Posts Tagged ‘Rumsfeld’

Der CIA Mord, an Erzbischof Oscar Romero rund um die Iran Contra Affäre

März 25, 2011 4 Kommentare

„Learn from History“, 31st Anniversary of the Assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero
By Kate Doyle and Emily Willard
Global Research, March 24, 2011
Washington, D.C., March 23, 2011 – Thirty one years ago tomorrow, El Salvador’s Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero was shot and killed by right-wing assassins seeking to silence his message of solidarity with the country’s poor and oppressed. The assassination shocked Salvadorans already reeling in early 1980 from attacks by security forces and government-backed death squads on a growing opposition movement. Romero’s murder further polarized the country and set the stage for the civil war that would rage for the next twelve years. In commemoration of the anniversary, the National Security Archive is posting a selection from our digital archive of 12 declassified U.S. documents that describe the months before his death, his assassination and funeral, as well as later revelations about those involved in his murder.

The documents are being posted as President Barak Obama leaves El Salvador, his final stop on a five-day trip to Latin America. Obama spent part of his time in the country with a visit to Monsignor Romero’s tomb last night. Although the United States funneled billions of dollars to the tiny country in support of the brutal army and security forces during a counterinsurgency war that left 75,000 civilians dead, the president made no reference to the U.S. role, seeking in his speeches instead to focus on immigration and security concerns. The day before his visit to Romero’s gravesite, Obama had told an audience in Chile that it was important that the United States and Latin America “learn from history, that we understand history, but that we not be trapped by history, because many challenges lie ahead.”

Just weeks before his murder, Archbishop Romero published an open letter to President Jimmy Carter in the Salvadoran press, asking the United States not to intervene in El Salvador’s fate by arming brutal security forces against a popular opposition movement. Romero warned that U.S. support would only “sharpen the injustice and repression against the organizations of the people which repeatedly have been struggling to gain respect for their fundamental human rights.” Despite his plea, President Carter moved to approve $5 million in military aid less than one year after the archbishop’s murder, as Carter was leaving office in January 1981.

Included in the posting are documents reporting on a secret, behind-the-scene effort by the United States to enlist the Vatican in pressuring Romero over his perceived support for the Salvadoran left; an account of the archbishop’s powerful March 23, 1980, homily, given the day before his assassination; a description of the murder by the U.S. defense attaché in El Salvador; and an extraordinary embassy cable describing a meeting organized by rightist leader Roberto D’Aubuisson in which participants draw lots to determine who would be the triggerman to kill Romero.

Although the declassified documents do not reveal the extent of the plot to kill Romero or the names of those who murdered him, details in them support the findings of the 1993 report by the U.N.-mandated Truth Commission for El Salvador. Released shortly after the signing of the peace accords that ended the war in El Salvador, the report identified D’Aubuisson, Captains Alvaro Rafael Saravia and Eduardo Avila, and Fernando (“El Negro”) Sagrera as among those responsible for the assassination. On March 25 of last year, Carlos Dada of El Salvador’s on-line news site El Faro published an extraordinary interview with Alvaro Saravia, one of the masterminds of Romero’s killing. In the interview, Saravia revealed chilling details of the plot to murder Romero; see a transcript of the interview, “How We Killed the Archbishop”, here and here en español.


The documents posted below are from the National Security Archive’s Digital National Security Archive’s two El Salvador collections, El Salvador: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1977–1984 and El Salvador: War, Peace, and Human Rights, 1980–1994. These two full collections, among others, are available through a subscription with the ProQuest research database.



Read the Documents


Document 1
October 11, 1979
Confidential, Cable, “The Archbishop and the Military”, 2 pp.
United States Embassy. El Salvador


In his homily, Archbishop Romero decries repression by the Salvadoran military and criticizes the army for abandoning its role as the nation’s defender to become “guardian of the interests of the oligarchy.”


Document 2
December 17, 1979
Unclassified, Cable, “Archbishop Strongly Urges Agrarian Reform”, 3 pp.
United States Embassy. El Salvador


Archbishop Oscar A. Romero speaks in support of agrarian reform, criticizing the oligarchy for arming those who seek to preserve the status quo and citing the Catholic Church’s Medellin Council recognition of “right of oppressed to exert pressure, but not through armed violence.”


Document 3
January 31, 1980
Secret, Memorandum, [Draft Letter Attached], “Letter from Dr. Brzezinski to the Pope”, 5 pp.
United States. Department of State, Office of the Secretary


Presents draft of letter to Pope John Paul II outlining areas of concern in Central America and requesting assistance in persuading Archbishop Romero not to „abandon“ Revolutionary Governing Junta in favor of more radical leftists in El Salvador.


Document 4
February 19, 1980
Unclassified, Cable, “Text of Archbishop’s Letter to President Carter“, 1 pp.
United States Embassy. El Salvador


Archbishop Romero addresses President Jimmy Carter, imploring him not to provide military aid or any other form of assistance that could exacerbate state violence targeting Salvadoran citizens. “I am very worried by the news that the government of the United States is studying a form of abetting the arming of El Salvador,” Romero writes. “The contribution of your government instead of promoting greater justice and peace in El Salvador will without doubt sharpen the injustice and repression against the organizations of the people which repeatedly have been struggling to gain respect for their fundamental human rights.”


Document 5
March 1, 1980
Confidential, Cable, “Reply to Archbishop’s Letter to President Carter“,1 pp.
United States Embassy. El Salvador


Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance responds to Archbishop Romero’s letter regarding criticisms of U.S. security assistance to El Salvador, assuring him that President Carter shares his concerns about the human rights of Salvadoran citizens. “Any equipment and training which we might provide would be designed to overcome the most serious deficiencies of the Armed Forces, enhancing their professionalism so that they can fulfill their essential role of maintaining order with a minimum of lethal force.”


Document 6
March 23, 1980
Confidential, Cable “Archbishop’s Homily, March 23”, 4 pp.
United States Embassy. El Salvador


This cable reports on Archbishop Romero’s homily, the day before he was assassinated. He speaks of the increasing tension with Salvadoran security forces and condemns rampant killings: “In the name of God, in the name of this suffering people whose cries rise to heaven more loudly each day, I implore you, I beg you, I order you in the name of God: stop the repression!”


Document 7
March 25, 1980
Confidential, Cable, “Archbishop Romero Assassinated”, 2 pp.
United States Defense Intelligence Agency. Office of the Defense Attaché, El Salvador


This document reports the assassination of Archbishop Romero and includes brief description of events.


Document 8
March 26, 1980
Confidential, Cable, “Archbishop’s Assassination: Peaceful Procession”, 2 pp.
United States Embassy. El Salvador


This cable reports on the procession of thousands of people accompanying Archbishop Romero’s coffin from the basilica to the National Cathedral.


Document 9
March 26, 1980,
Unclassified, Cable, “White House Statement on Archbishop Romero’s Assassination”, 2 pp.
United States. Department of State


The United States government issues statement condemning the assassination of Archbishop Romero.


Document 10
November 19, 1980,
Secret, Cable “Conversation with National Guard Officer”, 3 pp.
United States Embassy. El Salvador


A source from the National Guard tells a U.S. embassy political officer that National Republican Alliance (Alianza Republicana Nacional—ARENA) founder Roberto D’Aubuisson organized a meeting a day or two before the assassination of Archbishop Romero in which “participants drew lots for the task of killing the archbishop.”


Document 11
February 25, 1981
Unclassified, Cable, “El Salvador: Army Officers Implicated in Romero Killing”, 1 pp.
United States. Foreign Broadcast Information Service, Panama


Radio Venceremos clandestinely broadcasts an interview with “disillusioned army officer” Lt. Col. Ricardo Bruno Navarrete implicating Roberto D’Aubuisson, and members of the Salvadoran armed forces in the assassination of Archbishop Romero.


Document 12
December 21, 1981
Secret, Cable, “Assassination of Archbishop Romero”, 2 pp.
United States Embassy. El Salvador


This document is a follow-up to the November 19 embassy cable concerning a meeting to plan the assassination of Archbishop Romero. In it, a U.S. political officer reports additional information from the same National Guard source indicating that Romero’s killer was Walter “Musa” Antonio Alvarez. [The UN Truth Commission Report on El Salvador would later identify Alvarez as involved in conveying money supplied by Roberto D’Aubuisson as payment to Romero’s assassin, see pp. 130-1.]

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of „fair use“ in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than „fair use“ you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:

© Copyright Kate Doyle, National Security Archive, 2011

The url address of this article is:

NSA Fakten, über die Lügen des Irak Krieges

Oktober 19, 2010 Kommentare aus

Washington, D.C., September 22, 2010 – Following instructions from President George W. Bush to develop an updated war plan for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks in November 2001 to initiate planning for the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government and the empowerment of a “Provisional Government” to take its place.


Washington, D.C., September 22, 2010 – Following instructions from President George W. Bush to develop an updated war plan for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks in November 2001 to initiate planning for the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government and the empowerment of a “Provisional Government” to take its place.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and President George W. Bush.  (Source: Department of Defense)

Talking points for the Rumsfeld-Franks meeting on November 27, 2001, released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), confirm that policy makers were already looking for ways to justify invading Iraq – as indicated by Rumsfeld’s first point, “Focus on WMD.”

This document shows that Pentagon policy makers cited early U.S. experience in Afghanistan to justify planning for Iraq’s post-invasion governance in order to achieve their strategic objectives: “Unlike in Afghanistan, important to have ideas in advance about who would rule afterwards.”

Rumsfeld’s notes were prepared in close consultation with senior DOD officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Among other insights, the materials posted today by the National Security Archive shed light on the intense focus on Iraq by high-level Bush administration officials long before the attacks of 9/11, and Washington’s confidence in perception management as a successful strategy for overcoming public and allied resistance to its plans.

This compilation further shows:

  • The preliminary strategy Rumsfeld imparted to Franks while directing him to develop a new war plan for Iraq
  • Secretary of State Powell’s awareness, three days into a new administration, that Iraq “regime change” would be a principal focus of the Bush presidency
  • Administration determination to exploit the perceived propaganda value of intercepted aluminum tubes – falsely identified as nuclear related – before completion of even a preliminary determination of their end use
  • The difficulty of winning European support for attacking Iraq (except that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair) without real evidence that Baghdad was implicated in 9/11
  • The State Department’s analytical unit observing that a decision by Tony Blair to join a U.S. war on Iraq “could bring a radicalization of British Muslims, the great majority of whom opposed the September 11 attacks but are increasingly restive about what they see as an anti-Islamic campaign”
  • Pentagon interest in the perception of an Iraq invasion as a “just war” and State Department insights into the improbability of that outcome

Rumsfeld’s instructions to Franks included the establishment and funding of a provisional government as a significant element of U.S. invasion strategy. In the end the Pentagon changed course and instead ruled post-invasion Iraq directly, first through the short-lived Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance and then through Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

home | about | documents | news | publications | FOIA | research | internships | search | donate | mailing list
Notes used by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to brief Central Command chief Tommy Franks during a November 2001 meeting in Tampa to discuss a new plan for war with Iraq.

REVISITING THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ It is to be expected that national intelligence services will sometimes fail to identify and discover a threat to the nation in a timely fashion. But when intelligence warns of a threat that isn’t really there, and then nations go to war to meet the phantom threat — that is a serious, confounding and deeply disturbing problem. But in a nutshell, that is the story of the war in Iraq, in which the U.S. and its allies attacked Saddam Hussein’s Iraq because of the supposedly imminent threat posed by Saddam’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction — a threat that proved illusory. A new book published in the United Kingdom called „Failing Intelligence“ provides a remarkable account of the British experience of how intelligence on the Iraqi WMD program was shaped and packaged to support the decision to go to war in Iraq. The book’s author, Brian Jones, was the chief specialist in weapons of mass destruction on the UK Defence Intelligence Staff. He was also a skeptic of the stronger claims made about the existence of Iraqi WMD stockpiles. The book documents his mostly unsuccessful attempts to register that skepticism, to moderate the extreme claims made by government officials, and later to hold those officials accountable for their actions. He provides a detailed first-hand account of how his efforts were consistently deflected in the rush to war, and how intelligence declined into propaganda. It’s a grim but instructive case study in the overlapping failure of intelligence gathering, intelligence production, and intelligence oversight. The National Security Archive has recently published three richly informative collections of declassified U.S. and British government documents on the lead-up to the Iraq war (including several key documents cited or relied upon by Brian Jones). „The more deeply the processes of creating the government reports on the alleged Iraqi threat are reconstructed — on both sides of the Atlantic — the more their products are revealed as explicitly aimed at building a basis for war,“ wrote John Prados of the National Security Archive and journalist Christopher Ames in an analysis of the documents. „In the light of a decision process in which no serious consideration was given to any course other than war, the question of whether American and British leaders set out to wage aggressive war has to be squarely faced,“ they wrote.

THE IRAQ WAR — PART I:  The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

U.S. Sets „Decapitation of Government“ As Early Goal of Combat

Talking Points for Rumsfeld-Franks Meeting in November 2001 Outline Policy Makers’ Aims for the Conflict and Postwar Rule of Iraq

Declassified Documents Show Bush Administration Diverting Attention and Resources to Iraq Less than Two Months after Launch of Afghanistan War

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 326

Posted – September 22, 2010

For more information contact:
Joyce Battle – 202/994-7000

Print Version

THE IRAQ WAR — PART II: Was There Even a Decision?

U.S. and British Documents Give No Indication Alternatives Were Seriously Considered

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 328

Edited by John Prados and Christopher Ames

Posted – October 1, 2010

For more information contact:
John Prados – 202/994-7000

Print Version

THE IRAQ WAR — PART III: Shaping the Debate

U.S. and British Documents Show Transatlantic Propaganda Cooperation

Joint Drafting & Editing of White Papers “Fixed the Facts”

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 330

Edited by John Prados and Christopher Ames

Posted – October 4, 2010

For more information contact:
John Prados – 202/994-7000

Print Version

Kategorien:Geo Politik Schlagwörter: , , , ,

Afghanistan-Veteran Charlie Wilson: Hallodri mit Hang zur Außenpolitik und die Taliban Freiheits Kämpfer von Reagon

August 25, 2010 2 Kommentare

12.02.2010, 11:54 2010-02-12 11:54:00

Ein Nachruf von Reymer Klüver

Wie der verstorbene Charlie Wilson einst durchsetzte, dass die USA die Mudschaheddin in Afghanistan gegen die Sowjets unterstützten.

Es gibt kaum einfache Kongressabgeordnete, aus deren Leben der Stoff für einen Hollywood-Film geworden ist. Der legendäre Mr. Smith vielleicht – aber der aufrechte Senator, den einst James Stewart spielte, war eine komplette Erfindung. Das kann man von Charlie Wilson nicht behaupten.

Charlie Wilson Afghanistan APGemeinsam mit Kriegern im von den Sowjets besetzten Afghanistan: Charlie Wilson (© Foto: AP)

Im Gegenteil: Nicht wenige sagen, dass der Film Der Krieg des Charlie Wilson mit Tom Hanks in der Hauptrolle das pralle Leben des Titelhelden noch sehr zurückhaltend darstellt.

In jedem Fall hat der Streifen aus dem Jahr 2007 dem früheren demokratischen Kongressabgeordneten Charles Nesbitt Wilson aus der Kleinstadt Lufkin in Texas spät, aber verdient den Ruhm verschafft, der ihm gebührt: Nur ihm war es in den achtziger Jahren zu verdanken, dass die USA die Mudschaheddin in Afghanistan aufrüsteten und so in die Lage versetzten, die sowjetischen Besatzer in einem zähen Krieg aus ihrem Land zu vertreiben.



Als die Terroristen noch Freiheitskämpfer waren

Am 22. März 1982 startete die Raumfähre Columbia ins Weltall und Präsident Ronald Reagan widmete den Start den tapferen Menschen Afghanistans, die sich gegen die sowjetischen Besatzer wehrten. Er sagte:

Die Columbia repräsentiert der Menschheit grösstes Streben auf dem Feld der Wissenschaft und Technologie. Genau gleich repräsentiert der Kampf der afghanischen Bevölkerung der Menschheit grösstes Streben nach Freiheit.

Ich widme den Start der Columbia am 22. März im Namen der amerikanischen Bevölkerung den Menschen in Afghanistan.

Im März 1985 empfang Ronald Reagan sogar eine Gruppe von Anführern des afghanischen Widerstandes im Weissen Haus:

Damals waren die heutigen Taliban gefeierte Helden und Freiheitskämpfer. Seit September 2001 werden sie als Terroristen bezeichnet. Der Unterschied, es ging um den Kampf gegen den Feind der USA, die Sowjetunion als Besatzer. Seit bald 10 Jahren sind die Amerikaner selber die Besatzer.

Für die Afghanen gibt es aber keinen Unterschied, egal wer gerade ihr Land besetzt.

So wurden die Freiheitskämpfer mit massiver Propaganda zu Terroristen umgemünzt.

Haben die Afghanen die Sowjetunion angegriffen? Nein. Haben die Afghanen die Vereinigten Staaten angegriffen……………..

Kommentar: Eine Sache ist falsch in dem Artikel: die Soviets wurden von der damaligen Regierung eingeladen, weil sich das Land destabilisierte und wollten auch nach ca. 1 Jahre abziehen.
Identisch zu dieser Zeit auch das selbe System von Ronald Reagon mit der Iran Contra Affäre, Waffen und Drogen schmuggel und mit den Kosovo Terroristen mit DioGuardio und Admiral Pointexter und anderen Politikern! Der CIA richtete damals Drogen Küchen ein in Pakistan, denn die Waffen mussten ja bezahlt werden. Identisch auch im Kosovo und Albanien.
osef DioGuardio, ist Haupt Organisator der Iran Contra Affäre Nr. 2 Drogen-Waffen-Terroristen Organisation, UN Waffen- und Treibstoff Bruch, Rädelsführer in der Organ Sache und der Plünderung der Albanischen Waffenlager in 1997, welche Legendär ist. Die selben Hintermänner bis zum US Präsidenten!

November 1988. DioGuardi with President Regan, Congressman Rinaldo and National Security Adviser Poindexter in the Oval Office discussing U.S. foreign policy in Balkans. Damals wurde die CIA Operations „Roots“ geboren.


Klage gegen Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld und andere wegen Verbrechen beim Internationalen Strafgerichtshof in Den Haag

Februar 5, 2010 8 Kommentare

Klage gegen Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld und andere wegen Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit eingereicht

Von SaarBreaker am Sonntag, 31. Januar 2010, 20:48 Uhr

Übersetzt von
Wolfgang Jung

Francis A. Boyle, ein US-Professor für Völkerrecht, hat beim Internationalen Strafgerichtshof in Den Haag gegen Bush, Cheney und andere führende Vertreter der Bush-Administration Klage wegen Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit eingereicht.

Über den folgenden Link: article24447.htm kann auch die Klageschrift, die der US-Rechtsprofessor Francis A, Boyle beim Internationalen Strafgerichtshof in Den Haag eingereicht hat, im Originaltext aufgerufen werden.

Professor Francis A. Boyle von der juristischen Fakultät der University of Illinois, die in Champaign, USA, zu Hausse ist, hat bei der Anklagebehörde des International Criminal Court / ICC [des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs, s. und ] in Den Haag Klage gegen die beschuldigten US-Bürger George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice und Alberto Gonzales eingereicht – wegen ihrer kriminellen Politik und der Praxis der „Extraordinary Renditions“ [der illegalen Verschleppungen], die sie bei etwa 100 Menschen begangen haben. Diese Bezeichnung haben sie als Umschreibung für das erzwungene Verschwinden lassen von Personen und ihre anschließende Folterung verwendet. Dieses kriminelle Vorgehen und die von den Beschuldigten verfolgte Praxis sind Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und verletzten das Statut von Rom mit dem der I.C.C. gegründet wurde [s. statute/romefra.htm ].

Die Vereinigten Staaten haben ihre Unterschrift unter das Statut von Rom zurückgezogen. Dennoch haben die Beschuldigten Taten angeordnet und sind deshalb auch für sie verantwortlich, die nach dem Statut des I.C.C. als Verbrechen zu werten sind – und zwar innerhalb der jeweiligen Territorien vieler I.C.C.-Mitgliedstaaten, darunter auch mehrerer in Europa. Folglich ist der I.C.C. nach Artikel 12 (2) (a) seines Statuts verpflichtet, die Beschuldigten für ihre Verbrechen, die sie in I.C.C.-Mitgliedstaaten begangen haben, juristisch zu verfolgen.

Die Klage fordert 1., dass der I.C.C.-Ankläger nach Artikel 15 (1) des Statuts von Rom eine eigene Untersuchung gegen die Beschuldigten einleitet, und 2. dass der I.C.C.-Ankläger nach Artikel 15 (3) des Statuts von Rom „auch bei der für die Vorprüfung zuständigen Kammer des I.C.C. einen formellen Antrag auf Eröffnung eines Verfahrens gegen die Beschuldigten“ stellt.

Aus den gleichen Gründen riskieren auch höchstrangige Vertreter der Obama-Regierung eine Anklage in einem Folgeverfahren vor dem I.C.C., wenn sie die kriminelle Politik der Beschuldigten und die Praxis der „Extraordinary Renditions“, die von der Obama-Regierung fortgeführt wird, nicht sofort beenden.

Die Klage schließt mit der Forderung, dass der I.C.C seinem Ankläger internationale Haftbefehle gegen die Beschuldigten ausstellen soll, wie es die Artikel 58 (1) (a), 58 (1) (b) (i), 58 (1) (b) (ii), und 58 (1) (b) (iii) des Statuts von Rom vorsehen.

Wenn Sie die Klage unterstützen wollen, können Sie sich mit dem Büro des I.C.C.-Anklägers per Brief, Fax oder E-Mail über die in dem Kasten angegebene Anschrift in Verbindung setzen.

Francis A. Boyle
Professor für Völkerrecht
Law Building
504 East Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Telefon: 217-333-7954
Fax: 217-244-1478
The Honorable Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Office of the Prosecutor
International Criminal Court
Post Office Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague
The Netherlands
Fax No.: 31-70-515-8555

(Wir haben das Schreiben komplett übersetzt und mit einer Erläuterung und Links in ausnahmsweise eckigen Klammern versehen, um uns von den Angaben zu Artikeln des Statuts von Rom zu unterscheiden, die auch runde Klammern enthalten.)

Quellennachweis: Luftpost, Friedenspolitische Mitteilungen aus der US-Militärregion Kaiserslautern/Ramstein. . Kommentar in kursiv und Anmerkungen in klammern wurden vom Verfasser eingefügt.

Ramsteiner Appell: Angriffskriege sind verfassungswidrig – von deutschem Boden darf kein Krieg ausgehen!

Unterschreiben Sie jetzt!