whole communities in military garrisons, militarization of villages, selective assassinations, ], ], etc. Tried in Indochina, Korea, Central America, it continues to be implemented in Colombia, Iraq, and the Philippines....With U.S. help, the AFP mobilized vigilante and ] ] with license to kill revolutionary militants, immune from prosecution. U.S. military force midwived the restoration of U.S.-backed oligarchic oppression of the Filipino masses.|Dr. ]|<ref name="mrzine"/>}}

In March 2007, the Permanent People’s Tribunal at The Hague, Belgium, rendered a judgment of guilty for “crimes against humanity” against the Philippine government and its chief backer, the Bush administration.<ref name="busharroyo"/> The Dutch ambassador to the Philippines Monday said the Permanent People’s Tribuna that found the Arroyo administration responsible for political killings in the Philippines was not much more than a kangaroo court -- a view shared by Malacañang officials and their allies in Congress. He said the verdict was “not serious” because the accused were not even invited to the sessions. The head of the European Commission in the Philippines, said the European Union would not issue any statement on the PPT’s verdict because the tribunal was a "nonofficial body, nongovernment." The Dutch ambassador to the Philippines stated that the Netherlands, along with other European nations, was concerned about the human rights situation in the Philippines.

From the beginning &mdash; as early as 2001 &mdash; the U.S. State Department publicly acknowledged in a published report that "Members of the security services were responsible for ] killings, disappearances, ], and arbitrary arrest and detention," In the same report, the State Department admitted that the presence of ] and other military advisers had "helped create an environment in which ] abuses increased", commenting that 'there were allegations by human rights groups that these problems worsened as the Government sought to intensify its campaign against the ] ] Group (ASG).'" Further, in 2003 the U.S. government &mdash; in anticipation that its military personnel would be charged with human rights abuses &mdash; offered the Philippines' government an extra US$30 million of military aid in exchange for "an agreement that would exempt U.S. soldiers operating in the Philippines from the ]".<ref name="terrtortphil"></ref>

General Jovito Palparan has been widely condemned for his roles in the killings; notorious as the 'Butcher of Mindoro", Palparan has been officially condemned by official Philippine investigations as responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref>http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-31/6-31-trail.htm</ref> For instance, "hen Palparan was assigned to Central Luzon in September 2005, the number of political assassinations in that region alone jumped to 52 in four months. Prior to his promotion, the regions with the largest number of summary executions like Eastern Visayas and Central Luzon were under then-Colonel Palparan."<ref name="petras"/> In an opinion article in the ] Palparan was quoted as saying: {{quote |The killings are being attributed to me but I did not kill them. I just inspire the triggermen...Their disappearance is good for us but as to who abducted them, we don’t know....I encourage people victimized by communist rebels to get even.<ref></ref>}}

President Arroyo's promotion of him to one-star general has been widely condemned as a gesture of support for military-backed state terrorism.<ref name="phsilent"/><ref></ref><ref name="hrviol"/><ref name="deadlydirty2"/><ref name="petras"/> Palparan has received advanced training and official support{{failed verification}} from the U.S. government, as well as heading up the Philippine forces in the initial 2001 invasion of Iraq.<ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/07/iraq-040719-21f0f024.htm</ref><ref></ref>

== Opposing views ==
{{Unbalanced}}
{{Expand|date=March 2008}}
:''See also: ]

War crimes, such as rapes and killing POWs, are not not legally sanctioned by the US government or the US military. They are not the official policy of the US government.

Bias in media coverage is also argued. Advocates of this stance point to studies that claim that the ''New York Times'' coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.


In 2017, declassified documents from the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta have confirmed that the United States government, from the very beginning, was ] in the campaign of mass killings which followed Suharto's seizure of power.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/telegrams-confirm-scale-of-us-complicity-in-1965-genocide/|title=Telegrams confirm scale of US complicity in 1965 genocide|last= Melvin|first=Jess|date=20 October 2017|website=Indonesia at Melbourne|publisher=]|access-date=July 27, 2018|quote="The new telegrams confirm the US actively encouraged and facilitated genocide in Indonesia to pursue its own political interests in the region, while propagating an explanation of the killings it knew to be untrue."}}</ref><ref>
{{cite news|last=Scott|first=Margaret|date=October 26, 2017|title=Uncovering Indonesia's Act of Killing|url=https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/10/20/uncovering-indonesias-act-of-killing/|work=]|access-date=July 27, 2018|quote=According to Simpson, these previously unseen cables, telegrams, letters, and reports "contain damning details that the U.S. was willfully and gleefully pushing for the mass murder of innocent people."|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625161434/https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/10/20/uncovering-indonesias-act-of-killing/|archive-date=2018-06-25|url-status=live}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite news|last=Head|first=Mike|author-link=Mike Head|date=25 October 2017|title=Documents show US participation in 1965-66 massacres in Indonesia|url=http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/25/indo-o25.html|work=]|access-date=July 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180727181153/https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/25/indo-o25.html|archive-date=2018-07-27|url-status=live}}
</ref> Without the support of the U.S. and its Western allies, the massacres would not have happened.<ref>
{{cite book|last=Robinson|first=Geoffrey B.|date=2018|title=The Killing Season: A History of the Indonesian Massacres, 1965-66|url=https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11135.html|publisher=]|pages=22–23, 177|isbn=9781400888863|access-date=2018-07-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180820162717/https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11135.html|archive-date=2018-08-20|url-status=live}}
</ref> In 2016, an international tribunal in ] ruled that the killings constitute ] and it also ruled that the United States and other Western governments were complicit in the crimes.<ref>
{{cite news|last=Perry|first=Juliet|date=21 July 2016|title=Tribunal finds Indonesia guilty of 1965 genocide; US, UK complicit|url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/asia/indonesia-genocide-panel/index.html|work=CNN|access-date=July 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180613234256/https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/asia/indonesia-genocide-panel/index.html|archive-date=2018-06-13|url-status=live}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite news|last=Yosephine|first=Liza|date=21 July 2016|title=US, UK, Australia complicit in Indonesia's 1965 mass killings: People's Tribunal|url=http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/07/21/us-uk-australia-complicit-in-indonesias-1965-mass-killings-peoples-tribunal.html|work=]|access-date=July 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180727151655/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/07/21/us-uk-australia-complicit-in-indonesias-1965-mass-killings-peoples-tribunal.html|archive-date=2018-07-27|url-status=live}}
</ref> Indian historian ] says that the complicity of the United States and its Western allies in the massacres "is beyond doubt," as they "provided the Indonesian armed forces with lists of Communists who were to be assassinated" and "egged on the Army to conduct these massacres." He adds they covered up this "absolute atrocity" and that the US in particular refuses to fully declassify its records for this period.<ref>{{cite book |last=Prashad |first=Vijay |author-link=Vijay Prashad |date=2020 |title=Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations |publisher=]|page=85 |isbn=978-1583679067 }}</ref> According to ], the Indonesian mass killings were not an aberration, but the apex of a loose network of US-backed ] campaigns in the ] during the Cold War.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bevins |first1=Vincent|authorlink=Vincent Bevins |title= ]|date=2020 |publisher= ]|pages=238–243 |isbn= 978-1541742406}}</ref> According to historian Brad Simpson:


<blockquote>Washington did everything in its power to encourage and facilitate the army-led massacre of alleged PKI members, and U.S. officials worried only that the killing of the party's unarmed supporters might not go far enough, permitting Sukarno to return to power and frustrate the Administration's emerging plans for a post-Sukarno Indonesia. This was efficacious terror, an essential building block of the ] policies that the West would attempt to impose on Indonesia after Sukarno's ouster.<ref>
{{cite book|last=Simpson|first=Bradley|date=2010|title=Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and U.S.–Indonesian Relations, 1960–1968|url=https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=7853|publisher=]|page=193|isbn=978-0804771825|access-date=2018-07-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625213245/https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=7853|archive-date=2018-06-25|url-status=live}}
</ref></blockquote>


==See also== ==See also==
*]
{{wikiquote|State terrorism and the United States}}
*] *]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] *]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

==External links==
*


==Notes== ==Notes==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}
{{reflist|2}}


==References== ==References==
*{{cite book |last1=Bevins |first1=Vincent|authorlink=Vincent Bevins |title= ]|date=2020 |publisher= ] |isbn= 978-1541742406}}
*{{cite book
* Blakeley, Ruth (2009). ''.'' ]. {{ISBN|0415686172}}
|last=Alexander
* Donahue, Laura K. "Terrorism and counter-terrorist discourse". In Hor, Michael Yew Meng, Ramraj, Victor Vridar and Roach, Kent (Eds.), ''Global anti-terrorism law and policy''. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2005 {{ISBN|0-521-85125-4}}
|first=George
*{{cite book|editor1=Esparza, Marcia |editor2=Henry R. Huttenbach|editor3=Daniel Feierstein|title=State Violence and Genocide in Latin America: The Cold War Years (Critical Terrorism Studies)|publisher=]|year=2011|isbn=978-0415664578|url=https://www.routledge.com/State-Violence-and-Genocide-in-Latin-America-The-Cold-War-Years/Esparza-Huttenbach-Feierstein/p/book/9780415496377}}
|title=Western State Terrorism
*{{cite book |last=Prashad |first=Vijay |author-link=Vijay Prashad |date=2020 |title=Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations |publisher=] |isbn=978-1583679067 }}
|publisher=Polity Press
* {{Cite book|editor-last=Sluka|editor-first=Jeffrey A.|title=Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|year=1999|isbn=978-0-8122-1711-7|url=https://archive.org/details/deathsquadanthro00sluk}}
|date=December 1991
* Taylor, Antony James William. ''Justice as a basic human need''. Nova Science Publishers, 2006. {{ISBN|1-59454-915-X}}
|pages=276
* {{Cite book|last=Wright|first=Thomas C.|title=State Terrorism in Latin America: Chile, Argentina, and International Human Rights|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.|date=February 28, 2007|isbn=978-0-7425-3721-7}}
|isbn=9780745609317
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Chomsky
|first=Noam
|title=The Culture of Terrorism
|publisher=South End Press
|date=January 1988
|pages=269
|isbn=9780896083349
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Sluka,
|first=Jeffrey A., editor
|title=Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror
|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press
|date=1999
|isbn=978-0-8122-1711-7
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Selden,
|first=Mark, editor
|title=War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century
|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
|date=]
|isbn=978-0742523913
}}
* Menjívar, Cecilia and Rodríguez,Néstor, editors, ''When States Kill:Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror,'' University of Texas Press 2005,isbn=978-0-292-70647-7
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Bush_Terror_Elite.html
|title=Bush Terror Elite Wanted 9/11 to Happen
|last=Pilger
|first=John
|publisher=Third World Traveler
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-09
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Perdue
|first=William D.
|title=Terrorism and the State: A Critique of Domination Through Fear
|publisher=Praeger Press
|city=New York
|pages=240
|date=], ]
|isbn=9780275931407
}}
*Campbell, Bruce B., and Brenner,Arthur D.,eds. 2000. ''Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability''. New York: St. Martin's Press
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/august97/terror04.html
|title=Understanding Terrorism
|publisher=]
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-09
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/reic-n24.shtml
|title=Bush nominee linked to Latin American terrorism
|last=Vann
|first=Bill
|publisher=World Socialist Web Site
|date=], ]
|accessdate=2007-07-09
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Wright,
|first=Thomas C.
|title=State Terrorism in Latin America: Chile, Argentina, and International Human Rights
|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
|date=]
|isbn=978-0742537217
}}
{{refend}}


==Further reading==
* {{Cite book |last=Alexander |first=George |title=Western State Terrorism |publisher=Polity Press |date=December 1991 |page=276 |isbn=978-0-7456-0931-7}}
* {{Cite book|last=Blum|first=William|title=Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II|publisher=Common Courage Press|year=1995|page=|isbn=978-1-56751-052-2|url=https://archive.org/details/killinghopeusmil00blum_0/page/457}}
* Campbell, Bruce B., and Brenner, Arthur D., eds. 2000. ''Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability''. New York: St. Martin's Press
* {{Cite book|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=The Culture of Terrorism|publisher=South End Press|date=January 1988|page=|isbn=978-0-89608-334-9|url=https://archive.org/details/cultureofterrori00chom/page/269}}
* {{Cite book|last=Churchill|first=Ward|title=On The Justice of Roosting Chickens|publisher=AK Press|year=2003|page=|isbn=978-1-902593-79-1|url=https://archive.org/details/onjusticeofroost00chur/page/309}}
* {{Cite book|editor1=Jackson, Richard |editor2=Smyth, Marie |editor3=Gunning, Jeroen|title=Critical terrorism studies: a new research agenda|publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-415-45507-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tMXaeS3azK8C}}
* Menjívar, Cecilia and Rodríguez, Néstor, editors, ''When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror'', University of Texas Press 2005,{{ISBN|978-0-292-70647-7}}
* {{Cite book|last=Perdue|first=William D.|title=Terrorism and the State: A Critique of Domination Through Fear|publisher=Praeger Press|location=New York|page=240|date=August 7, 1989|isbn=978-0-275-93140-7}}
* {{Cite book|editor-last=Selden|editor-first=Mark|title=War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.|date=November 28, 2003|isbn=978-0-7425-2391-3}}

{{Terrorism topics}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:United States And State Terrorism}}
] ]
] ]
]

]
]
]

Latest revision as of 21:31, 24 November 2024

Terrorism allegations against the U.S. This article is about allegations of US state terrorism. For terrorism sponsored by the United States, see United States and state-sponsored terrorism.

Protester with a sign reading "The U.S. is the #1 Terrorist State" at a demonstration against the Iraq War in 2003.
Part of a series on
Terrorism and political violence
By ideology
Religious
Special-interest / Single-issue
Related topics
Organizational structures
  • Methods
  • Tactics
Terrorist groups
Relationship to states
State terrorism
State-sponsored terrorism
Response to terrorism

Several scholars have accused the United States of involvement in state terrorism. They have written about the US and other liberal democracies' use of state terrorism, particularly in relation to the Cold War. According to them, state terrorism is used to protect the interest of capitalist elites, and the U.S. organized a neo-colonial system of client states, co-operating with regional elites to rule through terror.

Such works include Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's The Political Economy of Human Rights (1979), Herman's The Real Terror Network (1985), Alexander L. George's Western State Terrorism (1991), Frederick Gareau's State Terrorism and the United States (2004), and Doug Stokes' America's Other War (2005). Of these, Ruth J. Blakeley considers Chomsky and Herman as being the foremost writers on the United States and state terrorism.

This work has proved controversial with mainstream scholars of terrorism, who concentrate on non-state terrorism and the state terrorism of dictatorships.

Notable works

Beginning in the late 1970s, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman wrote a series of books on the United States' involvement with state terrorism. Their writings coincided with reports by Amnesty International and other human rights organizations of a new global "epidemic" of state torture and murder. Chomsky and Herman argued that terror was concentrated in the U.S. sphere of influence in developing countries, and documented human rights abuses carried out by U.S. client states in Latin America. They argued that of ten Latin American countries that had death squads, all were US client states. Worldwide they claimed that 74% of regimes that used torture on an administrative basis were U.S. client states, receiving military and other support from the U.S. to retain power. They concluded that the global rise in state terror was a result of U.S. foreign policy.

Chomsky concluded that all powers backed state terrorism in client states. At the top were the U.S. and other powers, notably the United Kingdom and France, that provided financial, military, and diplomatic support to Third World regimes kept in power through violence. These governments acted together with multinational corporations, particularly in the arms and security industries. In addition, other developing countries outside the Western sphere of influence carried out state terror supported by rival powers.

The alleged involvement of major powers in state terrorism in developing countries has led scholars to study it as a global phenomenon rather than study individual countries in isolation.

In 1991, a book edited by Alexander L. George also argued that other Western powers sponsored terror in developing countries. It concluded that the U.S. and its allies were the main supporters of terrorism throughout the world. Gareau states that the number of deaths caused by non-state terrorism (3,668 deaths between 1968 and 1980, as estimated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)) is "dwarfed" by those resulting from state terrorism in US-backed regimes such as Guatemala (150,000 killed, 50,000 missing during the Guatemalan Civil War – 93% of whom Gareau classifies as "victims of state terrorism").

Among other scholars, Ruth J. Blakeley says that the United States and its allies sponsored and deployed state terrorism on an "enormous scale" during the Cold War. The justification given for this was to contain Communism, but Blakeley contends it was also a means by which to buttress the interests of U.S. business elites and to promote the expansion of neoliberalism throughout the Global South. Mark Aarons posits that right-wing authoritarian regimes and dictatorships backed by Western powers committed atrocities and mass killings that rival the Communist world, citing examples such as the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66, the "disappearances" in Guatemala during the civil war, and the assassinations and state terrorism associated with Operation Condor throughout South America. In Worse Than War, Daniel Goldhagen argues that during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the Soviet Union. According to Latin Americanist John Henry Coatsworth, the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the U.S.S.R. and its East European satellites between 1960 and 1990. J. Patrice McSherry asserts that "hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans were tortured, abducted or killed by right-wing military regimes as part of the US-led anti-communist crusade."

Definition

See also: State terrorism and Definitions of terrorism

The United States legal definition of terrorism excludes acts done by recognized states. According to U.S. law (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)) terrorism is defined as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience". There is no international consensus on a legal or academic definition of terrorism. United Nations conventions have failed to reach consensus on definitions of non-state or state terrorism.

According to professor Mark Selden, "American politicians and most social scientists definitionally exclude actions and policies of the United States and its allies" as terrorism. Historian Henry Commager wrote that "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defense, not terror." According to Dr Myra Williamson, the meaning of "terrorism" has undergone a transformation. During the reign of terror a regime or system of terrorism was used as an instrument of governance, wielded by a recently established revolutionary state against the enemies of the people. Now the term "terrorism" is commonly used to describe terrorist acts committed by non-state or subnational entities against a state.

In State terrorism and the United States Frederick F. Gareau writes that the intent of terrorism is to intimidate or coerce both targeted groups and larger sectors of society that share or could be led to share the values of targeted groups by causing them "intense fear, anxiety, apprehension, panic, dread and/or horror". The objective of terrorism against the state is to force governments to change their policies, to overthrow governments or even to destroy the state. The objective of state terrorism is to eliminate people who are considered to be actual or potential enemies, and to discourage those actual or potential enemies who are not eliminated.

General critiques

This section contains too many or overly lengthy quotations. Please help summarize the quotations. Consider transferring direct quotations to Wikiquote or excerpts to Wikisource. (September 2017)

Professor William Odom, formerly the director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan's administration, wrote:

As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.

Professor Richard Falk holds that the US and other rich states, as well as mainstream mass media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of First World privilege. He has said that:

If 'terrorism' as a term of moral and legal opprobrium is to be used at all, then it should apply to violence deliberately targeting civilians, whether committed by state actors or their non-state enemies.

Falk has argued that the repudiation of authentic non-state terrorism is insufficient as a strategy for mitigating it. Falk also argued that people who committed "terrorist" acts against the United States could use the Nuremberg Defense.

Daniel Schorr, reviewing Falk's Revolutionaries and Functionaries, stated that Falk's definition of terrorism hinges on some unstated definition of "permissible"; this, says Schorr, makes the judgment of what is terrorism inherently "subjective", and furthermore, he claims, leads Falk to label some acts he considers impermissible as "terrorism", but others he considers permissible as merely "terroristic".

In a review of Chomsky and Herman's The Political Economy of Human Rights, Yale political science professor James S. Fishkin holds that the authors' case for accusing the United States of state terrorism is "shockingly overstated". Fishkin writes of Chomsky and Herman:

They infer an extent of American control and coordination comparable to the Soviet role in Eastern Europe. ... Yet even if all evidence were accepted ... it would add up to no more than systematic support, not control. Hence the comparison to Eastern Europe appears grossly overstated. And from the fact that we give assistance to countries that practice terror it is too much to conclude that "Washington has become the torture and political murder capital of the world." Chomsky's and Herman's indictment of US foreign policy is thus the mirror image of the Pax Americana rhetoric they criticize: it rests on the illusion of American omnipotence throughout the world. And because they refuse to attribute any substantial independence to countries that are, in some sense, within America's sphere of influence, the entire burden for all the political crimes of the non-communist world can be brought home to Washington.

Fishkin praises Chomsky and Herman for documenting human rights violations, but argues that this is evidence "for a far lesser moral charge", namely, that the United States could have used its influence to prevent certain governments from committing acts of torture or murder but chose not to do so.

Commenting on Chomsky's 9-11, former US Secretary of Education William Bennett said: "Chomsky says in the book that the United States is a leading terrorist state. That's a preposterous and ridiculous claim. ... What we have done is liberated Kuwait, helped in Bosnia and the Balkans. We have provided sanctuary for people of all faiths, including Islam, in the United States. We tried to help in Somalia. ... Do we have faults and imperfections? Of course. The notion that we're a leading terrorist state is preposterous."

Stephen Morris also criticized Chomsky's thesis:

There is only one regime which has received arms and aid from the United States, and which has a record of brutality that is even a noticeable fraction of the brutality of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, or the Hanoi Politburo. That is the Suharto government in Indonesia. But ... the United States was not the principal foreign supplier of Indonesia when the generals seized power (nor is there any credible evidence of American involvement in the coup). Within the period of American assistance to Indonesia, and in particular during the period of the Carter administration, the number of political prisoners has declined. Finally, the current brutality of the Suharto regime is being directed against the people of East Timor, a former colony of Portugal that Indonesia is attempting to take over by force ... not as part of its normal process of domestic rule.

In 2017, declassified documents from the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta have confirmed that the United States government, from the very beginning, was deeply involved in the campaign of mass killings which followed Suharto's seizure of power. Without the support of the U.S. and its Western allies, the massacres would not have happened. In 2016, an international tribunal in The Hague ruled that the killings constitute crimes against humanity and it also ruled that the United States and other Western governments were complicit in the crimes. Indian historian Vijay Prashad says that the complicity of the United States and its Western allies in the massacres "is beyond doubt," as they "provided the Indonesian armed forces with lists of Communists who were to be assassinated" and "egged on the Army to conduct these massacres." He adds they covered up this "absolute atrocity" and that the US in particular refuses to fully declassify its records for this period. According to Vincent Bevins, the Indonesian mass killings were not an aberration, but the apex of a loose network of US-backed anti-communist mass killing campaigns in the Global South during the Cold War. According to historian Brad Simpson:

Washington did everything in its power to encourage and facilitate the army-led massacre of alleged PKI members, and U.S. officials worried only that the killing of the party's unarmed supporters might not go far enough, permitting Sukarno to return to power and frustrate the Administration's emerging plans for a post-Sukarno Indonesia. This was efficacious terror, an essential building block of the neoliberal policies that the West would attempt to impose on Indonesia after Sukarno's ouster.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Blakeley, Ruth (2009). State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South. Routledge. pp. 4, 20-23, 88. ISBN 978-0415686174. Archived from the original on 2015-06-14. Retrieved 2015-06-12.
  2. Sluka, p. 8
  3. ^ Sluka, p. 9
  4. Sluka, pp. 8–9
  5. Gareau, Frederick Henry (2002). The United Nations and other international institutions: a critical analysis. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 246. ISBN 978-0-8304-1578-6. Archived from the original on 2016-05-06. Retrieved 2016-01-05.
  6. Mark Aarons (2007). "Justice Betrayed: Post-1945 Responses to Genocide." In David A. Blumenthal and Timothy L. H. McCormack (eds). The Legacy of Nuremberg: Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (International Humanitarian Law). Archived 2016-01-05 at the Wayback Machine Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9004156917 pp. 71 & 80–81
  7. Daniel Goldhagen (2009). Worse Than War. PublicAffairs. ISBN 1586487698 p.537
    • "During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."
  8. Coatsworth, John Henry (2012). "The Cold War in Central America, 1975–1991". In Leffler, Melvyn P.; Westad, Odd Arne (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Cold War (Volume 3). Cambridge University Press. p. 230. ISBN 978-1107602311.
  9. McSherry, J. Patrice (2011). "Chapter 5: "Industrial repression" and Operation Condor in Latin America". In Esparza, Marcia; Henry R. Huttenbach; Daniel Feierstein (eds.). State Violence and Genocide in Latin America: The Cold War Years (Critical Terrorism Studies). Routledge. p. 107. ISBN 978-0415664578.
  10. Gupta, Dipak K. (2008). Understanding terrorism and political violence: the life cycle of birth, growth, transformation, and demise. Taylor & Francis. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-415-77164-1. Archived from the original on 2016-05-02. Retrieved 2016-01-05.
  11. Sinai, Joshua (2008). "How to Define Terrorism". Perspectives on Terrorism. 2 (4). Archived from the original on 2011-10-05. Retrieved 2011-07-06.
  12. U.S. Department of State (February 1, 2010). "Title 22 > Chapter 38 > § 2656f - Annual country reports on terrorism". Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute.
  13. Gupta, p. 8
  14. Sinai, Joshua (2008). "How to Define Terrorism". Perspectives on Terrorism. 2 (4). Archived from the original on 2011-10-05. Retrieved 2011-07-06.
  15. "Country Reports on Terrorism - Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism". National Counterterrorism Center: Annex of Statistical Information. U.S. State Department. April 30, 2007. Retrieved 2017-06-25.
  16. Williamson, Myra (2009). Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001. Ashgate Publishing. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-7546-7403-0.
  17. Rupérez, Javier (6 September 2006). "The UN's fight against terrorism: five years after 9/11". U.N. Action to Counter Terrorism. Spain: Real Instituto Elcano. Archived from the original on April 11, 2011.
  18. Selden p. 4
  19. Hor, Michael Yew Meng (2005). Global anti-terrorism law and policy. Cambridge University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-521-10870-6. Archived from the original on 2019-03-03. Retrieved 2016-11-12.
  20. Williamson p. 43
  21. Gareau, Frederick H. (2004). State terrorism and the United States : from counterinsurgency to the war on terrorism. Atlanta: Clarity Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-932863-39-3.
  22. Wright, p. 11
  23. Odom, General William (December 2007). "American Hegemony: How to Use It, How to Lose It". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 151 (4): 410.. Online copy available here Archived 2011-06-14 at the Wayback Machine
  24. Falk, Richard (1988). Revolutionaries and Functionaries: The Dual Face of Terrorism. New York: Dutton. ISBN 9780525246046.
  25. Falk, Richard (January 28, 2004). "Gandhi, Nonviolence and the Struggle Against War". The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. Archived from the original on August 2, 2007. Retrieved July 10, 2007.
  26. Falk, Richard (June 28, 1986). "Thinking About Terrorism". The Nation. 242 (25): 873–892.
  27. Schorr, Daniel (1 May 1988). "The Politics of Violence". The New York Times.
  28. ^ Fishkin, James S. (September 6–13, 1980). "American Dream/Global Nightmare: The Dilemma of U.S. Human Rights Policy by Sandy Vogelgesang (W. W. Norton)
    The Political Economy of Human Rights Volume I: The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism
    Volume II: After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman (South End Press)". The New Republic. Vol. 183, no. 10/11. pp. 37–38.
  29. "American Morning with Paula Zahn". CNN. May 9, 2002. Archived from the original on 2012-10-26. Retrieved 7 July 2011.
  30. Morris, Stephen, Chomsky on U.S. foreign policy, Harvard International Review, December–January 1981, pg. 26.
  31. Melvin, Jess (20 October 2017). "Telegrams confirm scale of US complicity in 1965 genocide". Indonesia at Melbourne. University of Melbourne. Retrieved July 27, 2018. The new telegrams confirm the US actively encouraged and facilitated genocide in Indonesia to pursue its own political interests in the region, while propagating an explanation of the killings it knew to be untrue.
  32. Scott, Margaret (October 26, 2017). "Uncovering Indonesia's Act of Killing". The New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on 2018-06-25. Retrieved July 27, 2018. According to Simpson, these previously unseen cables, telegrams, letters, and reports "contain damning details that the U.S. was willfully and gleefully pushing for the mass murder of innocent people."
  33. Head, Mike (25 October 2017). "Documents show US participation in 1965-66 massacres in Indonesia". World Socialist Web Site. Archived from the original on 2018-07-27. Retrieved July 27, 2018.
  34. Robinson, Geoffrey B. (2018). The Killing Season: A History of the Indonesian Massacres, 1965-66. Princeton University Press. pp. 22–23, 177. ISBN 9781400888863. Archived from the original on 2018-08-20. Retrieved 2018-07-27.
  35. Perry, Juliet (21 July 2016). "Tribunal finds Indonesia guilty of 1965 genocide; US, UK complicit". CNN. Archived from the original on 2018-06-13. Retrieved July 27, 2018.
  36. Yosephine, Liza (21 July 2016). "US, UK, Australia complicit in Indonesia's 1965 mass killings: People's Tribunal". The Jakarta Post. Archived from the original on 2018-07-27. Retrieved July 27, 2018.
  37. Prashad, Vijay (2020). Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations. Monthly Review Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-1583679067.
  38. Bevins, Vincent (2020). The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World. PublicAffairs. pp. 238–243. ISBN 978-1541742406.
  39. Simpson, Bradley (2010). Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and U.S.–Indonesian Relations, 1960–1968. Stanford University Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-0804771825. Archived from the original on 2018-06-25. Retrieved 2018-07-27.

References

Further reading

Terrorism
Main articles Terrorism topics
By ideology
Types and tactics
State involvement
Organisation
Historical
Lists
Memorials and museums
By country
Categories: