Talk:Operation Condor

Disambiguation

Any ideas on how this could be seperated into 3 entrires? Does Operation Condor (Vietnam), Operation Condor (South America), and Operation Condor (Afghanistan) sound OK? Or perhapse we should go by date (e.g. Operation Condor, 1945, etc)? -- stewacide 20:25, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. I believe the location tells more than the place, perhaps better even more is to give the name of the conflict, This page should just be an disamb. Pascal 21:53, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Fine, does Operation Condor (Vietnam) and Operation Condor (Afghanistan) sound better, or Operation Condor (Vietnam War) and Operation Condor (U.S. invasion of Afghanistan) ? -- stewacide 08:03, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why bother? The other entries are short. If and when they get expanded, they can be spun off to separate articles. -- Viajero 09:02, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

There is a movie of the same title by Jackie Chan, please make a "(movie)" page --Jack Zhang 18:28, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

What do you think about adding the word illegal to this campaign? "was (an illegal) campaign of assassination... --Lyonlamb 00:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Carlos the Jackal

Why did the CIA help Carlos to escape? Ericd 21:59, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I too am confused by this. Kent Wang 07:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved from the article, for the reasons listed below:

One target in September 1974 was the Venezuelan-born Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (a.k.a. “Carlos the Jackal”). After his involvement in the murder of the Bolivian ambassador and a Chilean attaché in Paris as well as a Chilean diplomat in the Middle East, Ramírez Sánchez was located by the Latin Americans in Europe. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency detected the Condor operation and alerted France and Portugal. They warned Ramírez, allowing him to escape.

THIS SECTION MAKES NO SENSE. CARLOS WAS A LEFTIST TERRORIST, WHY WOULD THE CIA STOP HIS ASSASSINATION. ALSO, THE MEANING OF 'CIA DETECTED THE CONDOR OPERATION' IS NOT CLEAR. ACCORDING TO THE WRITEUP, PLAN CONDOR WAS A CIA SANCTIONED OPERATION, SO WHAT IS THERE TO DETECT?

The reason the part in caps has been removed is obvious. The other part has been removed as I can't find any information about it. None of the sources listed on this page, or on the Carlos the Jackal page, make any reference to the events mentioned in that paragraph. Without any sources to back it up, I don't think it should be there. g026r 02:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Terrorists

I eliminated the word "terrorists" from this line in the article:

"Their targets were leftist guerrilla terrorists but many are thought to be political opponents, family and other innocent people." It is POV and the sentence without the word clearly explains the situation.Jersey Devil06:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The use of the word "terrorist" is becoming problematic as a descriptive word without bias, due to the shifting cultural usage of the word; and its use as a political means of dehumanizing and discrediting opposing political movements. In the introductory paragraph the term "counter-terrorism" is used to describe what appears from the context to be state sponsored terrorism, conducted by authoritarian regimes, to prevent democracy from occurring. Would the term "terrorist" apply to American Revolutionary soldiers? Would "counter-terrorism" apply to nazi actions against the French underground? ~~ Michael J Swassing 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup notice

I added a cleanup notice because the article has numerous and pervasive style errors that make it difficult to read. Steve Casburn 20:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Famous victims of Operation Condor

General Carlos Prats, assassinated in Buenos Aires in 1974 (currently in the US, under witness protection program).

This statement seems to make little sense. What exactly are they protecting?

also, how can Carlos Prats be assassinated on the 30th of September 1974 as part of an operation that started in November 1975

Map has no key

The map showiong participants of operation condor has no key. What is the difference between those that are dark red and those that are light red for example? A caption would help.

References

Just a place holder for news articles with info Mariano(t/c) 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Kissinger Moved to Back Junta Yahoo news

• [1] George Washington University National Security Archive: Operation Condor: Cable Suggests US Role

• [2] More GWU NSA: Kissinger vs. Council on Foreign Relations re: 1976 Letelier-Moffitt assassination in D.C.

NOTE: GWU's NatSec Archive is probably the most credible source for this topic, since they deal in declassified FOIA documents. Cleanup of this topic is going to need good references, it's a god awful mess right now. davesgonechina 02:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem With Map

The map implies that the U.S was a direct partner in Operation Condor, this is not true. The U.S did help set up DINA, gave information to the military dictatorships, etc... but it was not a signatory of the Condor agreement and did not directly participate (from what we know) in the kidnappings of enemies of these states. This is the original "Condor" document signed by the military governments of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Paraguay. Thus the United States should be in pink not red.--Jersey Devil 06:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This document also implies that Peru became a member of Condor on April 1978 and participated with the Argentine government in the kidnapping, torture and the forced disappearence of a group of Montoneros living in exile in Lima.--Jersey Devil 07:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statements are all wrong. Brazil, i.e., did not sign the original "Condor" document and nevertheless gave fully support and assistance to the project; the same with the US, like it or not.

Your last document does not imply that Peru participated with the Argentine government in the kidnapping of a group of Montoneros, it's only a note by the Chilean CNI stating the Peruvian support to the operation. Section 4-C only confirms this by the main Secretary of the project located in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

My point is that the U.S did not directly participate in kidnapping people or allowing foreign forces into U.S territory to kidnap or assasinate political enemies. The Letelier assasination was not, from all known documents, given U.S. approval and the U.S at the time (after known assasination attempts by DINA operative Michael Townley and others in Europe) in messages to Chile advised against attacks by DINA on U.S territory stating it would be counter-productive to anti-communist goals in the region as it would put the spotlight on the human rights records of Chile and the other Condor states thus preventing U.S. military aid to them. P.S. I am getting my facts from John Dinges book "The Condor Years" which is considered one of the best books on the subject.--Jersey Devil 05:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

With regards to Brazil, I would also hesitate to say they "gave full support to Condor" as well. The Brazilian dictatorship certainly repressed leftists but we are talking about specifics here being "did they allow intelligence operatives from neighboring countries into Brazilian territory to assasinate or kidnap political enemies?" From my understanding, Brazil was an observer to the original meeting between the Condor states but did not sign the agreement over reasons of maintaining territorial soverignity. I think that you may be misunderstanding what I am stating, clearly these states and the U.S. in collaboration with them surpressed leftists and democrats who opposed the military dictatorships but we are talking about specifics here not just a generalization.--Jersey Devil 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The US suplied a series of NOC CIA agents to help both in the coups as in the assasinations, for example in Chile there was the notorious case of ex-CIA agent Michael Townley, responsable the assasinations of General Pratts and Orlando Lettelier and who was betrayed by the DINA and sent to the US to stand trial. While in the US senate everyone publicly despised the dictatorship, the truth was that they were knee-deep into them and supported them throughtout all the 70s, until the 80s when the Cold War cooled off.

Source

We should have a source for the "50,000 deaths" and "30,000" disappearances. CJK 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Terror archives. Tazmaniacs 23:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't source an article. CJK 00:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But there is bibliography: Martín Almada, "Paraguay: The Forgotten Prison, the Exiled Country"

Against democracy.

Oeration Condor was an attemp to deter the democracy, no the marxism.

Tagged

{{WP:NPOV]] states we must be impartial and give the arguments on both sides. this article fails on both accounts, hopelessly, SqueakBox 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I read the article, it relies on the best scholarship out there, presented in a fair an neutral fashion. Please present examples of impartiality and/or arguments (that rise above what the NPOV policy calls "tiny-minority") and let's discuss the issue. Hobomojo 01:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the tag esp as efforts to gain NPOV are quickly reverted. Something isnt right here, SqueakBox 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First, "dictatorship" is not a weasel word, but contrast with liberal democracy. Pinochet, Stroessner, Videla, Banzer, etc., were certainly not fond of parliamentarism. Second, to put a fact tag after the second sentence which stated that Condor involved the "assassination of numerous persons", when it involved at least 50,000 murders, is pushing POV. Third, the source is in the next sentence, given by Martin Almada's book concerning the terror archives discovered in Paraguay. You could find a better way to push your POV than starting such low edit warring. Cheers anyway, each one goes his path, do not worry for that! (it's only politics, and real politics don't take place on Wikipedia) Tazmaniacs 03:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, Hobomojo is correct, in that if you really want to put a POV tag, you should explain on this talk page what is wrong. Putting a tag without any explanation is not the correct way to proceed, I'm sure you are aware of that. Have a nice Wikying though! Tazmaniacs 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The tag is over the word dictator, which is still in the opening as it was in there twice. I think it gives a very strong air of "these people were wrong", which along with the grisly statistics indicates that in the opening that we think these people were wrong. The political reality in these countries is somewhat different, ie Operation Condor has its supporters whereas this reads like a western leftie history. Surely as an encyclopedia we shopuld present both sides of the argument when both sidfes exist is my deeper concern. Latino politics isnt as simplistic as most westerners think, IMO, and as an international encyclopedia we need to shift our vision away from taking sides, SqueakBox 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox: First, you need to take a look, again, at WP:NPOV, particularly the part about "tiny minority". As I read your edits here and elsewhere, you seem to disregard this so you can push your own POV. Second, read WP:NPOV carefully, and note the use of the phrase "all sides" not your preferred "both sided". Issues are complex, with multiple perspectives, and your formulation belies a partisan political agenda. Third, your use of "Latino politics" fairly well demonstrates that you have not a clue about which you speak. Fourth, if you think "this reads like a western leftie history" you shoud read some of the solid research coming out of the countries who suffered under these dictators. Fifth: "Dictator" 1. A ruler or governor whose word is law; an absolute ruler of a state. 2. A person exercising absolute authority of any kind or in any sphere; one who authoritatively prescribes a course of action or dictates what is to be done. (from the OED). Pretty well fits the bill. Sixth, I'm reverting your edits.Hobomojo 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A significant proportion of people who live in these countries a tiny minority? You have to be kidding? You claim I dont know what I am taking about. Have you ever been to Latin America? Der, like I wouldnt know anything, just being a gringo, eh? And yes there is lots of lefty stuff in all these countries but lets not pretend there is no opposition to that? Like, look at what happened around Pinochet's death, no supporters there, eh? Finally dictator is a weasel word and I am one of a number of highly wikipedia editors trying to kep the misuse of this word by POV pushers (it aleways is, people who care less about wikipedia and more about politics) out of this encyclopedia, SqueakBox 04:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you tried to push your pov while trying to suppress the dispute (my way is perfect and nobody better oppose it approach) marks you out as a pov pusher, IMO, SqueakBox 04:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? "A significant proportion of people"????!!!! You're asking for facts, prove that! I'm a pretty private person, but will say that I've spent a pretty sizable chunk of my adult life in Brazil and Mexico, where I currently live. Lefty stuff in Latin America? And no opposition? Sure, there's analogues of the KKK and troglodites who pine for Franco.....GO READ WP:NPOV and tiny minority. SHOW ME STATISTICAS on support for Pinochet today! I am not, by any means, attempting to suppress dispute, I'm calling you out on you still unsupported POV.Hobomojo 05:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont have a significant POV on this article but am interested in creating an WP:NPOV article. This article is not an isolated thing but part of a greater encyclopedia, and the use of the word dictator is consistently rejected in labelling governments or there members because of its POV nature, hence the term weasel word. We need to put our political passions to one side and display neutrality as we edit, SqueakBox 02:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You do have a POV not only on this article but in your other edits as well. Control the language and you control the debate, and that is what you are trying to do by floggin NPOV to your advangage at a disservice to Wiki readers. But I'll compromise on Dictator, though weasel word it is not. Unable to read the OED definition? Fine, but I'm putting back "authoritarian" and the reference to assasinations which you blanked without any support or justification. I'm also removing the NPOV flag. This article had settled down to a consensus version until you poked your head in with your agenda. Other than the word "dictator" you have offered no examples of POV. Raise your objections and we'll discuss them. Don't use Wikipedia as your political platform.Hobomojo 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words and NPOV

Tagging again and listing just some cases of weasel words and POV:

• There have recently been some attempts of prosecutions against the responsibles of the repression, to varied degrees. - Which attempts?

This sentence appears in the Lead Section and the article itself has an entire subsection on "Notable cases and prosecution". The sentence does exactly what it should do according to Wikipedia's style guidelines, though if you prefer, and internal link to the subsection can be added (though some might argue this conflicts with the Style Guidelines' suggested restraint on links in lead sections).Hobomojo 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Drop the word some and I'm fine with it.--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it, you hate any word that smacks with ambiguity. But "some" serves a legitimate function in the English language. You beleieve it prompts the question "which attempts", and thus is a weasel word. Considering the article has an entire section on prosecutions, there is no weasel here. It prompts the question "which attempts" as an invitation to read the rest of the article, as a good lead section should. This is a question of writing style. You may not like it, but there is nothing illegitimate about it. I'm an accidental tourist here too. I didn't write the article, but I wouldn't recommend changing the sentence. Hobomojo 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Some of these countries have since used portions of this archive to prosecute former military officers. - Which countries?

OK, so how about "Several countries, including Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, France and Italy have since used portions of this archive to investigate or prosecute former military officers."

RIGHTS-LATAM: FILES SHED FURTHER LIGHT ON PLAN CONDOR IPS-Inter Press Service/Global Information Network IPS-Inter Press Service March 1, 2002, Monday RIGHTS-LATIN AMERICA: NEW CONDOR EVIDENCE NOW IN EUROPEAN COURTS IPS-Inter Press Service/Global Information Network IPS-Inter Press Service October 28, 1999, Thursday And before you try and impugn the source, you should know that I pulled them off of LexisNexis, which is about as main-stream and corporate at it gets.Hobomojo 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, France and Italy have since used portions of this archive to investigate or prosecute former military officers." Every one of those has to be verifiable. And please differentiate investigate and prosecute since there is significant difference between the two and it would be much more interesting to note prosecutions rather than investigation that may be didn't have any outcome or at least not mix them in single sentence.--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah...anything that smacks of ambiguity. The statement is as precise as it can be without creating more problems. You know and I know that the subject of the sentence is about the use of the "terror archives" and investigations and prosecutions. Of the hundreds of citations I could have provided about investigations and prosecutions, the two cited make direct reference to the use of the terror archives in investigations and prosecutions. Differentiating the two, based on the articles (or other references) raises two problems. 1) It's a moving target. Should I or another editor, for example, list Italy as persuing an investigation based on the terror archive based on the articles, another editor could come along and say "well, Italy is persuing prosecution, I'll just change that..." which would be fine, except for the fact that 2) the sentence is about the use of the terror archives as part of these investigations and prosecutions, and to prove that Italy went from investigation to prosecution based on the terror archives would likely entail OR with the trial documents, since few journalists would deal with the tedious details. As for the phrase "several countries", it is entirely possible that other countries' investigations or prosecutions are based on the "terror archives", but unless there are published reports, it would entail OR to determine it. Again, this is not a weasel, it is an invitation for the reader to pursue the matter further. The statement is clear and sourced and provides a starting place for the investigation.Hobomojo 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Some have alleged that the CIA's one-time payment to Contreras is proof that the U.S. approved of Operation Condor and military repression within Chile. - Who has alleged?

The Washington Post September 20, 2000, Wednesday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A 3Hobomojo 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually wasted the time to read this source and I can assure you there is nothing like that. Even Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive didn't come close to such statement in this article. Please don't waste time of others by such misleading information.[3]--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We read Kornbluh's statement differently. You see it as a great leap, me a small stretch. Perhaps that's because I remember the release of the DCI report and other statements made at the time. I didn't write the article or make the claim, I simply provide the source for it. It's a moot point anyway, because in the period since the release of the DCI report better evidence has come to light that removes any doubt of US knowledge and support for Condor. I'll dig them out and add them.Hobomojo 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The CIA's official documents state that at one time, some members of the intelligence community

This one is hard to understand, since you assert that you are an expert on WP:AWW. Read to the end of the sentence, find the footnote. Follow the footnote. Read the DCI report, where it says, and I quote, "In May and June 1975, elements within the CIA recommended establishing a paid relationship with Contreras to obtain intelligence based on his unique position and access to Pinochet. This proposal was overruled, citing the US Government policy on clandestine relations with the head of an intelligence service notorious for human rights abuses. However, given miscommunications in the timing of this exchange, a one-time payment was given to Contreras." WP:AWW states, and again I quote, "It is acceptable to use some of these phrases, if they are accompanied by a citation that supports the claim", which applies to the payment to Contreras as well.

You're right, but direct citation would be better in this case since it would be clear that it's CIA who is vague, not wikipedia editor.--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent, but sure, replacing "some members of the intelligence community" with a direct quote of "elements within the CIA" seems fine to me. Hobomojo 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Mexico, together with Costa Rica, Canada, France, the U.K., Spain and Sweden received many leftist intellectuals and common folk fleeing from the terror regimes. - why it should be noted? where is single source for all those countries?

"It should be noted" bugs me to, so how about "Mexico, Costa Rica, Canada, France, the U.K., Spain, Sweden and even the U.S. received many leftist intellectuals and common folk fleeing from the terror regimes. Over 200,000 Chileans alone fled Pinochet, finding refuge in nearly 140 countries around the world." Wright, Thomas and Rody Oñate, trans. Irene Hodgson, "Flight from Chile: Voices of Exile," Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press, 1998Hobomojo 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly better, especially the source (pages needed). Please I really hope the information is there.--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, my library is locked in a storage unit in the US. Maybe I can find a copy of the Spanish original, or some other editor can provide the pages. Hobomojo 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets break this one down:

• Operation Condor, which took place in the context of the Cold War, was given at least tacit approval by the United States which feared a Marxist revolution in the region.

This is a direct echo of the official DCI report found at: https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/chile/index.html#12Hobomojo 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't speak about anything but Chile and there is nothing on approval. You can write that U.S. wanted to avoid another Cuba and senior policymakers were reluctant to criticize but that's about all. Or you can describe in more detail what the source says.--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the reference. Specifically the sections on "Knowledge of 'Operation Condor'" and "Propaganda in support of Pinochet regime". The former mentions the regional intelligence sharing, and the latter constitutes "tacit approval". You'll have to argue the point of how fearing "another Cuba" is substantially different from fearing "a Marxist revolution". Hobomojo 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The targets were officially leftist guerrillas, but in fact included all kinds of political opponents, including their families and others, as reported by the Valech Commission. - again, no source, just anonymous allegations, WP:NPOV WP:OR.

No source? Anonymous allegations? You are quoting a sentence which has a direct reference to the Valech Commision report, and say it is anonymous? The reference itself is an internal link to an article on the Valech Commission, which has a link to the report, found here:http://www.gobiernodechile.cl/comision_valech/index.asp The documents include a list of children who were victims of the regime.

How using sources from the US DCI and the Chilean government might constitute a violation of NPOV or constitute OR is utterly beyond me.Hobomojo 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because you broke that into two parts - I cited two sentences from the article and you responded to them separately. And Valech report needs to be referenced as well - include link or page number in the article.--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The Operation Condor officially ended with the ousting of the Argentinean dictatorship in 1983, although the killings continued. - no source, WP:OR

True, but I'll let another editor reference thisHobomojo 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally:

• According to these archives, other countries such as Colombia, Peru and Venezuela also cooperated to varying extents by providing intelligence information in response to requests from the security services of the Southern Cone countries. Even though they weren't at the secret November 1975 meeting in Santiago de Chile there is evidence of their involvement. For instance, in June 1980, Peru was known to have been collaborating with Argentinian agents of 601 Intelligence Battalion in the kidnapping, torture and disappearance of a group of Montoneros living in exile in Lima.[4] The "terror archives" also revealed Colombia's and Venezuela's greater or lesser degree of cooperation (Luis Posada Carriles was probably at the meeting that decided Orlando Letelier's car bombing). In Colombia, it has been alleged that a paramilitary organization known as Alianza Americana Anticomunista may have cooperated with Operation Condor. Brazil signed the agreement later (June 1976), and refused to engage in actions out of Latin America. - This is a joke? probably and alleged is evidence??? And alleged by who? This is screaming POV. Also only one source (Document)? This looks like WP:OR (as many other parts of the article)...

Lets break this down too. First, lets remove the reference to Posada, since the paragraph is about the terror archives, and the data about Posada comes from the National Security Archive and appears later in the article. (The Miami Herald reported on 10 May 2005 "Papers connect exile to bomb plot", that Posada attended 2 meetings to plan the bombing) Which leaves us with: According to these archives, other countries such as Colombia, Peru and Venezuela also cooperated to varying extents by providing intelligence information in response to requests from the security services of the Southern Cone countries. (General introductory sentence) Even though they weren't at the secret November 1975 meeting in Santiago de Chile there is evidence of their involvement. (Assertion of evidence, followed by....)For instance, in June 1980, Peru was known to have been collaborating with Argentinian agents of 601 Intelligence Battalion in the kidnapping, torture and disappearance of a group of Montoneros living in exile in Lima.[4] (Hey! a source document! What stronger evidence would you want? I'm sure some editor with Dinges' book at hand can pull up more references if you require.) (Which leaves 3 sentences to reference, which, no doubt, the Dinges book could answer as well. The Brazil reference could easily be moved elsewhere, and referenced to both the DCI report and the NSA.)The "terror archives" also revealed Colombia's and Venezuela's greater or lesser degree of cooperation. In Colombia, it has been alleged that a paramilitary organization known as Alianza Americana Anticomunista may have cooperated with Operation Condor. Brazil signed the agreement later (June 1976), and refused to engage in actions out of Latin America.Hobomojo 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Drop "other countries such as" and "allegation" that some "paramilitary organization may have cooperated" is hardly "evidence of their involvement", isn't it? That's Colombia and we've got nothing at all on Venezuela? That leaves us with what evidence? And Brazil signed and refused needs source.--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I said the Brazil reference could be moved elsewhere with reference to the DCI report and the NSA. Whoever has Dinges at hand can provide the references you request, I trust.Hobomojo 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just randomly selected text. This article is a textbook example of Weasel words in practice and WP:AWW and blatant violation of WP:NPOV and I'm tagging it as such. I might look deeper into article and review if it should be tagged as WP:OR as well. Please stop reverting everything that doesn't comply with your POV. Thank you.--Pethr 05:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good on 'ya for stepping up to the plate with examples, but it took me all of about a half an hour to pull up these references.

Great, it's a shame they were not in the artcle already...--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't write the article, but I'm being sucked into a wholesale revision, like I don't already have enough on my plate. Hobomojo 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, despite ranting about weasel words, OR, and NPOV, you don't seem to understand the guidelines very well. The issues you raise, some of them at least, might be reason to request clarification on the talk page, but the tags of AWW and NPOV are over-the-top and I would request that you remove them. Feel free to post more examples of passages you have issues with, but please be a bit more thoughtful.Thanks. (PS: I'll wait on integrating these changes until I read your response, out of courtesy)Hobomojo 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you already know that I'm not removing those tags and we are not close yet. Also try not to be personal. Thank you. Please note that I have no personal interest in this article I'm here more or less by mistake (I think that you can find me somewhere in edit history fixing refs or something) and just want it to meet basic criteria.--Pethr 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for clear and well referenced prose, but too narrow a focus on words and phrases ignores context. Too much of that and we'll be arguing over citations for the phrase "the sky is blue"Hobomojo 05:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing the opposition

Cut from intro:

• ...both to deter democratic influence and ideas disseminated in the region and

By "democratic" does this mean Socialism and/or Communism? I'm aware that movements to take economic or political freedom away from the people, and concentrate it in the hands of an unaccountable elite, are often called "democratic". Hitler was "democratically elected" (technically, at least).

Are we trying to say that the "will of the people" was being thwarted by the right wing, or simply that the governments were being very repressive toward their opposition? That is, are we "taking sides" by saying that one kind of politics is good and therefore should not be suppressed? --Uncle Ed 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

TERMS !!! IMPORTANT

From the introduction:

The systematic counter-terrorism aimed both to deter democratic influence and ideas disseminated in the region and to control active or potential opposition movements against these governments. This organized counter-terrorism caused an unknown number of deaths, due to the covering up of the different governments involved.

Now, this is majorly WRONG, the TERM IS NOT _COUNTER-TERRORISM_ but the CORRECT TERM IS _COUNTER-INSURGENCY_ or maybe STATE TERRORISM, but the "COUNTER-INSURGENCY" being the correct pc term in the military jargon and the COUNTER-TERRORISM being totally out of place and not even of the subject, being term and matter of totally different significance.

Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Uncorrect. The militaries claim they were responding to a "terrorist threat" (i.e. the "Communists"). They're was no insurgency (no terrorists either, but that's another problem). Tazmaniacs 13:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag. The source that I added, but was subsequently removed, is from a researcher who has actually has studied the terror archives in Paraguay. She makes mention of the estimates of human right organizations, that are fastly different than those provided by Castro apologist Stella Calloni. Almada's book does not give any numbers afaik, see his website. Intangible2.0 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Only a few hundred of people were killed? That seemingly extreme right-wing, pro-death squade estimate does not appear to enjoy scholarly consensus. El_C 17:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

IT is a conservative estimate, the researcher herself indeed thinks the number to be higher. But more research is needed to give more credence to her claim. Note also that the terror archives are related to Stroessner's Paraguay in general, and not Operation Condor in particular. Stroessner already came to power in 1954, long before Operation Condor was established. Intangible2.0 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Any more thoughts on this before I remove these dubious sources, one which does not even mention a tally. Intangible2.0 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Intangible2.0, you are mis-reading the source. The sentence is: "Human rights groups in the region have estimated that Condor commandos "disappeared" hundreds of persons in cross-border operations...." and goes on to list disappearances of Uruguayans in Argentina, etc. (emphasis added). Condor was domestic too, not just cross-border. Official figures from the Rettig report, the reconciliation commission for Chile, give a conservative figure of 2,279 in Chile[4] , and the CONADEP report from Argentina place the number conservatively at 8,960 in Argentina.[5]. These are only two of the Condor countries, and leave out Paraguay, Brasil, etc. Hobomojo 03:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Where in those reports you cited does it mention that these figures should be attributed to Operation Condor. If it does not mention that, than those figures you mention can not be entered into this article, because that would constitute WP:OR. What do you mean with Condor being domestic, not just cross-border? The figures that are currently in the article, include the period before Operation Condor was even established. Stroessner was already president of Paraguay in 1954, and the terror archives include figures from 1954 to the period Operation Condor was established. Intangible2.0 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem putting cross-border in the current text. But that does not mean those other sources that are currently in the article are valid. Intangible2.0 16:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're making a specious argument not much different than those made by David Irving and Holocaust deniers. Condor was an integral part of the state repressive apparatus that included domestic and foreign assassinations. (If you don't understand "domestic" in this context, then we've got bigger problems). The very author you cite suggests the number is in the thousands. True, the Reconciliation reports, for Chile, for example, treat the period of Pinochet's dictatorship, but Condor is inseparable from his rule. As far as Stoessner goes, true he took power in 1954, but the records in the archive pertain to the entire region, not just Paraguay. If you have evidence that the figures cited include data from 1954 forward, or are skewed to the pre-Condor period, you should produce it, since that is not at all how I read the literature. Hobomojo 23:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed

The article makes numerous claims about US involvement without sources and even has a map claiming this. When a source is used, it is an unsourced Communist newspaper. An attempt was made to correct but was reverted without explanation. If no explanation arrives, then the prior version will be restored.[6]Ultramarine 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation Condor

Hello. I fail to see any source showing that the US was substantially involved in Conder, except that various nations in Latin America used a US installation in Panama for communications. Do you have any more information?Ultramarine 09:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. See for ex. "Tracking the Origins of a State Terror Network: Operation Condor," Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 29, No. 1, (Jan., 2002), pp. 38-60. El_C 09:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Does not mention the US as a key member. Ultramarine 09:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see the McClintock reference to a classified US Army Special Forces manual. El_C 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only the the front page at moment which do not list the US as a key member. If there anything more specifi from the US Army Special Forces manual, that would be a very good addition to the article. What does it say? Ultramarine 09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is anything more specific, like what knowledge the US gave or how the US used Condor, that would be an useful addition to the article. Ultramarine 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following that. That's just one random work among many others that speaks about "the counterterror model promoted by the United States" in the context of the operation. Is there any doubt of the backing given to Pinochet and so on? It's a matter of historical record. El_C 09:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Any backing to Pinochet is not necessarily related to Condor. Again, it would be useful to state how the US was involved in Condor, vague allegations are not very helpful. Ultramarine 09:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See for example "Lifting of Pinochet's Immunity Renews Focus on Opertaion Condor", National Security Archive, June 10, 2004. El_C 09:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That shows the US has knowledge of Condor, not that is shared information as claimed in the map. Similarly, see this: [7]. Again, knowledge of the operation, but the US itself seems uninvolved. Ultramarine 09:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it provides yet "another piece of increasingly weighty evidence suggesting that U.S. military and intelligence officials supported and collaborated with Condor as a secret partner or sponsor." (italics are my emphasis) From "Operation Condor: Cable Suggests US Role" National Security Archive, May 6, 2001. El_C 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is material released in 2001. See this material from 2004: [8] In particular, "The declassified record shows that Secretary Kissinger was briefed on Condor and its "murder operations" on August 5, 1976, in a 14-page report from Shlaudeman. "Internationally, the Latin generals look like our guys," Shlaudeman cautioned. "We are especially identified with Chile. It cannot do us any good."

Shlaudeman and his two deputies, William Luers and Hewson Ryan, recommended action. Over the course of three weeks, they drafted a cautiously worded demarche, approved by Kissinger, in which he instructed the U.S. ambassadors in the Southern Cone countries to meet with the respective heads of state about Condor. He instructed them to express "our deep concern" about "rumors" of "plans for the assassination of subversives, politicians and prominent figures both within the national borders of certain Southern Cone countries and abroad." Ultramarine 09:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Whereas this 2006 Journal of Third World Studies article speaks about how "US involvement in Condor was indispensable to [its] effectiveness." Can this continue on the article's talk page, though? My talk page isn't really the venue for this and it limits the participation of other contributors. Feel free to refractor as you see fit. Many thanks in advance. El_C 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So we have opposing views regarding US involvement. I think both should be mentioned. Maybe we could expand the section on US invovlement? in the article? The controversy should also be mentioned in map and in the intro, if these should mention US involvement. Note that also this source does not call the US a "key memeber"Ultramarine 10:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I see no evidence at all for that Portugal, Spain and Italy were involved as claimed in the intro.Ultramarine 12:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No response for a while, so I have tried to include the important arguments from the above.Ultramarine 10:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Explaination

The short answer is that neither the cited paragraph nor the larger context of the letter from which it is taken say anything at all about US involvement or non-involvement with Condor. And, as far as "tried to stop the assassinations" via the demarche, the argument in the letter is exactly the reverse: the demarche was never delivered. In fact, after asking how to proceed the US ambassador to Chile was told to "take no further action"--the following morning, Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt were killed in a car-bomb attack in Washington, DC, 14 blocks from the White House. To use a portion of Kornbluh's letter out of context to argue that the US was not involved with Condor and actively sought to stop assassinations (completely at odds with the body of Kornbluh's work) is absolutely ludicrous. Hobomojo 22:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)