Ingrid Betancourt

Peter (Moderator) says on Jan 5, 2003, 21:00:

RE: Ingrid Betancourt (Written by Ian)
I also have been wondering what's happening here. I think her year of being held is up in Mar/ Apr ? She has a great supporter here in Australia, a (Green Party) politician called Bob Brown. He flew to Colombia to raise awareness of her plight and does the same here. Whatever your political thoughts on the Greens, I guess you have to admire this guy's conviction in travelling there. Most politicians (people in general) have an opinion on Colombia, but very few actually go there.

I hope she is alive, and I hope there is a happy ending to this situation.

Cheers
Ian

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Jan 6, 2003, 21:00:

RE: Ingrid Betancourt (Written by MJ)
FREE INGRID!!!!

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Nov 27, 2003, 11:14:

aaaaa

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Peter (Moderator) says on Nov 27, 2003, 20:39:

Ingrid was abducted in feb 2002. Pray that this strong women is still alive. The Farc only asegurado her life for 1 year

Poor but snappy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

camilo says on Nov 28, 2003, 10:39:

iNGRID I seems like the people the wrote above dont know the whole story. she is practicly the most important person that the FARC got. They want the goverment to take the army and the police off an area as big as texas. Besides that the FARC wants that she has to be exchanged for some of it´s most dangerous commanders in jail right now. Those two things are far from happening, the government is not irresponsible. I think she should be free, she is a very important person for this country but the real thing is that she put her self in danger no one made her go through the FACR controlled area by herself.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Nov 28, 2003, 11:21:

Ingrid I'm familiar with the Ingrid Betancourt story; I have her book as well. I admire her courage, her outspokedness, and her total honesty. About a month ago, there were speculations about the farcenos letting her go, but those expectations have not realized yet, which is too bad. I feel she will be released in near future, and that she will have a prominent roll to play in the politics of Colombia taking a definite swing to the left at this time.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MarcelaSofia says on Mar 26, 2004, 06:54:

Uribe Administration & Ingrid I have also read Ingrid's latest book as well and I can't wait to read the next one that she will publish. In regard to Ingrid's situation,supposedly, the FARC released a statement recently that Ingrid and her Campaign Manager, Clara Rojas are both in good health. The FARC initially said that they would be held captive for one year and now they are stating that until Uribe creates un canje that they will remain in captivity. I also know that she received honorary citizenship in France this year as well. Her family is not very happy with how Uribe is handling this situation and this was part of what caused a negative effect on his recent trip to Europe. Amazingly enough, though, he has an 80% approval rating in Colombia which is probably one of the highest any Latin American president has ever had- I am sure that Peru wished that they could have that right now! All in all, I honestly feel that Uribe is an excellent president and I don't think that this is not a hot topic on his agenda. I think that very quietly he is working on something with his administration to relase Ingrid and other rehenes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

litost says on Mar 26, 2004, 18:41:

I may be wrong, but I believe Ingrid Betancourth has had french citizenship for many years product of her first marriage and many years living in France. However, the talk of nominating her for the Nobel Peace Prize are recent thanks to the martyresque image she has gained due to her dramatic situation.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Mar 27, 2004, 14:16:

Citizenship Yes, you´re right: she does already have French citizenship.
SiV

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

TioCharlie says on Mar 27, 2004, 23:24:

and her husband had to leave the country... It seems that because of his open critizism of the way the Colombian government has treated this whole sad affair he has been receiving right wing death threats. I read it on Caracol 3/12.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

fearless7 says on Mar 28, 2004, 19:34:

Ingrid I just finish writing an article on Ingrid for a local newspaper in southern california. My main purpose when I decided on writing on her was to shed some light on her and her kidnap. When I began to research on her, I initially thought many fellow Colombians had sympathy for Ingrid and her campaign manager, but the more I read the more it seems that her story continues to be discussed in the news outside of Colombia. Also, the majority of people who sympathizes with her are Europeans, not Colombians. I was very suprise, especially when i read an article posted by a member of this site from the economist (thanks!) stating that over 70% in Bogota felt indifferent about Ingrid's Betancourt and that they just treat her like the rest of the 3,000 people sequestered. Despite the fact that she comes from the establishment does not make it out to assume she deserved it. Her intention was noble and couragous and now she is paying for it with her life.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

armand says on Apr 28, 2004, 10:16:

Ingrid Betancourt honoirary citizen of nearly 1200 cities... Hi everyone - i just find this interesting site.

If you want to know more about Ingrid Betancourt, just have a look at www.Betancourt.info. The site is developed mainly in French, but there are 9 other languages including English. News about Ingrid and Human Rights in Colombia are posted every day in French (automatic translation available) and several times a week in English.

Ingrid's family is from Colombia, but she has acquired french nationality through her wedding with Fabrice Delloye - the father of her two children.

Since she was kidnapped, a network of support committees has spontaneously emerged - now 280 committees in 39 countries (none in OZ.... ). She has been made Honorary Citizen of nearly 1,200 municipalities in the world - mostly France, Belgium, but also Ireland, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Canada, Luxemburg, Mexico and USA.

She has been held hostage for nearly 800 days now - together with around 3,000 other people. International pressure in the only hope of all their family, as the currentgovernement has no interest at all in seeing her (and the others) free.

See www.Betancourt.info - also have a look at www.Aeropostale-3000.org/Eng/ if you want to do something for the 3,000 hostages

support the families of 3000 hostages in Colombia : www.Aeropostale-3000.org/Eng - and also vivit www.Betancourt.info

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sam Salmon says on Apr 28, 2004, 15:38:

"the current governement has "the current governement has no interest at all in seeing her (and the others) free."

The above statement is the one of the most unfortunate postings ever made on this or any other Forum I frequent re:kidnapping in Colombia.
It's also part of the ignorant overbearing and totally mendacious mindset that the Betacourt supporters have adopted.
Their small minded and waspish mindset has resulted in death threats against them-and in a highly charged atmosphere like Colombia's one can see why.
They do Betancourt no favours with their ignorance and arrogance writ large on the Internet.








' a la orden!'

' a la orden!'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 29, 2004, 10:23:

One of the most unfortunate?? Unfortunate, ignorant, mendacious, small, waspish, highly charged... those are a lot of adjectives to digest in one post.

1. I don't see why it is so unfortunate. I mean, this is "one of the most unfortunate". That's pretty bad.

2. I don't see what is wrong with the aggressive campaign for the liberation of Mrs. Betancourt. The campaign has even recognized that the fate of Mrs. Betancourt is most likely dependent on the fate of most kidnapped Colombians, and has extended their efforts to the liberation of all those held captive, promoting international links of solidarity to achieve this purpose. I believe that is very generous, and certainly much more than the Uribe regime has done so far.

3. The obvious historical context provided by Tinto actually helps very little. Let me add one more obvious point: it is the duty of the State to protect the life, liberty, etc. etc. of its citizens, and the Colombian government is failing to do so. That's not news, of course. And historical evidence is more than overwhelming indicating that Colombian governments have rarely been interested in protecting those rights. The Uribe regime is not any different, although by turning its disdain into policy it is further lowering the current standards.

4. No one is blaming Mr. Uribe for Mrs. Betancourt kidnapping. He is accused of not having a clear policy aimed towards solving her situation and the situation of thousands of Colombians being kidnapped. Remember: he IS responsible for that policy, not drug users, not the FARC, AUC, ELN or anyone else, but him. That's why he is the president.

I can almost hear the screechy voices of the Uribe supporters wondering whether I expect Mr. Uribe to solve all the problems of our troubled nation. I don't. I'm asking him to do his job, and put all the strength of the State on protecting our lives and liberties, even if it is not always successful.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PC says on Apr 30, 2004, 00:08:

All the strength of the State? What strength might that be? Should he reduce patrols on the highways so that he can divert attention to Igrid? Then the thousands of people who are now able to drive those highways safely and thus promote commerce would have to go back to being unemployed.

Do you really believe he isn't putting all the strength of the state on protecting lives and liberties?

It seems to me that Colombia is a lot safer today than it was two years ago.

I think he is doing the best he can with what he has. Frankly Ingrid Betancourt got herself into this not because she is courageous, but because she was truly naieve.

How out of touch with realtity she must have been to actually believe that she of all people would walk away from the FARC! She is an excellent example of why the notion of negotiating with terrorists is a hopeless endeavor. As if Pastrana was not example enough.

Of course 70% of Bogotanos are indifferent to her plight. Every last one of them knew she had it coming. She was grandstanding to boost her failing presidential bid, and only the most doltish of observers could fail to see that. Now that the Colombian economy is growing at upwards of 4% per year and personal safety is greatly increased, most people in Colombia are probably very happy and relieved it was her and not Uribe.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 30, 2004, 12:53:

Yep, all of it. PC,

I appreciate your comments on public opinion, safety, the economy, and the Pastrana administration, which Uribe-fans are always generous to share. By the way, I disagree, but that's not the topic of this thread. What I am concerned about is not even Mrs. Betancourt's motivations (of which I am also suspicious, I'm no big fan of her either), but the actions (or inaction) of the current administration regarding citizens kidnapped by the FARC and ELN. Some rescue attempts are reported here and there, some of them failing badly others more successful, but there is no policy. There isn't. There is no one single document (that I know of) published by the Presidency stating clear plans to solve the problem. If you or anyone knows about that document, please share it with the rest of us, along with more praises to Mr. Uribe if you wish. There's plenty of rhetorics about this issue, for sure, but no plans. Unless, of course, you consider point 110 of the “Política de Defensa y Seguridad Democrática” (you can get it from www.mindefensa.gov.co, it’s very helpful in the bathroom) a real policy.

In Colombia, the State has plenty of tools it can use to meliorate the current situation, which range from the military to the diplomatic. But the military option is just ONE option out of many, one that hasn't worked out too well against the guerrillas. Despite Uribe-fan's blinding ideology, negotiation and international solidarity has worked much better, from the amnesties of 1982 to the exchange of policemen and soldiers in 2001. There is a good precedent on negotiations, and this, I believe, is the main reason why the Betancourt campaign is working for a negotiated solution.

But, regardless of what the best alternative is, I would appreciate if Mr. Uribe and the Defense Minister do their job and tell us what the plans of the current administration are, hopefully without resorting to silly rhetorics.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 30, 2004, 15:06:

Ingrid I find it extremely hard to write on this subject. I think Colombians have been very ungenerous with her, blaming her for setting up her own kidnapping as a part of her political career, just as many people think Santos did with his. We'll just have to wait and see to hear her side of the story, because right now it's just speculations. Until Ingrid is released we can just go on with guessing what her real motivation was, getting herself in that situation. The situation of Ingrid Betancourt and all the other people held in captivity in Colombia is an issue that is going to backfire on the popularity of President Uribe sooner or later.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 30, 2004, 17:19:

Ingrid I'm afraid you won't get any answers on that one. Colombians, as far as I know, are extremely ambivalent about Ingrid. I personally think that Uribe has made a major mistake in setting Ingrid's plight aside, making it as a minor incident in the bigger picture of how to resolve the problem of the Farc captives. As much as we'd like to think that she is not more important than all the rest of the anonymous hostages, the truth is that in the rest of the world she is the number one most important hostage, and the way president Uribe is handling the situation is not giving him any credit.
I don't pretend to have any answers for your question; this is a tough one....anybody else?

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 1, 2004, 18:55:

I think it's odd I haven't been in Colombia that long but I think it's odd to say that Uribe doesn't have a policy toward kidnapping when the number of kidnappings has been reduced so dramatically since he's been in power. That seems like a pretty good start. Or is the only acceptable policy to you a prisoners for hostages exchange? As feel-good as that seems, I think Uribe's policy that it's either an all for all or no swap. Trading FARC VIPs for kidnapped VIPs (which is generally the European position) just seems ridiculous, classist and asking for more kidnappings.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 2, 2004, 12:35:

It's about those held hostage "Setting aside Ingrid Betancourt for a moment, can someone explain why a couple of the posts frame the 3000 or so hostages as a Uribe issue?"

Because the Executive branch under Mr. Uribe is responsible for national security. You might as well dismiss an upsurge in criminality as a "societal issue", not something that the police should really take care of.

But, admittedly, the situation of citizens kidnapped by FARC or ELN is different from other security issues. Not only it has important political components, but it is related to a particular and very concrete group of people that are suffering it as we speak, and requires immediate solution. Ingrid's liberation campaign reminds us that this is not an abstract issue, but about the wellness of 3000 or so individuals. A plan to bring them back from their current condition is as necessary as absent. So, to answer Tinto's question, no, it doesn't have anything to do with Mr. Uribe disdain for NGOs.

"I think it's odd to say that Uribe doesn't have a policy toward kidnapping when the number of kidnappings has been reduced so dramatically since he's been in power"

1. The number of kidnappings has been reduced only in official stats. Other reports (like AI's) indicate that in many regions of Colombia (like Arauca) the situation is worse (if such a thing is imaginable) than before the current defense policy was put into place.

2. I don't contend that the Uribe administration doesn't have a policy for preventing kidnappings (which is very questionable, but not the issue here). My problem is with those specific 3000 or so held hostage.

Could anyone direct me to the official document where the "all for all or no swap" policy is described? Does it specify what the government will do in case of "no swap"?

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 4, 2004, 09:14:

Read the numbers carefully The statistics that Tinto kindly provides come from a government source (this time, Planeación Nacional). Previously, statistics provided by the Human Rights Observatory (adscribed to the Vicepresidency) and the Ministry of Defense have been questioned on the basis of their odd definition of what constitutes kidnapping. Note that in the stats above, the Colombian armed forces are not responsible for a single abduction, quite remarkable if you consider that the Colombian armed forces is one of the most notorious violators of human rights worldwide. Could it be because, at least according to the Uribe definition of kidnapping, government officials and their associates cannot, by definition, commit such a crime? Forced dissapearance does not constitute kidnapping. Even though the issuing government agency seems to change from report to report, the same definition seems to be in place. I'm still hesitant about considering the reduction of human right violations at a conceptual level real progress.

NGOs like Justicia y Paz and CINEP have offered far more inclusive definitions, which have also been questioned. According to a report from the Department of State (it came out a couple of months ago, but I've been unable to find it), a recommended approach to these statistics is to assume that the actual number is somewhere in between, and that progress in human rights violations in general under the Uribe administration is not certain. When I hear about 2000 people in Saravena being arrested without charges, the observations of the department of state certainly resonate in me.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 4, 2004, 10:48:

Are you in Colombia? Are you in Colombia Sr Tertius? Because most people here don't seem to share your disdain for the government statistics.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sam Salmon says on May 4, 2004, 14:04:

"Forced dissapearance does no "Forced dissapearance does not constitute kidnapping"
That's right-it's murder



' a la orden!'

' a la orden!'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PC says on May 4, 2004, 22:25:

Practicality vs Idealism I've been accused of being a Uribe supporter. Well you know what? I am guilty as charged, but not to the extent that I would sychophantically endorse his every action.

I think he was dead wrong in supporting the US invasion of Iraq for example, although as a matter of practicality it's obvious to me that he had little choice. I probably would have done the same, and I think that is really the crux of the matter.

It's a matter of practicality, kidnapping is certainly a huge problem in Colombia. But right now Uribe has bigger fish to fry. The entire nation is at risk from a variety of forces. The Farc, the ELN, the AUC, the drug trade in general.

I think instead of worrying about what is or is not written in some document somewhere, the real concern is patent. Uribe has a war to fight and all of his resources and energies have to go into it. With elimination of, or at least serious reduction of the rebellious groups, the kidnapping problem will subside on it's own as well.

Although seemingly good points were made that most kidnappings were for ransom, what was not pointed out is that many if not most of those kidnap victims are sold to the FARC who then request the ransom.

By the way, Uribe does have or at least did have at least two major policy initiatives aimed at reduction of kidnapping, both controversial. I'm not sure what became of them, perhaps someone here can tell us.

1) He had an initiative that would make it a federal crime to pay a ransom.

2) He was pushing for the elimination of kidnapping insurance.

I think the premis was that paying a ransom tends to encourage kidnapping (for obvious reasons). I have not followed it for a while so I don't really know what became of these things. Although these may not be the most acceptable measures for the families of the kidnap victims, they are certainly evidence that he had a clear and practical policy towards resolving the issue. The real debate would be whether that policy is a good one. I think that would be a very legitimate and interesting one.

Personally, I don't know which side of that fence I would come down on. It's a real tough issue. I would be interested in hearing other peoples thougths about this.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 5, 2004, 07:38:

"Idealism" vs. Illegality Mr. Hollywood: I lived in Colombia for 14 years, studied its politics, worked with communities in a "zona roja" and have friends currently working in places like San Pablo, which I personally invite you to visit. I don't know where is that "here" that "most people" live in, but it certainly isn't San Pablo or Saravena. Note that I don't go around boasting my credentials unless I get a very Uribista ad hominem reply (did you hear Uribe in RCN? Oh! That was a classic!)

Sam Salmon: No, forced dissapearances are not murders. Before making such blunt statements, I suggest you check a bit of the history of forced dissapearances in Colombia. The last time I checked, human rights advocates were lobbying the Colombian Congress to typify it as a felony on its own, since murder trials cannot be conducted without death certificates. I believe the law went through to the latest penal code, but both the Pastana and the Uribe administrations refuse to include them in their statistics.

Tinto: Yes, the comparison is a little extreme. We are supposed to have human rights now.

PC: The Uribe administration does have an elaborate prevention plan for kidnappings, but as I said, I don't think that is the topic here. You believe that the lives of ~3000 Colombians should not be the priority of the Uribe administration, but it should rather focus on the continuation of a decades old war that has taken us nowhere, and the compliance with US policy in drug trade. That, like matters of faith, I cannot dispute. And if you appreciate a government that blatantly disregards the Constitution (stuff "written in some document somewhere") because of its own priorities, we are definitely living in two different universes.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sam Salmon says on May 5, 2004, 11:59:

Sam Salmon: No, forced disapp Sam Salmon: No, forced disappearances are not murders. Before making such blunt statements, I suggest you check a bit of the history of forced disappearances in Colombia. The last time I checked, human rights advocates were lobbying the Colombian Congress to typify it as a felony on its own, since murder trials cannot be conducted without death certificates

I understand what you mean however but I believe you're hairsplitting.The people in question have had been murdered just as I would squash a bug-what the legal definition is brings cold comfort to their relatives.


' a la orden!'

' a la orden!'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PC says on May 6, 2004, 00:53:

Priorities Well, I'm not going to let you suck me into an argument about the Uribe administration and it's respect for the constition. What I was addressing was the fallacy of your claim that Uribe does not consider the kidnapping issue a high priority. He does and your own statements confirm even your acknowledgement of it. I did not see Pastrana or Samper do squat about it, at least Uribe is acting, even if not in the way you would like. The problem is he just does not have the resources to deal with it more aggressively. He can not sacrifice the needs of 40 million people in favor of the needs of 3000 unfortunates in captivity. He must make the nation safe first. And that really is beginning to happen.

The fact is that this decades old war really has taken a turn and things have very significantly improved under Uribe's leadership, and at least 70% of Colombians know and appreciate it. San Pablo and Saravena are not all of Colombia, and I serously doubt that attitudes are the same even there today as they were just a couple of years ago. Things really have changed, they have a long way to go to be sure. But it is working.

You say you were in Colombia for 14 years, but are you there now? Have you spent much time there recently? I do. I spend about 1/4 of my year there. For many years I had to stop going because the situation was so bad. But each time I go now, I see more and more gringos, more and more Colombians returning for the first time in years, and more and more happy faces than ever before.

Unfortunately I still see plenty of desplacias in the streets, it is very sad indeed and a sure reminder that there is still a long way to go. However, I rarely encounter anyone at all unhappy about Uribe's handling of the situation.

The fact is the only people I have ever encounterd who are unhappy about Uribe's leadership are right here on this message board. So far I don't think any are Colombians, only sanctimonious gringos. By the way, that really is not meant as a jibe at you. I appreciate your discourse and don't want to gang up on you, but you do seem to be defending the indefensable and a lot of people have picked up on it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PC says on May 6, 2004, 00:56:

Priorities Part Dos By the way, the above commend of mine should have been addressed to Sr. Tertious. Sorry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 6, 2004, 07:42:

Trading off fundamental rights???? Sam: I agree with you. But, wouldn't you agree that when you are "dissappeared" you have also been kidnapped? If so, how come they don't appear in government human rights statistics? If you ask Mr. Francisco Santos he will tell you that they are not "technically" kidnapped or murdered. It's not my definition or my hairsplitting, but the government's, and there's an agenda behind such technicalities.

PC:

"He can not sacrifice the needs of 40 million people in favor of the needs of 3000 unfortunates in captivity." Unfortunately, the government cannot trade off (according to the Colombian Constitution) the fundamental rights of certain people for those of others, regardless of how many they are (check Arts. 2 and 12). These are fundamental rights, they are not negotiable. If you think they should be negotiable even if that implies the violation of the Constitution, then, as I said, we face a disagreement that cannot be solved through debate.

"Things really have changed, they have a long way to go to be sure. But it is working". And so we were told 50 years ago. Given the precedents and the lack of (non-anecdotal) evidence, your optimism seems more based on faith (which I don't dispute) than on reason. There's a good caricature of Fabio Echeverri on that matter here: http://www.conexioncolombia.com/conexioncolombia/content/page.jsp?ID=1995

Paragraph 4: Can we stop the ad hominem arguments before they get embarrasing? a) I'm Colombian (hopefully not too sanctimonious, though) b) I travel to Bogota and other cities in Colombia regularly c) I don't see why my place of residence is anyone's business d) I don't share your optimism e) Suggestion: attack the arguments (hopefully with something other than anecdotes) not the person.

"The fact is the only people I have ever encounterd who are unhappy about Uribe's leadership are right here on this message board." Whoa! You really don't know any Colombians that are unhappy with Uribe? No wonder you have such a rosy view of Colombia! I suggest you get some reading done, here's a bunch of "unhappy" Colombians you may want to read (and this is just a small sample): Daniel Samper Pizano (El Tiempo), Antonio Caballero (Semana), Alfredo Molano (El Espectador), Ramiro Bejarano (El Espectador), Antonio Navarro (Revista Cambio), Fernando Garavito (used to be in El Espectador, now is exiled thanks to Mr. Uribe), geez! even some columnists leaning to the right like Juan Camilo Restrepo (El Tiempo) and Hernando Gomez Buendia (Semana) have been very critical of Mr. Uribe. You can also talk to my Senator and former Supreme Court Justice Mr. Carlos Gaviria (he is VERY unhappy), or any non-government human rights advocate (they are REALLY unhappy too). Or to many of my friends in Colombia, but I would not list them here ;)

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 6, 2004, 15:22:

A sobering article Tinto: I mostly agree with your picture. I would only dispute the crime stats and the characterization of FARC, ELN and AUC as "nothing more than organized, brutal criminal gangs" (I think they are that, but not JUST that).

Here's a sobering article I just came across. It may inform a bit this discussion. It's a shame it doesn't provide sources.

http://www.waronwant.org/?lid=7513

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PC says on May 6, 2004, 22:27:

Attacking at all Sr Tertius,

I NEVER attacked the person. Read it again. In fact I thought I was quite supportive and appreciative of your discourse, even if I completely disagree with it.

"Trading off fundamental rights" is what happens during a state of emergency. As long as large portions of the country are under control of armed combattants the constitution is but a meaningless scrap of parchment. The law and the constitution have no real meaning unless there is an orderly context from which to apply them.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

fearless7 says on May 6, 2004, 23:55:

Progress I've been out for a while and have not kept up with news from Colombia. the last news I read was on the disapearance/death of Castano, leader of AUC. Since Uribe has come into power, he has accomplished many goals in ending the violence that has plagued Colombia for many years. In the past , I only read about the deaths, kidnaps, and assasination of civilians and politicians. It seemed for a while Colombia was heading toward futher instability. Now, I see that Uribe's government has placed military presences in areas that were once controlled by the cartels and the guerrillas. Although this may raise human rights violation in these regions, it will also bring legitamcy to the government. It will also bring certainty that one of the government's priorities is to bring stablity to its people who rightly deserve after a decade of terror from the cartels, guerrillas, and paramilitaries. I hope one day Colombia will be seen as a country with many potentials to lead South America into a new era.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 10, 2004, 08:07:

Advocating for the "good ol' days"? PC,

"'Trading off fundamental rights' is what happens during a state of emergency."

The Colombian Constitution includes some provisions for an state of emergency, which the Uribe administration used extensively and would like to extend even more.

"The law and the constitution have no real meaning unless there is an orderly context from which to apply them."

Read what you wrote a couple of times and you'll see how little sense it makes. The law is intended to provide such orderly context, otherwise, what would be the guidelines to provide such order if there is no law to follow? Unless, of course, you advocate for a tyranny, which seems to be the case when you mention that there are circumstances under which the Constitution is "meaningless". Call me a "democratic fundamentalist" if you will, but I believe as evidently better what a "dumb gringo" called "the government of law" over the "government of men".

Of course, nothing beats the king of the oxymorons, fearless7's "Although this may raise human rights violation in these regions, it will also bring legitamcy (sic) to the government"

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 10, 2004, 10:59:

Thanks Tertius Just for the record, S. Tertius, there was no ad hominum intent in my question. I was simply curious. Thanks for the POV.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PC says on May 13, 2004, 15:59:

Misrepresentation of Comments Sr. Tertius,

"The Colombian Constitution includes some provisions for an state of emergency, which the Uribe administration used extensively and would like to extend even more."

Precisely! And that state of emergency has meant the curtailment of certain rights. I don't argue that it isn't unfair, or ugly. I argue that it is a necessary evil, and furthermore, that it is in fact by
your own admission perfectly legal.

"Read what you wrote a couple of times and you'll see how little sense it makes."

It's funny how a statement taken out of context can be so misused and misconstrued to mean something so completely different than it's intended purpose.

I suggest you read all of what I wrote rather than isolated sentences. Perhaps it needs to be more patently stated. Basically I am saying that the kidnapping situation in Colombia can no more be controlled by legislation and programs than can the rising and setting of the sun.

I am also saying that if the armed groups are not forecefully put down, there will eventually be no law and no government. In fact that is quite realistically the case in many parts of Colombia today.
It's easy to sit on the sidelines and throw stones, it's quite another to take decisive action to solve the problem. Uribe is doing that, and most of the population of Colombia is benefitting from it.

People will always find something to complain about and frankly, I think that is a very good thing. No leader should be given carte blanche and not face consequences, so although I disagree with much of what you write, go on writing it because I for one think it's very healthy. I'd appreciate it though if you could refrain from misrepresenting my statements.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

adela says on Jun 14, 2004, 09:36:

from José Saramago "Uribe tiene tres mil motivos para no dormir
Por José Saramago (1)
(Publicado por El Periódico de Catalunya)

La situación de los secuestrados en Colombia llegó a un punto crítico que el Gobierno del presidente Álvaro Uribe no parece interesado en resolver.

Por un lado, los intentos de liberación cometidos por el Ejército siempre han causado víctimas entre los secuestrados y, por otro lado, al negarse a cualquier iniciativa que pudiera conseguir lo que las armas no han logrado, el presidente Uribe, voluntaria o involuntariamente, bloquea cualquier hipótesis de solución.

A todo esto ha venido a añadirse ahora un preocupante dato, el de que las familias de los secuestrados están siendo amenazadas de muerte por exigir que les sean restituidos sus parientes, algunos de ellos llevando ya siete años de secuestro.

La situación se está volviendo insostenible, 3.000 vidas humanas son despreciadas en aras de la razón de Estado y el Gobierno del presidente Uribe no hace más que administrar políticamente las angustias y el terror de la población de su país.

Es hora de que la comunidad internacional, tan justamente preocupada por la suerte de los secuestrados en Irak, ponga también los ojos en lo que está ocurriendo en Colombia. Tres mil personas exigen que sus vidas no sean utilizadas como peones en un ajedrez de intereses que no son los suyos.

El presidente Álvaro Uribe tiene por lo menos 3.000 motivos para no dormir bien. No puedo más que desearle buenos y largos insomnios.

(Difundido por Altercom, el 30 de abril de 2004)

1. Premio Nobel de Literatura en 1998. Su última novela publicada es Ensayo sobre la lucidez. "

Màs fe, màs abrazos, màs besos, màs disculpas, màs visitas a nuestros amigos antiguos nos haràn màs plenos cada vez.

0 funny, 0 helpful.