In These Times's The ITT List was recently named one of the top 5 campaign blogs for its coverage of the Democratic National Convention.

Right to Know

With no help from U.S., the world takes steps to find the “disappeared”

By Neve Gordon

Magdalena Emperatriz was kidnapped on May 31, 1982, during a counter-insurgency campaign carried out by the Salvadoran army. She was 15 days old. The campaign resulted in the killing of hundreds of civilians and the destruction of dozens of towns and hamlets as well as the abduction and disappearance of 54 small children. In 1995, when Magdalena was 13 years… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (2)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    The right to know is inimical to U.S. interests through intention.  The intention, as perfectly illustrated by the treatment of many of the ‘terrorist’ arrests, is to deny knowledge.  This is an interrogation weapon.  The victim interrogated is given full knowledge about his families lack of knowledge.  The suffering of the family is to be aleviated by the victim’s testimony.  This is merely an extension of the U.S. Justice Departments ‘spousal attack’ program, whereby the spouse of a victim is attacked to secure the testimony or ‘confession’ of the victim (as in the Aldrich Ames case).
    The most amazing part about the U.S. delegation’s stand at the conference was their open willingness to state their opposition to the knowledge (with respect to missing people).  This was not an act of stupidity or ignorance.  It was an act of understanding.  Understanding about this administration’s near complete control of mainstream media.

    United States Posted by James Strauss on Jun 3, 2003 at 8:11 PM

    “the U.S. Justice Departments ‘spousal attack’ program,...(as in the Aldrich Ames case)”

    What are you attempting to say?  That either or neither of the Ames were guilty of the crimes to which they both confessed?

    They both confessed and both were sentenced to jail - there was no quid pro quo.

    If you believe this to be untrue, set forth support for your argument.

    I take it you have never heard of the “innocent spouse” doctrine?  This is a long-standing and fully accepted concept in U.S. jurisprudence and an affirmative defense to joint liability.

    United States Posted by Nus on Jun 13, 2003 at 9:18 AM
    Page 1 of 1 pages

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Neve Gordon
Popular Discussions