Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.culture.latin-america
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: El Salvador: Death Squads Escalate
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:08:44 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug15.075012.1099@Csli.Stanford.EDU> delval@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Alvaro del Val) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.180615.2587@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <9208100603.AA07430@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>>>[From PeaceNet's reg.elsalvador via misc.activism.progressive ]

>>>                Death Squads Escalate "Dirty War" 

>>>     A series of unsolved killings, many of them carried out in 
>>>characteristic death squad fashion, are threatening to undermine El 
>>>Salvador's peace process. [...]

>>>*  On July 31, an employee of the telecommunications company ANTEL 
>>>was shot in the capital. 

>>>[More Killings]

>>>*  Ads from clandestine right wing groups continue to appear in the 
>>>press.  A July 27 ad charged that the Truth Commission and the Ad 
>>>Hoc Commission were created to destroy the Army, and added that the 
>>>peace accords have no legal validity because they are not the law 
>>>of the republic. 

>>Does anyone else find the inclusion of right wing ads in a list of
>>murders revealing?  Apparently right wing ads are just as bad as
>>killing activists, eh Harel?  But if the people you support get
>>control of El Salvador they'll end all that, won't they?  Free speech?
>>Who needs it?

>How tempting it always is to quote out of context, right?

Are you accusing me of quoting out of context?  If so, you are a liar.

I challenge you to find anything in the original post that I omitted
that would change the meaning of what Harel wrote and I excerpted.

Once again, you are a liar.

>First, the
>post does not say that such ads should be forbidden. 

I never said it did.  What I said is that Harel's buddies seem to find
these ads as bad as murders.  

>Second, all you
>can legitimately infer from the post is that the poster supports the
>peace process in El Salvador. 

No.  I can also infer that the poster finds right wing ads as bad as murders.

>Third, in the current climate in El Salvador, the ads are
>probably not too far away from incitation to violence, something which
>is *not* protected speech in many democratic countries, but let's
>leave that aside. 

If you wanted to leave it aside why did you write it?  Sounds like you
are excusing censorship.

By the theory you cite above, are rightists allowed to buy ads
opposing anything?

>The main point is that the poster mentions these ads
>as part of a right wing campaign "aimed at creating a climate of fear"
>in order to sabotage the peace process and protect army officials from
>investigations into human right abuses which have been documented by
>many independent human rights organizations. There is no question that
>mentioning the ads is relevant in order to establish this. Let me
>quote from the original post:

>>>     A series of unsolved killings, many of them carried out in 
>>> characteristic death squad fashion, are threatening to undermine El 
>>> Salvador's peace process.  The murders are aimed at creating a 
>>> climate of fear.  Threats against opposition activists have also 
>>> contributed to the atmosphere of insecurity. 

Where are the ads relevant?  They aren't murders and they aren't
threats.  They are just political statements the left disagrees with.

>If you don't understand that those ads can be an integral part of such
>a campaign and that they can be very intimidating, perhaps it would
>help you to think of an analogous (hypothetical) situation in which
>renegade officers from the old soviet army engaged in a similar
>campaign in an attempt to go back to their old order and prevent
>investigations on human rights abuses.

It would certainly be a problem, but should such people be banned
fromt he political process?  That is what you seem to be urging.
Democracy?  Who needs it.  It's inconvenient.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc