What a mess!

webmanco says on May 15, 2007, 21:36:

Uribe´s words
I have evidence, which I’m not going to disclose here, [they are] from military and police intelligence.


Whe asked if the opposition was being tracked by military intelligence

Look, ask Andrés Peñate (DAS secret police director, whose predecessor Jorge Noguera is accused of letting the paramilitaries to infiltrate it), here the Government is being made intelligence work.

judicial
Grabando, grabando... Semana

Entrevista de Andrés Oppenheimer a Uribe

Bueno, ¿pero por qué no han extraditado a uno sólo de los cinco líderes paramilitares que estan en prisión?, pregunté. Uribe dijo que un líder paramilitar recientemente capturado, identificado como ''H'' podría ser extraditado ``en un horizonte cercano``.

Hacia el final de la entrevista, le pregunté a Uribe -que goza de una popularidad de cerca del 70 por ciento en su país- si estaría dispuesto a decir que no tratara de cambiar la ley para poder reelegirse nuevamente en el 2010, cuando termine su segundo mandato.

Uribe eludió la pregunta. ``Andrés, quédate tranquilo. Ese no es el tema (del momento)`, dijo. Cuando insistí, señaló: ``No le demos a estas entrevistas frivolidad. El tema es cómo superamos este escándalo de la parapolítica, cómo le explicamos a la comunidad internacional los logros de Colombia``.

Precisamente, repliqué. ¿Acaso no le convendría a Colombia presentarse ante el mundo como una democracia moderna, cuyo presidente deja bien en claro que, a diferencia de sus vecinos autoritarios, no buscará perpetuarse en el poder?, pregunté.

``No me den lecciones de democracia. Excusenme que de pronto sea arrogante en eso. Yo soy un combatiente de la democracia, y sé muy bien cuál es la diferencia entre caudillismo y liderazgo''.

Mi opinión: es fácil entender por que Uribe continúa teniendo una alta popularidad en su país. Es un político frontal, que está logrando reducir la violencia en Colombia, y que ante la adversidad toma la iniciativa desafiando al mundo -y a Gore- a examinar su gestión en ese tema, que es el que más les interesa a los colombianos.


El Gobierno provoca la más grande crisis en la historia de la Policía al comprobar que ésta hacía grabaciones ilegales
Revista Semana

Mayo 15 de 2007

Salvatore Mancuso señaló a cuatro generales y al Gobierno en audiencia de Justicia y Paz

El Tiempo

portada
“Te llamo desde la prisión"
Revista Semana


Unfortunaly Fernando Vallejo does have a clearer picture of Colombia

(I really hate it when women get their panties all bunched up their butt, they can get so cranky!) Poor butt happy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on May 16, 2007, 09:29:

IMHO The computer that was seized from "Jorge 40" should be declared a Colombian national artifact of value. It has busted the balls of nearly a thousand of the sleazy paracos complete with ties to Alvarito.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on May 16, 2007, 09:59:

sip Tinto Why the hell is that bastard getting let go so soon?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 16, 2007, 10:50:

Good question It looks like he initially received a 40 yr sentence, later reduced to 30 years. Maybe good behavior allowed him to serve only 15 years total. Hard to understand, though, as some of the federal sentences for Colombian narcos are 30 years with no chance of early parole.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 18, 2007, 13:25:

Well... Looks like my previous post didn't go through, so here's a replacement:

Sr Tertius: The worst thing is that the problem goes far beyond "La Catedral". In many ordinary jails, Itagui included, various criminals still manage to continue breaking the law even while behind bars.

Apparently some of the paramilitaries in Itagui are just following that tradition.

Mancuso's words could have significant implications, but for the moment I wouldn't swallow them whole. Parts of them are plausible, like those about Mr. del Rio, but others seem surprising and possibly weaker, like those about the Santos brothers (and Francisco in particular, as Juan Manuel seems to have a bit of a darker streak, though nothing quite that sinister as of yet).

As for the wiretappings, apparently it was the government itself who says it "caught" someone within the Police spying on the opposition and non-opposition alike.

Originally, this week's Semana had presented the paramilitary wiretappings as evidence of their continued activities from jail, but it didn't talk about the nature of the tapes nor any possible spying against other people. In other words, the government seemingly reacted to the Semana article by extending the scandal to other spheres. Make of that what you will.

Tinto: With all due respect, I think you're being extremely unfair to General Naranjo. His brother may be a minor crook, but that alone says little to nothing about anyone else in the family.

webmanco: I must beg to differ about Mr. Vallejo. See the other topic.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 18, 2007, 14:34:

Tinto, I meant minor as in: ..."He's not freaking Rodríguez Orejuela nor Pablo Escobar (and even in those cases, I wouldn't morally crucify every single member of those families either, nor Mussolini's or Stalin's...or Nixon's or Saddam's, for the sake of variety)".

Perhaps "not a major criminal" would have been a better description.

Even if families are "tight" (and that varies a lot), that doesn't mean that they "know" everything, nor (much less) that they are responsible for everything.

Even if they know/suspect about a possible/actual crime (and this also varies), they aren't legally obliged to denounce/testify against their direct relatives, though they are of course obliged to avoid participating in such activities.

Why? Because it's always freaking hard to act against your own father, mother or brother, independent of nationality, and IMHO it's unreasonable to expect most people to tear out their own hearts and act with cold logic. People aren't robots.

On the other hand, it could be reasonably expected for someone to denounce their third-degree cousin, for example (though I forget the exact definition / requirement in the law, so even this might not apply).

Of course, in more than a few cases, there may well be way more than one or two members of a given family involved, but that still doesn't allow for absolute generalizations regarding the rest of them.

Sigh...it seems that the concept of "you're guilty until proven innocent, because someone else already committed a crime" and its twisted ramifications seems to be becoming increasingly common these days (outside of certain visa applications, I mean).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on May 18, 2007, 14:57:

Noriega I still can't figure out why he gets the "Get Out of Jail Almost Free" card so soon.

FYI, a journalist friend of mine was on assignment when US forces seized his palace and ripped off his Rolex!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 18, 2007, 17:07:

Tinto I still think it's rather unfair of you to put Samper, Araujo, Noguera (the former top DAS guy, if you want to be clear, who hasn't held that post since 2005) and Naranjo in exactly the same bag, with no distinctions.

His known "skeletons" aren't even of the same nature, let alone magnitude, for that to be fair.

Maybe it's just me, but having a brother involved in a drug crime is nowhere near the same neighborhood of dirt as most of the others were/are/seem to be in. If it even classifies as dirt at all.

So I sure as heck don't see why General Naranjo is "part of the problem" right now, unless "having a family member involved in a drug crime" suddenly becomes the Mark of Cain (ironically enough).

Having less tolerance for proven or at least heavily suspected criminals is one thing, but this is something else entirely. This is "guilt by association" (with a given person, not with the crime), and I think that fallacy belongs in the trashcan until proven otherwise, to put it bluntly.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 18, 2007, 18:09:

Tinto You're entitled to that opinion and I'm entitled to disagree, I suppose. If Naranjo's own merits are enough (something I cannot properly judge from my position, mind you), then so be it.

Btw, that is indeed a childish outburst, but in that case Uribe's reputation and the resulting perceptions are filled with far more dirt by now (though the quality of that dirt can be endlessly debated for now, as has been done before). Uribe would probably give up his right ear for his dirt level to shrink to the proportion's of Naranjo's (if that is even applicable) thus far.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on May 18, 2007, 19:50:

Tinto,"Childish outburst"? Tinto,

"Childish outburst"?

I'd say it's justified. The US Congress, especially the Democrats, is acting like a bunch of jerks towards Colombia. Colombia has met just about their every demand and they still say that isn't enough? What the hell do these people want from us? I think the Vice President is right when he says we should reexamine our relationship with the US. Who needs "friends" like that?

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on May 18, 2007, 21:24:

Did you hear Uribe? I heard the speech while driving home from work today and it was more extreme than anything I've heard from him. It reminded me of those fascist Argentine Generals in the 70s.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on May 18, 2007, 22:59:

Yeah, it was awesome!
Uribe Yeah, it was awesome!

Uribe finally got some pride and said 'up yours'!!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lpdiver says on May 18, 2007, 23:35:

Its a trade agreement... Not a friendship. If mutually agreement can't be reached walk away.

t

"cook some rice!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 19, 2007, 22:28:

What worries me Is not Naranjo's family. At least in Colombia, it is difficult to be a public figure and not be related to someone who has done something illegal, or is under investigation for allegedly doing something illegal, or having ties with people that do illegal things (ask Conchi Araujo, or even Uribe himself).

The childish character of Uribe's outbursts doesn't keep me awake either. It is the content of what he says that worries me: He has openly admitted spying on the opposition. For the ethically challenged in PBH, let me clarify that that's illegal. Moreover, now that we know that paracos, members of the government, the opposition, and the press were being spied, the government is not concerned so much about the paracos persisting in their criminal activities or the government itself engaging in criminal activities, but it is more concerned with who leaked the information.

I don't know about the rest of you, but every day Uribe looks more like Fujimori...

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 20, 2007, 07:37:

The cover of this week's Cambio speaks by itself

It almost makes me feel sorry for the man.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on May 20, 2007, 09:39:

¡EH AVE MAR�A! Spoken like a good paisa. Sr T, parece que Alvarito, sin el apoyo de su butt buddy Bush está jodido.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 20, 2007, 09:57:

Sr Tertius "Moreover, now that we know that paracos, members of the government, the opposition, and the press were being spied, the government is not concerned so much about the paracos persisting in their criminal activities or the government itself engaging in criminal activities, but it is more concerned with who leaked the information."

That's one of the key elements of the scandal that seems to be a bit difficult to explain, from the looks of things. The leak (which is also admittedly illegal, though leaks in general are very common), not the content per se, is what seems to have led to this latest crisis and Naranjo's appointment. Not a good sign.

"I don't know about the rest of you, but every day Uribe looks more like Fujimori..."

There are obvious "points of comparison", so to speak, but I wouldn't equate him with Fujimori (or Colombia with Peru, by extension) just yet.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 20, 2007, 11:22:

Migue, Juance ¿Viste a don Alvaro en su alocucioncita? Ta embejucao. ¿Será que eso le hace ganar puntos? Es que parece que a los colombianos nos gusta que nos den rejo, carajo. Le pide a los generales que rescaten a los secuestrados, "¡se los ruego!" grita. Lleva con la embejucadera y la rogadera como 5 años. A mí ya me tiene mamao pero, mucho más grave, a los secuestrados los tiene pudriéndose entre el olvido y la demagogia.

Juance: There are already people coming to the defense of Uribe, saying that it is unlikely that he knew about the widespread operation conducted by police intelligence, that it occurred "behind his back" (sounds familiar? okay, okay, I know, it's not the same...) In fact, I agree with that assessment, but that doesn't explain why Uribe so openly admited that he had "military and police intelligence" on the opposition trying to subvert the FTA in Washington. Have you heard any reasonable explanation that justifies tracking the opposition as if they were criminals?

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 20, 2007, 12:15:

Y por más que grite así no es como se solucionan las cosas Both of us know it's not a matter of screaming or begging, but some people do find that rhetoric attractive still...the way I see it, if the military could realistically free the majority of the hostages, such rhetoric would not have much (if any) impact anyways.

I do think it's reasonable to selectively apply military rescue attempts when and where they have a chance of success. But that is a relatively rare occasion. And of course, there are extremely few cases where some lucky hostages will manage to escape by themselves. That won't apply to most.

The solution for most victims has to be, in the end, a negotiated one. Not one blindly swallowing each and every term presented by FARC (there are plenty of reasonable people in the PDA and elsewhere that recognize as much), but still being way more flexible in practice and less prone to political posturing than Uribe.

Btw...I didn't see the entire speech (though I did catch a bit more of it than I wanted, as I was waiting for a rerun of Mr. Pinchao's interview)...

As for the intelligence scandal...the door remains open. I can't categorically state whether he knew or not, but I'd tend agree with you in that his words do cause justified worry.

Mr. Peñate of the DAS (thus far more respectable than Noguera) made a half-hearted attempt to explain it as being human intelligence (rumors, third party sources, press, etc), but in any case he only speaks for his office.

Exactly what Uribe meant may be up for debate, but he himself opened a huge can of worms and it's a dangerous one, in the context of the criminalization of the opposition (sad and not a new trend either, unfortunately, like so many other things). If you say something like that, you'd better be prepared for people to assume the worst, given how Uribe has verbally treated many of his opponents (including those that question him strongly but decently, I might add) and contributed more fuel to the fire.

In the end, being against the FTA is not a crime, and I agree that people shouldn't be treated like criminals for it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 20, 2007, 12:49:

Regarding kidnappings Juance, I think we are pretty much on the same page on the basics, but I'd like to be clear about one point, regarding people being kidnapped by FARC. At this stage, I don't care what policy the government decides to take, as long as it formulates A policy, implements it, and takes political responsibility for its consequences. What pisses me off about Uribe is that he keeps yelling and pretending to be so decisive, but when it comes to this issue, he is extremely pussyfooted. If he decides to go the military way or the negotiated way or on a case-by-case basis, he should give us a progress update, something--I'm not asking for tactical details, just something that shows ANY progress. Instead, all we get are bociferous rants.

This is my hypothesis: To choose either policy is too costly, politically, to Uribe. He seems to care more about his favorability numbers than on the long-term interest of the nation. Going military will probably result in bloodshed of levels unacceptable to the public; going negotiated will make him look like a sissy. So he's decided to go the best way (for him): Do nothing, but yell a lot so it seems like he is doing something.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 20, 2007, 17:53:

Sr Tertius That's an interesting hypothesis and it's a plausible one, now that you mention it.

Yes, so far Uribe's all talk and little action about it (which can also be said about other subjects), at least as far as the public goes.

Following your hypothesis...if I had to guess, he's probably tried to do a few things behind the scenes, in either direction, but without the guts to follow through in any significant way and risk a political cost, hence why there's little to nothing worth reporting.

He seemingly doesn't want to pay any cost if something goes wrong. So he tries and tries, talks and talks, but is incapable of risking his political points when things demand a greater push, so it's a bit of an endless circle.

Sure, he just made a new proposal, but it seems to be stuck in the same vortex of political inaction and inertia that has swallowed other previous alternatives. The government says that it will still free the guerrillas despite the FARC's rejection of the proposal, but we still haven't seen anything concrete. It's doubtful we will, most likely.

While I can't tell whether an exit will eventually pop up in spite of that, both the FARC and Uribe seem to be quite content, politically speaking, about the current state of affairs. Sadly. They both assume positions that complement each other and play to their respective audiences.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on May 20, 2007, 19:59:

Skepticism and dialectics "Sure, he just made a new proposal, but it seems to be stuck in the same vortex of political inaction and inertia that has swallowed other previous alternatives." Like everything else with this government, I'll believe it when I see it. (Although, I wonder, why is he so insistent on freeing up these people?)

"both the FARC and Uribe seem to be quite content, politically speaking, about the current state of affairs." Very true, and very sad. FARC and Uribe, and the politics they represent, appear to need each other to subsist.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on May 21, 2007, 01:20:

Hey miguel.... """"I still can't figure out why he gets the "Get Out of Jail Almost Free" card so soon.

FYI, a journalist friend of mine was on assignment when US forces seized his palace and ripped off his Rolex!!!""""

Hey, miguel. I guess his $10,000 Rolex was equivalent of your $10 timex, eh?

Dinero talks and E.St.L bs walks. (But, it takes a licking)

'what does it mean, when one of you (colombians) tell another: YOU WERE NOT/ARE NOT. 'COLOMBIAN ENOUGH'?? jejeje..a mixture, I think, of stupidity mixed with a false sense of arrogance.. How 'colombian' do you have to be? to be 'colombian enough

0 funny, 0 helpful.