The U.S. Response to Cuban and Puerto Rican Right-Wing Terrorism in the Pre and Post 9/11 Era (original) (raw)
Related papers
Anthology, edited jointly with Steve Ludlam of Sheffield University, of short articles on decades of US terrorism and subversion against Cuba, and Cuba's response to the 'war on terror' announced by President Bush following the 9/11 attack.
"Terrorism" as an Artifact of Transition in Post-Cold War Latin America
The Oxford Handbook of the History of Terrorism
This chapter surveys accounts of the nature and causes of violence in four Latin American truth commission reports produced from 1984 to 2003 to examine when and how the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” are used to describe the continent’s Cold War revolutionary actors. It argues that these terms acquired explanatory value only gradually, in a context marked by the defeat of the armed Left, the emergence of a new global order legitimated by appeals to universal human rights, and the marginalization of other potential descriptors for violence. Invocations of “terrorism” can thus be understood as both indexing and foreclosing social and political tensions left unresolved by the application of transitional justice in Latin America, suggesting that one of the prizes of victory in the Cold War was the power to determine what counts as violence and why.
Bringing the State's Discourses Back In: The United States and "Terrorism" in Guatemala
This article is based on a study of US declassified documents pertaining to the Guatemalan conflict. It uses the Digital National Security Archive in order to weave a historical narrative comprised of the totality of the secret memoranda and cables where US analysts and officials used the terminology of “terrorism” to describe and analyze this conflict. In so doing, this study proposes to unearth what may be described as an internal, and secret, American discourse on “terrorism” that pre-dated the public discourse that truly took shape and imposed itself during the Reagan years. In these secret documents, officials from the State Department or the CIA propose mostly dispassionate, straightforward analyses of the situation on the ground, and use terms like “terror,” “counter-terror,” “terrorism” or “terrorists” in a fundamentally descriptive, non-ideological, manner. The terms are used, for the most part, to refer to specific tactics and forms of political violence and are used to describe all actors involved in this conflict. In this secret discourse on “terrorism,” therefore, US analysts and officials do refer to leftist or “Communist” forces as engaging in “terrorism” but they also, in fact much more often and systematically, describe forces funded, trained, equipped or otherwise supported by the US as engaging in “terror,” “counter-terror” or “terrorism.” These documents also highlight how, very early on, US analysts grew concerned about the potentially counter-productive effects of US assistance programs and, in a few cases, went so far as to denounce US policies as immoral and as condoning and supporting the use of “terror” or “terrorism.” In the early 1970s, systemic human rights violations from forces trained and equipped by Washington led to growing Congressional opposition to US assistance programs. A number of House and Senate members came to oppose US support to Guatemala and other countries on the grounds that the country’s security forces were, directly or through their use of “death squads,” engaged in “terrorism,” and that the US had become associated, in the minds of the local population, with such “terrorism.” As this article goes on to show, whenever representatives of the executive branch defended US policies before Congress, they insisted that such accusations were pure allegations, that the US government had no information that could substantiate them, and that US assistance programs remained necessary in helping these countries fight “terrorism.” In so doing, these US executive branch officials developed a public discourse on “terrorism” fundamentally at odds with the secret discourse used by US analysts in classified documents at the very same time. Finally, it is argued that these findings provide new insights into the roles that a multiplicity of actors, from so-called “terrorism experts” to the media, have played over the years in shaping and “bordering” what came to be the dominant political discourse of our time.
Call and Response: The effect of terrorist incidents on the way nations fight terrorism
This paper compares the ways in which countries that have suffered from terrorist actions combat terrorism. Specifically, I compare counterterrorism policies in the United States and Spain before and after two of the most severe acts of foreign terrorism, the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001 and the attacks in Spain on March 11, 2004. These comparisons are made in two counterterrorism policy aspects: Bureaucracy and Institutions, as well as Foreign Relations and Military Intervention. Each of these sections shows both convergent and divergent choices made by the Spanish and American governments. In terms of bureaucratic institutions, Spain has a more modern and hierarchically fluid approach whereas the United States has a system with multiple agencies where specific issues are addressed by individual, specialized agencies. Both governments utilize military intervention as a part of a response to terrorism, however, here too, these nations differ, in part because Spain's foreign policy response was conditioned by the existence and actions of the European Union whereas the United States reacts more unilaterally. The United States as well, possesses a vast military network and budget which allows them to respond more dramatically and without the constraints of a multilateralism. While both Spain and the United States collaborated in the “War on Terror” in the wake of 9/11, Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq after the Madrid terrorist attacks. While the new Spanish government that came to power after the terrorist attacks continued to focus on fighting terrorism, it emphasized the importance of deterring and preempting terrorist strikes. The American government, on the other hand, has specialized in criminalizing and responding to terrorism. While America has faced terrorism from several different perpetrator groups (i.e. the Black Panthers, Ku Klux Klan, ELF/ALF, anti-abortion extremists, etc.) which have allowed the nation to holistically prepare its counterterrorism institutions, Spain has faced terrorism from Basque nationalists (ETA) which has led to a more direct approach from the Spanish counterterrorism organization while the United States takes a targeted approach on the type of attack that occurred (NCSTRT 2016). In addition, the way in which Spain and the United States respond internationally changes, as well. Spain takes a far more reticent approach, in pulling back from international engagement whereas the United States exhibits a more bellicose attitude. This paper examines the internal and external elements that have led to the convergence and divergence of the Spanish and American counterterrorism paths.
This article puts forth the concept of colonial state terror as a category for the analysis of political violence in the Puerto Rican colonial conflict by US and Puerto Rican governments and pro-state organizations. To this end, the article is divided into four parts. First, it provides a short historical overview of Puerto Rico’s colonial history; second, it explores US colonialism through the concept of the colonial state of exception; third, it explicates the concept of colonial state terror; and fourth, it develops a brief history of the uses of colonial state terror in the long history of US colonialism in Puerto Rico. In doing so, this article seeks to contribute to the development of a more nuanced research agenda focused on the relationship between colonialism, political violence, law and processes of depoliticization.
United States of America: Counterterrorism Pre-911
In: Silke, Andrew (ed). 2018. Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and Counterterrorism. Abingdon: Routledge., 2018
This chapter examines the history of counter-terrorism and the terrorism and terrorist threats to which it responded in the United States pre-9/11. Part one will provide an overview of the different types of domestic and international terrorism and movements that have affected or targeted America historically and been the focus of counter-terrorism. Part two will examine the history of counter-terrorism in the United States, looking at different developments, policies and approaches, and examine the ways in which counter-terrorism has changed in response to both threats and attacks, political and ideological agendas and interests, pressure and criticism, as well as challenges, mistakes and failures. Winter, A. 2018. 'The United States of America: Counter-Terrorism Pre-9/11'. Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism. ed. Andrew Silke. Abingdon: Routledge.
2011
who stepped up to help when no one else would and who provided years of support to get me to this point. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Dr. Frances Harbour and Dr. Colin Dueck, who provided unlimited assistance when I needed them the most in the last few months before defending this dissertation and graduating. Additionally, to Diane St. Germaine, who assisted me throughout my time at George Mason, was a guiding light and helped me through many times, thank you. If I did not have this team I do not believe I would have been able to finish my dissertation, they enabled my vision to become a reality.