Talk:Operation Condor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Portuguease name[edit]

I took the liberty to add the portuguease name of the operation (Operação Condor), since Brazil was also part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OPERATION CONDOR also took the lives of jurnalists (to be added to the second paragraph of the introduction). OPERATION CONDOR was also financed by the USA governments of the time (to be added to the third paragraph of the introduction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


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)

"campaign of assassination" isn´t already illegal enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Carlos the Jackal[edit]

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.


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)


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)

Well it is certainly accurate that at least in Argentina, and also in China and Uruguay I believe, Condor government officials applied the word "Terrorist" to the JCR-type insurgents almost across the board. The few "excesses" they would admit on the part of government security forces would be attributed to the necessities of fighting a "terrorist" enemy -- in fact, Argentina's ruling Junta and its military were coached on all this (dirty war tactics, "anti-terrorist" publicity/propaganda) by French soldiers who had operated in Algiers. Of course, the Algerian resistance, with their record of anti-civilian bombing, certainly practiced methods that can be described as "terrorist" tactics (though the term "terrorist" itself is quite loaded); JCR movements tended to not practice such tactics, yet they were simply labeled "terrorists" by the Condor governments anyways, as an excuse for the brutal "dirty warfare" and state-terrorism carried out in the name of fighting them. And of course, many of the victims of the Condor governments, both within and outside of their countries, were not violent guerrillas, insurgents, or even JCR-affiliates. Many innocent civilians (unions, academics, protesters) were targeted by the Condor governments, in many cases (such as Argentina and possibly Chile and Bolivia) more so than members of JCR groups. (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup notice[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.


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

  • [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[edit]

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.


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"

I agree that the totals here are very bad. 60,000, which is stated in the lead seems to come from a Mexican newspaper's editorial page which is not valid source. There is a substantial number of books on this topic. I suggest someone go to a library and check a few books, even other encyclopedias for the statistics. It should also be mentioned that "disappeared" means killed. These people have been missing for 35 years now. They are likely dead and as we know, many had their bodies thrown into the ocean or destroyed. It is therefore important to also include the 30,000 "disappeared" in the final statistic used.(Axlescandy (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC))

Against democracy.[edit]

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

Do you really think that marxist tendencies were not the target of Condor Operations? Of course that many ideologies ended criticising the Latin American dictatorships which made them all victims of the atrosious crimes that were comitted during that period.

These are just some quotes from the 1977 material that the Argentine Junta distributed to be read in schools. This document was called "Cómo reconocer la infiltración marxista en las escuelas": "how to recognize marxist infiltration in school".

Lo primero que se puede detectar es la utilización de un determinado vocabulario que, aunque no parezca muy trascendente, tiene mucha importancia para realizar este "trasbordo ideológico" que nos preocupa. Así, aparecerán frecuentemente los vocablos diálogo, burguesía, proletariado, América latina, explotación, cambio de estructuras, capitalismo.

"The first clue that can be detected is the use of a certain type of vocabulary (...) That is how words like proletariat, Latin America, explotation, change of structures and capitalism may come up"

"Historia, Formación Cívica, Economía, Geografía y Catequesis en los colegios religiosos, suelen ser las materias elegidas para el adoctrinamiento subversivo. Algo similar ocurre con Castellano y Literatura, disciplinas de las que han sido erradicados los autores clásicos, para poner en su lugar a "novelistas latinoamericanos" o "literatura comprometida" en general."

"Histoy, Economics and Geography are usually the subjects in which most of subversive behaviours are taught. Something similar occurs with Lietrature, disciplin where classic authors have been disregarded to introduce new Latin American or compromissed writers".

In addition to this, if you look at the early victims of the Condor Operation, you can easy realize their background. Gustavo Inzaurralde, arrested in Paraguay on march 28th 1977 (Stella Calloni, "Los Archivos del Horror del Operativo Condor"); Jorge Ríos Dalenz, from the Movement of the Revolutionary Left of Bolivia (J. Patrice Mc Sherry, "The undead Ghost of Operation Condor"). It is also true that many victims in Argentina, for example, where part of the Peronistas organizations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iminsbila (talkcontribs) 23:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC).


{{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[edit]

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: 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: 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)


  • 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[edit]

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)


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 (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)
Nope, there was terrorism in South American countries and this was part of the pretext of at least some of the coups, although left-leaning commentators like to ignore this completely. (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

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[edit]

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)

According to Stella Calloni's "Los Archivos del horror del operativo Cóndor", Martín Almada (a proffessor detained during the Stroessner dictatorship) was conceded a habeas data by the justice of Paraguay. Thaks to this permission, he found many documents relating US involvement in a police station in Lambaré (she quotes an article from a Swiss newspaper (Patrick John Buffe, "Une multinationale de la Terrour sous les ailes du Condor", Journal de Geneve et Gazette de Lausanne, july 7th 1993, page 2.) These archives have different incursions on witnesses testifying that they were interrogated by US officers, and the author Stella Calloni quotes several items of them to prove the link between the CIA and this kind of operations. Also, J Patrice Mc Sherry, in her article "The undead ghost of Opertaion Condor" establishes that Kissinger found out that his own ambassy was presenting human rights complaints because of the situation in Buenos Aires and he maintained a conversation with his colleagues in Argentina saying: "What do you guys think my policy is?... You better be careful. I want to know who did this and consider having him transferred". She quotes the following source: "Transcript (TELCON) of Kissinger and Schlaudeman telephone conversation on the State Department web site of declassified documents. TELCON date 6/30/76. State Department number at http:/ (Patrice Mcsherry, "The undead ghost of Operation Condor")

You can check these articles (which have much more information on US involvement) at: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iminsbila (talkcontribs) 00:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

Iminsbila, I just finished reading the Calloni article, which is why I'm here--using the Wikipedia article's references to find more info on the subject. Calloni's article lacks reliable footnotes, which is surprising because she is an experienced journalist. She uses footnotes extensively, but nothing lines up... for example she discusses Condor's role in the assassination of Carlos Partas. The footnote has nothing to do with Carlos Partas. Irregardless of this, Calloni is a highly biased source. She is pro-Castro, pro-Chavez, anti-(anything estadounidense). The wiki article over-relies on her. Additionally the Wiki article like Calloni's "Archivos del Horror del Operativo Cóndor" article places much blame for what happened on the US...but fails to connect anything to the US. The "proofs" that both use are reports from the US State Department describing Operation Condor. That's not the same as participation. They collected information and intelligence and reported it back to Washington in a neutral manner. Don't blame the messenger. Journalists write of terrible atrocities every day. But that's not to say that the journalists are responsible for the atrocities.
Calloni, like many of her contemporaries have a tendency to "blame the messenger," instead of acknowledging the fact that unfortunately since se independizaron de España, Latin American countries have almost always had terrible, corrupt, and murderous leaders. The actions of the dictators (right and left) are to blame. I know it's tough to swallow but coup followed by golpe followed by coup has shown that Latin American countries have had shitty rulers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talkcontribs) 08:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

US involvement[edit]

In the Uruguayan newspaper "La república" published an article on august 20th 2005, called Documentos oficiales de Estados Unidos prueban la participación uruguaya en el "Plan Cóndor", according to which a military meeting of the armies of Latin America gathered under the orders of a CIA agent and Coronel Manuel Contreras from the DINA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) (16:21, 19 July 2007).

Operation Condor[edit]

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)


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)

"These cables indicate a general discussion of human rights took place but make no mention of Condor or of the serious U.S. concerns about reports of international assassination plans. How could it be that the ambassador ignored specific instructions from Secretary of State Kissinger? The answer seems to lie in a secret cable sent by Shlaudeman from Costa Rica to his deputy in D.C. William Luers, on September 20--the day before the Hill/Videla meeting and the car-bombing. The one-paragraph cable is titled "Operation Condor" and is marked for relevance to Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. Shlaudeman states: "You can simply instruct the Ambassadors to take no further action, noting that there have been no reports in some weeks indicating an intention to activate the Condor scheme." Maxwell suggests that the timing of this cable, sent only eighteen hours before Letelier's car was blown up in downtown Washington, was "a cruel coincidence." No one argues that the cable indicates complicity by any U.S. official in Letelier's death; Rogers' inference to that effect is absurd and a red herring. The point is not that the assassination might have been prevented at that late hour. The importance of the cable is that it is documented evidence that an initiative to counter terrorism had been aborted before it was ever carried out."
So the US was not involved in the sense of assisting the assassinations, but should be blamed for not doing enough to stop them.Ultramarine 07:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Re-read those last three sentences that you cite above, particularly the last. In your "Counterview" section, you use Kornbluh's letter--and passages that speak specifically to the Letelier assassination--to assert that the US had no knowledge of Condor and took steps to avert assassinations more generally, which is completely contrary to the context. Doing history is not about placing blame, it is about providing accurate information and context, and the "Counterview" section mis-represents the cited material. Hobomojo 08:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Having knowledge of does not mean involved (which is the word I used). Intelligence agencies have knowledge of lots of things, thats their job.Ultramarine 10:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but let's stay focused on the issue: You take one paragraph out of context, turn the author's argument on its head, and then use that mis-reading to assert a broader "counterview". That's not only logically fallacious, it constitutes WP:OR. So, until you can produce a better, well sourced argument that is not based on OR, I'm removing it. See also [9] regarding US involvement: "We now know that top U.S. officials and agencies, including the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Department, were fully aware of Condor's formation and its operations from the time it was organized in 1975 (if not earlier). ... U.S. executive agencies at least condoned, and sometimes actively assisted, Condor "countersubversive" operations." Hobomojo 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
We can certainly remove the "counterview" text which I did not add, but I will certainly insist on keeping the quote, showing what Kissinger said and did in 1976.Ultramarine 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you removed this sourced material? [10] Selectively removing and quoting only parts favorable to one particlar POV is not allowed.Ultramarine 09:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "sourced" material because it misrepresents the author and replaced it with the author's argument. You are guilty promoting your POV by selectively quoting, not me. Hobomojo 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I was also quoting the author. Selectively cutting and adding material to fit one POV is not allowed.Ultramarine 09:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, you selectively quoted Kornbluh and distorted his argument so much that it was turned completely on its head. The ellipsis and interpolation in square brackets in no way change Kornbluh's argument and do not violate WP guidelines. Look, if you want to build an argument for what Kissenger and the State Department knew or didn't know, did or didn't do viz Condor in 1976, you'll have to build it on a different source, not Kornbluh's letter. Using the documents themselves is out, since that would violate WP:OR.Hobomojo 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I quoted him word for word. Obviously we should mention why the demarche was not delivered.Ultramarine 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you did quote him word for word, but there are errors of commission, and errors of omission. Leaving out the conclusions Kornbluth draws from the sequence of events you cite is an error of omission in that it mis-represents his in the published text. As such, it probably falls afoul of WP:OR as well. As far as why the demarche was never delivered, again, how would you propose to do that without doing OR? Hobomojo 21:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I quoted the exact text that explains the why the demarche was not delivered. That is just as much part of the authors description as your selective cutting, which seems intended to give the reader the false impression that there was deliberate decision to not stop the assassinations.Ultramarine 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you quoted Kornbluth's speculation about why the demarche was not delivered. McSherry [11], based on information from the US Ambassador to Paraguay at the time, Robert White, and Acting Assistant Secretary of State Hewson Ryan suggests that it either was never delivered at all, or was countermanded by the CIA. Fact is, we don't know, even the experts who publish on the topic don't know for sure. Yes, the why is important, but for the purposes of the article, given the unknowns, I don't see how that discussion adds to the article. If you want, we can add all three possibilities though. There's also the problematic issue of the contradiction between Kissinger's furious reaction to a June 1976 communication to the Argentine gvt about Human Rights Abuses (discussed in McSherry), vs. his August 1976 endorsement of the demarche, which would add weight to the argument that it was either never delivered or quashed by the CIA Hobomojo 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I also quoted the reason given in the Cable. I see no problem with expanding the section to a discussion of this obviously important point. Regarding Kissinger reacting differently before, he was probably upset by being sidelined by a subordinate in the first case, and in the second case he was worried that assassinations in other nations would attract much more attention and be blamed on the US.Ultramarine 11:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If no further objection I will add back the text. You can add further arguments if you want to.Ultramarine 23:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do, do be faithful to the context and conclusions of Kornbluth, and it would be good to include McSherry's other possibilities.Hobomojo 00:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we try and work out a consensus text here, rather than go back and forth on the article page itself?Hobomojo 02:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
How's this work for you
No. You are still making it look like the US deliberately decided to let the assassination go ahead by selectively quoting particular sentences. The two paragraphs should be quoted as the appear, including also the assessment that no U.S. official was complicit in Letelier's death. If you want to dispute this or add various conspiracy theories, do so by adding more sources.Ultramarine 07:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: Ultimately, the demarche was never delivered. Kornbluh and Dinges suggest that Kissinger's order was not sent as the result of a cable sent by Assistant Secretary Harry Shlaudeman from Costa Rica to Washington which states "You can simply instruct the Ambassadors to take no further action, noting that there have been no reports in some weeks indicating an intention to activate the Condor scheme." Peter Kornbluh (10 June 2004). "Kornbluh / Dinges Letter to Foreign Affairs". The National Security Archive.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)McSherry, adds, "According to [U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay Robert] White, instructions from a secretary of state cannot be ignored unless there is a countermanding order received via a secret (CIA) backchannel." J. Patrice McSherry (Spring 2005). "The Undead Ghost of Operation Condor". Logos: a journal of modern society & culture. Logosonline. Retrieved 26 June 2007.  Assessing the demarche, and documents surrounding its non-delivery, Kornbluh and Dinges conclude that "No one argues that [Shlaudeman's] cable indicates complicity by any U.S. official in Letelier's death...The importance of the cable is that it is documented evidence that [a US] initiative to counter terrorism had been aborted before it was ever carried out...The paper trail is clear: the State Department and the CIA had enough intelligence to take concrete steps to thwart Condor assassination planning. Those steps were initiated but never implemented."Hobomojo 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is no need to mention Letelier's death since it is not mentioned in the section. You repeat the some things which is not needed. Here is my suggestion:

Ultimately, the demarche was never delivered. Kornbluh and Dinges suggest that Kissinger's order was not sent as the result of a cable sent by Assistant Secretary Harry Shlaudeman to his deputy in D.C which states "You can simply instruct the Ambassadors to take no further action, noting that there have been no reports in some weeks indicating an intention to activate the Condor scheme." Peter Kornbluh (10 June 2004). "Kornbluh / Dinges Letter to Foreign Affairs". The National Security Archive.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)McSherry, adds, "According to [U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay Robert] White, instructions from a secretary of state cannot be ignored unless there is a countermanding order received via a secret (CIA) backchannel." J. Patrice McSherry (Spring 2005). "The Undead Ghost of Operation Condor". Logos: a journal of modern society & culture. Logosonline. Retrieved 26 June 2007.  Kornbluh and Dinges conclude that "The paper trail is clear: the State Department and the CIA had enough intelligence to take concrete steps to thwart Condor assassination planning. Those steps were initiated but never implemented." Shlaudeman's deputy, Hewson Ryan, would later acknowledge in an oral history interview that the State Department was "remiss" in its handling of the case. "We knew fairly early on that the governments of the Southern Cone countries were planning, or at least talking about, some assassinations abroad in the summer of 1976. … Whether if we had gone in, we might have prevented this, I don't know," he stated in reference to the Letelier-Moffitt bombing. "But we didn't." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ultramarine (talkcontribs) 21:58, 27 June 2007.


Participating countries of the Operation Condor; in pink those with partial participation (i.e. providing intelligence information). Note that the degree of involvement by the United States is controversial. See the section on this below.

The map is unsourced. Regarding the Latin American it could be corrected to reflect this source "Condor's key members were Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, with Ecuador and Peru joining later in more peripheral roles."[12]

But regarding the United States, the only support presented has been the fascilitation of communications between the other nations at the Panama station. So this would require a different class, maybe yellow. Thoughts?Ultramarine 08:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless objections, I will change the map.Ultramarine 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The same author whose book is reviewed in the link you provide (wouldn't it be better to go read the book?) argues here [13] for a far more complex and thorough involvement of the US in Condor than mere "fascilitation [sic] of communications". Other authors do as well. The map should stay as it is. And please, give it more than 12 hours for other editors to weigh in, thank you. Hobomojo 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The author in your article present no evidence for anything more than helping communications. Several times there were some attempts to stop assassinations. So at most a yellow color.Ultramarine 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are three passages that speak to much more than helping communications, there are others in that article and elsewhere. Where is ONE attempt to stop an assassination in that article, much less several. Stays Red. Hobomojo 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. The CIA helping to set up DINA: "CIA officers had helped to lay the groundwork for Condor in the early 1970s by setting up meetings of right-wing Latin American military and police officers and death squad torturers such as Sergio Fleury of Brazil. U.S. forces encouraged them to coordinate their countersubversive operations and to share repressive techniques with their counterparts. The CIA station chief in Chile helped to organize DINA in 1973-74 and specifically asked his Brazilian military contacts to train DINA operatives in “unconventional” tactics."
  2. The CIA assisting Argentina set up an ops center in Florida: "The Argentine military dictatorship’s Extraterritorial Task Force did set up an intelligence and operations center in Florida later in the 1970s, however, apparently with the assistance of the CIA. It was used for Condor support operations including money laundering, arms shipments, and transfers of funds to Argentine officers engaged in covert counterinsurgency warfare in Latin America."
  3. FBI investigations within the US of a Chilean captured in Paraguay: "Chile’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission later reported that the capture of Fuentes was a collaborative effort by Argentine intelligence services, personnel of the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, and Paraguayan police. The legal attaché in the U.S. Embassy informed the Chilean military of Fuentes’ interrogation and noted that the FBI was conducting an investigation of three of Fuentes’ contacts in the United States. "
Lots of speculations in the first two points and what CIA actually did is unclear. Take away the POV language and it looks like helping sharing information again. Point 3 is more interesting since it seems to implicate the embassy as directly aiding in an actual assassination. I will investigate.Ultramarine 22:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do investigate, there's lots more out there which I will be happy to supply. However, your initial contention was that US involvement was strictly limited to communications through the Panama station, all three examples, even if you see them narrowly as "information sharing" overcome your objectionHobomojo 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
See:[14] The U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires helped with information sharing regarding the results of an interrogation, after he had been captured. Probably using the Panama station. Did they knew what was going to happen? Unclear. It is interesting that there has not been evidence of more US involvement by the Truth Commissions in these nations. Certainly no evidence that US agents participated in the assassinations or ordered such assassinations, although helping sharing the information should certainly be condemned.Ultramarine 23:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"Probably using the Panama station", we don't know, so can't say either way. About the Truth commissions and evidence of US involvement: In Argentina, the CONADEP issued its report in 1984. Chile issued its report in 1993, long before the Clinton started large declassification documents on Condor (1999). Local and regional archives, like the Archive of Terror were also either under wraps (the latter not discovered until 1992). Moreover, their concern was more domestic accountability than holding the US accountable. As more documents are discovered or declassified, that's changed, which is why 1) the prosecutions are a rather recent phenomena and 2) Why there is still a degree of uncertainty about what all the documents say, since historians haven't had (and don't have) full access to all the information. The general outlines are known, and lots of specifics, but it's still a moving target. This article mainly reflects the state of knowledge of a few years back, and could use more up-to-date revision. Hobomojo 00:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
About US involvement in assassinations, there are very strong indications that members of the US government provided information that motivated the kidnapping and death of US citizen Charles Horman (true, in 1973, prior to the official beginning of Condor). [15] and some believe, with some justification I think, that a US military officer passed Horman's address to the Chilean government. Hobomojo 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing proved. Even if one US officer did that, this not mean that this was approved higher up. Lots of cases of persons in not transparent agencies misleading or disobeying those higher up. There have been Truth Commission in several others of Condor nations at a later date that have not found evidence for more extensive US involvement.
To sum, the US was not responsible to the same degree as those that ordered and executed the executions. Also the author in your sources above place the US in a different category. Thus the map should be corrected (also the errors in South America). Objections? Ultramarine 11:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
For now I am removing the map, if for no other reasons due to the errors regarding the South American nations.Ultramarine 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You state "There have been Truth Commission in several others of Condor nations at a later date that have not found evidence for more extensive US involvement." name them and give their dates (leaving aside for a moment that the extent of US involvement generally falls outside of their charge). You also state "due to the errors regarding the South American nations" name them. The point is, you are blowing smoke, and, if you fail to respond to the last two questions, I'll escalate this and ask for outside comment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobomojo (talkcontribs) 19:20, 26 June 2007.

Sure. Again, the map has no sources. Here is a source. "Condor's key members were Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, with Ecuador and Peru joining later in more peripheral roles."[16] The map is incorrect according to this source regarding South American nations. Regarding Truth Commissions, a relatively recent one is Peru's.[17]Ultramarine 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You're equivocating: how, specifically is the map in error regarding South American countries. Regarding the Peruvian truth commission, it was set up in 2000, one year following de-classification of Condor documents, to investigate Human Rights abuses between 1980 and 2000 by the Peruvian gvt. US involvement, as I said before, it generally outside their purview. So, you are asking something of them that falls outside of their mandate. Either you are intentionally being dense, or simply don't understand what they are all about. And, if you are going to make mention of the Peruvian Truth commission, and assert if it does or does not address US involvement, you have to have read it, which seems doubtful. You also assert that there were several later truth commissions in Condor countries following 1999, the source you cite lists Peru and Uruguay, both set up in 2000. It becoming more than obvious that you are not reading the sources or evaluating them critically, you are simply pushing your POV.Hobomojo 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
T It is you who are claiming that the US was as involved as the others, which would mean ordering and executing executions. Which you have not given evidence for.Ultramarine 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine to change Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador, but as far as the US goes, the same author you cite writes "the United States played a key covert role in modernizing and extending the Condor apparatus."[18]. Can't have it both ways. Hobomojo 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
She still places the US in a different category. No evidence has been presented that the US was as involved as the other, that is, ordering and executing executions.Ultramarine 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, she does place the US in a different category: "Operation Condor was a top-secret component of a larger inter-American counterinsurgency strategy—led, financed, and overseen by Washington—to prevent and reverse social and political movements in Latin America demanding structural change." In other words, the US role was not minor or peripheral, but key and central. The issue of if the US did or did not order executions is beside the point. Each of the countries participated to different degrees, with different levels of violence. Hobomojo 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The US was involved in numerous counterinsurgency operations, this was only one. No evidence has been presented that the US directed Condor but much against it. If the US was leader, it would simply have ordered whatever assassintions that could be embarrassing to be stopped. Instead the US had to ordinary diplomatic channels.Ultramarine 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The map has one simple function, as the caption explains: "Participating countries", even under your strict initial definition, the communications site in Panama, that is participation. I've already provided others.Hobomojo 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The current map attempts to grade the nations involved.Ultramarine 00:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the map is trying to do too much then. Perhaps a compromise solution, then, would be to have the map simply indicate participating countries in red:Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru and the US, with cites to both of McSherry's articles.Hobomojo 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That could be a solution, although red is strange color since it is associated with communism. Green would be better. I take it that you dismiss the charges agaist France?Ultramarine 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Since it's a western hemisphere map, and that is what we're trying to discuss, I'm not commenting one way or the other on France. As far as the color goes, red is indeed associated with communism, which is why the US flag is red whit and blue, no?Hobomojo 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Red, white, and blue is different from red alone.Ultramarine 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the map removed? The sources, as Hobomojo has shown, support the information relayed by the map. Who cares what color it is? That is an absurd objection, btw. I restored it.Giovanni33 02:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above, as shown the map is factually incorrect.Ultramarine 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I did read, and I've seen the editor Hobomojo has shown the map is not factually incorrect. And, I don't see consensus to remove it. Where did he agree it should be removed?Giovanni33 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
He did agree that it was incorrect regarding South America. "Condor's key members were Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, with Ecuador and Peru joining later in more peripheral roles."[19] The map states that Venezuela and Colombia were part of Condor, the source not. The source that Ecuador was part of Condor, the map not. Ultramarine 06:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you supply the dif where he agreed it was incorrect? I find the map accurate as to these points, given the color differences. But even if its off on that point, why not correct the map instead of deleting the whole thing?Giovanni33 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[20] We were talking about correcting it and discussing the details, but he has gone AWOL lately.Ultramarine 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Then it seems the agreement was for the appropriate change, not to delete, no?Giovanni33 00:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, which we were discussing. There was no objection to removing the factually incorrect map.Ultramarine 12:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
If the US were "only" involved in "fascilitation of communications", it would be a rather important step for a plan which counted 3 phases, and which 1st phase was... "fascilitating communication between security services". Now, we also know that several DINA agents were paid by the CIA, which is still a bit more. Examples included DINA chief Manuel Contreras, paid from 1974 to 1977. Tazmaniacs 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
He received an one-time payment before Condor.Ultramarine 07:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me also that the decision was to change not remove. Hobomojo may have gone AWOL and therefore was unable to object to it, but I believe it should be kept, with changes to mark everything red. Unless you can tell us why not, I will add the map back. Ummonk 23:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Colombia should be included in this list. Even though under a democracy an operation condor took place in the genocide of the Left in Colombia during the late 70s until now days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of victims[edit]

The number of dead from Operation Condor, seems way too high. For example up to 20,000 may have died under Videla and perhaps 3,000 under Pinochet prior to to Condor beginning. So where does the other 40,000+ come from. It seems unlikely that the dictatorships of Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay murdered anywhere near that many people. It definitely seem way too high. Does anyone have any breakdown of how many are supposed to have died in each of different countries. I have never heard of mass killing in any of the southern cone countries bar Argentina and Chile, so it does seem way too high. Stumink (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


It's un-clear what justifies mentioning Israel in the opening paragraph of a topic that has little-to-nothing to do with it.

  1. . The figures are simply false, which is not surprising considering their source. All of Israel's arms export during the 80's to all countries reached together 1B$ annually (for example, see here), so in no case "Israel earned an average of 1B$ a year" from arms export to the three mentioned countries alone in the late 70's and early 80's.
  2. . I doubt Israel was the sole arms exporter to these countries over this period or even the most important one. It's against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to solely point out negatively to one random global player that acted the same as many other countries.
  3. . In any case import of arms has little to do with Operation Condor that was an intelligence operation. And even if it was relevant, there is no justification to mention the arms import from one particular country in the opening paragraph. Ben tetuan (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Estimates of Deaths[edit]

Anon editor: It is not sufficient to remove sourced the statement regarding the estimate of the number of deaths. You need to add the contradictory evidence and sources for the "modern estimates" you mention. Bagunceiro (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

See the main pages regarding Stroessner, Pinochet, Videla and the other involved juntas. The modern estimates for people killed during their regimes is far lower than the mentioned Condor estimate. This doesn't take into account that many of these deaths are before Condor and even the ones during Condor are not necessarily part of Condor. It is fairly obvious that 60,000 people were not killed. For example modern estimates for Pinochet are 1,200 to 3,200 with 3 quarters in 1973. The rest is not necessarily part of Condor. 10,000 to 30,000 under the Argentine junta from all violence not just Condor. A few thousand under Stroessner and he was in power long before. The rest of the Juntas are accused of hundreds of deaths each if not a bit more. (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it simply won't do to just delete a fully sourced item. It is by no means "obvious" that these sources are wrong or that the arIf you have contrary evidence then include it with references.
I am not saying you are wrong - that isn't the point, it's the verifiability that matters. Although it is by no means "obvious" that these sources are incorrect or that the Archivos del Terror (that list 50,000 deaths) are, what?, forgeries? Bagunceiro (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Condor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

How is Joao Goulart a leader if he was dead?[edit]

Joao Goulart is listed as a Brazilian leader on the targets of Operacao Condor. However, the earliest date for the beginning was 1968. Goulart died in 1967. (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

He died in 1976, but as he was deposed by the military in 1964, his bizarre inclusion only shows yet again that this article is an unsalvageable mess that needs to be completely rewritten or deleted outright.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Operation Condor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)