logo
How to Recover From State Terror

How to Recover From State Terror

The Atlantic11-07-2025
In March 1985, I was likely one of the first American tourists to visit Argentina after a military junta relinquished power. Raúl Alfonsín, a human-rights lawyer, was leading the country's first democratically elected government since the early 1970s. And Nunca Más ('Never Again'), a government commission's report on its surprisingly rapid investigation into the fate of the desaparecidos, the people 'disappeared' by the previous regime, was so popular that it was being hawked at Buenos Aires newsstands.
For the junta's opponents, it was a buoyant time, but the euphoria didn't last. The so-called Dirty War, a campaign of kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder that resulted in as many as 30,000 extrajudicial deaths, left lasting scars. Alfonsín was obliged to pursue a delicate political balancing act: He had commissioned the investigation and backed trials of the junta's leaders. But then, fearing another coup, he reversed course, supporting legislation that impeded further prosecutions.
That pattern of advance and retreat continued under successor regimes. Like Germany after the defeat of Hitler, Argentina lurched back and forth between judging its past crimes and trying to move beyond them. The ensuing decades saw amnesties, trials, protests, severe economic and political turmoil, and the conversion of former detention facilities and other sites into a memorial landscape. An Argentinian alliance of human-rights organizations dedicated to remembrance and justice calls itself Memoria Abierta ('Open Memory'), suggesting a task that remains perpetually unfinished.
In her deeply reported new book, A Flower Traveled in My Blood, Haley Cohen Gilliland both encapsulates that complicated dynamic and explains its broader relevance. 'Around the world,' she writes, 'in countries attempting to wrestle with histories of violence and trauma, the same questions tend to recur. How should peace be balanced with justice? Is it better, for the health of a society, to pardon or punish the perpetrators?' Caught 'between the drive to forget and the obligation to remember,' Argentina is 'a case study in the classic frictions that afflict such processes of reckoning.'
In Argentina, this reckoning means more than insisting on justice and commemorating (and identifying) the dead. It involves the persistent challenge of recovering and reuniting the living. Since 1977, near the brutal peak of the junta's 1976–83 rule, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo have marched on Thursday afternoons in front of the Casa Rosada, Argentina's seat of government, to demand an accounting for their disappeared children. Despite the danger—some of these mothers, too, were murdered by the junta—they were soon joined by another group: Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, intent on the return of grandchildren, including those born to mothers in detention and illegally adopted. With persistence, investigative ingenuity, and cutting-edge genetic tools, the grandmothers have so far tracked down 140 of those missing children.
Read: My sister was disappeared 43 years ago
Gilliland focuses on the ordeal of a single shattered family, widens her lens to include other cases, and embeds her tale in a crisp account of recent Argentinian history. Formerly the Argentina and Uruguay correspondent for The Economist and now the director of the Yale Journalism Initiative, Gilliland has long harbored an interest in the grandmothers' quest. Preoccupied with other work, she waited, she concedes, until almost the last possible moment to tackle the subject. Many potential sources are now dead, and one of Gilliland's key informants, Rosa Roisinblit, was 102 when Gilliland finally managed to interview her. Fortunately, the author also benefited from the cooperation of Roisinblit's grandson, Guillermo, who had been illegally adopted, and the University of Washington geneticist Mary-Claire King, whose research helped reunite Guillermo, however uneasily, with his biological family.
Gilliland borrows her title from a line in a poem, 'Epitaph,' by Juan Gelman, a celebrated Argentine writer whose personal history makes her use of it particularly apropos. The poem was written before Gelman's own son and pregnant daughter-in-law were kidnapped in the Dirty War. They were killed, and his newborn granddaughter was stolen and later found with an adoptive family in Uruguay. The titular flower does metaphorical double duty in Gilliland's story. It represents both the grandmothers' yearning for their kin and the genetic markers that proved consanguinity.
A Flower Traveled in My Blood begins in 1978 with an account of the kidnappings of José Manuel Pérez Rojo and his pregnant partner, Patricia, who was Rosa Roisinblit's daughter. The federal police also took the couple's 15-month-old daughter, Mariana, but left her with relatives. Both José and Patricia had been Montoneros, left-wing guerrillas, but had largely retreated from activism. It didn't matter. The junta swooped down on militants, dissidents, and innocents alike, conveying them in green Ford Falcons to secret sites without formal charges. Some detainees were eventually released; some were murdered in prison; still others were drugged and flung from planes into the Río de la Plata or the South Atlantic Ocean.
Apart from those directly affected, civil society was slow to mobilize. Rosa, desperate to locate both her missing daughter and the grandson (Guillermo) who she knew had been born in captivity, appealed, with little success, to the federal justice system and Jewish organizations. She finally found solidarity with her fellow grandmothers. They met surreptitiously, but also marched, petitioned, and eventually attracted international attention.
Science proved to be an indispensable ally. King, the geneticist, experimented with different methods of establishing grandpaternity before settling on mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down almost intact through the maternal line. A genetic match can be made with a single maternal relative, and the forensic technique has since been adopted in missing-persons and human-rights cases worldwide.
In Argentina, the process of reconnecting families could be both emotionally and legally fraught. Not every lost child was happy to be found; custody battles could be wrenching. And the same evidence that linked children to biological relatives could spur a criminal case against their adoptive parents, some of whom had ties to the military and its illicit actions.
Gilliland uses Guillermo's case to illustrate these complications. Guillermo's adoptive father, Francisco Gómez, was an employee of the air force. He knew details of José's torture and Patricia's detention, but claimed that the baby boy he adopted had been abandoned. He was also violently abusive toward his wife, according to Guillermo. 'His beatings were so savage they sometimes sent Jofré to the hospital,' Gilliland writes. After they divorced, he mostly neglected his son.
As often happened, Guillermo's whereabouts were revealed to the grandmothers' organization by an anonymous tipster. When Guillermo's sister, Mariana, tracked him down, Guillermo was skeptical but agreed to a DNA test, which confirmed their connection. His initial contacts with Mariana and his two grandmothers, Rosa and Argentina, were warm. But when his adoptive father was arrested and charged with kidnapping and falsification of official documents, Guillermo was furious. (Gómez was convicted and served more than six years on those charges. He was later sentenced to another 12 years for his role in the disappearance of Guillermo's parents.) Guillermo worried, justifiably, that the next step was the prosecution of his adoptive mother, 'the one person by whom he felt unconditionally loved.' He felt betrayed by Mariana and his grandmothers. 'His past life might have been one giant, festering lie,' Gilliland writes. 'But his new reality was worse.'
Guillermo's relationship with Mariana grew particularly strained. They fought over the division of government reparations for their slain parents, their grandmother Argentina's medical treatment, and the disposition of her ashes after her death. But over time, Guillermo embraced both Rosa and her larger cause. (Mariana declined to speak with Gilliland.)
The author clearly admires the grandmothers' tenacity, but she raises questions about the costs of their mission and the methods involved—in particular, the practice of aggressive, sometimes nonconsensual collection of DNA evidence. 'To whom does identity belong?' Gilliland asks. 'Is it the sole property of an individual—or does their family and their society also have a right to truth?'
Germany took decades to come to terms with its responsibility for the Holocaust. Since the 1980s, I have reported on those efforts: the competing narratives at concentration-camp memorials, the tangled history of the Jewish Museum Berlin, the development of a complex landscape of memory. And in 2019, I finally returned to Buenos Aires to assess Argentina's reckoning, which had begun with so much promise. The work of memorialization seemed vibrant, but still incomplete. No single museum offered a definitive narrative of the junta, the desaparecidos, and the quest for justice. Memory remained fractured, the history unsettled. Even the number of desaparecidos was still vigorously contested.
The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and their supporters continued to march weekly. In 1986, the organization had splintered into two factions. The 'founding line' wanted exhumations, reparations, prosecutions—closure for past injustices. The other faction was more focused on radical social change. What struck me most during my visit was a difference in affect. The founding line walked somberly, holding photographs and drawings of missing relatives, while the more radical marchers sang and clapped boisterously. Tourists crowded in with cameras, and the mothers sold handcrafted souvenirs.
At La Recoleta, the elegant cemetery whose 'rhetoric of shade and marble' Jorge Luis Borges had famously elegized, I stopped to grieve at Alfonsín's tomb. The Parque de la Memoria ('Remembrance Park') was similarly poignant: a large, silent space with a zigzagging granite memorial to the desaparecidos and other murder victims, and an array of sculptures on the banks of the Río de La Plata. Claudia Fontes's stainless-steel Reconstruction of the Portrait of Pablo Míguez, representing a kidnapped child, seemed to rise from the river itself and stare across its expansive waters, as though searching for the corpses below.
Former black sites had become memorials as well. The most notorious, the Escuela de Mecánica de la Armada, had been converted into the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory. I took a guided tour, saw the basement where detainees had been tortured, watched the video testimony of survivors, and learned, at the House for Identity, of the grandmothers' genetic-matching project.
Here in the U.S., some commentators have compared the current Trump administration's expansion of executive authority to the early days of the Third Reich, with its blitzkrieg consolidation of power over the German political system, economy, and culture. But the federal government's turn to sudden, legally questionable seizures of the undocumented, visa and green-card holders, and even some American citizens, often by unidentified masked men, more closely evokes the abuses of South American military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile, and elsewhere.
Whatever the specific parallels, the problem of how to recover from such assaults on the law and the polity remains vexing. The trauma always outlasts the injury. Gilliland points to Argentina as a pioneering model for its quick initial response and groundbreaking forensics. But it is also a cautionary tale about the slippery route to healing. She notes that the country's current right-wing populist leader, Javier Milei, is something of an apologist for the junta's bloody rule. The seesawing continues.
Argentina's lessons for the current moment are multiple: When tyrants threaten, more people and institutions may cower than resist; the loss of checks on state violence can be catastrophic; and no one knows who the next victim will be. This much is clear: Recovering from the damage will be even messier and more difficult than preventing it in the first place.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MLK files: What's in them and what's left out?
MLK files: What's in them and what's left out?

USA Today

time24 minutes ago

  • USA Today

MLK files: What's in them and what's left out?

Historians assessing the trove of newly released documents are cautioning people against the idea that they contain any groundbreaking information. Among details included in a newly released trove of documents related to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.: assassin James Earl Ray took dance classes and had a penchant for using aliases based on James Bond novels, according to researchers. Likely not among the nearly a quarter million pages released by the National Archives and Administration on July 21 is anything that changes the narrative cemented when Ray pleaded guilty to King's murder in 1969, historians say. "By all means the government should release all the documents that they have and they should have done it 20 years ago. The issue is about what our expectations are for what's going to be found," said Michael Cohen, a University of California, Berkeley professor and author of a book on conspiracies in American politics. "The idea that there's some sort of secret document showing that J. Edgar Hoover did it is not how any of this works. Part of the challenge is getting the American public to understand it's nowhere near as exciting." National Archives officials released the over 6,000 documents in accordance with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January. Officials released the documents over objections from members of the King family. The files are available for the public to read online at the National Archives website. Historians say it will take weeks to fully understand what they reveal. Trump's Jan. 23, 2025 executive order also called for the release of records related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. The full findings of the government investigations into the three killings have been hidden for decades, sparking wide-ranging speculation and preventing a sense of closure for many Americans. All three men were national and international icons whose assassinations — and the theories swirling around them — became the stuff of books, movies, controversy, and the pages of history itself. More: Trump's release of assassination docs opens window into nation's most debated mysteries What's in the King files? The newly released records come from the FBI's investigation of the King assassination, records the Central Intelligence Agency deemed related to the assassination and a file from the State Department on the extradition of James Earl Ray, who pleaded guilty in 1969 to murdering King. David Barrett, a historian at Villanova University, said the files will likely contain new, interesting information. But as was the case with the JFK files released in March, the material likely isn't groundbreaking. "I'm not seeing anything that strikes me as surprising," said Barrett, author of multiple books on presidents and intelligence agencies. "Unless they want to write about the investigation, I don't know that this will have an impact on the scholarship." Noteworthy in the files, Barrett said, are details concerning how the FBI connected Ray to King, how they found him and extradited him back to the U.S. from the United Kingdom, where he had fled. "It does take weeks to go through these, so there might be some important revelatory things but I doubt it," said the political science professor. "It's not exactly what people were hoping for and not what the King family was fearing." Many of the files are also illegible due to age and digitization. Archives officials said the agency was working with other federal partners to uncover records related to the King assassination and that records will be added to the website on a rolling basis. 'Now, do the Epstein files': MLK's daughter knocks Trump over records release What's not in the King files? Not among the newly released documents are details of FBI surveillance into King that historians say could include recordings agency director J. Edgar Hoover hoped to use as blackmail against the Georgia preacher. Experts say Hoover's wiretappings of King's hotel rooms, which are believed to contain evidence of infidelity, are likely what his family fears being made public. The New York Times reported the recordings remain under seal pursuant to a court order until 2027. But UC Berkeley professor Cohen said the documents likely haven't been revealed for multiple reasons. "There's claims that these are major government secrets and so whatever they might contain might be true and that's not the case," Cohen said. "Any large-scale government investigation often includes all sorts of spurious claims, hearsay evidence, things of which there's no truth and part of the reason why they get withheld is bureaucratic inertia and also the need to check their veracity." What does the FBI have to hide? Hoover's recordings might also prove a double-edged sword for the FBI, according to Cohen: "Will these files contain things that will upset the King family? That's possible. But they'll also likely reveal just how massively the FBI violated King's civil liberties." FBI agents began monitoring King in 1955, according to researchers at Stanford University. Hoover believed King was a communist and after the Georgia preacher criticized the agency's activities in the Deep South in 1964, the original FBI director began targeting King using the agency's counterintelligence program COINTELPRO, Stanford researchers said. COINTELPRO was a controversial program that a 1975 U.S. Senate investigation slammed, saying: "Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity," the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities said in its final report. "The Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association." The agency went so far as to send King a recording secretly made from his hotel room that an agent testified was aimed at destroying King's marriage, according to a 1976 U.S. Senate investigation. King interpreted a note sent with the tape as a threat to release recording unless King committed suicide, the Senate report said. MLK assassinated in Memphis, April 4, 1968 The official story of how King died is that he was killed on the balcony outside his motel room in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968. He stepped outside to speak with colleagues in the parking lot below and was shot in the face by an assassin. James Earl Ray, a 40-year-old escaped fugitive, later confessed to the crime and was sentenced to a 99-year prison term. But Ray later tried to withdraw his confession and said he was set up by a man named Raoul. He maintained until his death in 1998 that he did not kill King. The recanted confession and the FBI's shadowy operations under J. Edgar Hoover have sparked widespread conspiracy theories over who really killed the civil rights icon. King's children have said they don't believe Ray was the shooter and that they support the findings of a 1999 wrongful death lawsuit that found that King was the victim of a broad conspiracy that involved government agents. Department of Justice officials maintain that the findings of the civil lawsuit are not credible. Read the MLK files Looking to read the MLK files yourself? You can find them on the National Archives' website here. Most of the files are scans of documents, and some are blurred or have become faint or difficult to read in the decades since King's assassination. There are also photographs and sound recordings.

Trump escalates attacks on Obama and Clinton as questions swirl about Epstein
Trump escalates attacks on Obama and Clinton as questions swirl about Epstein

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump escalates attacks on Obama and Clinton as questions swirl about Epstein

'Obama was trying to lead a coup,' Trump said. 'And it was with Hillary Clinton.' Trump's extended digression, which came during a visit with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines, was a stark example of his campaign of retribution against an ever-growing list of enemies that has little analogue in American history. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up It even prompted a rare response from Obama's office. Advertisement 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' said Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesperson for Obama. 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.' After Trump's attack on Obama, reports continued to surface about his relationship with Epstein. CNN published photos of Epstein at Trump's 1993 wedding to Marla Maples, the president's second wife. Gabbard's report, which claimed there was a 'treasonous conspiracy' by top Obama officials, contradicted a lengthy study by the Senate Intelligence Committee that was signed by all Republican members of the committee, including Marco Rubio, now the secretary of state. Advertisement The Obama administration never contended that the Russians had manipulated votes; instead, the administration, and the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, concluded that Russia mounted a major effort to influence voters. Still, in his remarks Tuesday, Trump claimed that he could have sent Clinton, the former secretary of state and another of his political rivals, to prison but chose not to. He said he would show no such leniency to Obama. 'I let her off the hook, and I'm very happy I did, but it's time to start after what they did to me,' Trump said. 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' The president then listed even more enemies he wanted his Justice Department to target, including his former FBI director, James Comey and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, and former President Joe Biden. 'It would be President Obama,' Trump said. 'He started it, and Biden was there with him, and Comey was there, and Clapper, the whole group was there.' 'He's guilty,' he said of Obama. 'This was treason. This was every word you can think of.' Trump's campaign to exact revenge against his perceived enemies has taken many forms. Over the past six months, he has pulled protective details from former colleagues facing death threats from Iran. He has revoked or threatened to revoke the security clearances of Biden, members of his administration and dozens of others. His administration has taken steps to target members of the media seen as unfriendly, taken the hatchet to entire agencies perceived as too liberal, and fired or investigated government workers deemed disloyal. Advertisement The re-examination of the intelligence around the 2016 election began with John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, ordering a review of the agency's tradecraft that went into the intelligence community assessment in December of that year. The review was deeply critical of the Obama administration and the former CIA director, John Brennan. CIA analysts took issue with the speed of the assessment and accused Brennan of allowing an unverified dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer to influence the assessment. But Brennan has long denied that the so-called Steele dossier had any impact on the assessment, and other former officials said that the analysts working on the report paid no attention to it, maintaining that it was unverifiable rumor. Ratcliffe wrote on social media that the review had shown that the process was corrupt, and then he made a criminal referral to the FBI. Last week, Gabbard issued another report that criticized the findings of the intelligence assessment even more directly. Gabbard's report suggested that in the winter of 2016, intelligence officials under pressure from the White House changed their assessment from one that Russia had failed to mount a significant effort to hack election infrastructure to one that the Kremlin was trying to boost Trump and denigrate Clinton, the Democratic nominee. But Gabbard's report conflated two different intelligence findings. Intelligence officials had concluded that Russia had not engaged in any major effort to hack election systems and change votes. But they also believed that Russia had tried to influence the election in various ways by releasing hacked documents to harm Clinton and sow dissent. Advertisement Gabbard has also called for several Obama officials to face criminal investigation, without naming them. This article originally appeared in

Omar calls GOP ‘pedophile protection party' for dodging Epstein votes
Omar calls GOP ‘pedophile protection party' for dodging Epstein votes

The Hill

time2 hours ago

  • The Hill

Omar calls GOP ‘pedophile protection party' for dodging Epstein votes

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar (D) on Tuesday slammed the GOP for dodging a vote that would call for the release of files related to deceased financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Republican leaders this week scrapped their legislative plans and headed early into a long summer recess — all to avoid votes on the Epstein saga. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has insisted the move was not intended to shield Republicans from tough Epstein votes — or protect Trump from potentially embarrassing disclosures — but to end the Democrats' 'political games.' 'The pedophile protection party is shutting down Congress just to avoid voting on the release of the Epstein files,' Omar wrote in a post on X in response to the move. Last week, GOP lawmakers killed a vote backed by Democrats attempting to force the release of Epstein's files. It failed 211-210 along party lines. 'The American people are best served by putting an end to Democrats' side shows. That's what we're doing by not allowing the Rules Committee to continue with that nonsense this week,' Johnson said during a Tuesday press conference. 'We're done being lectured on transparency,' he said. However, some Republicans have refused to completely abandon the public's desire for more information related to Epstein's international illegal dealings. The House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee voted Tuesday to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime associate to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, to appear for a deposition. Some are hoping the measure will unveil new details about the list of people involved with the human trafficking ring. 'This is progress. We will not stop fighting until the Epstein Files are released. Trump and Bondi must stop blocking the American people from the truth,' House Oversight Democrats wrote on the social platform X after the vote. On Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche also said in a statement that he has communicated with Maxwell's counsel 'to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the Department.' 'I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days,' Blanche said. 'Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store