Shame on Uribe!

Neonovo says on Sep 30, 2005, 07:35:

Why am I not surprised? Has the cuban anti-castrista that blew the venezuelan plane out of the air faced any undue stress?

Paz
Neonovo

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Sep 30, 2005, 08:35:

Platano, that's not fair Platano, I don't think you're being realistic or fair in your comment. If the FARC were actually sitting down and negotiating a peace and demobilization with the Colombian government, they most certainly would NOT get extradited. All you have to do is look back 5 years to the protracted "peace process" with the FARC when not a single one of them was arrested or deported, this despite ongoing violence and violations by the FARC during the negotiation. It would have been easy as pie to arrest them after Ingrid's kidnapping or any other violation and it wasn't done.

In a perfect world, Don Berna would be already sitting in a small dark cell for the rest of his life, but one has to also be realistic about the fact that Uribe doesn't hold all the cards by any measure.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColomBuenazo says on Sep 30, 2005, 10:56:

Uribe's BOFETADA to the Colombian people and the world!!! Uribe helped creating the prototype of viscious and violent Paramilitaty groups back in the 80's and early 90's when he was the Antioquia Governor. He is by default a right-wing backer of the bloody Paramilitary dealings. Now, he's pushed down the Colombian people's throats, his so-called "Injustice and No-Peace law".

How can the US and the world expect that URIBE fully and seriously prosecutes and extradites his BUDDIES?

Is like asking Bush to investigate Karl Rove, Cheney, Tom DeLay or BIll Frist?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Sep 30, 2005, 11:18:

Bottom Line This deal has to be negotiated. Criminals have to be pardoned. Crimes have to be "forgotten"... Holy shit you people, Colombia has suffered way too long because all parties involved seek protection. Time to cut deals, establish some sort of peace, and let the rest of the world have confidence in Colombia. Personally, I am in total support of the decision makers in Colombia not sending Don Berna to the USA. His potential ability to disarm the paras is a hell of a lot more important than his corroncho ass living a relative life of luxuary in a gringo prison.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 30, 2005, 11:43:

Shame on this thread's title I am mostly in agreement with Miguel and Mr. Hollywood, and mostly in disagreement with platano.

In particular I totally reject the thread title he has chosen to employ...should we then start a series of "Shame on X, Y and Z!" posts?

The extradition of Don Berna is completely morally deserved...and in fact was APPROVED, but just INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED while the peace process goes on and Don Berna is able to cooperate with it (in addition to other related conditions).

If Don Berna doesn't meet the necessary conditions and goes back to certifiable and open criminal activity, he'll automatically be subject to immediate extradition, because his extradition has been formally APPROVED already. No ifs, ands, or buts.

In fact, today Don Berna has been transferrred to the maximum security prison in Combita, from his previous "ranch-jail".

Let's be totally serious: Extraditing Don Berna unilaterally and without a loud and clear necessity would be completely counterproductive under current circumstances.

As long as Don Berna's extradition can't be justified for an open breach of the peace process, it would cause several THOUSAND murderous paramilitary fighters to become angry, with the gruesome consequences that everybody knows about.

That would be a greater shame, platano, if Don Berna's extradition resulted in increasing the width of the always flowing rivers of blood.

I'm tempted to say "Shame on you, platano and Hugh Bronstein, for preferring that scenario"!

Extradition has not been negotiated in Ralito, but the Colombian government has to be pragmatic and try to limit the resulting bloodshed as much as possible.

Blindly extraditing people without thinking about the consequences is wrong, even if those people fully deserve it on a simple moral basis.

In fact, while FARC's Simon Trinidad also morally deserved to be extradited and was in a worse position when he was extradited because the FARC wasn't even NEGOTIATING ANYTHING at the time...I personally wouldn't have extradited him either, if it depended on my opinion. I repeat, I WOULD NOT HAVE EXTRADITED TRINIDAD.

But I can see the difference between his situation and that of the AUC in this particular historical moment. It's not equivalent.

It's not a matter of Uribe being "friendly" with the AUC and being an "enemy" of the FARC, as platano appears to want to paint it. Por favor, platano, te ruego que pienses un poco en lo que he dicho.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 30, 2005, 12:06:

Kinda, but not exactly.

"Don Berna" (aka "Adolfo Paz") has a definite background and a clear record of activities as a druglord and a gangleader. Still, he did join/ally with the AUC and the paramilitaries quite early, more than 10 years ago, and thus has developed strong links with its hierarchy. He even was a member of "Los Pepes" back in 1993, along with the Castaños and others.

It's true that apparently he had only formally acquired an official AUC position by the late 1990s/early 2000s (before 2002 though) due to internal problems with other drug figures, but even before then, his links with the AUC were numerous. Today, significant numbers of current AUC fighters have answered to him.

That's sufficiently different from the case of others, such as Juan Carlos Sierra, aka "El Tuso" (which the Uribe government expelled from the Ralito talks, I should remind you), which did join/buy their way into the AUC more recently and more directly for the purposes of avoiding extradition.

In other words, "Don Berna" is quite clearly also a druglord, yes, but he's not a last minute "paratrooper" into the process. His own "paradrop", so to speak, happened years ago and has therefore consolidated inside the AUC, in addition to his activities in the drug trade.

If "Don Berna" had only "parachuted" inside the AUC ***after 2002***, then that complaint would be more justified and the decision would be easier for the government. But that's not true, and unfortunately, he has become too powerful by now.

Morally, I'd toss him inside an airplane this minute, but that point has already been addressed...

------------------------------------------------

¿‘Don Berna’, piedra en el zapato?

El hombre al que los organismos de inteligencia no dudan en calificar como el ‘mayor poder criminal en Colombia’, conocido en el mundo del narcotráfico como ‘Don Berna’ y en el de la guerra como ‘Adolfo Paz’, será una de las fichas clave en el proceso.

Diego Fernando Bejarano es su verdadero nombre. Aunque en la cúpula de las AUC podría considerarse como una suerte de ‘emergente’, lo cierto es que este hombre nacido en el norte del Valle ha acompañado el proceso paramilitar en los últimos diez años.

Se unió a Carlos y Fidel Castaño para crear el grupo de ‘Los Pepes’, que desde el bajo mundo se encargó de socavar el aparato de seguridad de Pablo Escobar.

Después, su nombre se asoció al de La Terraza, la tenebrosa banda de sicarios que fue utilizada por Castaño en la capital antioqueña y otras ciudades del país.

El vínculo no impidió que ‘Don Berna’ acabara con sus antiguos aliados, cuando negocios relacionados con el narcotráfico los hicieron distanciarse. Su presencia en el equipo negociador es vista como la mayor demostración de hasta dónde el narcotráfico ha calado en el grupo ilegal. Los Estados Unidos lo consideran como un jefe de cartel que utiliza el paramilitarismo como fachada.

http://elpais-cali.terra.com.co/paisonline/notas/Junio152004/A615N1.html

Even this excerpt from an Amnesty International report shows that "Don Berna"/"Adolfo Paz" became a paramilitary member sufficiently before 2002. Even if he did so originally mostly to "seek refuge" from disputes with other parties, his alliances with the AUC have long history and his own role has only increased with time.

The Bloque Metro and the Bloque Cacique Nutibara

The Bloque Metro (BM), Metro Bloc, emerged as a strong military presence in Medellín from 1998, although BM graffiti appeared in parts of the city as early as 1995 after Carlos Castaño announced the AUC’s intention of taking control of Medellín. The BM’s military operations were led by Carlos Mauricio García Fernández, alias "Rodrigo Franco" or "Doble Cero", a former army officer, principal military tactician for the AUC, and a leading figure in the PEPES. By 2000, the BM had co-opted many of Medellín’s criminal gangs. By 2001 it was the dominant paramilitary group in the city.(43) In 2002 the BM claimed it controlled 70% of the city, while a press article claimed the BM controlled 30% of Medellín’s hillside barrios.(44)

...

On 29 April 1998, Edgar Durango, Luis Pineda, Miguel Guerra Jhones, Moisés Antonio Quiroz, Henry Rodríguez Rivera and Rubén Darío Sepúlveda Benítez were killed after they had been reportedly abducted by members of the Pacheli gang, which had links to the paramilitaries, and the police in El Pinal, municipality of Bello.

The BCN – led by Diego Fernando Murillo Bejarano, alias "Don Berna" or "Adolfo Paz" – emerged soon after following a struggle for power with the BM. "Don Berna" had also been a leading figure in the PEPES and – through a criminal organization known as La Oficina – took over Pablo Escobar’s drug-trafficking business following the latter’s death.

"Don Berna" was also the driving force behind La Terraza, one of the most feared criminal gangs in Medellín with close links to the paramilitaries,(45)and acted as a go-between between the AUC and the gang.

Following an internal dispute with criminal associates, "Don Berna" sought refuge with Carlos Castaño in the mid-1990s. During this period he reinvented himself as a paramilitary with the alias of "Adolfo Paz" and, with Carlos Castaño’s and the AUC’s blessing, sought to challenge "Doble Cero" and the BM for control over Medellín.

A violent confrontation between the BCN and the BM resulted in numerous casualties. Information received by Amnesty International suggests that gang members operating for the BM were told to join the BCN or be killed. Many transferred their allegiance to the BCN. (46)

The dispute between "Don Berna" and "Doble Cero" revolved around the latter’s objections of what he saw as the increasing power drug-traffickers were assuming within the AUC, including in Medellín under "Don Berna". In September 2002, "Doble Cero" withdrew the BM from the AUC. After 18 months of conflict, "Doble Cero" announced on 26 April 2004 that he was deactivating the military wing of the BM. "Doble Cero" was killed in Santa Marta, department of Magdalena, in May 2004 by unidentified gunmen.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR230192005

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 30, 2005, 12:09:

As for the rest of your comment, Tinto...if no foreign money comes forward to allow us, among other things, to more easily handle extremely costly non-military related concerns (such as demobilization, reintegration, displaced communities, social and institutional reforms, alternative development, aid to refugees, etc.), then the situation will continue to worsen, and that, both directly and indirectly, threatens U.S. interests (real and not).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

toneloc24 says on Sep 30, 2005, 13:33:

This is straight bullshit. Bottom-line, they were both criminals who SHOULD be brought to the fullest extent of the law.

Negotiations????? Trinidad = Don Berna less connections to Uribe. If one gets extradited to the USA, then so should the other. No double standards.

Peace negotiations? If Uribe is/was at all ever involved in the AUC, then why should the other side (FARC) ever trust him? All he's doing is releasing his buddies and providing them leniency. Same kind of justice faced by such US crimimals as Marc Rich, and to be granted to Karl Rove and Tom Delay.

If this is acceptable by politicians, Colombia will always be the same. There will always be war. I feel bad for the people because this is what represents them to the world.

For clarity sake, I could give a rat's ass about either FARC or AUC. They are both narco-terrorists.

"PBH is dead!!!!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 30, 2005, 14:55:

"This is straight bullshit. Bottom-line, they were both criminals who SHOULD be brought to the fullest extent of the law."

SHOULD, and not WOULD or COULD, being the operative term.

"Negotiations????? Trinidad = Don Berna less connections to Uribe. If one gets extradited to the USA, then so should the other. No double standards."

Yes, negotiations. Of which I am not a full supporter, since I have my issues with them and a considerable degree of preoccupation and doubt regarding certain aspects as I have mentioned in this forum, but I still recognize them as negotiations and attempt to understand the context in which they occur as much as possible.


Still, using your same line of thought, the U.S. itself has a long history of changing its treatment of criminals, both internal and external, according to exactly the same principle: convenience, favorable consequences to its interests weighted against unfavorable ones. Heck, not just the U.S., but a whole boatload of other countries too.

This can even be seen in Iraq and in Afghanistan where certain agreements have been reached with people that morally deserve extradition or worse. A better and much clearer example of double standards, as you call them, can also be found in the case of Mr. Posada Carriles.

Bottom line: Pragmatism über alles is the sad reality.

"Peace negotiations? If Uribe is/was at all ever involved in the AUC, then why should the other side (FARC) ever trust him?"

It's not a matter of Uribe per se. They might make that argument, but their distrust goes way back, long before Uribe's time. They haven't really trusted the government ever, not even under Pastrana, just as the government has never really trusted them either. Both have fair reasons not to. It's a long story with lots of knots.

Uribe has never been "involved in the AUC", as far as is known today. Even if every single accusation of other things was strictly true, that remains the case until proven otherwise. In other words, I'd like you to prove that *exact* phrase is strictly true, if you don't mind.

Uribe can be considered guilty of many questionable things (coming from a similar social background as many AUC members and sharing or sympathizing with substantial parts of a common proto-ideology, which led him to support measures which due to problems partially allowed for the favorable context for further paramilitarism), but not of being "involved with the AUC", at least not until now.

Uribe's known "questionable" actions did not occur during the physical existence of the AUC (1997 to date), hence your reasoning, taken strictly, defies reality. Arguably that would be mostly because of chronological concerns, but "time" is one of the fundamental elements of reality.

"All he's doing is releasing his buddies and providing them leniency."

I'd like you to prove that the people being "released" are "his buddies". I'd also like you to prove that they're simply being "released".

Why? Because I disagree with your interpretation of the situation, given current facts. Newer facts, obviously, will lead me to change my view. Notice, of course, that the word I've been using here is "like", since I personally tend to doubt you actually will/can do it.

Now...providing leniency in peace processes in exchange for the greater good, or even to abusers after military dictatorships as was done in Chile and Argentina , is hardly something that Uribe invented.

"Same kind of justice faced by such US crimimals as Marc Rich, and to be granted to Karl Rove and Tom Delay."

Talk about apples and oranges...or rather, apples and papayas.

"If this is acceptable by politicians, Colombia will always be the same."

Given that similar measures have been considered acceptable by politicians elsewhere, and still are...that has interesting implications.

"There will always be war."

I don't believe in such fatalism nor in prophecies of this or that being "endless", thank you.

"I feel bad for the people because this is what represents them to the world."

Then perhaps you should feel equally bad about how the world is represented by itself, given all the available precedents.

"For clarity sake, I could give a rat's ass about either FARC or AUC. They are both narco-terrorists."

An understandable yet incomplete view of both of them. That's certainly one of the characteristics that both have in considerable quantities. But they, both of them, are not defined solely by that term.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Sep 30, 2005, 16:12:

Just FYI... I wasn't lying when I mentioned the Combita bit earlier, btw...

Colombia jails paramilitary to end dispute with US

By Jason Webb Fri Sep 30, 3:47 PM ET

BOGOTA, Colombia (Reuters) - Colombia transferred a notorious cocaine trafficker and paramilitary chief from house arrest to a maximum security prison on Friday in a successful attempt to calm a diplomatic dispute over its refusal to extradite him to the United States.


Colombia's decision on Thursday not to hand Diego Murillo Bejarano over to face cocaine trafficking charges in the United States was aimed at ensuring peace talks continue with anti-Marxist militias but prompted a public complaint from the U.S. Embassy.

The man known by his alias "Don Berna" is a senior figure in the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC, and sending him to the United States could have endangered the government's negotiations to convince the outlawed far-right paramilitary group to lay down its arms.

But Colombia, which has received more than $3 billion in mainly military aid from the United States since 2000, also has to keep Washington happy, and President Alvaro Uribe on Friday moved quickly to mollify his allies.

"At this moment, Mr. Murillo Bejarano is on a police plane flying between the cities of Monteria and Bogota on his way to Combita prison," Uribe told reporters.

Murillo Bejarano had been held under house arrest in a rural property in northern Colombia since late May when he was arrested by police, who believe he violated the terms of a AUC ceasefire by ordering the killing of a local legislator.

But, while largely symbolic, the Colombian decision to transfer Murillo Bejarano immediately produced the desired effect and the U.S. Embassy issued a congratulatory communique putting an end to what had become an unusual public argument between the two close allies.

"We believe that the incarceration of Don Berna in Combita maximum security prison is an important and courageous step," U.S. Ambassador William Wood said in a statement.

U.S. EMBASSY 'DISAPPOINTED'

On Thursday, the embassy had said it was "disappointed" by Colombia's decision not to extradite Murillo Bejarano, who it believes is one of the country's biggest cocaine traffickers.

But U.S. objectives are not necessarily as clear as its officials insist. Although Washington says it wants to extradite several top AUC figures, it also says it supports the peace talks with the paramilitaries.

Meanwhile, the tough U.S. talk of extradition gives its Colombian allies a way of pressuring the AUC.

Critics of the negotiations, including Human Rights Watch, say drug lords like Murillo Bejarano are masquerading as politically engaged combatants in Colombia's four-decade-long war in order to obtain relatively short jail sentences for their crimes as part of a peace settlement.

A law limits jail sentences for war crimes committed by AUC members to a maximum of eight years. Murillo Bejarano will be eligible for the limited sentence as long as he confesses his crimes. The limit is a fraction of what AUC members could have faced for known AUC crimes, which include the killings of thousands of civilians.

The AUC has always had links to drug traffickers, who, together with cattle ranchers, helped found the group to fight Marxist rebels that government forces were unable to defeat.

The government admits that eight years in prison is a light punishment for the crimes of many AUC leaders but argues that a deal is necessary to remove 20,000 heavily armed and well-funded gunmen from an interminable war.

Human rights groups point to past links between members of the security forces and the AUC, who cooperated to fight Marxist rebels.

While Uribe has talked peace with the paramilitaries, he has stepped up war against the leftist guerrillas.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050930/wl_nm/colombia_paramilitary_dc_1

0 funny, 0 helpful.

catwoman says on Sep 30, 2005, 18:40:

wow... You guys are very into these subjects, it's amazing to see every ones pointaviews... Great Post!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Sep 30, 2005, 23:00:

juancegomez, I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE TO PROVIDE PROOF! 1. URIBE IS THE PRESIDENT OF COLOMBIA. I can prove this "con pruebas contundentes"

2. COLOMBIA HAD SAID EXTRADITION WOULD NOT BE NEGOTIATED in the AUC demobilization. I can prove this with documents authenticated through a notary public, with witnesses, estampillas, sellos, and all kind of official paraphernalia.

3. URIBE IS NEGOTIATING WITH THE EXTRADITION OF DIEGO FERNANDO MURILLO BERJARANO. I can prove that... hey, wait, that is the topic of this thread!

SHAME ON URIBE! (who I assume is normally a man of Antioquian integrity who keeps his word) Shame! Shame! Shame! I now consider him a disgrace to Antioquia (the independent republic to which I hold a valid passport)

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Oct 1, 2005, 04:34:

Colombian Drug Suspect Eludes Extradition http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051001/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_us

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 1, 2005, 08:09:

Just out of curiousity I'm curious, Platano, would you feel better if Uribe "kept his word" as you put it and as a result Don Berna's private army continued or resumed hostilities at the cost of numerous lives?

This is really simple carrot and stick negotiating on both sides.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2005, 08:58:

Let's see.. "1. URIBE IS THE PRESIDENT OF COLOMBIA. I can prove this "con pruebas contundentes""

That's quite clear to most of us, thank you.

"2. COLOMBIA HAD SAID EXTRADITION WOULD NOT BE NEGOTIATED in the AUC demobilization. I can prove this with documents authenticated through a notary public, with witnesses, estampillas, sellos, and all kind of official paraphernalia."

That's also relatively clear.

"3. URIBE IS NEGOTIATING WITH THE EXTRADITION OF DIEGO FERNANDO MURILLO BERJARANO. I can prove that... hey, wait, that is the topic of this thread!"

Here's where you slip. Nope, you have not proved that. You have not proved that Uribe actually "negotiated" Diego Murillo's extradition, even if that is a possibility you are free to believe in.

But without direct proof of such a "negotiation", the facts themselves
do not necessarily only point to your assumption.

What is known points not to a negotiation per se but to a pragmatic action taken unilaterally by the government, in recognition of the consequences of such an extradition taking place within the context of a peace process and knowing the existing difficulties. That is totally in line with what Uribe had mentioned before and doesn't contradict his previous words.

That is not a negotiation of extradition. It's not a "negotiation" of extradition unless you can prove that Uribe (or someone from the government) directly negotiated the decision, taken this past week, with "Don Berna" in order to avoid his extradition.

I'm waiting for your proof. As of now, there is no evidence of that. You have only presented the logic behind your argument, but no proof of the key conclusion you kep referring to as if it were irrefutable.

In fact, today the AUC has protested "Don Berna"'s being transferred to the Combita maximum security prison and has declared (through "Ernesto Báez"), that they will have a meeting on the subject this Monday. Doesn't sound like they were consulted about this to me.

"SHAME ON URIBE! (who I assume is normally a man of Antioquian integrity who keeps his word) Shame! Shame! Shame! I now consider him a disgrace to Antioquia (the independent republic to which I hold a valid passport)"

Jumping to such conclusions, when they are not the only possible ones and not even the most reasonable ones, hardly helps any of us.

From a purely moral perspective perhaps, extradition could have been "negotiated" in the manner that you speak of (changing the meaning of the word "negotiation", of course). But, until now, what you have to prove is that it was negotiated in a legal and physical (even just verbal) manner.

Other than that, you're free to think what you want, but so can I and so can everybody else with a different interpretation.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 1, 2005, 09:22:

juancegomez, let's get etymological for a moment... Etymology: Latin negotiatus, past participle of negotiari to carry on business, from negotium business, from neg- not + otium leisure -- more at NEGATE
intransitive senses : to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter
transitive senses
1 a : to deal with (some matter or affair that requires ability for its successful handling)

Negotiate is related to "negate", negatori, nyet, no... we are "carrying on business" as usual in Colombia, can't have him, he's in our maximum security prison, we are "dealing with" the situation, we will take care of its "successful handling"). I know we did "confer with" one another about extradition, but I am breaking my word and I am negotiating this in a different manner.

Is it clear now, juancegomez? I'm not talking about a deal with Don Narco, I'm talking about the deal Uribe already had with the USA. URIBE IS NEGOTIATING WITH THE EXTRADITION by the very fact that he has not extradited consistent with the agreement he had with the gringos.

Of course, in the long run this will only help the FARC (terrible publicity for the Colombian government) and will hurt Colombia's chances for more aid if the US Congress decides to jump on this.

Why give more money to someone who has ignored a negotiated agreement regarding extradition and has decided to negotiate something else (whatever it may be and with whomever and for whatever reason).

Shame on Uribe!

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 1, 2005, 09:53:

Perhaps you overlooked my question? Platano, perhaps you overlooked my question about how you would feel if you feel if Uribe, as you put it, "kept his word", extradited Berna, and as a result dozens or hundreds of innocent people died because his private AUC army didn't lay down arms? Is Uribe's "honor" as I think you are suggesting more important that getting thousands of people to lay down their arms?

Also, I never realized you were such a proponent of extradition?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 1, 2005, 11:15:

So, thugs shouldn't be dealt with because, gosh, what might their friends do if we did something so harsh as extradite them to gringolandia?

I sincerely hope no one from FARC is reading PBH. They would relay the message to Mono and the gang: don't sweat extradition because Uribe is afraid of what MIGHT happen.

Gimme a break, Mr. H.

Of course I'm in favor of extradition. Why does Colombia need people whose skills include narcotrafficking, hacking off arms and heads with chain saws (AUC) or holding people in jungle prisons (FARC)? Better that the gringos pay for their room and board. The gringos have lots of money and lots of prisons. Let AUC and FARC fight it out on the prison yards of Trenton or Rahway, New Jersey. (and freeze their asses off in the winter while dreaming of the tropical paradise they can never return to)

Viva Colombia! Abajo Uribe!

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Oct 1, 2005, 11:29:

Typical Platano thread. Do you ever get tired of being so predictable? For once I'd like to see you write something that would surprise me. It's always the same old thing.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 1, 2005, 11:32:

UTC, If you don't like my threads here's a hint: DON'T OPEN THEM! Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. And, even though they are SOOOO predictable, there is really no need to whine about it.

And, since it's my thread... I'd appreciate if you would stay on topic.

Plátano X

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2005, 11:33:

"Is it clear now, juancegomez? I'm not talking about a deal with Don Narco, I'm talking about the deal Uribe already had with the USA. URIBE IS NEGOTIATING WITH THE EXTRADITION by the very fact that he has not extradited consistent with the agreement he had with the gringos."

It is clear that's what you think platano, but that's still quite a longwinded way to go about interpreting the situation, to say the least about how you get from "A" to "B".

Uribe signed the extradition order after it was approved by the courts.

The crucial modification is that, in the interests of the demobilization process, the extradition that has been APPROVED has been simultaneously SUSPENDED as long as the individuals involved meet certain specific conditions.

You are acting as if Uribe or the government simply said in a vaccum "we will not extradite this person, period".

"Of course, in the long run this will only help the FARC (terrible publicity for the Colombian government) and will hurt Colombia's chances for more aid if the US Congress decides to jump on this."

You're probably more correct on the second count than on the first.

The FARC themselves can't be angrier than they already are, and the paramilitary demobilization process itself bothers them enough.

As to the rest of the population, they don't seem to be quite as negatively affected by that "publicity", at least not according to polls.

"Why give more money to someone who has ignored a negotiated agreement regarding extradition and has decided to negotiate something else (whatever it may be and with whomever and for whatever reason)."

Uribe has not ignored the negotiated agreement with the United States. He has extradited more people to the United States than ever before and will continue to do so, in all other cases. He already went to Washington sometime ago and explained his position, no doubt in a much better manner than I could hope to do here...but whatever.

At most he has unilaterally included a modification of the application of the agreement given that the demobilization process, from Uribe's perspective, is in the national interests of Colombia.

Despite all the talk of Uribe "bowing to the U.S. in everything", at heart, what he perceives to be in the national interests of the country is more important than what the U.S. perceives in its own national interest (even though the distance between both positions is minimal in many other aspects).

Whether he's right or wrong, or the U.S. is, or you are, or I am, etc. is another matter.

"Shame on Uribe!

Shame on extremists, I'd say.

"I sincerely hope no one from FARC is reading PBH. They would relay the message to Mono and the gang: don't sweat extradition because Uribe is afraid of what MIGHT happen."

Well, they've been reaching their own conclusions about all this without you putting words in their mouth, of course.

"Of course I'm in favor of extradition. Why does Colombia need people whose skills include narcotrafficking, hacking off arms and heads with chain saws (AUC) or holding people in jungle prisons (FARC)? Better that the gringos pay for their room and board. The gringos have lots of money and lots of prisons. Let them fight it out on the prison yards of Trenton or Rahway, New Jersey. (and freeze their asses off in the winter while dreaming of the tropical paradise they can never return to)"

I would agree with you in principle.

But in this particular situation, extraditing people in a negotiation process will potentially cause needless bloodshed to increase.

If you complain about chainsaws hacking off people's limbs, then let me tell you that the number of people suffering that fate will increase, instead of reducing, if you had your way in current circumstances.

The best outcome would be for nobody to lose any limbs and for every criminal to face justice in Colombia and in the U.S.

But that's not possible at the moment, just as it was not possible to judge every single high ranking abuser in Argentina and Chile. For better or for worse, that's what happened there and they'll have to live with it.

As for us, I have no concrete idea what will end up happening, the matter is far too complex for wide ranging speculation to make much sense.

Viva Colombia, Abajo el Extremismo.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 1, 2005, 11:40:

juancegomez, I'm sorry.... today I'm not in the mood for double talk.

You say: Uribe has not ignored the negotiated agreement with the United States. At most he has unilaterally included a modification of the application of the agreement given that the demobilization process, from Uribe's perspective, is in the national interests of Colombia.

It is not your fault, of course, but when I first read those words I had a flashback to the guerrilla commander I was arguing with. I told him kidnapping was a violation of the Geneva Conventions and he told me: You have not been kidnapped. At most you are a temporary political detainee and the Geneva Convention unilaterally includes a modification of the application of the agreement given that the detainment process, from FARC's perspective, is in the national interests of Colombia.

In other words, Tone was right: this is BULLSHIT!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 1, 2005, 12:00:

And, furthermore, juancegomez... Since when did you begin reading crystal balls and doing fortune telling. You said just a few days ago that you don't engage in speculation or do prophecy work. Sure looks like it with your words about projected future use of chainsaws in Colombia:

"then let me tell you that the number of people suffering that fate will increase, instead of reducing, if you had your way in current circumstances."

If you are going to call people extremists, at least be consistent in your own positions.

I fear you are horribly violating Ockham's Razor, also, but I do not wish to go there...

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2005, 12:18:

Double talk, sure...c'mon "It is not your fault, of course, but when I first read those words I had a flashback to the guerrilla commander I was arguing with. I told him kidnapping was a violation of the Geneva Conventions and he told me: You have not been kidnapped."

A clear fallacy and you should know it.

The guerrillas actions and interpretations towards the Geneva Convention are not comparable to the government's actions and interpretations towards the extradition treaty with the U.S.

Show me an internationally respected legal decision or a U.S. government official that considers that the extradition treaty with the U.S. has been violated in such a manner, when the extradition was conditionally approved and direct consultations about the matter have been held with high ranking U.S. government officials, some of which seem to be on Uribe's side on this.

You don't even have the nerve to legally demonstrate what part of the extradition agreement is being in violation, but refer to it in a vague and general manner.

On the other hand, considerable numbers of legal decisions, governments and organizations, from the UN to HRW to the Independent Democratic Pole, have condemned the FARC verbally and in documents, numerous times, for directly violating SPECIFIC provisions of the Geneva Convention, even during the Peace Process with Pastrana.

(The government, of course, has also been specifically accused of violating legal provisions in other matters, for the record)

Two completely different things until proven otherwise.

Oh sure, you're free to think it's "BS", that's your own problem. But don't expect me to shut up and agree, we can keep this little dance going on all night if that makes you content. It doesn't make me content, however, I would wish that we could agree to disagree. But I suppose that's just a wish, afterall...

"Since when did you begin reading crystal balls and doing fortune telling. You said just a few days ago that you don't engage in speculation or do prophecy work. Sure looks like it with your words about projected future use of chainsaws in Colombia:"

You're the one that decided to bring forth the mention of the chainsaws as if they are automatically synonimous with the AUC, so I decided it was fair to play your own game and with YOUR OWN terms. That's all I did. I didn't make any prophecies as to the future of Colombia as a whole or anything like that.

And even then, it's not reading crystal balls to say what the paramilitaries themselves have made abundantly clear.

If something angers them to a point that it causes the process to break, then they'll all go right back to where they started and fight to the death. Which, following the point that YOU BROUGHT UP, leads to chainsaws being in further use.

If the word that YOU BROUGHT UP molests you, then simply put it this way: the paramilitaries will go right back to killing people in increasing numbers, at least in the short term.

Is that really reading crystal balls? Is that a prophecy comparable to "Colombia will always be in war because of X, Y and Z" or "the FARC will always exist because of X, Y and Z"?

"If you are going to call people extremists, at least be consistent in your own positions."

Oh please, you can't even be consistent enough to strictly stick to your own line without blaming me for bringing up arguments and points that belong to yourself, platano, and which I have only followed.

"I fear you are horribly violating Ockham's Razor, also, but I do not wish to go there..."

I fear you are also violating it in several of your posts...what a coincidence.

Then again, if Ockham's Razor was always right, the world would be extremely simple to understand and to predict and there would be no arguments about anything, which clearly isn't the case.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 1, 2005, 13:14:

Still avoiding the question You're still dodging my question, Platano. Is it better for Uribe to uphold his "word" as you put it and extradite Berna or is it better for Berna to be dealt with in Colombia's admitedly flawed justice system and thousands of paramilitaries demobilize out of the conflict. In other words, is it better that one evil man rot in US prisons and hundreds or thousands die and suffer, or that one evil man gets something of a break and many lives are saved?

Don't be afraid to answer.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 1, 2005, 13:29:

Gentlemen, I have no more arguments. You all win.

It is better that "one evil man gets something of a break and many lives are saved"

I concede you are correct in your positions, all of you.

Now, I suppose I should apologize to Uribe and promise to vote for him if he manages to get on the ballot again. And I should do it publicly. And I should do it in all caps, you know kind of an extremist form of apologizing:

DEAR MR. URIBE: I WAS WRONG. I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU FOR SAVING THOUSANDS OF COLOMBIAN LIVES AS IS YOUR MANDATE AS PRESIDENT. THANK YOU.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2005, 13:43:

platano, at least from my side, I have to clearly state that I never intended for you to forcefully change your position or to lie against your own will, or to express artificial love for Uribe or the paras or anything like that.

That would be ridiculous and autocratic, there is no need to resort to that here and doesn't reflect neither my position nor my intentions. I would have hoped that we could discuss in relative peace or at least with a degree of understanding, even when talking about heated subjects.

I simply expressed and defended my own point of view, even if it was in opposition to yours, and that's why I continued the argument and our mutual criticism.

With that said, I should also apologize to you platano and to those that might think they also need an apology, for letting my inner devil get away with a couple of unnecessarily strong responses here and there, that might have gotten you and others angry or simply slightly disturbed.

Y lo digo en serio, no lo digo sólo por decirlo, o por quedar bien o por cualquier otra cosa.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 1, 2005, 13:56:

Tú tranquis parce... The positions I take are often more based on emotion than reason and you are always a good counterbalance.

I would also like to apologize to Mr. H. and to UTC for being curt and for being predictable. :)

If I could blame it on PMS, or menopause or something I would. But I can't and must accept responsiblity for my inappropriate behavior.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Oct 1, 2005, 16:42:

You don't need to apologize, dude. I just keep hoping I'll open one of your threads and there will be something that will make me stop and think. Instead it's like reading a party-line newspaper. For what it's worth, I think juancegomez is absolutely right.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Oct 1, 2005, 22:43:

UTC, party line? I often make posts that don't follow a party line. Did you not see my comment the other day on the Hugo Chavez and oil production thread which I titled "Chavez Has Shot Himself in the Foot" and criticized Chavez for firing 18,000 oil workers. What party line I am adhering to with that comment? In agreement with you, perhaps?

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Oct 2, 2005, 10:13:

No, you don't have to agree with me at all. There are a lot of things that I don't have an opinion on or my opinion could change as a result of new information. It's just that you are always anti-Uribe and pro-FARC - you could be writing for their web site.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.