Uribe

juancegomez says on Dec 29, 2004, 09:50:

Actually you got that wrong (or your news source did)...it's Uribe that can't actively and openly campaign until the last 4 months, not his opponents. You can bet that there would be a huge uproar if that was the case, which it isn't.

Of course, you can argue, like some do, that Uribe has been indirectly campaigning for himself since day one, but then again this can be said of many other presidents in the countries were reelection is permitted ....the facts are that he can't hold rallies, debates and formal campaign events until the last 4 months.

As for his opponents, in fact, they are already discussing amongst themselves and there's already a pre-candidate representing a sector of them (Carlos Gaviria). Still, unless they present a unified proposal around a single campaign, they won't be able to summon enough support. Hopefully they are able to do so.

The old (1991) rules simply prevented any president from running for reelection. The new rules, so far, simply allow for any president to do so from now on.

And btw, even these rules are still incomplete (the statute of guarantees for the opposition has to be passed and be implemented, for example...even the government itself is very aware of this fact) and, most importantly, the Constitutional Court can block the signed reelection bill and make the process start all over again.

The Court has not wavered in the past when it believes that a bill is unconstitutional, and IMHO that's a good thing.

Personally, I don't want to see Uribe be reelected, for various reasons which would be too complicated to list, but it would not be the end of the world if he was.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Dec 29, 2004, 10:02:

Ok bueno
Quiero saber mas

0 funny, 0 helpful.

greg says on Dec 29, 2004, 13:15:

Thanks for the info. I do`nt like Uribe either, but he will probably win because just like here in the U.S.,politicians that are highly principled never stand a chance.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Save the Wildcats says on Jan 1, 2005, 11:53:

I thought Uribe was good... the US media loves him. I'm trying to open my mind and educate myself on the other side; is there anywhere that has neutral information about him?

Thanks so much,

Kim

0 funny, 0 helpful.

greg says on Jan 1, 2005, 16:24:

Uribe Go to www.narconews.com do search on Uribe. some good articles there

0 funny, 0 helpful.

santiBOG says on Jan 1, 2005, 21:32:

Uribe re-election The next step is for this newly passed law to be approved by the Corte Constitucional. I hope it gets overturned or at least modified so that it takes effect in the next term. I do like Uribe, but this re-election crap is nonsense. EL PODER CORROMPE!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Jan 1, 2005, 22:03:

Hmm Quiero saber que piensas los colombianos de Uribe. For the first time in Colombian political history a sitting president might get to be re-elected. I know this is controversial and has not worked before in South America, but it sure as hell worked here a couple of times in Los Estados Unidos (FDR, Reagan (ma o meno) y Clinton. Digame mis Colombianos...tus opiniones???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Save the Wildcats says on Jan 2, 2005, 06:30:

Greg... thanks for the link - I appreciate it!

Miguel - I found the Pimsleur series at the library! Wow! That saved me a chunk of cheese. I'm excited.

Kim

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Jan 2, 2005, 06:40:

SI? Todos? 1-3 y Spanish Plus? Que bien!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Save the Wildcats says on Jan 2, 2005, 07:52:

Creo... todos, which really suprised me!

Ud. habla español muy bien, Miguel.

Looking forward to talking some Spanish back at you soon,

Kim

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 2, 2005, 09:44:

Greg and co... (Agh....my account logged out while I was typing the original version of this reply, so this version is going to be inevitably shorter)

I've been following that website for the past year, thus I'd say that Narconews, while certainly useful in some respects, tends to be too much of an Op-Ed and too little of an objective and neutral presentation of the facts.

As they indicate in one the guideline lists for what they call "authentic journalistm" (an oxymoron, truly), they have no interest in being balanced, but just in furthering their own advocacies, propositions and agendas. That's what all their articles are designed to do. If to accomplish that they must "forget" or "omitt" details that don't fit their self-constructed mold, then so be it.

One should definitely read their website with more than a pinch of salt, and confront their arguments with other sources, if one aspires to have a realistic picture of the situation (and not just a one-sided view that fits one's political opinions).

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

As for Uribe's reelection, I'd say that he certainly has a significant and solid plurality of Colombians behind him, even if not necessarily an outright majority.

To paraphrase an analysis that has recently surfaced (the numbers might not be exact but the proportions seem to work out):

36 percent of Colombians are in "We Love Uribe" mode.

27 percent of Colombians are in "We Hate Uribe" mode.

37 percent of Colombians are in "We Like Some of Uribe's Accomplishments but see Reasons for Criticism" mode.

For the opposition to be able to defeat Uribe, they must present a unified front that can offer a realistic alternative to Uribe (realistic being the key word), which appeals to moderate Uribists and undecided voters, without being perceived as too much "anti-anything Uribe" (including the positive achievement he has made).

Likewise, Uribe has got to make some changes to his policies or he will find that his support continues to erode among the centrists and partyless voters at large.

Btw, reelection was available in Colombia for much of the 19th and 20th centuries (first consecutively, then nonconsecutively), before 1991. Lopez Pumarejo, for example, was elected president twice, in the 1930s and 1940s.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Jan 2, 2005, 15:00:

Gracias Juan I stand corrected, and appreciate your information.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Jan 3, 2005, 10:02:

Uribe I agree with juancegomez´s appreciation on the situation, I like Uribe, but stand on the 37% that see some things that are critizable about him. I do not like his stubborness, which at point makes him commit mistakes, and the other problem is that the country has polarized itself, those pro Uribe what ever, will not accept critizism, and those against Uribe at any cost, are willing to do anything to get him out of power, if it means the new good faces that are around getting together with the old traditional corrupt politicians.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Jan 3, 2005, 10:33:

WOW Como aqui en EEUU!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Bruce V. Shrader says on Jan 5, 2005, 02:41:

Uribe I, for one, hope he gets re-elected.
he seems to be doing a pretty good job of
getting rid of the guerillas. I don't see what you people have against him. He should at least be able to run for a second term.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 5, 2005, 17:01:

Journalism and re-election Juance: Why is the notion of authentic journalism an oxymoron? I think there is a difference between neutrality and objectivity when reporting news. Taking a position is certainly not neutral, but it doesn't necessarily affect objectivity. Being neutral, that is, assuming a center position, is usually not objective: it defines its position relative to the extremes, not relative to the facts. Creationism, Flat Earth Society, US policy in Iraq, and the "Estatuto Antiterrorista" are all wrong, and when you back this statement with facts, you have an objective non-neutral approach. As a news consumer, your advice is correct: one should have multiple sources and read them all with more than a pinch of salt. But I would add: avoid the neutral and stick to the objective.

Where is the percentage of Colombians like me that deeply dislike Uribe but still acknowledge some accomplishments? I get the feeling (maybe I'm wrong) that a straw man is usually made out of those like me that oppose the majority of Uribe's policies. I don't "hate Uribe no matter what", and can't really tell of any educated opinion that does. Even his most staunch critics, like Antonio Caballero, Eduardo Sarmiento and Carlos Gaviria acknowledge some accomplishments. In some cases, though, it is like recognizing Germany's industrialization under Hitler: it doesn't quite make the man a saint. I will still do (almost) anything within my power to prevent his re-election. Although I would worry if the opposition starts recruiting the "old traditional corrupt politians", those who support Uribe should also worry about incidents like those of Yidis, Teodolindo and the likes.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 7, 2005, 10:38:

Sr Tertius Well, as I said, I consider "authentic journalism" to tend to be non-objective because, in addition to taking a specificly politized position on many subjects, it does not seek to adequately and "authentically" represent the facts, omitting those that do not help the case or which would logically lead to take a few statements back or at least to add in a few noticeable "buts" or "ifs".

It's not just because of the positions per se, but especially because of the way in which the arguments are constructed, almost beforehand, to reach a certain conclusion and stick to it, no matter what. Is that objective? I don't believe it to be so.

"Where is the percentage of Colombians like me that deeply dislike Uribe but still acknowledge some accomplishments?"

That one might well overlap with the 37 percent or the 27 percent previously mentioned, to some extent, depending on how much each factor is weighed (how much you like/dislike that).

It's not like that analysis was meant to be the "be all, end all" take on the matter, of course. I didn't invent it myself either. But well, in theory those percentages could well be subdivided to better specify those positions, upon further inspection.

"I will still do (almost) anything within my power to prevent his re-election. Although I would worry if the opposition starts recruiting the "old traditional corrupt politians", those who support Uribe should also worry about incidents like those of Yidis, Teodolindo and the likes."

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? Uribe is obviously entirely wrong by recurring to that kind of tactics.

In any case, I myself don't want to see Uribe get his reelection, once again I must state it because that's my true opinion, but I am definitely not as fatalistic and apocalyptic about the subject, making Uribe into the reincarnation of Hitler or the like.

Just as I don't see the entire FARC as the reincarnations of Stalin (for the most part that would be a ridiculous statement), for that matter (nor as clones of Che Guevara or WWII-era resistance movements , btw).

IMHO, it's such radical positions that have lead Colombia to its current state of war and political extremism.

I might be wrong or you might well disagree, it's your right to do so.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PC says on Jan 9, 2005, 13:28:

Gavira vs Uribe? Carlos Gaviria to mount a challenge to Uribe? Ha ha ha, ho, ho, ho, he he he, ooooh tha'ts rich.! You should be on Letterman. Get a grip man, down here, Carlos Gaviria is considerd to be Colombias answer to Lindon La Rouche. He is an extreme left wing liberal and avowed socialist. He is so extreme in fact, that he is not even accepted by the liberal party here and had to run as an independent. He is primarily supported by groups such as the Raelians, who have formally endorsed him.

He stands for such things as:

# Support of euthanasia
# Support of abortion
# Support of gays and lesbians
# His recent support for cloning practices.
# Complete separation of the catholic church and state

While these concepts might not seem so out of whack for rich liberal North Americans and Europeans, in a strict Roman catholic country like Colombia, they are so far beyond the mainstream as quite litterally to be laughable. Not only does he have absolutely zero chance of ever challenging Uribe, but he would probably not even fare well against a mediocre candidate and perennial loser like Horacio Serpa.

Serpa has lost to Samper, Pastrana, and Uribe. But I believe he could beat Gaviria easily in a two man race.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 9, 2005, 23:49:

PC Oh sure, Gaviria is a nobody, completely out of the mainstream... nevermind that he was the senator that obtained the largest amount of votes in the last congressional election, that he is widely acknowldege by friends and foes as a defining force in the Constitutional Court during his tenure, that he is considered one of the most respectable intellectuals on Colombian legislative and judicial issues, and alongside Antonio Navarro, the most visible adversary of the current administration in Congress.

That been said, let me list your inaccuracies, from the most ignorant and offensive, to the least severe:

1. "Primarily supported by groups such as the Raelians": The Frente Social y Político that supports him is, alongside Polo Democrático, the most important left-wing political coallition in Colombia. Even if you don't sympathize with some of their members, to compare MOIR and the Colombian Communist Party with the Raelians is a lamentable demonstration of historical ignorance. PC, I suggest you to get your information from a few places other than a Raelian website.

2. Well, the separation of Church and State is such a laughable matter in Colombia that it is written in the Constitution, and when the privileges of the Catholic church were either reduced or extended to other religious denominations, public opinion in Colombia was very favorable. Mostly because, I don't know if you may have noticed, even though most Colombians are Catholics, most prefer a secular State over the pre-91 version. Furthermore, gay-lesbian issues have been discussed openly in Congress and in the media, and Colombia has one of the strongest gay-lesbian organizations in Latin America that, in fact, supported Gaviria's candidacy. Oh, but of course, gays-lesbian are like Raelians, right? some sort of weirdos, and being Catholic probably also means been backwards and ultraconservative, nevermind that the government of one of the most Catholic countries in the known universe, Spain, is pushing a bill to legalize homosexual marriage, while in the US... well, we know what happened.

3. "He is not even accepted by the liberal party": First: Gaviria never tried to run as a member of the liberal party, and Second: The "Liberal" in the Colombian Liberal Party stands for the 19th century definition in politics, that is, representing the interests of commerce rather than artisans and industry (where the term neo-liberal comes from), not the more modern and mostly US-definition associated with progressives and left-wing militancy. Remember that Uribe, arguably the most conservative president in Colombia since Laureano Gómez, was a militant of the Liberal Party.

4. Gaviria has presented his name as a pre-candidate for a united opposition to Uribe, and the Polo Democrático, the other main opposition force in Colombia, has taken his offer quite seriously. Whether he ends up being the official candidate or not is still not decided, and it is much more likely that Navarro would take that job (unless the Liberal party joins these opposition forces, and then who knows what will happen).

The pre-candidacy of Gaviria is one the most important political events of the second half of 2004: it has pushed others (including Serpa and Polo Democrático) to define themselves relative to Uribe by starting the electoral race. But you keep busy worrying about the Raelians...

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 10, 2005, 19:23:

... Sr Tertius's has pretty much hit the nail in the head here, in my opinion....Gaviria's definitely an important political figure in the left and doesn't have a low profile within the opposition.

He'd make an interesting choice but, unfortunately, most of the time people don't vote for would-be's (or those better suited for the job), but for candidates. That's why one can be skeptical of his practical electoral success in a presidential race, if not of his record (which is pretty good, as mentioned already).

The only other thing that I'd mention is that the Liberal party has always tended to have more troubles defining itself ideologically than say, the Conservatives, and has usually been more of a "big tent" for non-outright rightwingers than anything else.

It's divided internally even today, but officially it's been pretty much "de facto" opposed to Uribe, at least leadership-wise.

It'll be interesting to see if at least that part of the party can effectively unite with the opposition once again (like they did to elect Luis Eduardo Garzón to office in Bogotá, though they shouldn't take too much credit for that one...). The specific question is whether they'll prefer to send out their own candidate this time and not want to rely (or compromise) too much on the FSP/PDI's for such a big job. Who knows...

And btw, as far as Uribe's membership goes...well, yeah, that's curious when examined retrospectively, but check out the following article from Semana (quotes material originally from a 1988 issue):

http://semana.terra.com.co/opencms/opencms/Semana/articulo.html?id=84074

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Jan 11, 2005, 02:16:

Uribe thought about signing that law already in the moment when he was elected.
Actually it is reasonable to have a president serving two terms if the people like him.

I think the Presidents in developing countries like Colombia or the USA grab by far too much power. I think beine a presiden should be purely ceremonial and not more. The parliament should decide what happens.

UMM

My Forum

kernow62 says on Jan 11, 2005, 04:29:

Good point umm. I think that should be the case too, I also think that Bush should be allowed to wear a crown and silk slippers and a velvet robe. He would like that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Jan 11, 2005, 04:57:

Probably kernow, guess the next step would be POPE.

UMM

My Forum

PC says on Jan 22, 2005, 08:46:

My money's on Still on Uribe Tertius,

Gaviria is a clown and everyone here knows it. Sure he got a lot of votes from extremeists, but they really are extremists. You bet I would equate the Colombian Communist Party with Raelians. Anybody who still clings to that throughly discredited world view in the post cold war era is definitely on a par with the Raelians. Even the FARC don't really believe it. The fact is they are about as capitalist as it gets.

There may be enough of them to elect a buffoon like Chavez in Venezuela, but here in Colombia people hve had just about all of their BS that they are gong to put up with. After 40 years of the FARC using that nonsense as a cover for their mafia activities, nobody in this country in the mainstream supports them and very few who ally themselves with their proclaimed ideals.

I suggest you look for a more maintream, or at least more objective source than the Narco news.

I'll make a prediction right here and now. Barring a successful assassination of Uribe, Gaviria will lose by a landslide if he even get's to the second round.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 22, 2005, 09:30:

PC I'm sorry PC, but you are fuming, not arguing. When you decide to stop calling names like "clown" and "buffoon", and show a bit of historical sensitivity, I'll be glad to continue this conversation.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kikiortiz11 says on Jan 22, 2005, 13:08:

Uribe For those of you out there whom do not like Uribe, I would like to know seriously why.. I am an Uribista and I am very curious.. please. Thanks

Kiki Ortiz-Matallana

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kikiortiz11 says on Jan 22, 2005, 13:10:

Reelection I also want to know why it seems a lot of people are against Reelection.. If you are tell me why..

Kiki Ortiz-Matallana

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 22, 2005, 23:47:

Reelection Kiki: Last week, Hernando Gomez summed up the criticisms to the re-election process in his op-ed in Semana (in Spanish).

http://semana.terra.com.co/opencms/opencms/Semana/articulo.html?id=84146

It would not surprise me that the Constitutional Court will find anomalies in the way it was made into law.

Other things aside, for a president to spend State resources in securing an extended stay is, under any qualifications, a gross abuse of power. Particularly when the Republic is constituted in such way as to prohibit those practices. But, of course, for Mr. Uribe the Constitution and the Law are little more than obstacles to his messianic histeria.

As for opinions relative to the policies of the current administration, I think this forum has provided plenty of arguments (and other things too). It seems pointless to repeat them here when you can search through the website.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 23, 2005, 08:50:

Gaviria's Character "Gaviria is a clown and everyone here knows it"....

Pardo Rueda, a Colombian senator and former Miniser of Defense, points out in his new book, "La Historia de Las Guerras", that during the 1990 presidential election Gaviria was the only presidential candidate that openly said he would support extradition of narcos. This was a time when los extraditables assisinated reporters, police chiefs, judges, presidential candidates, everyone that voiced support for extradition laws. All the other presidential candidates caved in to Pablo Escobar and said they would not support extradition.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jccg says on Jan 23, 2005, 09:16:

About Uribe and the news... Firstable, there are not "objetive" news, that you can find are news that tell you one side or the other side, it is on you to take an objetive perspective.

Do Colombians like Uribe?
Well, you have to ask ¿what do you mean with colombians?. Certanly, Narcos, burocrats and industrials like Uribe's policys, but the middle and lower classes are suffering by this policys.

Why Colombians do not like reelection?
The question is wrong... the correct is ¿why colombians do not like is Uribe's reelection?. Besides, the project is not about reelection, is about authorize the Uribe's reelection and then forbide anyones else reelection.. you see!!

Personally, I don't like Uribe, but I think that in a good system, the people would have the chance to keep a good "dirigente" (sorry I forgot the word in english) in the power, and change a bad one.. then the major, the governator, the president... would have the chance to stay in charge. And about the preelectoral season... the person in a public charge has not to make any propaganda but show to the people what ha has done in his periond of time...
If a good one is in power for 40 years, it is fine if it is good for the people.

This is just the true!!

This is just the true!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jccg says on Jan 23, 2005, 09:27:

kikiortiz11 "For those of you out there whom do not like Uribe, I would like to know seriously why.. I am an Uribista and I am very curious.. please. Thanks"

* Law 100
* Law 50
i.e. destruction of social security and privatization of thehealt right (or to be clear, make the healt system a private business)

* The law that authorize the industry to not to pay extra hours of work.

* The privatization of Colcarbono (done), telecom (done), ecopetrol (in process), EEPP (in process), public universities (in process)

* The lowering of the public education system (ampliación de cobertura) by puting from three to four times more students per professor.

* To give political status to the narco-mercenaries (AUC)

Do you need more?

This is just the true!!

This is just the true!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 23, 2005, 10:02:

Gaviria and extradition Vladimiro,

So many Gavirias, it's easy to get confused. We were talking about Carlos Gaviria Diaz, the current senator for FSP, not former president Cesar Gaviria. And, BTW, many of us didn't support and still do not support the extradition of Colombian nationals to the US out of principle, not because we have any sympathies towards drug traffickers. The recent use of this legal procedure as a political tool with the FARC is a shameful example of why we should get rid of it.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 23, 2005, 10:34:

... Btw, EL TIEMPO has provided a piece on the obstacles/steps that the reelection process still has to go through. It's a bit less opinionated than Buendía's piece (basically because he seems to be so pessismitic/fatalisticc to the point of being self-defeating...which for me, as someone who doesn't want Uribe to be reelected, is not a good way to go about things...if one is to succeed, one hast to try to be positive and continue fighting until the last minute, not give up before the time has run out).

http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/poli/2005-01-23/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-1950956.html

vladimiro montisinos: Are you sure you're talking about the right Gaviria there? Ie: Carlos and not César. I'm not too sure myself, honestly.

jccg:

"The question is wrong... the correct is ¿why colombians do not like is Uribe's reelection?. Besides, the project is not about reelection, is about authorize the Uribe's reelection and then forbide anyones else reelection.. you see!!"

Actually, if we try to keep closer to the facts, at some point, the reelection project, as it was going through Congress, did allow for others (mayors, governors) to seek reelection too (and to run for the office of president without retiring, for example), but that clause fell through in one of the debates. The government, for its own reasons, didn't exactly like that at the time either because it actually wanted that sort of clauses to be kept in (something similar was tried in the days of the Referendum).

As for reasons to oppose/dislike Uribe, there are plenty...everyone has his own reasons, right or wrong, right or left (hah, I know, that sounded weird...but I was not trying to be symmetric here, honestly). Everyone has a different assessment, there's not just one big list of "correct" reasons anywhere.

IMHO, however, disagreeing with Uribe and his policies doesn't mean that one has to misrepresent them or the facts. One can be critical and even angry at them, as much as necessary, without having to hurl insults or exaggerations around.

If for nothing else other than the fact that such behavior simply plays right into the enemy's hands, so to speak (see the savage attacks vs. Bush and their outcome, for example).

Just as disagreeing with and rejecting many of the FARC's actions doesn't mean that one has to limit their description to be "bloody mindless stalinist terrorists".

Or just as Saddam being an ostensibly "evil" person and a dictator didn't exactly justify the way in which such a situation was "resolved" (just naming an example here, ok? not trying to lecture anyone on that last point...that's for another discussion).

There are, as evidently these forums display, even internal disagreements between people who nevertheless do share the desire that they don't want Uribe to be reelected.

"* To give political status to the narco-mercenaries (AUC)"

For example...while I'm very critical of the current road taken by the discussions and demobilizations with the AUC, and I do see a real danger of their being left mostly off the hook (to paraphrase HRW's recent take on the subject), I'd have to say that such a statement seems to be a simplification of a more complex situation, both on the AUC's side and on the government's side.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 23, 2005, 13:25:

Regarding Extradition I also think on principal extraditing Colombians to the US for crimes committed in Colombia is wrong, and perhaps it was more for nationalistic reasons rather than personal safety that Colombian politicians were against it. However, for pratcical reasons extradition to the US seems to be an unfortunate necessity until Colombia's judicial system becomes strong enough to resist being influenced by armed groups or members of governemt. Judges and prosecuters aren't provided armored cars or body guards and are quite vunerable(I read that the small amount of plan colombia spent on security for judges was cut).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 23, 2005, 18:04:

Question: Sr. Tertius, I'm curious, when you refer to extradition being used as a political tool against the FARC, what do you mean?

My impression is that the majority of people being extradited to the US are narcos who, if they have ties to any of the armed groups, would be AUC.

Sure, they extradited Trinidad, but that's the only one I know of out of some 150+ extraditions under Uribe.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 23, 2005, 18:49:

I can't pretend to speak for Sr Tertius, but there's somewhat of a generalized impression in some opposition circles that conditioning Trinidad's extradition to the FARC release of the 60-something "political" hostages was mainly for political means (ie: Uribe could then say that he was giving the FARC a good offer and a chance to prevent the extradition of Trinidad, even if he knew that they would have most likely rejected or ignored such a petition..as it happened).

There's also the argument that the way in which Mancuso's "extradition" (formally approved, but not going to happen unless he breaks certain conditions related to the demobilization negotiations) was handled also correponds to a political use of that mechanism.... or you could even argue that the Trinidad offer was made precisely in an attempt to justify giving Mancuso such benefits.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 23, 2005, 19:56:

But, of course... So the criticism of Uribe was that he, a politician, used his power to do political things? Frankly I don't get what's wrong with that.

Of course, a president would use leverage like Trinidad to attempt to get the FARC to bend his way. But what's unfair about that? He also used similar leverage to get the Cali-area cartels to bend his way and I suspect that the reason he's managed to have thousands of AUC actually demobilize is by using the same carrot-stick approach with their leadership.

Is it pretty? no. But politics is a game played hard and for keeps. And Uribe is a pretty tough player, no matter what ones sympathies are.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 24, 2005, 02:03:

Bad carrot Juance: Thanks, you saved me some typing.

Mr. H: Even though the extradition mechanism is intended to be used at the discretion of the president, discretion implies good judgement. It is expected that the president would confirm the merits of the request (a judicial/technical issue) and, most importantly, determine if other considerations make the extradition inconvenient. The carrot-and-stick use it had in the Trinidad case is an overt abuse of a mechanism for judicial cooperation, primarily because:

a) Its use was conditioned to a decision of a third party (the FARC) over which the accused had no proven control. (It's like a judge telling you that he will not put you on probation for a DUI if and only if your brother stops selling drugs).

and

b) There are extra-judicial conditions that make Trinidad's extradition (as well as Mancuso's and other actors in the internal conflict) inconvenient. For a peace process to be viable, the administration has to secure as much control as possible over the access to the main actors in such dialogue. This control is given away when they are sent to jail overseas.

The carrot-and-stick approach is a valid tool for negotiation, but the carrot has to be an appropriate carrot (not the application of the law), just as the stick has to be an appropriate stick (not, for example, the violation of human rights). No matter how noble your purpose is (e.g., arresting a criminal) it doesn't justify any means to obtain it (e.g., bribing foreign officials), otherwise it legitimizes the same practice for others. It is not a matter of whether this is pretty or not, or even if it is fair or not; it is a matter of good vs. bad politics, of short-term gains vs. long-term losses.

The same carrot-and-stick approach was applied by the Pastrana administration during the dialogues with the FARC: DMZ (carrot) and "Plan Colombia" (stick). Of course the FARC made an abusive use of the carrot, but it also legitimized its claim that under such stick it was impossible to negotiate. And that was the end of the peace process. What this shows to me is that either a) The current administration learned nothing from previous mistakes, or b) It is more interested in *showing* that the FARC has no willingness for dialogue (re-election campaign?), rather than in engaging them in a peace process. I believe (warning: somewhat-informed speculation ahead) the latter is the case. If it is so, the discretionary use of legal mechanisms like this should at least be curtailed to avoid this kind of abusive and demagogic use. Ultimately, I think we should get rid of it (out of principle, and because it creates more problems than it solves) and substitute it with specific and controlled mechanisms of judicial cooperation.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Chuck says on Jan 24, 2005, 09:00:

We used to be dead! Or frozen in time and space.

Yes, We Colombians used to be prisioners of our homes, of our towns. Now we feel 95% free again.

Did someone mentioned freedom before in the US?

Bolivar, Washington, San Martín and many other heroes gave folks freedom. They made their own share of mistakes, Uribe ain't perfect!. I forgive him. I will relect him and I will pray that in the future someone like him will continue his work.

Meanwhile the US has to change their policies, the Free Market treaty is shamefull. More disposable income for american families and less income for our poor families.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 24, 2005, 14:36:

thanks Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Sr Tertius.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 24, 2005, 16:40:

Talking about extradition... Mr. H: Very welcomed.

And, talking about extradition... has anyone seen Carlos Lehder lately??

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.