HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Activism » Socialist Progressives (Group) » Another 'conspiracy theor...

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 05:33 AM

 

Another 'conspiracy theory' shown to be fact: Who Killed Che? How the CIA Got Away With Murder

In compelling detail two leading U.S. civil rights attorneys recount the extraordinary life and deliberate killing of the world’s most storied revolutionary: Ernesto Che Guevara... But their focus is on Che’s final days in Bolivia where, after months of struggle to spread the revolution begun in Havana, Che is wounded, captured and, soon after, executed. Bound and helpless, Che’s last words to his killer, a soldier in the Bolivian Army, are “Remember, you are killing a man."

Referencing internal U.S. government documentation, much of it never before published, Ratner and Smith bring their forensic skills as attorneys to analyze the evidence and present an irrefutable case that the CIA not only knew of and approved the execution, but was instrumental in making it happen. Cables from the agency disavowing any U.S. role in the murder were merely attempts to provide plausible deniability for the Johnson administration.

http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/who-killed-che/


As the authors state blankly, "the US government, particularly its Central Intelligence Agency, had Che murdered, having secured the participation of its Bolivian client state." (p.25).

http://www.swans.com/library/art18/pbuhle17.html

30 replies, 8688 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Another 'conspiracy theory' shown to be fact: Who Killed Che? How the CIA Got Away With Murder (Original post)
HiPointDem Apr 2012 OP
Downwinder Apr 2012 #1
eomer Apr 2012 #2
MrYikes Apr 2012 #3
eomer Apr 2012 #4
TBF Apr 2012 #5
eomer Apr 2012 #6
white_wolf Apr 2012 #7
TBF Apr 2012 #9
Starry Messenger Apr 2012 #11
joshcryer May 2012 #22
TBF May 2012 #24
joshcryer May 2012 #26
TBF May 2012 #29
Starry Messenger May 2012 #25
joshcryer May 2012 #27
Starry Messenger May 2012 #28
TBF Apr 2012 #8
eomer Apr 2012 #12
TBF Apr 2012 #18
joshcryer May 2012 #23
Starry Messenger Apr 2012 #10
LooseWilly Apr 2012 #13
eomer Apr 2012 #14
Starry Messenger Apr 2012 #15
eomer Apr 2012 #16
MrYikes Apr 2012 #17
TBF Apr 2012 #19
HiPointDem May 2012 #20
joshcryer May 2012 #21
Taverner May 2012 #30

Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 06:58 AM

1. In 2012 they would use a drone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 07:25 AM

2. We should condemn the murder of Che, both the murder he did and his captors murdering him.

Che was executed while being held as a prisoner of war. His execution was murder and a war crime.

Che himself executed his prisoners of war. His executions were also murder and war crime.

For those of us who are in favor of the rule of law and civilization, let's condemn both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:28 AM

3. When a slave throws off his shackles

the masters get hurt. We must cry about the bloodshed, but not the act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:00 PM

4. Cubans haven't thrown off their shackles, just got a different master. (eom)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 04:06 PM

5. Please read the TOS for our group -

you are not in general discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1024881

Please refrain from bad-mouthing Cuba while you are in our group. That little island did pretty damned well for 50 years, especially considering what they were up against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 05:52 PM

6. There is a difference between socialism and totalitarianism. Is this a safe haven for the latter?

I'm generally in favor of socialism, especially in contrast with predatory capitalism. And I am firmly against totalitarianism. I would be happy to see Cubans throw off the shackles of dictatorship and establish a government based on socialism but also based on the consent of the people. I would be horribly disappointed to see them throw off the dictatorship and establish a government like the current fascist abomination that is ours, like I imagine many of the lunatic rightwing Cubans in Miami would want.

Is such a position not allowed here? Do you consider this a safe haven for totalitarianism and dictators, so long as they claim to be leftist, even if that claim is all too obviously just a cover story?

Also, do you equate Cuba with Che and Castro? Is bad-mouthing Che considered bad-mouthing Cuba? I certainly don't see it that way. I think very highly of Cubans. I'm proud to be married into a Cuban family and that my children are Cuban, have grown up learning Cuban culture here in Miami. I'm about as pro-Cuba as one can get. Your jab sounds to me a lot like rightwingers who claim that we're anti-American when we point out things about it that we think desperately need to be fixed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:00 PM

7. As a host I'm going to give my 2 cents on this poster.

Based on this post, eomer, sounds like an anarchist or libertarian socialist and a lot of people from that tradition are very critical of Cuba, Soviet Russia, etc. I think he should be allowed to stay and post. After all, as long as he supports socialism he should be welcome here. I've known several anarchists who have expressed similar views on Cuba, but they sure aren't anti-socialism. Hell, I'm not even sure where I stand on Cuba, it's a lot better than what it would be under capitalism, but I think it needs major reforms as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:02 PM

9. We posted almost exactly at the same time -

please see my comments. I'm with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:11 PM

11. Jinx times three.

Also see below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #7)

Sat May 5, 2012, 02:52 AM

22. Given that they were blocked I should downplay my criticism of State Socialisms, I think.

It didn't occur to me that I would rile feathers by criticizing State Communism / State Socialism, which it appears eomer most certainly did.

For what it's worth I support Che's forays into other countries to meddle and help the working classes. But then, he was completely violating those states' sovereignty, and that's another topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #22)

Sat May 5, 2012, 10:01 AM

24. Open borders for people, closed borders for bananas.

We are serious about not wanting to re-play the Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky battle. With all of that pretty fresh (believe me, we are not in danger of forgetting that), we would like to instead focus on the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #24)

Sat May 5, 2012, 10:43 AM

26. That's fair enough, but I think some of my earliest posts here would qualify for that.

Consider my posts here where I was extremely critical of the USSR regime, although from a purely historical perspective. Those posts garnered dozens of "Google alerts" for that search (which pleased me to no end because apparently, if people were searching for my name and that, they found it interesting or informative). I will refrain from such criticism from now onward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #26)

Sat May 5, 2012, 03:14 PM

29. Yes I totally missed that entire thread -

and I know you write a lot in other forums (such as South America) but frankly I've been too busy on MIRT to read much of anything outside of a few small groups that I visit now and then. I'm not going to worry at all about what you write over there. Plus my blood pressure probably couldn't take it even if I had time (joking, sort of ...). Anyway, carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #22)

Sat May 5, 2012, 10:21 AM

25. "This includes no "you're a dictator-lover" " is in the SOP.

Claiming (in this case, repeatedly) that members here support oppression by supporting socialist states is a violation of the group's Statement of Purpose. There are several other places on the web where that kind of rhetoric is encouraged, including the general areas of DU. This group is a safe haven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #25)

Sat May 5, 2012, 10:47 AM

27. OK, that at least makes me feel a bit better on that count, as I don't think I'd feel the need...

...to accuse people of being "dictator lovers" unless I myself was attacked strongly and my emotions got the better of me. In that vein I prefer to attack ideas rather than people. I can see where you felt the poster in question was questioning ones allegiances, particularly when it comes to accusing a broad brush group here of "supporting totalitarians" so that, too, is fair enough.

I do hope I can make such accusations outside of this Group, however, without it being a slight against me here, as I do know at least on two occasions I have said as much to two PPR'd posters here (blindpig and Fool Count).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #27)

Sat May 5, 2012, 11:04 AM

28. This is our SOP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1024881 A member's activities outside this group is their business. As hosts, we direct activities here in this group according to the SOP. There is no rule, however, that people are required to engage a member's ideas in here, if they feel that the conversation will not be productive, based on activities outside of this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:01 PM

8. I refer you to this sentence:

Please no Trotsky or Stalin baiting, we've all seen it fracture groups and do not want to fight that battle again.

I'm fine with discussing what type of system we'd like to see, but would really like to keep away from bashing the countries that have tried communism in various forms. Can we instead try to focus on what we like about countries that have tried implementing socialism without it turning into bashing? For instance, we could talk about Cuba's efforts in the healthcare field - and could probably learn a lot there.

Personally I'm in favor of socialism (as an economic system) over capitalism and democracy (as a political system) over totalitarianism. I would bet most of us here are generally in that boat, maybe to different degrees. That's our challenge isn't it - to figure out how much democracy you can have and stay viable (thinking back to the Paris Commune). That is the theme behind many of the comments here regarding banding together with other workers on a global basis. How do we do it - how do we do we make socialism viable - in a largely capitalistic world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:28 PM

12. And I'm very much interested in those topics and see it much as you do.

Very briefly, I'm intrigued by the approach of employee cooperatives, with the Mondragón Corporation as an example. But I also feel that government could be a solution or a part of a solution. Especially in our current condition I think that an FDR-style program to tax the wealthy and hire people as direct employees of the government would be one of the quickest ways to ease human suffering. So I'm not particularly a libertarian but I'm also not opposed to solutions that could be seen as libertarian like Mondragón. Mainly I'm in favor of finding some way for workers to own the solution and own the benefits of our labor. My best guess of how to make that work is to emulate social democracies like the Scandinavian countries. But I'm open to constructive discussion about alternatives and realize I don't know nearly as much as I need to on this.

Unfortunately I found my way here by way of an OP that itself seems, frankly, not in the spirit of the group as described by three hosts. I do not have a high opinion of Che Guevara - he executed the grandfather of a girl who my kids grew up with. He executed a number of people who weren't even opposed to his politics. I do understand the apprehension since I'm an unknown to you all, but I do hope that this group is a place where people can support socialist approaches and at the same time maintain a level of decency and morality. To me socialism is about decency and morality and I don't think I have to support Che in order to support socialist approaches. In fact I don't see how anyone can support Che, while knowing all the facts of his true history, and also be a sincere supporter of socialism. Why don't we let the predatory capitalists be the ones who are murderers and hold socialists to a higher standard?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #12)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:18 PM

18. I don't buy your "true story" of Che, and I also don't buy your interpretation of Cuba.

sorry. I'm not blocking you - leaving this to Starry as she has had a chance to weigh in. Personally I agree with Loose Willy's assessment that you are just another apologist for the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #8)

Sat May 5, 2012, 02:56 AM

23. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I think it's just as important to recognize why certain approaches fail, as well, otherwise you're not opening up opportunity to create alternative approaches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:03 PM

10. This is a safe haven for supporters of socialism.

It is a forum where we can post in support of socialism without red-baiting or being overwhelmed by pro-capitalist and anti-socialist positions on DU. I am generally in favor of giving people the benefit of the doubt, but your first posts here are attacking a country that has thrown off the totalitarianism of monopoly capitalism.

Many millions people support Cuba and Che all over the world, and support the country's efforts towards world socialism.

Although, if you think the US government is a "fascist abomination", I'm not sure what definition of "socialism" you are working with. At any rate, outright bashing of socialist countries in generally not supported in here, although constructive criticism is usually fine. If you see a way to positively support socialism in your participation here, I am in favor of seeing you stay. But perhaps more establishment of your bona fides as a supporter of socialism might be in order, or your participation in here will be curtailed by blocking. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 02:04 AM

13. What, precisely, is the difference between "socialism" and "totalitarianism"? US acquiescence?

Swedish Socialism is ok, because there're "votes" and US corporations are allowed to run rampant... but Russian socialism was bad because... there were no votings outside of the party votes?... or because US corporations weren't allowed to run rampant?

I would suggest that the difference is really one of acceptability to US imperialist interests... with the nominal "vote" held up as a sort of substitute for the real issue of complicity with US imperial interests, or opposition to said imperial interests.

Cuban socialism doesn't "play nice" with US corporate interests... it's "totalitarian".

The USSR didn't "play nice" with US corporate interests (as they were evolving post WWII)... it was "totalitarian".

The UK "signed up" for NATO and sent advisors to help CIA, etc, develop into agencies capable of running a (Imperial)/"Global" military/political establishment... they are "socialist".

Sweden?— Socialist.

North Korea?— Totalitarian.

Saudi Arabia?— Socialist (?).

Iran?— Totalitarian.

Bolivia?— "Free market".

Che?— Dead in the streets.

If you are pro-Cuba but anti-Che... then you are pro-Cuba but pro-Cuba in the way the Koch brothers are pro-USA... giddy at the thought of potential exploitation of a portion of the population of one's country that may not be savvy enough to defend themselves from your (or your associates') abuse.

I'm proud to be.. ok, willing to be acknowledged as... a member of an Iranian family that lost considerable economic power in THAT revolution... which likewise undermined the finances and political/economic control of US collaborators over the most profitable sectors of the local economy.

I feel for your half-breed children, much as I feel for my half-breed self... but that selfish basis of "woe is me" at the hands of the revolutionaries is just... embarrassing.

You should be embarrassed, tough guy.

The notion that Cuba, or Iran, can institute Democratic institutions, in the face of incipient US aggression... is a non-serious talking point.

It is up to the US government to take a half-breath and promise no hostilities as a result, and possibly even some rewards... before a serious effort to take "democratic" steps can be made by any of the governments currently under threats of one sort or another by the US agencies...

I'm curious to hear though, how you could possibly "bad mouth" Che without giving yourself away as an apologist of the rich and powerful... Have fun giving that a shot...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LooseWilly (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 05:52 AM

14. Seen simply, socialism and totalitarianism are orthogonol. But it's not really that simple.

The simpler explanation is that socialism and totalitarianism are like two axes on a graph, perpendicular to each other. Socialism is about ownership by the people of the means of production (and therefore control of the benefits of that production). Totalitarianism has to do with consent and freedom of the people. So in a simplistic view they look like two perpendicular axes on a graph.

But, as is often the case, things aren't quite that simple; there is interaction between the two concepts. Because how can the people be said to own and control the means of production by way of a system that they don't consent to? In that case someone else actually has control of the means of production. But, again, things aren't that simple either. Some person or entity other than the people might have control of the means of production, without consent of the people, and still cause the means of production to be used for the benefit of the people. In this last case it's not so clear whether to call it socialism or not.

What the U.S. government says about it is completely irrelevant. North Korea and Cuba are totalitarian and Sweden is not, those are just the facts.

Regarding socialism, Cuba falls into the dilemma I described above. Those who control the means of production in Cuba don't have the consent of the people but claim that they still use that control to deliver the benefits of those means to the people. Some would call this socialism; I personally don't. I want socialism to be something better than that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 08:11 AM

15. There is no basis for the statement that there is no consent of the people.

Decisions in Cuba about the government are made by the people.

http://peoplesworld.org/cuba-s-communist-party-holds-national-conference/



As arranged by the sixth Cuban Communist Party Congress of April 2011, a first-ever ever Party "conference" took place in Havana January 28-29. While the Congress concentrated on recommendations applying to Cuba's economy, the conference dealt mostly with Party functioning.

The 811 delegates representing 800,000 Party members first approved a resolution cataloguing objectives of Party work. Later, they accepted recommendations and opinions from four Party commissions that heard testimony from delegates and guests.

Worldwide media attention focused on proposed changes affecting party leadership, one that would limit high-level party and government officials to two five-year terms, after passage of a constitutional amendment; and another calling for replacement of 20 percent of central committee members within five years. The central committee will hold two open meetings annually to monitor production goals, budgetary compliance, and implementation of the economic and social policy guidelines approved at the sixth Congress.

The final resolution called for an expanded role for party committees at all levels, fewer permanent commissions, improved intraparty diffusion of information, party leaders working directly with community activists and local party organizations, improved supervision of rank and file party workers, and party-wide participation in implementing national economic plans.

Recommendations applying to "political and ideological work" would have Party activists supporting "national unity around the Party and the revolution," rejecting corruption and unethical or illegal actions, and combating family and gender violence.

Party membership was reaffirmed as voluntary and earned through exemplary standards, and approval at the community level. Party activists would adapt the teachings of Marxism-Leninism "to the present conjuncture" and honor the "anti-imperialist legacy of Jose Martí as an essential foundation of revolutionary practice." Other objectives for members include respect shown for non-state employment, conservation of resources, and the "productive character of work."



People don't go to the trouble of overthrowing a Batistia and then sit back and let that go to waste. If they felt they were not succeeding in having a society that served the people, they would take steps to change it. Overthrowing capitalism is a heroic act of great sacrifice that leaves an imprint in society-I think the Cubans who live and work in Cuba know best how to direct their development of socialism under the conditions they are forced to operate in. It can't be easy being right next to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 08:40 AM

16. We disagree.

People in Cuba do not exercise control over the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #16)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:16 AM

17. And it had to be that way

The U.S. would have retaken Cuba if were not. The BIG challenge is allowing people to run the country, staying in line with the goals, while being constantly vigilant to undermining activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:19 PM

19. Word - in fact they almost did

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

And that is just an attempt we know about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #16)

Thu May 3, 2012, 05:36 AM

20. no more than people in the us do.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #15)

Sat May 5, 2012, 02:34 AM

21. You do realize the Sixth Congress was what implemented the privitization plans...

...don't you?

Cuba is moving away from their variant of socialism. I do think they will eventually find themselves with a Brazil style social democratic system.

Here's a fascinating video of the "new blood" in Cuba:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1108109

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #4)

Wed May 16, 2012, 01:59 PM

30. Life expectancy is the highest in Latin America, lowest infant mortality rate, no starvation...

 

Yep, sounds like shackles to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread