Today,
an attempt will be made to eliminate the final
refuge of the former School of the Americas (SOA),
an immensely controversial military training base
for “qualified citizens of the Western
Hemisphere,” located in Fort Benning, Georgia and
funded by U.S. taxpayers. Representative James
McGovern (D-Massachusetts) will introduce an
amendment to the FY 2007 Foreign Operations
Appropriations Bill, proposing the elimination of
funding for SOA’s re-incarnate: the Western
Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC).
This facility was opened on January 17, 2001, after
Congress officially closed the SOA in December 2000
due to its foul aroma, and established WHINSEC in
its place. SOA’s divisive past includes the use of
military training manuals, which instructed students
in the implementation of torture as an acceptable
method for obtaining information from potential
suspects.
Scores
of SOA’s graduates eventually became Latin
America’s military dictators or their servitors,
as well as becoming prime human rights abusers. They
put their U.S. acquired military training to
demoniac use in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Violations included detaining civilians
indefinitely, employing torture tactics,
“disappearing” victims and engaging in an entire
range of unspeakable abuses, which blatantly
violated fundamental human rights. Its critics
therefore insisted that the SOA be closed down, but
sanitized by a name change, the facilities remained
open. Critics argue that such torture facilities are
un-American, and are not consonant with the best
aspects of U.S. military tradition.
The
legitimacy of the School of the America’s and its
successor institution, WHINSEC, diminishes
exponentially upon examining the facility’s
history. SOA’s graduate roster is teeming with
pathological alumni including infamous Panamanian
dictator and convicted drug trafficker Manuel
Noriega, ex-head of the Argentine military junta
Leopoldo Galtierri, and organizer of Salvadoran
death squads and author of the assassination of
Archbishop Oscar Romero, Roberto D’ Aubuisson. In
the 1989 El Salvadoran massacre, 19 out of the 26
individuals, who were implicated in the killing of 6
Jesuit priests and a female employee at a Jesuit
mission along with her teenage daughter, happened to
be SOA graduates.
Perhaps
the notoriety of SOA’s graduates is just
coincidental, but in 1996, the Pentagon declassified
seven SOA training manuals used at the school
between 1987 and 1991, which suggest otherwise.
Proponents of the SOA claim that simply because the
school has produced a few bad apples, the entire
establishment is not liable. They further argue that
SOA merely taught its students standard military
tactics, and if certain individuals wrongly
interpreted or misused the information as providing carte-blanche
permission to commit human rights violations, they
constitute a tiny minority of the school’s
graduates. But, in fact, SOA students did not merely
misinterpret their training materials or lectures;
they were given U.S. Army-issued training manuals
which detailed unconventional and coercive
interrogation tactics which routinely condoned human
rights violations. These guides came to be known as
the “torture manuals.” According to a Defense
Department summary of the handbooks, the U.S.
military spelled out acceptable methods for
acquiring information which included “beatings,
false imprisonment, executions and the use of truth
serum.” In an attempt to rectify historically
controversial practices, the WHINSEC’s charter of
2001—a revamped version of SOA’s earlier mission
statement— stipulated that students of the
institution must receive a minimum eight hours of
training on the importance of human rights and the
dire consequences for those who abuse them. The
argument has been made that it would be implausible
if the average member of the U.S. military would
ever be in a situation where he or she would have to
choose between upholding an individual’s human
rights or deciding to violate them; however, such an
argument would come to be challenged years later by
prison records in Guantánamo and Iraq. For an
institution with such a nefarious track-record,
WHINSEC’s suspected only token concern for its
human rights curriculum is unsatisfactory.
WHINSEC’s
mission statement asserts that the institution
advocates the “democratic principles set forth in
the Charter of the Organization of the American
States,” with the hope of educating citizens of
the Western Hemisphere in the nuances of the
military’s notions of justice, freedom and peace.
Section 911 of the 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act, from which the organization
derives its funding, claims that educating
individuals in such principles will hopefully foster
“mutual knowledge, transparency… [and] respect
for human rights.” The rhetoric is highflying;
however, in practice, its execution falls short.
The
School of the America’s reprehensible history, in
combination with the revelation of questionable
interrogation and military tactics exercised by
current United States military personnel in Iraq and
Guantánamo, deems members of the United States
military as not being automatically immune from such
charges. Currently, U.S. marines are under
investigation for the murder of 24 unarmed Iraqi
civilians in Haditha. The Guantánamo Bay prison
camp remains open even though the United Nations
Committee Against Torture suggested that “torture
and ill-treatment of detainees by its military or
civilian personnel,” warranted its closure.
One
might ask how WHINSEC students can take their
instruction seriously when the United States
military continues to perpetuate policies that are
contradictory to conventional interpretations of
defending human rights. With an annual budget of
$7.8 million for the 2005 fiscal year, WHINSEC is a
veritable black hole in which to pour away scarce
funds that would perhaps be better spent on social
justice projects throughout Latin America. Many
Latin American democrats, some who have been
victimized by SOA’s alumni, deeply feel that
Congress should vote in favor of Representative
McGovern’s amendment, ending the controversial
military institution’s existence, while
simultaneously terminating the hypocrisy behind the
U.S. military’s training of Latin American
military personnel, who more likely will turn out to
be the progenitors of human rights violations,
rather than their protectors.