Jennifer Harbury/Dianna Ortiz: U.S. Involvement in Guatemala Torture

Making the hemisphere safe for sweat shops that helped destroy US industries.   Can there be any doubt that americans are next in line?

Actually since the CIA is not even a US government agency, ( ) the question arises of whether CIA officials themselves should be rounded up as foreign intelligence agents, and any US citizen which cooperates with the CIA should be charged with treason.   And that’s even before you understand the institutionalized satanic/pedophile/blackmail influence operating within the CIA.  They OBVIOUSLY don’t work in the national interest. ,

And if that’s not enough, if american men really want a good reason to hate their guts, all they need to do is look between their legs:

Fear is a very stupid and tautological reason to put up with this kind of crap.   There is nothing behind their mask of power except their fear of discovery.   They are the very essence of corruption.

My name is Jennifer Harbury, I am a United States citizen, 46 years of age, and a licensed attorney at law. I have been deeply involved in human rights efforts with the people of Guatemala since 1984. I very much appreciate the invitation of the Subcommittee to share my experiences with regards to the release of information by certain U.S. agencies, and hope that the following information will prove to be of assistance.

For purposes of clarity I have divided the information into two parts. The first gives the history of my case, beginning with my husband’s disappearance in Guatemala in 1992, and including official statements made to me and to the U.S. Congress during my three year effort to save his life. The second part summarizes the key agency documents I later obtained through litigation, and which clearly indicate who knew what in the U.S. government, and when they knew it. The picture formed is highly disturbing.

As discussed below, the documents indicate that many high level officials in U.S. agencies were fully aware that my husband and many other prisoners were being secretly detained, tortured, and executed without trial by the Guatemalan army. Despite the clear reports in their possession, they repeatedly sent letters to enquiring Congressional offices that there was no evidence that such prisoners existed and that they had no information as to the whereabouts of my husband. By the time the truth was told years later, my husband and I fear, many others, were dead and I was close to death after three highly dangerous and prolonged hunger strikes. Had the truth been told from the beginning, lives could have been saved.

My husband’s death, from what I know now, was not an easy one. He was held in clandestine detention for more than a year, tortured repeatedly, drugged repeatedly by army physicians, and kept in a full body cast to prevent his escape. There are three versions of his murder. He was either beaten to death and buried under a remote military base, where local villager report that some 500-2000 other victims are buried as well; or he was thrown from a helicopter into the sea; or he was dismembered and scattered across a sugar cane field so that I would never be able to identify him. I must live now, with this difficult reality, as well as the reality that it did not have to happen….

(Jennifer’s speech starts at 11:00)

Since torture is worthless for getting information, obviously the purpose of torture is to terrorize the people and nothing more.

Puppets Get Strings Crossed, Abduct U.S. Nun

The abduction and torture of U.S. nun Diana Ortiz in Guatemala last fall generated little press interest here. Yet the reactions of the Bush administration, the State Department, and the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala — especially towards a recent religious delegation visiting Guatemala on behalf of Sister Diana — suggest that the case is political dynamite.

These developments have thrown into sharp relief once again the role of the U.S. in Central America — particularly the relationship between the Embassy and mysterious foreigners who work with Guatemalan “death squads.” Sister Diana’s torturers were interrupted by a man who burst into the room and halted them. The nun swore under oath that he was an American.

Sister Diana was forced away from a retreat house last November by two armed men. They took her to a deserted place where a member of the National Police was parked. The three then took her, blindfolded, to a warehouse where Sister Diana could hear screams and moans of men and women in pain. There they taunted her, sexually molested her, and burned her 111 times with cigarettes. When Sister Diana said she was a U.S. citizen, the men just laughed. In her affidavit, Sister Diana said, “The men who had stopped me in Guatemala City [previously] knew I was a North American nun, so I knew their laugh was from their sense of power, not disbelief.”

The terror abruptly stopped when the fourth man entered, uttered a common U.S. expletive in English, and then said in Spanish, “Idiots, she is a North American. Let her alone. It’s already on the news on television.” The foreigner took the nun out of the place and put her in a car, saying he would take her to “A friend from the U.S. Embassy” who would help get out of the country. However, Sister Diana escaped from the car in heavy traffic.

The case was immediately met with hostile responses from the Guatemalan government. on November 10, _Prensa Libre_ reported that Guatemala’s President Cerezo expressed doubt as to whether the attack had occurred at all. Defense Minister Hector Gramajo — the de facto head of state — stated the case was a self-kidnapping, staged in order to conceal a lesbian tryst. Interior Minister Morales (also a General) repeated the same accusations and officially closed the case.

Not only did the U.S.Embassy fail to defend Sister Diana — at least one official was reported to be making jokes to journalists about “the lesbian nuns” — but the State Department and President Bush have maintained a deafening silence about the case. The State Department told me November 20 that no protest had been filed, as the case fell under Guatemalan jurisdiction, and the Guatemalan police were investigating. This despite the fact that one of Sister Diana’s kidnappers _was_ a policeman. Moreover, according to human rights organizations like the International Human Rights Law Group and Amnesty International, the Guatemala National Police function as a virtual arm of the Guatemalan army’s counterinsurgency apparatus. Members of the police often comprise the “deaths squads,” usually under direct orders from their superiors. Further, the U.S. remained silent after the Guatemalan investigation was terminated.

When the U.S. Ambassador Stroock complained about the level of human rights violations the Guatemalan government last February, Sister Dianas’ case was conspicuously absent from his list of abuses. Despite complaints from Father Joseph Nangle and Paul Soreff, Sister Diana’s lawyer, this “omission” was never corrected in the official record, despite their complaints to the State Department.

In April, the Ursuline community in Kentucky, Sister Diana’s order, sent a delegation to Guatemala expressly to protest the false statement by Guatemalan officials and the U.S. Embassy’s indifference. Soreff reported that the delegation was immediately summoned to the Embassy where, “evidenced by the array of stone cold faces and the tone with which the encounter began, the Embassy people were most upset with the Ursulines.” The Embassy aggressively defended its conduct in the case and protested allegations of collusion, arising from the foreigners’ comment to Sister Diana about his “friend from the Embassy.”

Father Nangle, another member of the delegation, expressed dismay at the conduct of the Embassy. He reported that the Embassy was silent in the face of public accusations by top Guatemalan officials that Sister Diana was lying, and the Embassy inexplicably failed to publish medical finding of cigarette burns on sister Diana’s body — clear evidence of torture.

Father Nangle continued, “It must be said that once Sister Diana left Guatemala, the U.S. official presence there was inimical to her good name and interests. The Embassy did seem to show concern for her safety while she was in captivity and again before she took lease of Guatemala. But it is my distinct impression that afterward the chief concern of U.S. representatives in that country was `damage control’… Further, I am left with the strong impression that the identity of the mysterious American, named by Sister Diana under oath as the one with sufficient authority to take her away from her torturers, has the Embassy so upset that their chief concern is to sweep this case as far away from them as possible.”

The total impunity with which Sister Diana’s captors operate gives direct evidence of several of the shady structures of Guatemala’s national security state. The Guatemalan government has long denied the existence of secret places of detention and torture — places beyond the reach of the law. Yet the nuns’ testimony is proof of such clandestine centers, and the involvement of the national police. Inevitably, questions about the precise U.S. and CIA role in Guatemala’s national security structures again arise.

Patti McSherry is a human rights activists and a doctoral student in political science. She writes frequently on Guatemala and counterinsurgency

From: Heartland Journal, July-August 1990!original/

New York Times, 1/7/79; Page 2

Ex-analyst says CIA rejected warning on Shah

by Seymour Hersh

A former Iran analyst for the central intelligence agency said yesterday that his reports characterizing Shah Pahlevi as thirsty for power and a megalomaniac were repeatedly rejected by the agency as being contrary to official US policy.

Jesse Leaf said in an interview that for five years had had been the chief CIA analyst on Iran before resigning from the agency in 1973…. A spokesman for the CIA confirmed that Mr. Leaf had been an employee there but said, “We will not discuss former employees.”

Mr. Leaf also said in the interview that he and his colleagues knew of the torture of Iranian dissenters by Savak, the Iranian secret police set up during the late 1950’s by the Shah with help from the CIA. [1] Furthermore, Mr. Leaf said, a senior CIA official was involved in instructing officials in the Savak on torture techniques, although Mr. Leaf said that to his knowledge no americans did any of the torturing. The CIA’s torture seminars, Mr. Leaf said, “were based on German torture techniques from World War II.”

The Shah himself was “one of our sources” of information, Mr. Leaf said. “He was a regular contact for a case officer.”

Mr. Leaf said that because of the CIA’s complacency about the Shah, no one considered protesting about the Savak’s use of torture. “Why should we protest? We were on their side, remember?” [2]

Although the Iranian use of torture was widely known inside the agency, Mr. Leaf said, he knew of no americans who admitted that they witnessed such treatment. “I do remember seeing and being told of people who were there seeing the rooms and being told of torture. And I know that the torture rooms were toured and it was all paid for by the USA.”

Mr. Leaf said he decided to resign from the CIA after receiving an adverse fitness report in 1973. His basic complaint, he said, was that “policy pretty much determines reporting rather than the other way around.”

Since both the nazis and the CIA were creations of the satanic central banking cartel, this is no surprise.

The United States of Torture

Border Crisis: The Crocodile Tears of the Empire

Jennifer Harbury: Truth, Torture and the American Way

And where do you think these american torturers come from?   Many of them come from the torture chambers of american obstetrical wards.

Get some boundaries, doktor.

Deep within mothers is a fantastic pulse of ferocious love: it binds us to our babies, and makes us vigilant in their lifelong care. This pulse has been eroded by the institutionalization of many basic life events; most significantly, childbirth and learning. Instead of ancient mothers selfishly guarding the individual loves and virtues of our children, we become modern custodians for the state- breeders and caregivers of an easily manipulated populace.

Women must once again claim birth as a powerful, liberating life event- instead of a painfully medicalized one; and families must allow themselves to learn and stay together in the short time they have- and shun the bizarre lessons in life given by often hostile institutions whose main focus seem to be that of severing families and crushing true intelligence.

It is revolutionary to reject what society so stringently dictates, and revel in being Mother: not as the producer of marketable goods, but as the conduit of life itself.

— Leilah McCracken