United States and state terrorism: Difference between revisions

This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (March 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (July 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article may be unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The United States has been accused of having directly committed acts of state terrorism, as well as funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism, by legal scholars, other governments, journalists, and human rights organizations. For example, Noam Chomsky argues that "Washington is the center of global state terrorism and has been for years."[5]^[1]Likewise, Arno Mayer, Emeritus Professor of History at Princeton University, writes: "since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of 'preemptive' state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled."^[2]

The United States has also accused other states of being State Sponsors of Terrorism.

Terrorism, state terrorism, and international terrorism^[3] are without an internationally accepted definition.

The Britannica Concise states that terrorism is "Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."^[4] There is as yet no international consensus or treaty on what constitutes a terrorist act, how to define a terrorist organization, or whether the definition of terrorism even applies to acts by sovereign governments.^[5]

The United Nations has never agreed on a final legally accepted definition of terrorism but has four proposed definitions.^[6] United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 discusses terrorism and is a primary UN authority for terrorism because it was issued under Chapter VII UN authority. Resolution 1566 gives a definition:

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

— UN Security Council Resolution 1566

Various analysts have attempted to formulate definitions which are neutral with respect to the perpetrators of the act, thus permitting a logically consistent application of the definition to both non-state and state actors:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.

— Alex P. Schmid, ^[6]

[Terrorism is] the purposeful act or threat of violence to create fear and/or compliant behavior in a victim and/or audience of the act or threat. ... this definition helps to distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence. Not all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim.

— Michael Stohl, Professor of Political Science at Purdue University, ^[7]

In the context of law, U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113B,^[8] defines the terms "domestic terrorism" and "international terrorism". Various agencies of the United States government utilize different definitions of terrorism:

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. [[18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]] 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. [[18 U.S.C. § 2331(1)]]

— Definition under which the Federal Bureau of Investigation operates, ^[9]

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.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

— U.S. State Department's definition, ^[10]

After President George W. Bush began using the term "War on Terrorism", Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, stated in an interview:

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^[11]

The manual Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict states:

Low intensity conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups ... [and] ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments....LIC operations...can advance US international goals such as the growth of freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economies....

US policy recognizes that indirect, rather than direct, applications of US military power are the most appropriate and cost-effective ways to achieve national goals in a LIC environment. The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. When LIC threatens friends and allies, the aim of security assistance is to ensure that their military institutions can provide security for their citizens and government.

The United States will also employ combat operations in exceptional circumstances when it cannot protect its national interests by other means. When a US response is called for, it must be in accordance with the principles of international and domestic law. These principles affirm the inherent right of states to use force in individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.[6]

Chomsky has characterized the tactics used by agents of the U.S. government and their proxies in their execution of U.S. foreign policy — in such countries as Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, Colombia, Turkey, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia^{[failed verification]} — as a form of terrorism and has also described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state."^[11] Keith Windschuttle accuses Chomsky of using evidence that was "selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented"^{[12] [relevant?]} within the works Chomsky has written on this topic.^{[failed verification]}

The U.S. government has often been accused of being hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism, and as such has two foreign policies, one publicly stated and the other covertly applied.^[13][14] Arno Mayer, 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."^[15]

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 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."^[16][17] Moreover, Falk asserts 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."^[18] Turning specifically to past U.S actions, Falk says "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism... Consider the hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays Qaddafi 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."^[18]

Cuban government officials have accused the United States Government of being an accomplice and protector of terrorism against Cuba on many occasions.^[19][20][21] According to Ricardo Alarcón, President of Cuba’s national assembly "Terrorism and violence, crimes against Cuba, have been part and parcel of U.S. policy for almost half a century.”^[22] The claims formed part of Cuba's $181.1 billion lawsuit in 1999 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."^[23] 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.^[24]

The claims center on allegations of "concrete advance intelligence" the CIA had of operations against Cuba from the early Sixties to mid-Seventies, notably the bombing of Cubana Flight 455 in 1976 which killed all 73 people aboard and a series of attacks on tourist sites in the 1990s. No evidence has been offered that the U.S. had any role for this terrorist act. There remain allegations however that this terrorist act directly involved the U.S. 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.^[26]

Cuba also claims U.S. involvement in the paramilitary group Omega 7, the CIA undercover operation known as Operation 40, and the umbrella group the Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations. Cuban Counterterrorism investigator Roberto Hernández testified in a Miami 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."^[27]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."^[28]

The Cuban revolution resulted in a large Cuban refugee community in the U.S., some of whom have conducted sustained long-term insurgency campaigns against Cuba.^[29] 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.^[30] The failed military invasion of Cuba during the administration of John F. Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs marked the end of documented U.S. involvement. There are repeated and sustained allegations that the serious and sustained incidents of international terrorism by Cuban nationals that were granted asylum status by the United States were indirectly acts of state terrorism by the U.S.^[31]

In 2001, Cuban Ambassador to the UN Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla called for UN General Assembly to address all forms and manifestations of terrorism in every corner of the world, including - without exception - State terrorism. He alleged to the UN General Assembly that 3,478 Cubans have died as a result of aggressions and terrorist acts.^[32] 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."^[32] The Cuban government also asserted that in the 1990s, a total of 68 acts of terrorism were perpetrated against Cuba.^[32]

The Cuban Government, its supporters and some outside observers believe that the group Alpha 66, whose former secretary general Andrés Nazario Sargén acknowledged terrorist attacks on Cuban tourist spots in the 1990s^[33] and conducted training sessions at a secluded camp near the Florida Everglades,^[34] has been supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. International Development Agency and, more directly, according to Cuba's official newspaper Granma, the CIA.^[35] The National Endowment for Democracy is a U.S. non-profit organization that is partially funded by the Smith Richardson Foundation, whose aid recipients also include the Council on Foreign Relations and the RAND Corporation.^[36][37]

A secret plan, Operation Northwoods, was approved by the the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff and submitted for action to Robert McNamara^[38] then Secretary of Defense, and subsequently president of the World Bank. 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 Guantanamo Bay 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 Bay of Pigs Invasion.^[39][40]

The U.S. has also been criticized for failing to condemn Panama's pardoning of the alleged terrorists Novo Sampol, Pedro Remon, and Gaspar Jimenez, instead allowing them to walk free on U.S. streets.^[25] Claudia Furiati has suggested Sampol was linked to President Kennedy's assassination and plans to kill President Castro.^[41]

Luis Posada Carriles has been accused by Cuba and Nicaragua of terrorism although he has never been tried or convicted. He resides within the U.S., and his deportation action was denied by a federal court that cited torture and other concerns.^[42] His case is important because he symbolizes what Cuba and Nicuragua view as the harboring of suspected terrorists by the United States.

The Cubans cite what they describe as the admission by Luis Posada Carriles, a one-time supervisor for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and former chemist,^[43][44] that he was recruited by the CIA into becoming a trainer of other paramilitary forces in the mid 1960s.^[45] Posada, alongside Orlando Bosch, is accused by Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Cuba and Venezuela of organizing the terrorist bombing of the aircraft Cubana 455.^[46] As described by researcher Peter Kornbluh at the non-governmental research institute National Security Archive, he "is a terrorist, but he’s our terrorist,"^[47] 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.^[48]

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 a Cubana airliner. 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.^[26] 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.^[32] 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 Felix Rodriguez under Richard Secord supplying the Contras.^[49]

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 Otto Reich, then U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.^[50]

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 FBI to deport Bosch, they were overruled by President George H. W. Bush and he was allowed permanent residency.^[51] 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'".^[22]

In a series of interviews with the New York Times, Posada claimed responsibility for the bombings at hotels and nightclubs in Cuba in 1997 in which an Italian tourist died and scores more were injured. Posada said his activities were directly supported by Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban-American National Foundation. 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."^[52] 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.^[51]

As more revelations were made public via declassified documents and testimonies from involved parties, journalist Robert Scheer wrote in a column in the Los Angeles Times "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."^[53]

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.^[54] On May 8, 2007 U.S. district judge Kathleen Cardone dismissed seven counts of immigration fraud and ordered Posada's electronic bracelet removed. The ruling criticized the U.S. government's "fraud, deceit and trickery" during the interview with immigration authorities that was the basis of the charges against Posada.^[55] 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."^[47]

Following the rise to power of the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Reagan administration ordered the CIA to organize and train the right wing guerrilla group "Contras". In 1981 President Reagan secretly authorized his Central Intelligence Agency under his appointee William J. Casey^[56] to recruit and support the guerrillas. Casey was to have testified before Congress about the disastrous Iran-Contra affair, in which a third country was to help sell Raytheon's MIM-23 Hawk missiles to the Islamic Republic of Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages whom Hezbollah kidnapped.^{[improper synthesis?]} Deteriorating health made it impossible for Casey to speak to the committee.^{[improper synthesis?]}

Florida State University 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 Iran-Contra affair). Professor Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States.^[57]

In 1984 a CIA manual for training the Nicaraguan Contras in psychological operations was leaked to the media, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War".^[58][59]

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

...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^[60]

Former State Department official William Blum, praised by Osama bin Laden, 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."^[61]

According to author William 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".^[62]

U.S. foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky, argues that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of international terrorism based on the verdict by International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. United States, which condemned the United States federal government for its "unlawful use of force".^[63][64]

The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America^[65] was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice which found that the United States had violated international law by direct acts of U.S. personnel and by the supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. 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 jurisdiction to hear the case.^[66] 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 jurisdiction to order.^[67][68]

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" — which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism" — 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^[69]

The ICJ used the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare CIA manual as evidence in the case.^[70]

The CIA claimed that the purpose of the manual was to "moderate" activities already being done by the Contras.^[71]

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")[13], and disseminating it to Contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but [the Court] 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.^[67]

The U.S. argued that it was primarily for the benefit of El Salvador, and to help it to respond to an alleged armed attack by Nicaragua, that the United States claims to be exercising a right of collective self-defense, which it regards as a justification of its own conduct towards Nicaragua. El Salvador, joined the US in their Declaration of Intervention which it submitted on 15 August 1984, where it alleged itself the victim of an armed attack by Nicaragua, and 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.[7]

One critic of the is David Horowitz, who argues in the book The Anti-Chomsky Reader, that "unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" and that the Court has no jurisdiction over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree, which the U.S. did not since the Soviet Bloc states were outside its jurisdiction but they still sent judges to the court.^[72] The U.S. did accept the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946, but withdrew its acceptance following the Nicaragua case.^[68]

Declassified CIA documents^[73] show that the United States was instrumental in organizing, funding, and equipping the coup which toppled the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954. Analysts Kate Doyle and Peter Kornbluh note 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."

After the U.S.-backed coup, which toppled president Jacobo Arbenz, lead coup plotter Castillo Armas 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."^[74] Human rights expert Michael McClintock^[75] 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.”^[76] 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.”^[77] 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.^[78]

Guerrilla unrest in Guatemala continued into the 1960s, which in 1962 led President John F. Kennedy to approve a “pacification program aimed at the most rebellious provinces…including both ‘civic action’ programs such as digging wells and building clinics and a sharp increase in military assistance.”^[79] Patrice McSherry argues that after a successful (U.S. backed) coup against president Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes in 1963, U.S. advisors began to work with Colonel Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio 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.^[80] Arana Osorio earned the nickname "The Butcher of Zacapa" for killing 15,000 peasants to eliminate 300 suspected rebels. [8] 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.”^[81] He notes:

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^[82]

This idea was also articulated by Colonel John Webber, the chief of the U.S. Military Mission in Guatemala, who reportedly 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.”^[83]

In 1995 CIA aid was stopped. A 1996 report by the Intelligence Oversight Board stated that "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-1980s the Reagan administration's covert funding of several wars in Central America. In December 1990, however, the Bush administration suspended almost all overt military aid."^[84]

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."^[84]

Utilizing a series of formerly secret government documents, George Washington University historians Kate Doyle and Carlos Osorio,^[85] document U.S. training, cooperation and political support of Guatemalan Colonel Byron Lima Estrada, despite U.S. Department of State and CIA knowledge of his frequent command of and/or participation in extra-judicial killings, kidnappings and civilian massacres. Colonel Estrada would eventually rise to command D-2, the Guatemalan Military Intelligence services who were responsible for many of the terror tactics wielded throughout the 1980s against the Guatemalan people.

In 1999, an independent Guatemalan Truth Commission (the "Historical Clarification Commission") issued a damning report which, among other things, clearly 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." Among the report's conclusions were

...estimate[s] 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... [which] "eliminated entire Mayan villages... completely exterminat[ing] Mayan communities, destroy[ing] their livestock and crops."

— Robert Parry, Consortiumnews.com^[86]

The report went on to term the Guatemalan military's campaign in the northern highlands a "genocide," and noted 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."

Writing for The Nation, in 1995 Allan Nairn argued that "North American C.l. A. operatives [were] work[ing] inside a Guatemalan Army unit that maintain[ed] a network of torture centers and ha[d] 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.^[87][88][89]

"We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system ... which provides development for 70% of the population while we kill 30%. Before, the strategy was to kill 100%."

— General Gramajo, while at Harvard^[90]

Professor Gareau argues that the School of the Americas, a U.S. Army institution where Gramajo-Morales trained as a young officer and taught in later life, is a terrorist training ground. He notes a UN report which states the school has "graduated 500 of the worst human rights abusers in the hemisphere." He further argues that people protesting against the school are frequently beaten and arrested, "By the year 2002, 71 demonstrators had served a total of 40 years of jail time for protesting in front of the School of the Americas". This includes an 88 year old nun. Gareau claims that by funding, training and supervising Guatemalan 'Death Squads' Washington was complicit in state terrorism.^[91] Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, expands on this by stating: "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..."^[92]

A 1996 report on CIA's action in Guatemala by the Intelligence Oversight Board states that:

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 human rights records of the Guatemalan security services — the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations) — 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 — 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 — whether or not this was due to CIA efforts — but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem.

— Anthony S. Harrington et al, Report on the Guatemala Review^[93]

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. Similarly,

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.

— Minor Sinclair, the Sojourner^[94]

Defenders of the former School of the Americas (reorganized as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001) argue that no school should be held accountable for the actions of only some of its many graduates. Before coming to WHINSEC each student is “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."^[95][96][97]

This section may contain material not related to the topic of the article and should be moved to Dianna Ortiz instead. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In the early 1990s a U.S. citizen and nun, Sister Dianna Ortiz, brought a U.S. civil court case^[98] against the State of Nicaragua, naming the former Minister of Defense — General Hector Alejandro Gramajo-Morales — as one of the defendants. In her complaint, Sister Ortiz specified that Gen. Gramajo "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted."^[99] The complaint initiated a firestorm of controversy because Gen. Gramajo was, at the time of the complaint's submission, attending Harvard University^[98][100] by invitation after having given that year's commencement speech at the SOA.^[101] Sister Ortiz stated that she was abducted by police officers and military persronnel (i.e. men who would have been under Gramajo's command) and taken to a secret prison where she was tortured and raped repeatedly.^[102] Sister Ortiz has given formal testimony on several occasions, beginning with a 1992 report to the United Nations General Assembly. A short excerpt from Sister Ortiz's statement:

When the men returned, they had a video camera and a still camera. The policeman put a machete into my hands. Thinking it would be used against me, and at that point in my torture wanting to die, I did not resist. But the policeman put his hands onto the handle, on top of mine, and forced me to stab the woman again and again...

The policeman asked me if I was now ready to talk, and one of the other torturers...mentioned that they had just filmed...me stabbing the woman. If I refused to cooperate, their boss, Alejandro, would...turn the videotapes and the photographs over to the press.... This was the first I had heard of Alejandro, the torturers’ boss....

The policeman raped me again. Then I was lowered into a pit full of bodies— bodies of children, men, and women, some decapitated, all caked with blood. A few were still alive. I could hear them moaning. Someone was weeping. I didn’t know if it was me or somebody else. A stench of decay rose from the pit. Rats swarmed over the bodies and were dropped onto me as I hung suspended over the pit by the wrists. I passed out and when I came to I was lying on the ground beside the pit, rats all over me.

The nightmare I lived was nothing out of the ordinary. In 1989, under Guatemala’s first civilian president in years, nearly two hundred people were abducted. Unlike me, they were "disappeared, gone forever." The only uncommon element of my ordeal was that I survived, probably because I was a U.S. citizen, and phone calls poured into Congress when I was reported missing. As a U.S. citizen, I had another advantage: I could, in relative safety, reveal afterwards the details of what happened to me in those twenty-four hours. One of those details: an American was in charge of my torturers

I remember the moment he removed my blindfold. I asked him, "Are you an American?" In poor Spanish and with a heavy American accent, he answered me with a question: "Why do you want to know?" Moments before, after the torturers had blindfolded me again and were getting ready to rape me again, they had called out in Spanish: "Hey, Alejandro, come and have some fun!"

And a voice had responded "Shit!" in perfect American English with no trace of an accent. It was the voice of the tall, fair-skinned man beside me. After swearing, he’d switched to a halting Spanish. "Idiots!" he said. "She’s a North American nun." He added that my disappearance had been made public, and he ran them out of the room.

....He kept telling me he was sorry. The torturers had made a mistake. We came to a parking garage, where he put me into a gray Suzuki jeep and told me he was taking me to a friend of his at the U.S. embassy who would help me leave the country.

For the duration of the trip, I spoke to him in English, which he understood perfectly. He said he was concerned about the people of Guatemala and consequently was working to liberate them from Communism. Alejandro told me to forgive my torturers because they had confused me with Veronica Ortiz Hernandez. It was an honest mistake.^[103]

Sister Ortiz has recounted this same story, in formal testimony, on several occasions.^[104] Sister Ortiz's testimony initiated a wave of public investigation and scrutiny into the CIA's activities in Guatemala.^{[citation needed]}

According to the 1996 Intelligence Oversight Board report on Guatemala: the IOB believes that Sister Ortiz was subjected to horrific abuse on November 2, l989, but US intelligence reports provide little insight into the details of her plight. Because the Department of Justice is still conducting an extensive reinvestigation of the incident, we do not draw any conclusions on the case at this time. Provision of intelligence to Sister Ortiz:

Prior to the IOB review, no intelligence on the incident was provided to Sister Ortiz by the US government. On May l0, 1996, pursuant to White House authorization, Sister Ortiz was given declassified versions or summaries of the ten intelligence reports the IOB identified during its review as shedding light on the facts and circumstances of her case. None of this intelligence, however, offers any reliable insight into the matter, and none addresses the identity of "Alejandro.^[105]

The Salvadoran Civil War was predominantly fought between the government of El Salvador and guerrilla groups between 1980 and 1992.

According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate."^[106] The US accused the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who took power in 1979, of arming and training the guerrillas.[9]

In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.^{[107][108][109]}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.”^[110] 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.^[111][112]

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.^[113]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.^[114][115]

Death squads worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels, and their supporters.^[116] 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.^[117] 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.”^[118] 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.^[119]

The FMLN, one guerrilla groups, was also accused of human rights violations, using terrorist tactics such as kidnappings, arson, and bombings to destabilize the regime.[10] It is now one of the two major political parties of the country.

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 human rights abuses and political terror.^[120] 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.

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, ^[121]

The episode of the war responsible for the single largest civilian death toll occurred on December 11, 1981, when the U.S.-trained elite Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran army killed approximately nine hundred men, women, and children in and around the village of El Mozote. 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.^[122] A report compiled by the villagers found that more half of the victims were under fourteen.^[123] It is reputed to be the worst such atrocity in modern Latin American history, but when news emerged of the massacre, the Reagan administration in the United States dismissed it as FMLN propaganda.

The prototype of the El Salvadoran death squads was ORDEN, a paramilitary spy network that 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 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, "in recognition of exceptionally meritorious service."^[124].^[125] One of Medrano's proteges, Roberto D'Aubuisson, was trained at the U.S. army's school in Panama and at The School of the Americas. D'Aubuisson was founder of the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) whose public face was that of a rightist political party, but which also ran death squads secretly. In the spring of 1980, when D'Aubuisson was arrested for plotting against the administration of José Napoleón Duarte, a mass of documents was found implicating him in numerous death squad activities, including detailed plans linked to the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. The Reagan administration was accused of ignoring the evidence implicating D'Aubuisson.^[126]

Critics maintain that the U.S. economic and military aid played an essential role in enabling state terrorism in El Salvador. Specifically that the U.S. government — during the period of the worst abuses — provided El Salvador with billions of dollars, and equipped and trained an army, which kidnapped and disappeared more than 30,000 people, and carried out large-scale massacres of thousands of the elderly, women, and children.[11] El Salvador became the fourth largest recipient of U.S. aid, behind Israel, Egypt, and Turkey.^[127] 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."^[128] The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights 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.”^[129]

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.^[130] 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.”^[131] 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 El Mozote. 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.”^[132] Leogrande further noted that “no independent human rights group agreed with the Reagan administration’s portrait of the situation.”^[133] The Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union jointly referred to the report as a "fraud."^[134] 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."^[135]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."^[136]

Defenders of U.S. policies object to these allegations, emphasizing that the U.S. explicitly promotes professional conduct, including observance of human rights within its military and police training programs. They argue that the U.S. should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals trained by them.

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,"^[137]. 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."^[138] 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. Concerning the air war campaign involving the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations, both the Salvadoran government and U.S. state officials maintained that peasants who stayed in the zones selected as targets are to be assumed to be guerrilla sympathizers.

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” (Leogrande, 281). The Reagan administration carried out circumventions and arbitrary re-definitions of laws stipulating the quantity and role of advisers.

An article in the Asia Times Online by an Indian diplomat claims that the United States is providing aid to rebels in Iran, who are currently engaged in a revolt against the Tehran government. Stratfor, a think tank with ties to the American military and intelligence establishments, reported that rebel groups such as Jundallah are receiving aid from foreign intelligence agencies. In addition Stratfor stated, "The US-Iranian standoff has reached a high level of intensity ... a covert war [is] being played out ... 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 media of Iran reported that this is an attempt to stir up sectarian violence inside Iran. The Asian Times Online article refers to this as part of a U.S. policy of continues fomenting of ethnic strife and sponsorship of terrorism in Iran.^[139][140]

The New York Times 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, Iyad Allawi'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 Baghdad 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."^[141][142]

The CIA has been accused of being the perpetrator of a 1985 Beirut car bombing which killed 81 people. The bombing was apparently an assassination attempt on an Islamic cleric, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.^[143][144] The bombing, known as the Bir bombing after Bir el-Abed, the impoverished Beirut 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.^[145] Investigative journalist Bob Woodward stated that the CIA was funded by the Saudi Arabian government to arrange the bombing.^[146][147] Fadlallah himself also claims to have evidence that the CIA was behind the attack and that the Saudis paid $3 million.^[148]

The U.S. National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane admitted that those responsible for the bomb may have had American training, but that they were "rogue operative(s)" operating without CIA approval.^[149] 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 William Casey, president Ronald Reagan sanctioned the Bir attack in retaliation for the truck-bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks at Beirut airport in October 1983, which in turn had been a reprisal for earlier U.S. acts of intervention and diplomatic dealings in Lebanon's civil war that had resulted in hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian lives. After CIA operatives had repeatedly failed to arrange Casey's car-bombing, the CIA "farmed out" the operation to agents of its longtime Lebanese client, the Phalange, a Maronite Christian, anti-Islamic militia.^[150]

Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have characterized the United States' World War II nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan as state terrorism. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 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 20th century, and some academics have referred to the bombings as genocide.^[151][152]

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the United States' justification for them has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. As J. Samuel Walker noted in an April 2005 overview of recent historiography on the issue, "the controversy over the use of the bomb seems certain to continue."^[153] Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Some point to the fact 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.^[154] Critics also claim that the attacks were militarily unnecessary and transgressed moral barriers.^{[155][156][157][158][159][160][159]} The sociologist Kai Erikson has suggested 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?"^[161]

Historian Howard Zinn 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."^[161] Similarly, Michael Walzer 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."^[162]

Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and studies political violence, Just War Theory, Terrorism, and Humanitarian intervention.^[163] 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."^[164]

Mark Selden, professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University 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."^[165]

Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He argues in an article published in The Nation that “the graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism."^[166]}}. He writes:

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^[167]

Heads of State have also condemned the bombings. While paying tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hugo Chavez - President of Venezuela - referred to the bombings as "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history."^[168]

While a number of experts have characterized the atomic bombing of Japan as state terrorism, among historians the argument is not very prominent in the historical literature. As J. Samuel Walker has noted, "The fundamental issue that has divided scholars over a period of nearly four decades is whether the use of the bomb was necessary to achieve victory in the war in the Pacific on terms satisfactory to the United States." Although the "revisionist" school of scholarship (as opposed to the "traditional" view that argues in favor of the bombings) has been extremely critical of the decision to use the atomic bomb, their primary criticism has not been concerned with whether the bombings constituted state terrorism. Rather, most of the critical scholarship has focused on the argument that the use of atomic weapons was "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War."^[169] Thus for many of those scholars who oppose the decision to use of the atom bomb, while they state it was unnecessary (and immoral) they do not necessarily claim it was state terrorism per se. Walker's 2005 overview of recent historiography (published in the leading academic journal for the study of U.S. diplomatic history) did not discuss the issue of state terrorism.^[170] Even so, the historian Robert Newman — a supporter of the bombings — has responded to these criticisms by arguing that the practice of terrorism is sometimes justified.^[171]

In Terrorism and Collective Responsibility by Burleigh Taylor Wilkins, Wilkins states 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."^[172]

The Philippine government is fighting insurgents such as Islamic groups and the Communist New People's Army.

As of 2007, there is an increasing international awareness of the extra-judicial harassment, torture, disappearances and murder of Philippino civilian non-combatants by the Philippine's military and police. ^[173]

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. ^[174] The human rights watchdog KARAPATAN has documented the brutalization of 169,530 individual victims, 18,515 families, 71 communities, and 196 households. ^[175]

Estimates of killings vary on the precise number, with the Government appointed Task Force Usig estimating only 114 while the independent activist party KARAPATAN placing the number much higher, at something over 874.^[176] The government's specially convened Task Force Usig has notably failed to gain any convictions, and as of February 2007 had only arrested 3 suspects in the over 100 cases of assassination^[177] Moreover:

[A]ccording to a recent international fact-finding mission of Dutch and Belgian judges and lawyers, [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.'

— Bobby Tuazon, ^[178]

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."^[179] 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 New People's Army . . . [and] 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|^[180]

Most of those killed or "disappeared" were peasant or worker activists belonging to progressive groups such as Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, GABRIELA, Anakbayan, Karapatan, KMU, 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. E. San Juan, Jr., ^[181]

According to commentators James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya, "Human rights groups provide evidence that [Philippino] death squads operate under the protective umbrella of regional military commands, especially the U.S.-trained Special Forces.^[182]

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. E. San Juan, Jr., ^[183]

With 185 dead, 2006 is so far (2007) the highest annual mark for extra-judicial government murders.^[184] Of the 2006 killings, the dead were "mostly left-leaning activists, murdered without trial or punishment for the perpetrators."^[185] 2006 is also the year President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1017. According to Asia Times Online, this proclamation "grants exceptional unchecked powers to the executive branch", placing the country in a state of emergency and permitting the police and security forces to "conduct warrantless arrests against enemies of the state, including...members of the political opposition and journalists from critical media outlets."^[186] As Asia Times Online and several other independent observers have noted, the issuance of the proclamation conspicuously coincided with a dramatic increase in political violence and extra-judicial killings.^[187] The Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace, a non-denominational Christian network of Filipino churches, stated in their regular Promotion of Church People's Response (PCPR, Feb 24, 2007) that "[Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's] record of political killings and violations of civil liberties, especially with her Calibrated Preemptive Response scheme, is now the worst since the downfall of Marcos. . . . President Arroyo's Proclamation 1017 constitutes a flagrant violation of the Philippine Constitution via the pretext of a 'National Emergency.'"^[188]

The Arroyo government initially made no response to the dramatic increase in violence and killings; as Dr. E. San Juan, Jr, writes, "Arroyo has been tellingly silent over the killing and abduction of countless members of opposition parties and popular organizations."^[189] In 2007, however, Arroyo was forced by popular outcry to appointed an independent commission led by the Philippine's former Supreme Court Chief Justice Jose Melo. The Melo commission found 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.^[190] Later, in February 2007, UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston implicated the Philippine police and military as responsible for the crimes.^[191] 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.^[192]

There have been increasing condemnations made of U.S. influence upon the Philippine military, many of which charge the U.S. with the sponsorship of state terrorism^{[193][194][195][196][197][198][199]} through the policies implemented by the military advisers and military aid it has delivered as part of its War on Terror.

The Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace documents that most of the human rights violations were committed by the AFP, the Philippine National Police, and the CAFGU (Civilian Armed Forces Government Units) under the mantle of the anti-insurgency campaign initially created as one arm of the U.S. War on Terror. ^[200]

In the period from 2000 to 2003, military loans and grants to the Philippines from the U.S. grew by 1,776 percent.^[201] As of 2005, according to President Arroyo the Philippines were the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in Asia and fourth worldwide;^[202] aid since then has continued to increase.^[203] 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;^[204] by late 2006 Washington 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.^[205] The United States — through the person of National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley — has broadly "congratulated the government of the Philippines...for [its] achievements [in anti-terror military actions] while at the same time acknowledging the valuable role of [its] partnership with the United States".^[206]

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 Fidel Ramos 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. E. San Juan, Jr., ^[207]

[The] U.S....fashioned..."low-intensity warfare" to deal with upheavals in the post-Vietnam period. Its military field manuals endorsed tactical tools of...psychological warfare, forced mass evacuations or "hamletting," imprisonment of whole communities in military garrisons, militarization of villages, selective assassinations, disappearances, mass executions, 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 paramilitary death squads 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. E. San Juan, Jr., ^[208]

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.^[209]

From the beginning — as early as 2001 — the U.S. State Department knew that "Members of the [Philippines'] security services were responsible for extra-judicial killings, disappearances, torture, and arbitrary arrest and detention." ^[210] In the same report, the State Department admitted that the presence of U.S. Special Forces and other military advisers had "helped create an environment in which human rights 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 terrorist Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).'"^[211] Further, in 2003 the U.S. government — in anticipation that its military personnel would be charged with human rights abuses — 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 International Criminal Court". ^[212]

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 military exercises against terrorism and other non-traditional security concerns."^[213](emphasis added)

Notorious as the 'Butcher of Mindoro", General Jovito Palparan is considered responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses.^[214][215] For instance, "[w]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."^[216]

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.

— General Jovito Palparan, ^[217]

In addition to working under the U.S. military command in Iraq, Palparan himself has received advanced military training in the United States^[218] and in the Philippines has worked closely with Unites States military advisers;^[219] President Arroyo's promotion of him to one-star general has been widely condemned as a gesture of support for military-backed state terrorism.^{[220][221][222][223][224]}

Human rights watchdog groups assert that the U.S.-supplied military aid directed to Palparan's command has been used "to intensify [military] attack[s]...against unarmed civilians including the leaders and members of legal people's organizations."^[225]

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.

— human rights watchdog group Reality of Aid, ^[226]

On October 24, 1990, Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti told the Italian Parliament that NATO had long held a covert policy of training partisan groups in the event of a Soviet Invasion of Western Europe.^{[227][228][229]} Under Operation Gladio the CIA, British MI6 and NATO trained and armed partisan groups in NATO states to fight a guerrilla war if they were captured during a future Soviet invasion. It has been alleged that these groups and individuals in them were responsible for various acts of violence perpetrated against leftists during the cold war,^[230][231] political assassinations in Belgium,^[232] military coups in Greece (1967) and Turkey (1980)^[233] The supposed aim of this group was to prevent Communist movements in Western Europe from gaining power and thus contain the expansion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whose "iron curtain", as Winston Churchill termed it, had "descended across the Continent."^[234]

In 2000, a report from the Italian Democratic Party of the Left (formerly the Italian Communist Party) claimed that the strategy of tension had been supported by the United States to "stop the PCI (Communist Party) (itself sponsored to the tune of over $60 million from Moscow during the Cold War), and to a certain degree also the PSI (Italian Socialist Party), from reaching executive power in the country." Intending to drawing a pejorative linkage to the atrocities of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, during which millions were persecuted and an estimated half million killed,^[235] the centrist Italian Republican party said the report was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group.^[236][237]

The U.S. State Department has admitted the existence of Gladio only as a plan which was to be activated in the event of Soviet occupation of Western Europe during the Cold War, but has continued to deny it qualified as terrorism. The United States maintains that several researchers have been influenced by a Soviet Cold War forgery.^[31]

The US State Department: "Cuba actively continued to oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the global war on terror and has publicly condemned various U.S. policies and actions. To U.S. knowledge, Cuba did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets, although the authority to do so is contained in Cuba’s Law 93 Against Acts of Terrorism, as well as Instruction 19 of the Superintendent of the Cuban Central Bank. No new counterterrorism laws were enacted, nor were any executive orders or regulations issued in this regard. To date, the Cuban Government has taken no action against al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

Cuba did not undertake any counterterrorism efforts in international and regional fora. Official government statements and the government-controlled press rarely speak out against al-Qaida or other designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

Cuba invests heavily in biotechnology, and there is some dispute about the existence and extent of Cuba’s offensive biological weapons program. The Cuban Government maintains friendly ties with Iran and North Korea. Cuban Foreign Minister Perez Roque visited Iran on November 13. Earlier in the year, Iran offered Cuba a 20 million euro line of credit, ostensibly for investment in biotechnology. The Cuba-Iran Joint Commission met in Havana in January. Cuba and North Korea held military talks at the general staff level in May in Pyongyang. The North Korean trade minister visited Havana in November and signed a protocol for cooperation in the areas of science and trade.

The Cuban Government continues to permit U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba, and is unlikely to satisfy U.S. extradition requests for terrorists harbored in the country. In previous years, the government responded to requests to extradite U.S. fugitives by stating that approval would be contingent upon the U.S. returning wanted Cuban criminals. U.S. fugitives range from convicted murderers, two of whom killed police officers, to numerous hijackers. Most of those fugitives entered Cuba in the 1970s.

The U.S. Government periodically requests the Government of Cuba to return wanted fugitives to the United States. Cuba continues to be non-responsive. On the other hand, the Cuban regime publicly demanded the return to Cuba of five of its agents convicted of espionage in the United States. The Cuban Government refers to these individuals as heroes in the fight against terrorism. The five are variously accused of being foreign intelligence agents and infiltrating U.S. military facilities. One is accused of conspiracy to murder for his role in the Cuban Air Force’s shooting down of two small civilian planes. Cuba has stated that it will no longer provide safe haven to new U.S. fugitives who may enter Cuba.

Cuba did not extradite suspected terrorists during the year, but demanded that the United States surrender to Cuba Luis Posada Carriles, whom it accuses of plotting to kill Castro and bombing a Cubana Airlines plane in 1976, which resulted in more than 70 deaths. Posada Carriles remains in U.S. custody. Cuba has also asked the United States to return three Cuban-Americans implicated in the same cases.

The Government of Cuba maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and North Korea, and has provided safe haven to members of ETA, FARC, and the ELN. There is no information concerning terrorist activities of these or other organizations on Cuban territory. Press reports indicate that U.S. fugitives from justice and ETA members are living legally in Cuba. The United States is not aware of specific terrorist enclaves in the country."[12]

The US State Department: "Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hizballah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals. In addition, the IRGC was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups, which destabilizes Iraq.

Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003. Iran has refused to identify publicly these senior members in its custody on "security grounds." Iran has also resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or to third countries for interrogation and/or trial.

Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity -- rhetorically, operationally, and financially. Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadi-Nejad praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups -- notably HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command -- with extensive funding, training, and weapons.

Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistent with its stated objectives regarding stability in Iraq and with the objectives of the Iraqi Transitional Government and the Multi-national Forces in Iraq. Senior Iraqi officials have publicly expressed concern over Iranian interference in Iraq, and there were reports that Iran provided funding, safe passage, and arms to insurgent elements.

State sponsors of terrorism pose a grave WMD terrorism threat. A WMD program in a state sponsor of terrorism could enable a terrorist organization to acquire a sophisticated WMD. State sponsors of terrorism and nations that fail to live up to their international obligations deserve special attention as potential facilitators of WMD terrorism. Iran presents a particular concern, given its active sponsorship of terrorism and its continued development of a nuclear program. Iran is also capable of producing biological and chemical agents or weapons. Like other state sponsors of terrorism with WMD programs, Iran could support terrorist organizations seeking to acquire WMD."[13]

The US State Department: "The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987.

Pyongyang in 2003 allowed the return to Japan of five surviving abductees, and in 2004 of eight family members, mostly children, of those abductees. Questions about the fate of other abductees remain the subject of ongoing negotiations between Japan and the DPRK. In November, the DPRK returned to Japan what it identified as the remains of two Japanese abductees, whom the North had reported as having died in North Korea. The issue remained contentious at year’s end. There are also credible reports that other nationals were abducted from locations abroad. The ROK government estimates that approximately 485 civilians were abducted or detained since the 1950-53 Korean War. Four Japanese Red Army members remain in the DPRK following their involvement in a jet hijacking in 1970; five of their family members returned to Japan in 2004."[14]

The US State Department: "Sudan continued its cooperative commitment against known and suspected international terrorist elements believed to be operating in and out of Sudanese territory. The government undertook actions against security threats posed by persons either suspected of using Sudan as a base of operation and/or persons of Sudanese origin purported to be associated with terrorist organizations. Sudan produced desired results against international terrorist elements and the facilitators that support them.

Sudan cooperated with the international community and demonstrated support in regional and global organizations calling for stronger condemnation of terrorism; this was reflected in the country's antiterrorism initiatives. Sudan's history of having played host in the mid-1990s to al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin continues to weigh heavily in the objective assessment of Sudan's role in international terrorism, but there is no indication that al-Qaida elements have had a presence in Sudan with the knowledge and consent of the Sudanese Government for at least the past five years.

While there remains significant concern in the international community over Sudan's handling of internal rebel movements, specifically in western Sudan, there is no current data indicating that international terrorists operate in Darfur. The flow of weapons and personnel between Sudan and most of its western, southern, and eastern neighbors, however, has weakened international efforts to stabilize the region. Many of Sudan's borders, particularly those along the Red Sea coast, remain porous and easily penetrable. This fact very likely allowed subversive elements and smuggled humans to enter Sudan without knowledge of any government security units and compounds problems in securing the region.

The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) led by Joseph Kony, a Ugandan, continued to be a major terrorist threat to Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and southern Sudan. Although Sudan publicly offered to help mediate peace between the LRA and neighboring countries, and vowed to stamp out LRA members in Sudan, little tangible progress was evident.

Continued focus was placed on Sudan for its role in contributing fighters for the Iraqi insurgency. Sudanese and foreign nationals who transited Sudan have been captured as foreign fighters in Iraq. The Sudanese have taken steps, through self-initiation and encouragement by the United States and other international actors, to disrupt jihadists both traveling to and returning from Iraq; however, significant gaps in knowledge and capability to identify and capture such individuals remain.

The Sudanese Government has increased its participation in international events aimed at defining and preventing terrorism, and has pledged to strengthen its laws to better combat acts of terror. In February, representatives from Khartoum attended an international counterterrorism conference hosted by Saudi Arabia at which Sudan expressed its full cooperation with international efforts to combat terrorism. Furthermore, Sudan hosted a similar conference in September for regional partners interested in developing improved means of addressing terrorism issues in East Africa. Overall in 2005, Sudan continued its progress in cooperation to combat terrorism locally and internationally, with some areas of concern remaining."[15]

The US State Department: "The Syrian Government continued to provide political and material support to both Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups. HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), among others, base their external leadership in Damascus. The Syrian Government insists that the Damascus-based groups undertake only political and informational activities. However, in statements originating from outside Syria, many Palestinian groups claimed responsibility for anti-Israeli terrorist acts. Syria's public support for the groups varied, depending on its national interests and international pressure. In 2003, these groups lowered their public profile after Damascus announced that they had voluntarily closed their offices in Syria. In September, however, Syrian President Bashar al-Asad held a highly publicized meeting with rejectionist leaders, and a month later the rejectionist leaders participated in a meeting in Damascus with the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel. Syria continued to permit Iran to use Damascus as a transshipment point to resupply Hizballah in Lebanon.

Syrian officials publicly condemned international terrorism, but made a distinction between terrorism and what they considered to be "legitimate armed resistance" by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and by Lebanese Hizballah. The Syrian Government has not been implicated directly in an act of terrorism since 1986, although preliminary findings of a UN investigation into the February assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri have indicated a strong likelihood of official Syrian involvement.

During the past seven years there have been no acts of terrorism against American citizens in Syria. Damascus has repeatedly assured the United States that it will take every possible measure to protect U.S. citizens and facilities in Syria.

In the past, Damascus cooperated with the United States and other foreign governments against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations and individuals. In May, however, the Syrian Government ended intelligence cooperation, citing continued U.S. public complaints about the inadequate level of Syria's assistance to end the flow of fighters and money to Iraq.

Syria made efforts to limit the movement of foreign fighters into Iraq. It upgraded physical security conditions on the border and announced that it has begun to give closer scrutiny to military-age Arab males entering Syria (visas are still not required for citizens of Arab countries). The government claimed that since 2003 it has repatriated more than 1,200 foreign extremists and arrested more than 4,000 Syrians trying to go to Iraq to fight.

In the last six months of 2005, Damascus highlighted clashes on Syrian territory with terrorist groups, particularly with the Jund a-Sham group associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in its government-controlled press information."[16]

• The Red Army Faction, an organization allegedly supported by East Germany attacked the US.^[238]

• The April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing by allegedly by Hezbollah, an organization allegedly supported by Iran.^[239]

• The Pan Am Flight 103, allegedly with the assistance of Libya.[17]

• The 9/11 attack by Al Quada, allegedly receiving assistance from Afghanistan.[18]

One has to ask whether there was transparency in the invasion of Iraq. The world knows President Bush lied openly about Iraq having chemical weapons, They keep on bombing cities, killing children, they have become a terrorist state.

— Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, Al Jazeera, 2005^[240]

Actually, who is the terrorist, who is against human rights? The answer is the United States because they attacked Iraq. Moreover, it is the terrorist king, waging war.

— Indonesian Vice President Hamzah Haz, Reuters, 2003^[241]

The C.I.A. taught us everything -- everything...They taught us explosives, how to kill, bomb, trained us in acts of sabotage. When the Cubans were working for the C.I.A. they were called patriots...Now they call it terrorism.

— Luis Posada Carriles, NY Times, 1998^[242]

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.

— Noam Chomsky, ^[243][244]

Wikiquote has quotations related to Terrorism.

• Allegations of state terrorism by Iran
• Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
• American terrorism
• Command responsibility
• Economic terrorism
• List of terrorist incidents
• Torture manuals

• Alexander, George (December 1991). Western State Terrorism. Polity Press. p. 276. ISBN 9780745609317.
• Chomsky, Noam (January 1988). The Culture of Terrorism. South End Press. p. 269. ISBN 9780896083349.
• Sluka,, Jeffrey A., editor (1999). Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-1711-7. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• 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. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• 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
• Pilger, John (December 12, 2002). "Bush Terror Elite Wanted 9/11 to Happen". Third World Traveler. Retrieved 2007-07-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Perdue, William D. (August 7, 1989). Terrorism and the State: A Critique of Domination Through Fear. Praeger Press. p. 240. ISBN 9780275931407. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)
• Campbell, Bruce B., and Brenner,Arthur D.,eds. 2000. Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability. New York: St. Martin's Press
• "Understanding Terrorism". Public Broadcasting Service. August 15, 1997. Retrieved 2007-07-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Vann, Bill (November 21, 2001). "Bush nominee linked to Latin American terrorism". World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved 2007-07-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Wright,, Thomas C. (February 28, 2007). State Terrorism in Latin America: Chile, Argentina, and International Human Rights. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0742537217. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)