Interview with a journalist in exile

juancegomez says on Mar 18, 2006, 09:03:

And I thought that Devil's advocacy wasn't necessary today... Look, I sincerely hate to be the Devil's advocate, but since I usually find that nobody else assumes that role here...I'm stuck with it, like it or not, because a lot of other things tend to be left unsaid. If that means that I have to act in a way that may contradict my personal beliefs, for the sake of my intellectual ones, then so be it.

GringoD: There are many other articles about this matter, both in English and in Spanish, several of which are better written and have plenty of other details not mentioned here.

Tinto: "Some of the death threats appear to have come from a cattle rancher/para/narco who travels in the same social circles as President Uribe."

That, however, doesn't really clear anything up. Those are the same social circles that many other people have also traveled through and continue to do so, for that matter, and one doesn't see them all being immediately linked to these kinds of situations for that reason alone.

Perhaps because sharing the same social circles doesn't automatically transfer the blame to everyone else there, to people that may or may not want or even need to be involved in such criminal behavior?

And as much as one might not like the guy, freely calling Carlos Nader a paramilitary does not appear to be accurate at all. Calling him a former narco, or a former associate of narcos and/or paramilitaries, is actually closer to what his record implies.

On the article itself:

"Coronell's recent problems began after critical coverage of the president's demobilization compacts with paramilitary groups tied to drug lords."

The article doesn't mention that Coronell had also investigated and written about Carlos Nader himself in an unfavorable light, dealing with subjects not directly related to the above.

That, ostensibly, would appear be a more plausible reason for the threats than to vaguely establish a merely circumstancial chronological relation between the (cleverly worded) "critical coverage of the president's demobilization compacts with paramilitary groups tied to drug lords" and the threats.

"If the government can't protect Daniel Coronell, who is one of the best-known and highly regarded journalists, it certainly can't protect them"

The government did provide protection to Mr. Coronell (for starters, who else would give him the armored cars and bodyguards then?), as he himself has admitted several times, but providing absolute protection is certainly out of the question, because it's impossible.

Especially when you have a multifront war going on, a still high crime rate, and lots of warring illegal forces, leading to a situation that is mostly outside anyone's control. Even journalists that are less than critical of government policy (ie: even journalists that are pro-government) have also been threatened or murdered, as can be easily proven.

Nevertheless, murders and threats to journalists have generally been reduced during the last few years, compared to what the situation was 10 or 20 years ago. None of this started with Uribe and none of it will automatically end without Uribe, at least not in the short term, so the tacit jabs at Uribe's reelection at the end of the article are irrelevant.

juancegomez says on Mar 18, 2006, 09:11:

Continued... Tinto:

"This article says that President Uribe's sons used the computer which is the source of some of the death threats."

And does that somehow prove that they were the ones that sent the threats or anything like that? Do you happen have a complete list of all the people that may have used that computer?

"Why Uribe continues to socialize with a convicted drug dealer escapes me."

One can only guess, so your guess is as good as mine.

But, well, would you stop socializing with people that were your friends for years and have done you no wrong?

If they were previously involved in criminal behavior or merely accused of doing so, but later served their sentences and/or otherwise may have changed their conduct, does that mean that they are no longer your friends?

Perhaps you might say "yes", and maybe I would agree, but such "moral clarity" is rare in this world.

"But it's juicy meat for those who think his grand plan is "legitimize" the AUC and the narcos and further increase their power in national affairs."

Well, the people that think that will continue to do so with or without that so-called "juicy meat"...which is often closer to being "scraps of meat" than anything else.

juancegomez says on Mar 18, 2006, 09:28:

.... Tinto:

"What is it about Colombian cattle ranching that makes it so profitable?"

Adequately answering that question lies probably somewhat outside the scope of this discussion and my own very limited knowledge about the economics of cattle ranching.

"Why is the National Cattlemen's Association a war target for the FARC?"

Because its members own/owned large extensions of land and, from the FARC's point of view, have been seen as "oligarchs" and thus fair game.

They've been a traditional war target for the FARC for decades, even before the AUC existed, even before the MAS. Almost by definition, one expects rural guerrillas to target rural landowners and their properties.

"Could it be that many of the large landowners/cattle ranches in Colombian are hand in glove with the AUC and narcotraffickers?"

That may be a reasonable assumption, yes, given that there are plenty of cases where they have been involved in such activities.

But even that doesn't mean that the bunch of them *are* also AUC and narcotraffickers themselves in every single case.

To put it one way...many AUC leaders are also cattle ranchers or landowners, but not all cattle ranchers or landowners are AUC.

platano says on Mar 18, 2006, 09:50:

Round Two Tinto: "What is it about Colombian cattle ranching that makes it so profitable?"

juancegomez: "Adequately answering that question lies probably somewhat outside the scope of this discussion and my own very limited knowledge about the economics of cattle ranching."

While apparently a reasonable answer, this answer dodges the question and is really disingenuous... apparently a refusal to face a hard reality.

I give Tinto the point on this round.

:)

plátano

juancegomez says on Mar 18, 2006, 09:58:

... Tinto: That's a fairly reasonable and shared hope, but, here it comes, the comparison with Chile is a bit uncalled for.

Any critical look, even "without fear of assassination", will still be very different, much more morally ambiguous.

Even in Chile, a minority of Chileans, btw, still appreciate or at least "understand as necessary" what Pinochet did.

In Colombia, if the institutions have been compromised, it has been so because of many factors, not mainly because of an authoritarian dictator as was the case in Chile.

In Chile, the state was strong and capable of being centrally authoritarian to begin with (even under democratic Allende, the state was quite fit), thus one could say that Pinochet's regime itself was the driving force being much of the later problems. Once it was out of the way, it didn't take much for things to go back to normal.

Here, the state has always been weak, unfit and only marginally capable of direct authoritarism, while the driving forces have been mostly private individuals.

In Chile, the state didn't have to deal with anything like guerrillas and druglords, even before the paramilitaries came into the scene.

Here, one could well say that, without the druglords (and, by extension, without the needless Prohibition that created them), neither the guerrillas nor the paramilitaries would have compromised an all already weak institutionality.

juancegomez says on Mar 18, 2006, 10:03:

... platano:

"While apparently a reasonable answer, this answer dodges the question and is really disingenuous... apparently a refusal to face a hard reality."

I cannot answer the question because I honestly don't know about the economics of cattle ranching. Like it or not.

Knowing that, it would be far too naive and ignorant to say something so simplistic like "oh wait, even though I know nothing about the real economics involved, I will guess that cattle ranching is so profitable because...it's related to paramilitarism and narcotrafficking".

I refuse to give such a simplistic answer. I do not refuse to say that many cattle ranchers are involved in drugs and in paramilitarism, and that certainly should help them gain profits, but that doesn't mean that "cattle ranchers are rich because they are all involved in drugs and paramilitarism".

That is not a "reality", but a guess.

"I give Tinto the point on this round."

You can give him all the points, for what it matters.

platano says on Mar 18, 2006, 10:46:

juancegomez, I owe you an apology... I spoke before doing research. My research of the raw data in the DANE statistics indicates that cattle ranching is extremely profitable. The sector is growing: "Durante el año de 2005, el sacrificio de ganado vacuno, en 63 municipios que se investigan actualmente a nivel nacional, fue de 2 143 241 cabezas. Esta cifra fue superior en 1,36% comparada con la de igual período de 2004."

The entire Colombia economy is producing wealth under the able leadership of Uribe. For example, take these statistics of IPL and IRH (indice de productividad laboral and indice de remuneración por horas) in 2005.

1ST QUARTER 2005..... IPL=90.17..... IRH=125.03
2ND QUARTER 2005..... IPL=100.42... IRH=126.28
3RD QUARTER 2005..... IPL=126.33... IRH124.78
4TH QUARTER 2005..... IPL=163.06... IRH=131.35

This indicates almost double the productivity with only a slight increase in hourly wages in an economy that is growing. That is a recipe for tremendous profits!

plátano

platano says on Mar 18, 2006, 10:58:

Tinto, with juancegomez' permission, you are awarded... all the points. Game over?

plátano

platano says on Mar 18, 2006, 11:25:

GringoD, I haven't been a cattle rancher for years now... That's why I was surprised how profitable it is now. All the titles I can refer you to are older ones...

Curso de producción de ganado de carne : con enfasis en condiciones semi-intensivas / by Valencia Real, José Darío. Medellín : Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2001

Ganado BON : contribución a la preservación y propagación del ganado criollo colombiano / by Segura Caro, Juan Aicardo.; Ossa Londoño, Jorge. [Colombia] : Biogénesis Fondo Editorial, 2003

An appraisal of cattle production service utilisation in Colombia using the stakeholder analysis approach / by Romero-Prada, Jaime-Ricardo. 2001

La ganadería en América Latina : Colombia = [The cattle raising in Latin America] / by Gómez Picón, Alirio. Bogotá : Ediciones Tercer Mundo, 1976

Potential to increase beef production in tropical America. Seminar on Potential to Increase Beef Production in Tropical America (1974 : Cali, Colombia : Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical

El sol ecuatorial en el futuro de la ganadería / by Durán Castro, Carlos. [Bogotá : s.n., 1974

Some aspects of the cattle industry on the North Coast Plains of Colombia / by Rivas Ríos, Libardo. Cali, Colombia : Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, 1974

Perspectivas de Colombia en el mercado internacional de carne de res. by García Samper, Alfredo. [Bogotá] Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Centro de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo, 1970

plátano

tejasmarcos says on Mar 18, 2006, 15:23:

Not one for gossip, nor do i have much of a true research background on the subject. just something i ran across the other night doing research before my move to medellin. the usa implications are definitely believable, not sure about the rest. judge for yourself,

www.narconews.com/narcocandidate1.html

my glass is getting shorter on whiskey, ice and water...

juancegomez says on Mar 18, 2006, 15:44:

That isn't really new...nor accurate. That article is several years old, the claims were repeated in other outlets both before and after it was published.

It also omitts many things, mixes up a few truths with plenty of half-truths, and generally does a poor job of proving its conclusions. It just piles up circumstantial evidences, tosses in numerous other allegations and holds them together with clever prose.

Pretty much what the standard conspiracy theorist does these days.

Once I even sent them a few e-mails respectfully stating my opinions about their article and the inaccurate parts that it has, but they never really replied.

tejasmarcos says on Mar 18, 2006, 16:14:

kinda thought so i thought the part about the chemical precursor was pretty interesting though, as i have no real knowledge of how to make cocaine. it does not suprise me that the usa would more or less turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, being part of a political agenda and all. after all what would we do without the WAR on drugs? what would the politicians do without it? kinda makes you think. i also liked that whole thing on the maximum amount of the chemical that is allowed before it has to be registered with the regulators. hmmm. kinda like the maximum $9,999 deposit in a federally insured US BANK before it has to be reported to the feds/treasury. that is how the majority of drug money is washed in the states. it is a series of wired funds that span the globe after that, as i understand it. makes one stop and think, doesn't it? how a simple (not really, but effective anyways) change to a few areas of US LAW would make it extremely difficult to produce cocaine and then in turn extremely difficult to get the profits out of the states. maybe then, colombian farmers could learn how to grow sugar cane and import a commodity like ethanol to the USA (sorry, had to borrow from CNN's oil report tonight). then the usa auto manufacturer's could begin producing cars like Brazil that actually run on the clean burning fuel. oops, that would demotivate future WAR scenarios in oil rich countries like the middle east. maybe we should make cars that run on cocaine. maybe i should be a politician. oh, i forgot, i'm not corrupt enough. maybe that is what money and power is really good for. maybe not..........

my glass is getting shorter on whiskey, ice and water...

poco says on Mar 18, 2006, 17:01:

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are NOT OUT TO GET YOU !!!!

then the usa auto manufacturer's could begin producing cars like Brazil that actually run on the clean burning fuel.

Within the borders of the United States, produced by U.S. car makers,, we have…..
5 million cars RIGHT NOW and more on the way, a lot more. These cars can run on E85 fuel. Gosh,, is that ethanol ?

Ethonol Fuel explained Should they miss something or not explain why, how many etc. Don’t hesitate to post, I’ll be happy to point you in the right direction.

Watch out ,, you don’t want to get lumped into the group that at one time thought the world is flat and are now promoting killer coke.

Brought to you by a proud owner of Archer Daniels Midland - Bread basket to the world and soon to become another OPEC. I can't wait for the obscene profit tax to be levied.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

juancegomez says on Mar 18, 2006, 17:28:

Btw, the NN people did at least publish a long reply that GMP sent them as a response to their article (in Spanish), though they seem to have never addressed the points raised by GMP.

Also, there are some other links on the entire Pedro Juan Moreno (who, btw, recently died in a helicopter crash) matter here and here.

It appears that the DEA and a U.S. judge eventually had to release the shipments after a long series of legal battles in both the U.S. and in Colombia.

tejasmarcos says on Mar 18, 2006, 18:05:

i think the spin was that Brazil is managing to become less and eventually non reliant upon forein energy sources such as petroleum and the middle east. they did not go into price advantage/disadvantages. also, there was a type of technology(flex-fuel?) that allowed the cars (2003 development) to either run a mix of ethanol or 100% ethanol. the drawback discussed was less mpg. however, what i took from it was how Brazil was using all that land for resources that were not associated with any direct violence like the coca crops. i have heard a little about the ethanol industry in the states, but not much. seems to be mainly a political play. also, it think the ethanol in the states is derived from corn or corn by product. the usa would have a harder time growing sugar year round due to the season changes. i think that the colombian farmers need another viable crop and the sugar cane / fuel association sounded like something that could be emulated.

*** just read your wikipedia piece. very interesting. looks like colombia has actually jumped on the ethanol bandwagon as of 6 months ago or so. hmmmm. guess we'll see where it goes from here.

my glass is getting shorter on whiskey, ice and water...

poco says on Mar 18, 2006, 20:48:

A quick study Great,, I get a warm fuzzy feeling when someone does a little home work.

GM E85 Go Green page
there is a continued commitment. E85 plus other alternatives.

The U.S. E85 fuel mainly required the 15% (or more in some cases) gasoline additive for cold weather performance. Not a great a problem in South America.

The E85 fuel was popular in the midwest several years ago and the use has steadily increased.

You are right, the U.S. requires A LOT of gasoline. I remember reading that it would be impossible to produce enough corn to supply the need. This might lead to another type crop,, who knows? Genetic Engineering. :)

I've seen conversions from gasoline to bottled gas on a few small (chevy LUV sized) Colombian pickups. The bottle can be large and I've seen it installed below the custom fabricated stake beds.
Many NEW small pickups are purchased w/o the bed. Frame and cab only.

They take their truck to a local fabrication shop to have the stake bed fabricated and installed. Hard to believe,, these stake bed fabricators receive HUGE and LONG pieces of timber, you can tell, they have been cut directly from the log,, and make one of these.





I've seen them fabricate a bed for a semi sized cattle truck.

Pretty simple to obtain, drive by, tell them what you want. They build it and install it on the truck.

They also make step ladders, extension ladders and anything you ask them to fabricate if it is within their capabilities. They have made half a dozen Parrot perches. Wood so hard the Parrot can't chew it in half. Yep,, almost like ladder rungs. :)

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

poco says on Mar 19, 2006, 01:58:

Farming and Ranching I'm going to have to look into the cattle ranching business in Colombia. It seems quite lucrative. Just about every time I read about a cattle rancher in Colombia, he is a former congressman, owns real estate in Miami and/or Madrid and lives in a guarded compound in one of the principal cities.

1. Because the peso has not been stable over the long term anyone with ANY money will invest it in HARD assets. House, land, farms, gold or get it out of the country. One dollar bought 35 pesos in 1975. Ten (10) pesos would buy a small farm 45 years ago.

2. My GF has friends, relatives and family who live on farms. Owners of most larger farms (over 500 acres?) DO NOT live on the farm. Too dangerous, too many threats too many kidnappings. They have employees to manage the operations. These owners are likely the ones you see living in the “compounds�. I would too if someone was trying to do me harm.

3. The owners do return to these farms and ranches for “vacations?� the major time being the month of January during the local fares. I’ve seen some fine horses and horsemanship on display. Complete with Spanish black costumes and white ruffled shirt these guys look “sharp�. In a few cases they have beautiful women but mostly they are only attractive. Horses are auctioned during this period, no nags,, most sell for the price of a car,, minimum.

4. Profit ?? I do know that the farms and ranches hire “full time 24 hour per day security guards and arm them. This is a good paying job for an uneducated and unskilled worker. One man I know is one of 50 assigned to guard a farm. These guards “rotate� between farms, never staying at one location more than a month. (wonder why). Owning this type farm will cost a 25 MILLION (plus) pesos per month in security pay. Revised,, that is direct wages to the employees. The security employees are on 'contracts'. Don't know the markup for the general. Oh,, don't forget the area security force. They patrol roads and verify access at road blocks. These are referred to as Paramilitaries.

5. Not much safety on the farms for the employees. They are poor but who cares if there is something to steal. Theft is especially bad in the Buga area. Not a good place to work as a guard.

Nice to think these guys are rich and live well,, however there are quite a few who are poor (money wise) farmer landowners and they too are targets. Rich is in the eyes of the guys looking to obtain something for nothing.

Make no mistake, those that murder women and children are a threat.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

poco says on Mar 19, 2006, 08:25:

Dying to have a lot of money Imagine,, ONE MILLION PESOS 35 years ago, the envy of everyone, now, a worn out vespa type moto.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

Blue says on Mar 20, 2006, 08:50:

Tinto Seems pretty obvious. Uribe is destined for the Hague. Adding insult to injury, I read somewhere that journalists in Colombia make around $350USD per month.

Blue

juancegomez says on Mar 20, 2006, 09:33:

... "Seems pretty obvious. Uribe is destined for the Hague."

Really? Well, thankfully, in the event that would ever happen, at least the Hague (for all the flaws it may have) is much more objective and serious, and less impulsive and prejudiced than other people I could mention.

That something may be "obvious" to you doesn't mean that it will stand when being closely analyzed in a court of law at the Hague or elsewhere, where due process would have to be followed and both sides will have to present and analyze evidence, not merely rely on ideological mandates and on circumstance.

And, just as well, the degree of responsability that would apply to a given person, state or institution has to be legally determined, not merely derived from the wording of any potential accuser. Just because you believe that something is true doesn't mean that it will be proven to be the case.

Using only a simplistic reasoning, then one could easily say that George W. Bush is already destined for the Hague too.

Blue says on Mar 20, 2006, 10:00:

This is an older article but paints a good picture of this guy.

Blue



President Uribe’s Hidden Past

Colombia Journal Online
May 24, 2004

Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe is, by his own admission, a man of the right. Unlike most recent Colombian presidents, Uribe is from the land-owning class. He inherited huge swathes of cattle ranching land from his father Alberto Uribe, who was subject to an extradition warrant to face drug trafficking charges in the United States until he was killed in 1983, allegedly by leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas. Alvaro Uribe grew up with the children of Fabio Ochoa, three of who became leading players in Pablo Escobar's Medellín cocaine cartel.
President Uribe's credentials are impeccable. He was educated at Harvard and Oxford, is as sharp as a tack, and a very able bureaucrat. At the tender age of 26 he was elected mayor of Medellín, the second-largest city of Colombia. The city's elite in the 1980s was rich, corrupt and nepotistic, and they loved the young Uribe. But the new mayor was removed from office after only three months by a central government embarrassed by his public ties to the drug mafia. Uribe was then made Director of Civil Aviation, where he used his mandate to issue pilots' licenses to Pablo Escobar's fleet of light aircraft, which routinely flew cocaine to the United States.

In 1995, Uribe became governor of the Antioquia department, of which Medellín is the capital. The region became the testing ground for the institutionalization of paramilitary forces that he has now made a key plank of his presidency. Government-sponsored peasant associations called Convivir's were "special private security and vigilance services, designed to group the civilian population alongside the Armed Forces."

Security forces and paramilitary groups enjoyed immunity from prosecution under Governor Uribe, and they used this immunity to launch a campaign of terror in Antioquia. Thousands of people were murdered, "disappeared," detained and driven out of the region. In the town of San Jose de Apartadó for example, three of the Convivir leaders were well-known paramilitaries and had been trained by the Colombian Army's 17th Brigade. In 1998, representatives of more than 200 Convivir associations announced that they would unite with the paramilitary organization, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), under its murderous leader Carlos Castaño.

When Uribe launched his campaign for president, the candidate's paramilitary connections appeared to deter many journalists from examining the ties between drug gangs and the Uribe family. An exception was Noticias Uno, a current affairs program on the TV station Canal Uno. In April 2002, the program ran a series on alleged links between Uribe and the Medellín drug cartel. After the reports aired, unidentified men began calling the news station, threatening to kill the show's producer Ignacio Gómez, director Daniel Coronell, and Coronell's 3-year-old daughter, who was flown out of the country soon thereafter. Gómez was also forced to flee Colombia and is currently living in exile.

Noticias Uno told the story of how in 1997, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized 50,000 kilos of potassium permanganate from a ship docked in San Francisco. Potassium permanganate is a chemical used in the production of cocaine. The cargo was on its way to Colombia to be delivered to a company called GMP Chemical Products. The owner of GMP was Pedro Moreno Villa GMP, Uribe's presidential campaign manager. The chemicals seized were sufficient to produce $15 billion worth of cocaine. The DEA confirmed that GMP was Colombia's biggest importer of potassium permanganate between 1994 and 1998, when Uribe was governor of Medellin and Moreno Villa was his chief of staff.

As the Presidential race intensified, journalists became increasingly concerned that media bosses were threatening their editorial independence. Two powerful business groups with ties to the political establishment own RCN and Caracol, the biggest television and radio networks in Colombia. Journalists' concerns were further heightened when Uribe picked a member of the Santos family, which owns the country's most influential daily newspaper, to be his vice-president.

Despite his links to paramilitaries and drug cartels, Uribe won the presidency. But to call Uribe's victory a landslide—as many in and outside Colombia did—is a gross distortion of the facts. Uribe received 53 percent of the official vote, but only 25 percent of the electorate voted. Many urban and middle class Colombians, who have been largely sheltered from the civil war, were thoroughly disillusioned by the peace process of outgoing-President Andrés Pastrana, and backed hardliner Uribe. But the election was hardly a fair one.

Mapiripán is the site of one of the worst paramilitary massacres to date, yet many of the town's residents voted for the "paramilitary" candidate, Uribe. Father Javier Giraldo of the Colombian human rights group Justicia y Paz was in Mapiripán on election day: "There was a great deal of fraud. There were paramilitaries in the voting booths. They destroyed a lot of ballots. This was denounced to the Ombudsman, but nothing happened." Electoral fraud, widespread paramilitary threats—denounced by virtually all the other candidates during the election campaign—and the almost total decimation of the electoral left in the preceding decade all contributed to Uribe's election victory.

Though Uribe has vowed that his "democratic security" platform will bring peace and security to all Colombians, statistics from the Trade Union School in Medellín show continued threats to trade unionists and human rights activists. The number of trade unionists killed in 2003 declined to a "mere" 90, suggesting that the paramilitaries were being reigned in a little. But the number of death threats issued were 20 percent higher, and death threats to trade unionists' families were up by 30 percent. Police raids, mass detentions and forced "disappearances" are also all higher than the previous year.

Uribe is clamping down on the opposition, while sidling yet closer to the Republican White House in Washington. Uribe was the only South American leader to back President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. At the time, he even went so far as to invite the United States to invade Colombia. Uribe hopes to double the size of the Colombian Armed Forces, and has asked the United States for more helicopters and greater involvement in areas such as intelligence gathering. Many in the Bush administration are keen to see the United States expand its multi-billion dollar military investment in "Plan Colombia." U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James T. Hill, for example, recently told a Senate committee, "It would be a terrible loss if democracy failed in Colombia. You need to let me get on the ground."

But before that happens, the United States is pushing for Uribe to reign in his illegal paramilitary allies. The peasant militias and million-strong informers' network that Uribe has launched are evidence of the way in which the paramilitary strategy is being institutionalized. Under the "state of unrest" that Uribe decreed upon assuming the presidency, the police and army were granted the right to detain citizens on the slightest suspicion of supporting the guerrillas, without evidence or legal counsel, and to enter people's homes without a warrant.

As Bush and Uribe have both said time and again, in the "war on terror" there can be no neutrals. President Uribe has branded those NGOs that do claim to occupy a non-partisan position on the armed conflict "political agitators in the service of terrorism, cowards who wrap themselves in the banner of human rights." Only pro-government, anti-guerrilla NGOs are being left untouched.

Uribe's strategy is to bring the war out into the open, to declare social organizations illegal, and to use the army and police against them directly, while holding "negotiations" with the paramilitaries. Given the murderous tactics that Uribe is prepared to resort to, it is easy to understand why trade unionists and human rights defenders are inclined to feel despondent. It also makes the unquestioning support being offered Uribe by the U.S. and British governments all the more immoral.

juancegomez says on Mar 20, 2006, 10:17:

... Blue: And a partisan and factually inaccurate opinion piece is relevant to the discussion in what way?

That really won't help your hypothetical case in the Hague much, you know. Though, of course, it may be sufficient to provide for summary judgement in the "Court of Blue". That must be what you mean by "good".

It's funny how certain people accuse others of "cherry picking" and spinning regarding the invasion of Iraq yet, among roughly the same group of people, it is completely okay to "cherry pick" and spin in other circumstances. Like this one, for example.

I initially thought you were more serious than that, Blue. It increasingly looks like that isn't the case.

Blue says on Mar 20, 2006, 10:38:

I'm surprised you're still posting after that comment about George Bush..hahaha.

Blue

juancegomez says on Mar 20, 2006, 10:48:

Well, "hahaha" all you want, if that makes you happy Not like that makes much of a difference though, given that you don't appear to want to discuss this seriously at all.

Blue says on Mar 20, 2006, 12:08:

No Wonder Bush Harvard MBA
Uribe Harvard MBA

Lol

Blue