I still question Clark as a Democrat

[pnziii]

CONCORD, N.H. -- Retired General Wesley K. Clark sometimes downplays his Army background, and criticizes the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays. But there is one military institution he vigorously defends: the controversial academy once known as the US Army School of the Americas.

Opposition to the school, which trains military officers from Latin American countries, has long been a cause celebre among some Democrats and liberal activists, who say the academy has trained some of the most notorious criminals of the region and teaches skills that Latin American armies sometimes use against their own citizenry. Supporters of the school point to reforms from the 1990s, and say its courses teach foreign soldiers about democracy and human rights.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

I don't think I can trust him

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. George McGovern and Michael Moore Trust Him

Also, please read the last four paragraphs of your linked article:

In New Hamspshire and Wisconsin, Clark has defended the school to questioners. "We are teaching police and military people from Latin America human rights," he said last week in Concord. "And if we didn't bring them in and teach them human rights, they wouldn't be able to learn human rights anywhere."

On the stump, Clark tells critics that Bruno will take them to visit the school, although he sometimes misidentifies Bruno as a board member.

"He's on the board. He'll be happy to take you down there," Clark told the woman who questioned him in Concord. "If you find anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know, and I promise you, we'll close the School of the Americas when I'm president," he said.

But if "you find nothing wrong <and> you see these officers and noncommissioned officers in there learning about human rights, I'd like you to change your position."

Clark's position sounds eminently fair and reasonable to me.

:shrug:

Finally, I would note that many, many Democratic Presidents had the opportunity to close down SOA. None did.

DTH

[R3dD0g]

10. It seems there are a bunch of folks against the SOA

I wonder if they think anybody outside their circle of friends knows anything about the SOA.

I was protesting the SOA back in the early 80's. My senators and reps didn't pay too much attention to the issue, despite the fact that they were among the most liberal of the bunch (Bumpers & Pryor).

The SOA was overseen by Dems for 8 years. It was reformed and remodeled. In the last 3 years, it's likely that it has slipped backward.

But, I don't think that's reason to reject Clark.

[Hoppin_Mad]

19. 2 Repubs including Far-Right Joe Scarborough tried to close it in 2001

"Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA), Joe Scarborough (R-FL), Joe Moakley (D-MA), Connie Morella (R-MD), Christopher Shays (R-CT), and Lane Evans (D-IL) introduced a bill to close the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (successor to School of the Americas) on Thursday, May 10, 2001. The bill, HR 1810 , is modeled after last year's  Moakley/Scarborough/McGovern/Campbell amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. It calls for the closure of the school and the establishment of a joint congressional task force to assess U.S. training of Latin American military."

---


"Just a few weeks before his death from leukemia on May 28, U.S. Rep. Joe Moakley (D., Mass.) was one of six members of Congress to introduce a bill to close the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly the U.S. Army School of the Americas). Moakley had been a steadfast opponent of the counterinsurgency school. In its 50-year history, the School of the Americas (SOA) has trained some 60,000 Latin American troops in commando tactics, military intelligence, psychological operations and sniper fire. Their targets have included labor organizers and religious leaders, students and teachers, peasants and workers. The late Congressman Moakleys opposition to the School of Americas dates to one of the more notorious events associated with the schools graduates: the 1989 murder of six Jesuits, along with their housekeeper and her teenage daughter by Salvadoran military personnel.

The South Boston representative led the Congressional task force that traveled to El Salvador to investigate the massacre. Upon his return, he exposed the role of SOA training in the deaths, and launched a continuing effort to close the school. "

The actual bill can be found here: http://www.theorator.com/bills107/hr1810.html

(additional text from) http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_0601_soa.html

Why would Republicans introduce a bill to close the school AFTER it had been 'reformed' if these changes had eliminated the problems ?

[Rich Hunt]

13. do some more research

Kucinich and Gephardt (Gephardt!) have voted to close it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

US Representative James P. McGovern, a Democrat of Worcester, introduced a bill last March to shut down the school, cosponsored by 102 representatives, including Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri -- both candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination this year. Senator John F. Kerry, another candidate, signed on to a Senate bill to shut down the school, introduced in 1998, according to McGovern's staff.

The school has "become a symbol that represents all of the things we don't want people to think of us in Latin America," said McGovern, who has endorsed Kerry in the presidential race. "It's a stain on our human rights record, and it seems to me that at a time when we're trying to lift up our credibility around the world, especially in the area of human rights, it would be a very powerful statement" to close it.



This isn't some way-out position.

http://www.soaw.org/new/

[DoveTurnedHawk]

15. Please Re-Read What I Wrote...Where Exactly Did I Claim EITHER That

This is a "way-out" position, or that Kucinich or Gephardt took any kind of position whatsoever?

This might be a big deal to some people, but it's not even in my top 10, personally.

Maybe in the course of enacting his 25% cut of the military budget, Clark could "trim" the line item for the SOA (or whatever the hell it's called nowadays).

DTH

[The Magistrate]

17. Indeed, My Friend

This matter will form no part of the enemy's line of attack come the fall. It will feature, should Gen. Clark win the Party's nomination, only in the publications that pander to the "lefter than thou", who will bear a heavy onus should they absent themselves from the polls to the benefit of the most reactionary elements of our polity as a means of expressing attachment to leftist principles....

[DoveTurnedHawk]

18. The Frustrating Thing Is, If Many People Would Just Examine Clark

With an unbiased and objective eye, I really believe they would come to the conclusion that he is a genuine progressive. His stances on the issues are unquestionably more liberal than those of Howard Dean, for example.

Unfortunately, I believe the very fact that he was in the military automatically disqualifies him from consideration among many leftists. And it is, indeed, unfortunate, because they are passing up the opportunity to have a genuine chance at progressive change, certainly a better chance than with just about any other candidate.

DTH

[dfong63]

22. what is there to examine? Clark was effectively a repub until recently

now he talks the talk, but he doesn't have a record of walking the walk of a progressive. sorry, but that's not good enough for someone who wants to occupy the most powerful office in the world. Clark had a sudden conversion to the dem side; after the election he may have a sudden conversion back to the repub side. and his inconsistent answers about the IWR were not exactly reassuring. the bottom line is, no amount of pretty words can make up for the lack of a track record.

[buckeye1]

24. May I add.

There are some that never want to win. It would spoil their pity party of whine and bitch. Thankfully their numbers are small.

They do provide a bit of comic relief. Consider.... never mind.

[JohnKleeb]

23. Kerry is against it!

Good for him. Thanks John.

[lurk_no_more]

2. Your turn already?

And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[R3dD0g]

3. You post an article by Joanna Weiss

Do you know anything about her? Is she a reliable source? I Googled her name and found a bunch of stuff. But, that doesn't mean she's someone I should rely on.

[kayleybeth]

4. Then don't vote for him.

That is your right.

[deminflorida]

5. You are welcome to keep digging, with this campaign the

Books are Open to the Public.

[LuminousX]

8. Sadly the book is very slender.

[Rich Hunt]

14. it's not about 'digging'

You're not helping your candidate. It's about getting tough and being able to respond to questions.

If people don't do their homework and address questions, how will they fare against Bush? You think those people aren't ready?

[LuminousX]

6. While I think this thread is going to be locked, Rangel said:

Rangel was outspoken against the Vieques bombing runs - which President Bush halted under immense pressure from a wide variety of New Yorkers of both parties, including Gov. Pataki.

Rangel said: "I have to admit there's been very difficult issues I've raised with {Clark}. Some of his positions have been very Republican. I don't like that at all."

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2003/vol7n44/WesStand-en.shtml

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. Please Complete That Quote

Rangel goes on to say he still supports the General, as should be obvious since he is in NH campaigning for him this week.

I guess he was able to get over the fact that General Clark is not an ideologue and accordingly holds diverse positions on various issues, especially since he is one of the more liberal candidates in the race, certainly more liberal than Dean. Just like Michael Moore, George McGovern and many other liberals have concluded.

DTH

[LuminousX]

11. I gave the quote as the Peurto Rico Herald gave it

The following portion after that is Al Sharpton

Democratic rival Al Sharpton said: "The issue for me . . . was not that we did not want our troops to be trained but we did not want the bombing causing environmental hazards and health defects."

[QC]

7. Dupe x 2 (at least)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=125918&mesg_id=125918

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=129360

[Wapsie B]

12. Goodness gracious.

I still question chimpy as a republican.

I can't trust him.


Nice try.

[Hoppin_Mad]

16. Here's what an Army Major who taught at SOA said about it

MAJOR JOE BLAIR (RET.): I have personal knowledge that the School of the Americas, while I was there for three years, taught two intelligence interrogation courses, which taught the U.S. Army position that it was appropriate to use physical abuse when interrogating anyone in their country, to also use false imprisonment, false arrest, and kidnapping of family members.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec99/sotamericas_9-21.html


15 January l998

FROM: Major Joseph A. Blair, U.S. Army Retired--former instructor at the United U.S. Army School of Americas


4. As a graduate of Marquette University (Jesuit) class of l968 and St. Ignatius College Prep (Jesuit) in Chicago l964 and Vietnam veteran who served with William Colby in Vietnam as an administrative assistant in l971, and who also specialized in Central American military affairs for l2 years as a Latin American U.S. Army Foreign Area Specialist, I can assure you that I have first hand professional experiences and knowledge about the human rights violations the Latin American officer graduates of the U.S. Army School of the Americas committed throughout the l970s and l980s. You demonstrated your knowledge of the same when you released the White House Intelligence Oversight Board findings in l996 which reported to the American public that the U.S. Army School of the Americas condoned teaching Latin American officers false imprisonment, physical abuse, extortion, false arrest, inhumane interrogation techniques normal people call torture, and other U.S. Army infantry killer skills which the Latin American armies have only used in their histories to oppress their own citizens. They have never been our military allies in our two world wars, Korea, or Vietnam, yet you continue to train them. We should de-emphasize Latin American army training and place more emphasis on promoting civilian control of the emerging democracies in Latin America. You also know that Latin American armies operate independently of their elected presidents and are not subjected to their national courts. We must show Latin America that our form of representative government and federalism is the only form of government which will serve the needs of the people in our hemisphere! Let's not show them that our Army acts the same way their's do!

http://www.jaguar-sun.com/chiapas/soa2.html

Several vocal backers of the SOA here on DU had previously argued that these allegations were untrue. Not so now . . .

[Bush loves Jiang]

20. Hmmm...Who to trust?

George McGovern or some guy too lazy to press the shift key of his keyboard? :-P

[DieboldMustDie]

21. "There's been a lot of rotten people...

who've gone to a lot of rotten schools in the history of the world, ...a lot of them have gone to Harvard Business School and a lot of other places."

-- Wesley Clark, from the article cited above.   Hmmm... now who's a (in)famous Harvard Business School grad?

:evilgrin:

[AnnitaR]

25. I still question Dean as a liberal!

:evilgrin: