<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/HLMhoLHYzIA” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>talking about the rabid Pro Trumper you48:34know the48:35you know the poll of whites of the world48:38Paula white I think firmly believes that48:40he’s a Christian and and God is using48:42him as a Christian to carry out you know48:46the purposes of the gospel or the church48:49in the world there’s others for example48:51someone like Robert Jeffress from the48:55pastor of the First Baptist Church in48:56Dallas or even Franklin Graham the son49:00of the evangelist Billy Clayton49:02evangelist Billy Graham who would say49:04sure Trump has his problem sure Trump is49:06a sinner I don’t know if Trump has49:08accepted Jesus as his Savior or not but49:12God like Cyrus God uses imperfect people49:17to carry out his plan so so they would49:22say it really does you know they would49:23say really doesn’t matter whether49:25Trump’s a Christian or not he is faith49:28friendly and God is using him in this49:31kind of incredible way God uses sinners49:34and God uses you know people who you49:39know have these corrupt lives or immoral49:41eyes to carry out his purposes God’s49:43ways are not our ways would be the49:45arguing and while we well we would think49:48that it should be a godly Christian49:50leader to help us sometimes God has49:52other plans would be the idea here so so49:55you get you got a kind of mixed mixed49:58views on that depending on which pro50:00Trump evangelical you talk to but you50:04know and I minded I grew up hearing a50:06lot of people who were evangelicals50:08saying something those basically the50:10reverse about Jimmy Carter were there50:13where they would completely grant thatJimmy Carter was was a you know anddevout then but even even argue that hewas a bad president because he was agood Christian to be a good presidentbecause he was done you know kick assand take names I guess I don’t know50:31you’ve encountered during Carter Carter50:34is interesting because evangelicals did50:36flock to him in 1976 you know he might50:40stop supporting that just ants they50:42voted for Carter in 76 and 8050:45I mean an aphid errol’s Ford50:49seventy-six claimed to be some kind of50:51an evangelical Christian too so that’s50:52very interesting but the Carter was so50:54kind of authentic right he he he talked50:57about being born again50:59even his even his uh even his statement51:02about like being tempted to lust from51:04you know from women you know was was it51:09appealed to certain evangelicals right51:11you know that this guy’s honest truly he51:13meant they knew at length nobody and I51:16think I think what happened was when51:19Carter several things I mean one just51:22you know you can’t count out the economy51:24you know the recession and so forth also51:27Carter just did not deliver on the51:29things that evangelicals hoped he would51:32we talked earlier about the green calmlyto Bob Jones case Jimmy Carter supportedto Bob the supreme court on that hewanted to desegregate these academiesand this this you know there wasopposition that emerged almostimmediately to Carter when it didn’tlook like he would deliver on abortionoverturn roe v– wade you know try totry to try to keep the keep thesegregation in place in these academiesso uh you know this is where Falwell andothers so many of you know the storymany our listeners will own story thisis where Falwell and others kind of sayno we thought this guy was was one youknow was going to help our moral causeand he doesn’t seem to be doing it so uhso yeah Carter’s a car is a fascinatingcharacter I think it’s probably you knowit’s probably true to say the fact thathe tried to actually live out a kind ofauthentic evangelicalism probably did uhyou know hurt his his presidency I meanhe has that famous 1979 malaise speechin wrench you know he says we are a52:36nation that is self-centered selfish we52:40only care about each other we don’t52:41think about the common good you know and52:43then Reagan comes in and just says you52:45know do whatever you want right52:47individualism freedom right you know52:50freedom of religion they love these52:52kinds of things no I felt this message52:55of self-discipline that Carter puts52:57forth which you know is this52:59authentically Christian message but you53:01know that’s I think53:02says a lot about the evangelical53:04electorate as well I have one more53:07question that you will wrap up but I I53:12know you know there’s been debates in53:15the Democratic Party about you know53:17what’s the right calculus to to defeat53:21Trump in 2020 and you know one sidebar53:27in that debate is how much should they53:30try and win over people who voted for53:33Trump yeah yeah and a part of that is53:38you know it is it worth trying to talk53:41to some evangelicals to vote for Trump53:43and to appeal to them you know appeal to53:49their values there professor53:52what do you think about that yeah yeah I53:55mean I wrote a whole book about this so53:57I hope yours I hope there’s a53:59possibility but I see I see those54:01eighty-one percent as as very you know54:03there’s there’s diversity within that 8154:05percent one of the things I worry about54:07with this with the media is that they54:09don’t see the diversity of 81 percent54:12that 81 percent includes the rabid Trump54:16supporters who are evangelicals the54:18people who go to the rallies the people54:20who supported this guy in the primaries54:22when there were other options54:24the GOP primaries the people who wear54:26the manga hats you know I mean there’s a54:29lot of Evangelicals you know I remember54:30I remember when Trump came to Harrisburg54:33Pennsylvania I’m watching the news54:36coverage on it at night you know local54:37news coverage and you know I see like54:40four or five people from my church in54:42line my evangelical church in line right54:45so there’s that group what I found afterdoing close to 20 or 30 book talks andand I’m on the road a lot with this bookis that many of those people are justnot going to be convinced by kind ofrational arguments you know politics isoften so much emotional and and and it’sjust gonna be hard to convince thosepeople however there’s a large large55:10number and I don’t know what the55:11percentage is but but I also find55:13there’s a large number who just don’t55:14like Donald Trump they wish55:16they didn’t have to vote for him they55:18hated Hillary Clinton even more they55:22were they they kind of walked the line55:24between not voting for the president and55:26voting for Trump right or voting for a55:30third party candidate and voting for55:33Trump and they decided that they were55:34going to vote for Trump it’s those kind55:36of people that I hope my book is going55:38to reach you know and get them to sort55:42of rethink you know especially in light55:44of everything that’s happened since55:46Trump’s been elected all of the kind of55:49misogyny and racist Arbenz a comet if55:53charlottesville he has an awful55:54immigration policy and so forth on the55:57other hand you can’t count out the56:00economy right the economy is doing56:02really really well a lot of youth56:03angelica’s may not vote on moral issues56:06they may vote on economic issues in 202056:08but when you think about it this way56:10right you don’t need too many56:11evangelicals to have their minds changed56:14for for for a Democrat to win in 2020 I56:19mean Hillary won by three million votes56:22the popular vote so so you know in56:26places like Pennsylvania which you know56:29where we saw in the 2018 midterms we saw56:33mostly Democratic candidates being56:35elected governor senator the the conquer56:40Congress seats almost all many of them56:42flipped to Democrat you know place like56:46Michigan and Wisconsin you don’t need56:48too many votes to turn those states back56:50towards a Democratic candidate so I’m56:52not you know I’m kind of you know a lot56:56of people are saying well if the56:57economy’s good Trump’s gonna win again56:59I’m not entirely convinced about that at57:02least if you can turn some evangelicals57:04you know you might you might have a57:06chance to knock him off in 2020 well57:09here’s here’s a question then if if the57:14Democrats have a nominee who is more57:17likable than Hillary Clinton yeah do you57:20think at least there’ll be sizeable you57:23know statistically significant number57:26vocals who will at57:28perhaps not vote for the Democrat but57:30feel like they don’t have to vote for57:32Khurana57:32yeah Hillary Clinton is a problem with57:35the problem for white conservative57:36evangelicals for two reasons one is one57:40is one as she represents everything57:42about sort of what white evangelicals57:45see as progressivism right pretty57:47pro-choice not doing much to defend57:50Christian values religious liberty57:52particularly marriage you know she’s big57:56government and so forth any Democratic57:58candidate that runs is going to have58:00those same problems with white58:01evangelicals unless it’s like a pro-life58:05democrat right that’s like Bob Casey58:07from Pennsylvania runs who completely58:10who evangelicals backed over Rick58:12Santorum right and then drove Rick58:14Santorum out this is my home state so I58:16know these races pretty well the other58:20problem the other problem white58:21evangelicals had with Hillary Clinton58:22was that she was Hillary Clinton you58:24know the baggage going back to the bill58:27scandals with Monica Lewinsky going back58:30to the lying the you know she’s saying58:33right-wing conspiracy and blah blah blah58:36the deplorable slide you know nobody58:39Clinton made a lot of mistakes among58:41white evangelicals I don’t think I don’t58:43think if she corrected those mistakes58:45she would have won over many white58:46evangelicals to her side but she may58:48have turned some white evangelicals away58:51from Donald Trump towards a third party58:53candidate or towards just not voting in58:56the presidential election so you know58:59we’ll see what happens you could have a59:01Democrat who and if it’s a traditional59:05Democrat on the moral questions that59:07Emma Jellico’s hold dear in 2020 I just59:11I think I think they’re still gonna59:14they’re not gonna vote for that Democrat59:16but because it’s not Hillary Clinton59:18they may say well we could put up with59:19this guy or this one as opposed to you59:23know their four years of Trump I heard59:26something you said this but someone59:29compared Hillary Clinton’s sort of59:33relationship as a cultural icon to the59:37women’s rights movement to Jesse59:39Jackson’s relationship to the civil59:41and the argument was that in the same59:47way that Jesse Jackson couldn’t become59:50president because of just all the59:53baggage that comes with being part of59:54that generation yeah someone from the59:59second generation like Obama didn’t have60:01that package60:02yeah next woman right is the argument60:07that I’ve heard from women’s rights60:11movement but not be associated with all60:14the baggage came with having to fight60:16that fight yeah no no six or seven yeah60:19yeah no it’s there’s probably some truth60:21to that we’ll see you know I don’t know60:24how many women candidates are out there60:25you hear about come out Kamala Harris60:28Kristin Gillibrand I mean you know we’ll60:32see what happens I’m not sure well I I60:37forgot to mention the start but I will60:39plug you are you run a great blog that’s60:43also the title of your first book and60:46the title of your podcast which is right60:48the way of improvement leads home which60:53what’s the URL is it way of improvement60:56way of improvement calm way of60:59improvement calm or no that’s instead61:06Zealand yes I encourage people check out61:17your blog your podcast and you tweet at61:22John fear one john thea one yep jo hn f61:28EI one yeah and i tweet at william are61:35black and in your book believe me the61:39evangelical road to Donald Trump would61:42be a good stocking stuffer when you have61:47those conversations at Christmas right I61:49did a promo for the book on I tweeted I61:52said you just got done with these61:53conversations over Thanks61:55giving with your pro-trump evangelical61:57friends and you wish you had some more61:58arguments for when Christmas or the62:00December holidays come around right get62:03this book you have a month to read it in62:05preparation for Christmas dinner or62:07whatever it might be well thanks for62:12coming on I love to have you on again62:14sometime and great thanks for having me62:17bill thank you
Arguably, that moment proved a precursor to this one as conservatives angry at his apostasy, led by a onetime backbench congressman from Georgia named Newt Gingrich, rose to power within the Republican Party and toppled the old establishment. The harder-edged Gingrich revolution in some ways foreshadowed Mr. Trump’s extraordinary takeover of the party.
Mr. Meacham said the current world of cable talk and relentless partisanship took shape during Mr. Bush’s era. “He saw it all coming, and he didn’t like it,” he said.
Mark K. Updegrove, the author of “The Last Republicans,” about the two Bush presidencies, said, “In so many ways, Bush was the antithesis of the Republican leadership we see today.” He embodied, Mr. Updegrove added, “the
- civility and
of the best of the World War II generation. He played tough but fair, making friends on both sides of the aisle and rejecting the notion of politics as a zero-sum game.”
.. For all of the condolences and tributes pouring in to the Bush home in Houston from every corner of the world on Saturday, Mr. Trump’s very presidency stands as a rebuke to Mr. Bush. Never a proponent of “kinder and gentler” politics, Mr. Trump prefers a brawl, even with his own party. The “new world order” of free-trade, alliance-building internationalism that Mr. Bush championed has been replaced by Mr. Trump’s “America First” defiance of globalism.
.. Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he sees the go-along-to-get-along style that defined Mr. Bush’s presidency as inadequate to advance the nation in a hostile world. Gentility and dignity, hallmarks of Mr. Bush, are signs of weakness to Mr. Trump. In his view, Mr. Bush’s version of leadership left the United States exploited by allies and adversaries, whether on economics or security.
.. Mr. Bush was, in effect, president of the presidents’ club, the father of one other commander in chief and the father figure to another, Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter always appreciated that Mr. Bush’s administration treated him better than Ronald Reagan’s or Mr. Clinton’s, while Barack Obama expressed admiration for the elder Mr. Bush when he ran for the White House.
.. Mr. Obama was among the last people to see Mr. Bush alive.
.. “What the hell was that, by the way, thousand points of light?” Mr. Trump asked scornfully at a campaign rally in Great Falls, Mont., in July. “What did that mean? Does anyone know? I know one thing: Make America great again, we understand. Putting America first, we understand. Thousand points of light, I never quite got that one.”
.. “It’s so easy to be presidential,” Mr. Trump said at a campaign rally in Wheeling, W.Va. “But instead of having 10,000 people outside trying to get into this packed arena, we’d have about 200 people standing right there. O.K.? It’s so easy to be presidential. All I have to do is ‘Thank you very much for being here, ladies and gentlemen. It’s great to see you off — you’re great Americans. Thousand points of light.’ Which nobody has really figured out.”
.. In 1988, when Mr. Bush was seeking the presidency, Mr. Trump offered himself as a running mate. Mr. Bush never took the idea seriously, deeming it “strange and unbelievable,”
.. “I don’t know much about him, but I know he’s a blowhard. And I’m not too excited about him being a leader.” Rather than being motivated by public service, Mr. Bush said, Mr. Trump seemed to be driven by “a certain ego.”
You remember the photo, taken in early August, of two men at an Ohio Trump rally whose matching T-shirts read, “I’d rather be a Russian than a Democrat.” (Now you can buy them online for $14.) It was a gibe that spoke to our moment. The Republican brand — as with presidential nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney — used to be pointedly anti-Russian; Romney called Moscow our chief global enemy. In the Trump era, though, you can be a Republican Russophile for whom Vladimir Putin is a defender of conservative values. American politics, it has become plain, is driven less by ideological commitments than by partisan identities — less by what we think than by what we are. Identity precedes ideology.
“The Democratic Party today is divided over whether it wants to focus on the economy or identity,”
.. So does the assumption that the great majority of Republicans who support Trump are drawn to his noxious views. (That’s the good news in the bad news.) Among candidates who led in the Republican primaries, after all, his percentage of the vote was the lowest in nearly half a century.
.. Identity groups come to rally behind their leaders, and partisan identification wouldn’t be so stable if it didn’t allow for a great deal of ideological flexibility. That’s why rank-and-file Republicans could go from “We need to stand up to Putin!” to “Why wouldn’t we want to get along with Putin?” in the time it takes to say: Rubio’s out, Trump’s in.
.. The best predictor of ideological animus, the study found, wasn’t a respondent’s opinions or even how strongly she held them, but what label she embraced, conservative or liberal.
.. Mason calls this “identity-based ideology,” as opposed to “issue-based ideology.”
.. Either formulation is a polite way of saying that political cleavages are not so much “I disagree with your views” as “I hate your stupid face.” You can be an ideologue without ideology.
.. “Implicit bias,” and the special tests designed to measure it, come up often in the wake of police shootings and #BlackLivesMatter. They show in-group preferences among whites and among blacks. But experiments suggest that partisan in-group preferences are far more powerful.
.. between 30 and 60 percent of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans want their kids to marry in the party.
.. Long before anyone instructs children to group people into categories, research tells us, they’re programmed to do it anyway, and one of our basic ways of making sense of the world is to form generalizations of the sort linguists call “generics” — such as “bears eat people” or “tick bites give you Lyme disease.” Those generalizations count as true, but it’s not easy to say why. Hardly any bears have eaten people , and less than 2 percent of tick bites transmit the Lyme spirochete. But, as the philosopher Sarah-Jane Leslie has argued, we’re more likely to accept a generic if it involves a reason for concern, such as getting eaten or getting sick.
.. generics encourage us to think of the class in question as a kind, a group with a shared essence. To show how this works, Leslie joined with psychologists Marjorie Rhodes and Christina Tworek to design an experiment in which 4-year-olds were shown pictures of a fictional kind of person they called a Zarpie. The people in the pictures were male and female, black, white, Latino, Asian, young and old. With one group of 4-year-olds, the experimenters made lots of generic remarks. (“Zarpies are scared of ladybugs” and the like.) With another group, they made specific statements, not generic ones. (“Look at this Zarpie! He’s afraid of ladybugs!”) A couple of days later, they showed the kids a Zarpie and said he made a buzzing sound. It turned out that the children who’d heard a lot of generics about Zarpies were much more likely to believe that all Zarpies made buzzing sounds. Generic talk encouraged them to think of Zarpies as a category of person.
.. Generic remarks about people, in short, encourage you to think of them as a kind, and you’re more likely to accept a generic claim about a group if it’s negative or worrying. (Liberals hate America; conservatives are bigots.)
.. As everyone knows on some level, we’re tribal creatures. We not only belong to groups but are easily triggered to take arms against other groups. Evolutionary psychologists think these dispositions helped our ancestors survive by creating groups they could rely on to deal with the perils of prehistoric life ..
.. True, that was before cable news and social media. But those us-and-them instincts remain an indelible part of human nature.
.. if tribalism is responsible for some of the worst aspects of our politics, it’s also responsible for some of the best. According to the historian David Herbert Donald, the 19th-century abolitionists belonged to a tribe — essentially, an old-line Northern elite displaced by a new commercial and manufacturing class — that sought to regain its position through ethical crusades. The moral math was correct, but social identity was what helped it spread.
.. Almost the entire South went in 1976 for Jimmy Carter, who won by wide margins in notably white stateslike Arkansas and Tennessee. Voters who had supported states-rights candidates got behind the progressive from Plains, Ga., because — well, they were Southern Democrats, and so was Carter
.. the region didn’t become reliably Republican until the late 1990s. A generation of Southern Democrats had to die first.
.. To wish away identity politics is to wish away gravity. It burdens us, but it also grounds us. A workable politics enlists its force — and broadens its scope
Murder of Archbishop Romero
In February 1980 Archbishop Óscar Romero published an open letter to US President Jimmy Carter in which he pleaded with him to suspend the United States’ ongoing program of military aid to the Salvadoran regime. He advised Carter that “Political power is in the hands of the armed forces. They know only how to repress the people and defend the interests of the Salvadoran oligarchy.” Romero warned that US support would only “sharpen the injustice and repression against the organizations of the people which repeatedly have been struggling to gain respect for their fundamental human rights.” On 24 March 1980, the Archbishop was assassinated while celebrating mass, the day after he called upon Salvadoran soldiers and security force members to not follow their orders to kill Salvadoran civilians. President Jimmy Carter stated this was a “shocking and unconscionable act”. At his funeral a week later, government-sponsored snipers in the National Palace and on the periphery of the Gerardo Barrios Plaza were responsible for the shooting of 42 mourners.
.. Murder and rape of US nuns
.. On December 2, 1980, members of the Salvadoran National Guard were suspected to have raped and murdered four American nuns and a laywoman. Maryknoll missionary nuns Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, and Ursuline nun Dorothy Kazel, and laywoman Jean Donovan were on a Catholic relief mission providing food, shelter, transport, medical care, and burial to death squad victims. U.S. military aid was briefly cut off in response to the murders but would be renewed within six weeks. The outgoing Carter administration increased military aid to the Salvadoran armed forces to $10 million which included $5 million in rifles, ammunition, grenades and helicopters.
“Draining the Sea”
.. In its effort to defeat the insurgency, the Salvadoran Armed Forces carried out a “scorched earth” strategy, adopting tactics similar to those being employed by the counterinsurgency in neighboring Guatemala. These tactics were primarily derived and adapted from U.S. strategy during the Vietnam War and taught by American military advisors.
.. An integral part of the Salvadoran Army’s counterinsurgency strategy entailed “draining the sea” or “drying up the ocean,” that is, eliminating the insurgency by eradicating its support base in the countryside. The primary target was the civilian population – displacing or killing them in order to remove any possible base of support for the rebels. The concept of “draining the sea” had its basis in a doctrine by Mao Zedong which emphasized that “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.”
.. “This may be an effective strategy for winning the war. It is, however, a strategy that involves the use of terror tactics—bombings, strafings, shellings and, occasionally, massacres of civilians.”
.. On 18 March, three days after the sweep in Cabañas began, 4-8,000 survivors of the sweep (mostly women and children) attempted to cross the Rio Lempa into Honduras to flee violence. There, they were caught between Salvadoran and Honduran troops. The Salvadoran Air Force, subsequently bombed and strafed the fleeing civilians with machine gun fire, killing hundreds
.. Atlacatl soldiers were equipped and directed by U.S. military advisers operating in El Salvador and were described as “the pride of the United States military team in San Salvador. Trained in antiguerrilla operations, the battalion was intended to turn a losing war around.”
.. The November 1981 operation was commanded by Lt. Col. Sigifredo Ochoa, a former Treasury Police chief with a reputation for brutality. Ochoa was close associate of Major Roberto D’Aubuisson and was alleged to have been involved in the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero.
.. Col. Ochoa claimed that hundreds of guerrillas had been killed but was able to show journalists only fifteen captured weapons, half of them virtual antiques, suggesting that most of those killed in the sweep were unarmed.
.. he field commander said they were under orders to kill everyone, including the children, who he asserted would just grow up to become guerrillas if they let them live. “We were going to make an example of these people,” he said.[90
.. El Mozote Massacre
.. The US steadfastly denied the existence of the El Mozote massacre, dismissing reports of it as leftist “propaganda,” until secret US cables were declassified in the 1990s.[91
.. The army and death squads forced many of them to flee to the United States, but most were denied asylum.
.. A US congressional delegation that on January 17–18, 1981, visited the refugee camps in El Salvador on a fact finding mission submitted a report to Congress which found that: “the Salvadoran method of ‘drying up the ocean’ is to eliminate entire villages from the map, to isolate the guerrillas, and deny them any rural base off which they can feed.”
.. El Salvador’s National Federation of Lawyers, which represented all of the country’s bar associations, refused to participate in drafting the 1982 electoral law. The lawyers said that the elections couldn’t possibly be free and fair during a state of siege that suspended all basic rights and freedoms.
.. Fearful of a d’Aubuisson presidency for public relations purposes, the CIA financed Duarte’s campaign with some two million dollars.
.. Nearly two weeks earlier, US Vice President Dan Quayle on a visit to San Salvador told army leaders that human rights abuses committed by the military had to stop. Sources associated with the military said afterword that Quayle’s warning was dismissed as propaganda for American consumption aimed at the US Congress and the U.S. public. At the same time, U.S. advisers were sending a different message to the Salvadoran military – “do what you need to do to stop the commies, just don’t get caught“. A former U.S. intelligence officer suggested the death squads needed to leave less visual evidence, that they should stop dumping bodies on the side of the road because “they have an ocean and they ought to use it“.
.. After 10 years of war, more than one million people had been displaced out of a population of 5,389,000. 40% of the homes of newly displaced people were completely destroyed and another 25% were in need of major repairs
.. At war’s end, the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador registered more than 22,000 complaints of political violence in El Salvador, between January 1980 and July 1991, 60 percent about summary killing, 25 percent about kidnapping, and 20 percent about torture. These complaints attributed almost 85 percent of the violence to the Salvadoran Army and security forces alone.
- The Salvadoran Armed Forces, which were massively supported by the United States (4.6 billion euros), were accused in 60 percent of the complaints,
- the security forces (i.e. the National Guard, Treasury Police and the National Police) in 25 percent,
- military escorts and civil defense units in 20 percent of complaints,
- the death squads in approximately 10 percent, and
- the FMLN in 5 percent.
.. The report concluded that more than 70,000 people were killed, many in the course of gross violation of their human rights. More than 25 per cent of the populace was displaced as refugees before the U.N. peace treaty in 1992
.. The State’s terrorism was affected by the security forces, the Army, the National Guard, and the Treasury Police;:308 yet it was the paramilitary death squads who gave the Government plausible deniability of, and accountability for, the political killings. Typically, a death squad dressed in civilian clothes and traveled in anonymous vehicles (dark windows, blank license plates). Their terrorism consisted of publishing future-victim death lists, delivering coffins to said future victims, and sending the target-person an invitation to his/her own funeral.[169
.. the objective of death-squad-terror seemed not only to eliminate opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfigurement of bodies, to terrorize the population.[170
.. the FMLN continuously violated the human rights of many Salvadorans and other individuals identified as right-wing supporters,
- military targets,
- pro-government politicians,
- public officials, and
These violations included
kidnapping, bombings, rape, and killing.
.. the constitution was amended to prohibit the military from playing an internal security role except under extraordinary circumstances
.. By 1993—nine months ahead of schedule—the military had cut personnel from a wartime high of 63,000 to the level of 32,000 required by the peace accords. By 1999, ESAF’s strength stood at less than 15,000
Human Rights Commission of El Salvador
.. On 26 October 1987, Herbert Ernesto Anaya, head of the CDHES, was assassinated
.. Many of the documents, from the CIA and the Defense Department, are not available