Letter to President Alvaro Uribe

vladimiro says on Dec 16, 2007, 20:18:

I thought it was interesting that Noguera's lawyer visited Uribe nine times in 2 months.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 17, 2007, 08:06:

The existence of those visits remains "interesting" alright, as it's still subject to endless speculation according to each person's personal interpretations, until there is far more information.

In any case, rather selective quoting aside, this letter is already several months old and was possibly discussed here before.

It can be posted again and again if someone so chooses, obviously, but it's not exactly entirely new material. Parts of it remain interesting, I suppose, but others are outdated or at least there's more information available than that presented in the letter, for better and for worse.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rob77 says on Dec 17, 2007, 11:18:

I had not read the complete letter until now, and I find the letter telling, far beyond 'interesting'. And 9 visits shows more than just Noguera had/has something to hide. 9 visits is more about bargaining for something in exchange for Noguera keeping his mouth shut about what Uribe knew and did.

Of course, juan is good at reducing everything down to speculation. The best strategy in politics is to create doubt...

BOYCOTT CITGO - CHAVEZ SUCKS!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 17, 2007, 15:21:

Rob77: It's easy to argue that, but what if you happen to be wrong, partially or completely?

When such important subjects are being discussed, the consequences aren't a small matter. Serious accusations with grave consequences need more than just personal opinion and circumstances: they need proof.

What exactly was the possible bargain about? Paramilitarism, drug trafficking, corruption, other crimes, all of the above, none of the above? The real details are unknown at this time, and small differences can have real impact.

I usually prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than on the side of excess, until there's more information that either confirms or dismisses previous accusations. Or when there are other pieces of information that allow more possibilities than just "OMFG, Uribe is such a bastard, he's obviously doing XYZ....".

Not forcing anyone to share my line of thought, but that's how it is.

It's also how courts and judicial processes are *supposed* to work...there are such concepts as "innocent until proven guilty" and "proof beyond reasonable doubt". They can be interpreted differently, very differently, but the point is they exist.

I don't think it's supposed to be merely "political strategy" to give them at least some amount of consideration, let alone respect, but whatever...technically the "best political strategy" for me would be to mercilessly slam Uribe to the ground without delay, since I don't like the guy and never voted for him. I'm hardly going to "win" any favors from the pro-Uribe camp by doing this, when I've criticized him elsewhere and for other reasons.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Dec 17, 2007, 15:47:

"9 visits is more about bargaining for something in exchange for Noguera keeping his mouth shut about what Uribe knew and did."

Pretty easy to speculate. Aside from a dislike for Uribe, what exactly do you base this conclusion on? There are ANY number of plausible reasons for this series of meetings....

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rob77 says on Dec 17, 2007, 16:10:

You find it appropriate to meet with the lawyer of someone accused of corruption 9 times? That is not just the appearance of impropriety, it is impropriety.

slguy, why do you assume I dislike Uribe? Don't confuse his job performance with his ethics. Could you share these numerous plausible reasons for meeting with a criminal's lawyer?

Too many people here think if you like what a public servant has done in parts of his job, you are supposed to look the other way. And others here go to desperate lengths to defend someone who has shown some very inappropriate behavior. Every time he has crossed the line, people jump to the 'its only speculation' defense. And FAR TOO many people, like juance, think Uribe is a complete moron. Because only a moron would hang out in campaign rallies with genocide suspects, shake their hands, and not know it. But hey, Bush got elected twice, so there is no reason to think people will mind ignoring everything Uribe does wrong.

That's a good way of ignoring crimes in Colombia. It has worked for decades now. Everyone looks the other way if they think they will derive some benefit to doing so. There is very little objectivity here. Similar to the logic in granting political status to some of the deadliest, most disgraceful criminals on the planet (paras), who truly enjoy murdering. The logic says they were actually fighting to defend a political ideology while they were busy chainsawing their neighbors live. And Uribe agrees with this theory and supports it in the supreme court of Colombia.

BOYCOTT CITGO - CHAVEZ SUCKS!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Dec 17, 2007, 16:43:

let's see. possible scenarios...

maybe Noguera's cutting a deal to do some talking, and his attorney trusts no one else to make the deal.

maybe the attorney made some discoveries during talks with other ministries that he thinks need Uribe's personal attention.

an attorney's mere presence in meetings with the president don't necessarily point to ass-covering by the president.

I have no clue what was said in these meetings - maybe it is only ass-covering on Uribe's part. but assumptions are, well - they're only assumptions.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 17, 2007, 17:49:

Rob77: "You find it appropriate to meet with the lawyer of someone accused of corruption 9 times? That is not just the appearance of impropriety, it is impropriety."

Without knowing anything else, I definitely think it's inappropiate on a general moral level.

But the content of the meeting determines *exactly* how inappropiate it is, or whether, unlikely but not impossibly, it wasn't inappropiate at all.

The moral and judicial specifics all need to be there, and they need to be clearly demonstrated in order to determine their consequences. Not just based on what any of us, included myself, thinks on a personal level.

"Too many people here think if you like what a public servant has done in parts of his job, you are supposed to look the other way."

Never said anything like this, at the very least.

"And others here go to desperate lengths to defend someone who has shown some very inappropriate behavior. Every time he has crossed the line, people jump to the 'its only speculation' defense."

Depends entirely on the case and what information is currently available. I've directly criticized him when I believe he was crosssed the line, plenty of times.

When I believe he hasn't, when I believe he has crossed the line in one sense but *not* in another, or when we probably can't tell *yet* because there's not enough information, I've said so as well.

"And FAR TOO many people, like juance, think Uribe is a complete moron."

Way to go about horribly misrepresenting my position, but I had noticed that already...

There's a lot of room for variety between "complete moron" and, I don't know, "complete criminal mastermind" or what have you.

He could well be responsible for 90%, 75% or 50% of the accusations against him, for all we know. This isn't some sort of zero-sum game...where either Uribe is guilty of everything and the kitchen sink, or he's as innocent as a baby. Each accusation has to be considered on its own merits and their outcome doesn't have to be identical.

"Because only a moron would hang out in campaign rallies with genocide suspects, shake their hands, and not know it."

Sigh....if you're going to throw out the details and contexts through the window without looking at them first, including those we don't even know yet, it's your loss.

Even the Herald is far more prudent than you are, and they actually saw and heard the entire video tape themselves. They couldn't reach the conclusion that Uribe knew who those people were, at least not at this point.

You may be right and he did know who they were, but you could also be wrong and he may not have, without having to be a "moron", and without necessarily affecting any of the other accusations against him which must also be considered.

But whatever...if it's not one extreme, it *has* to be the other, doesn't it? Black or white, nothing in between....


"But hey, Bush got elected twice, so there is no reason to think people will mind ignoring everything Uribe does wrong."

I think he has done plenty of things wrong, which I definitely do not ignore nor do I endorse, and I certainly don't believe he deserved to be re-elected in 2006.

I just don't happen to share your exact thoughts about him, but that hardly means I'm ignoring what I recognize as his flaws, at this point in time.

And for that matter, my personal disliking towards Uribe doesn't mean that his rights shouldn't be respected.

"That's a good way of ignoring crimes in Colombia. It has worked for decades now. "

Because passing summary judgment based on partial information regarding a real or possible crime would do wonders in a court room, punishing only criminals and harming no innocents?

That's more like a public lynching than anything remotely resembling justice, whether it happens in Colombia, Tibet or the Hague.

"Everyone looks the other way if they think they will derive some benefit to doing so."

Well tell me, dear mindreader...what possible benefit do you believe I am gaining from this?

"There is very little objectivity here."

Probably, all things considered, but that goes for you as well. You're not automatically in a better position than any of us, even if your opinions are just as formally valid as anyone else's. But they, and their ramifications, need to be proven objectively, not subjectively.

"Similar to the logic in granting political status to some of the deadliest, most disgraceful criminals on the planet (paras), who truly enjoy murdering. The logic says they were actually fighting to defend a political ideology while they were busy chainsawing their neighbors live. And Uribe agrees with this theory and supports it in the supreme court of Colombia""

Putting aside the absolutely evident lack of morality in their barbaric actions and the applicability of the actual legal theory behind what is or isn't considered a political crime, which are two distinct (though sometimes related) issues...

...when you negotiate with someone, you often need to afford the other party a certain amount of recognition, political and/or otherwise, unless you've placed them in such a vulnerable position that the point becomes irrelevant, making the negotiations little more than a surrender.

When a surrender isn't possible, said recognition needs to be there. That goes for the FARC, the ELN, and even the paramilitaries at this point in history.

Whether the government gave (or tried to give) them more political recognition than they deserve is one thing (for the record, I would even agree...the Court ruled that they ***aren't*** political criminals, strictly speaking, and I'm happy about that, even if creates problems as well), as are the thousand other flaws in the entire process, but the fact remains: some sort of recognition is necessary when you're dealing with an undefeated party that can afford to walk away and continue to fight. It's not a clear-cut "recognition for the less barbaric and more idealistc, nothing for the more barbaric and non-idealistic".

You can't expect any of the armed groups to line up and repent out of sheer goodness, ready to receive exactly what they deserve without demanding anything in return, and I repeat that goes for the FARC and ELN as well.

In this specific case, Uribe's actions and attitudes make me question and dislike him even more, as a person and as President. But, for that matter, that doesn't mean he's this "secret grand paramilitary drug cartel leader puppeted by Bush" that some people in, say, the EL TIEMPO forums scream that he is. At least not yet. Would you consider that an "objective" position, I wonder?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Dec 17, 2007, 18:27:

HRW awards Hollman Morris. The interview of him below is worth listening to. He was publicly singled out by Uribe as a FARC terrorist for being the only journalist to cover some military action. Uribe later apologized admitting his mistake. The tactic proved effective, though, because the paras had already gotten the message, and Morris was forced to stop reporting from Colombia and flee the country. It looks like he's back.

http://hrw.org/audio/2007/english/defenders/colomb16822.htm

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 17, 2007, 19:54:

vladimiro: The interview is good enough, but the translation seems to skip a couple parts of what he's actually saying, for those who may care to notice.

I respect Mr. Morris and watched "Contravia" a few times. Usually his work has been respectable and necessary, but I did have some occasional criticisms, a couple of them which may also apply to his declarations during this interview.

Still, he's been threatened several times in the past, at least since 2000 according to what he says in this interview, and I definitely have to support him as a journalist who has the right to continue doing his work.

As for the incident you mention, it happened back in 2005. He did leave the country for a while then, but he was already back in 2006. However, it does seem that there was a separate round of threats later on, this year (2007), though it was already after this interview took place.

And actually, in 2005 he wasn't singled out as a "FARC terrorist", which is a very specific kind of charge (and something which Uribe has actually said in *other* cases, but not in this one), but the implication was that he knew the guerrilla attack against a military base was going to take place, and thus it was still quite dangerous.

See: http://www.prensarural.org/hollman20050627.htm

Uribe, as usual, made very irresponsible and far too aggressive remarks. That's not new and continues to be shameful in many ways. That's not how a President should act and as a result it does contribute to threaten the life and rights of journalists like Morris, regardless of what issues one may or may not have with specific aspects of his work. I don't like Uribe's reactions at all and he should indeed be held responsible for his remarks, one way or another.

0 funny, 0 helpful.