In our research on perpetrators, is it sufficient to know what people do, or is it equally critical to know what reasons and justifications they provide in their own words for their actions, in order to try to prevent it happening again? And if it is important to know what people understand about their actions in their own words, how do we go about getting perpetrators to speak candidly about this? Interestingly, when I began my research, a number of non-Guatemalan analysts told me not to "waste my time", that the officers would feed me "a lie to cover up their pathological actions". If we consider the logic behind such advice, it assumes that we already know who these officers are by what they do; that they are evil incarnate. But is it sufficient to look upon these officers as essentially evil? Does the epithet describe what happened? Does it explain the "why"?
Author's interview (Schirmer 1998b: 259).
Schirmer 1998b: 161
Tony Judt (2008)
"Exkaibil narra en tribunal cómo ejecutaron a víctimas", Prensa Libre, 27 July 2011; "Milenaria condena contra autores de masacre de las Dos Erres, Petén", El Periódico, 15 August 2011,
"Campo Pagado. La Asociación de Veteranos Militares de Guatemala. AVEMILGUA. Ante la opinión Nacional e Internacional MANIFIESTA", Prensa Libre, 22 July 2011.
"Qué alguién me demuestre que hubo genocidio", Entrevista con Gral ® Otto Pérez Molina por Martín Rodríguez Pellecer, Plaza Pública/El Periódico, 2 August 2011.
Collier's (2005)
The Guatemala Review, 28 June 1996, p. 20, cited in Schirmer 1998b: 184
Marta Casaus Arzú (1992, 2008 and 2010)
Schirmer 1998a