Though if I am naive, which may well be the case in the grand scheme of things, I am also willing to accept that you might be right -eventually- about certain issues. My opinions are my own, so I can’t help but defend them -at least for now-, yet I do not believe them to be “bulletproof”. That’s one thing worth considering.

If Uribe’s participation in EL Aro -or that of his office’s helicopter at least- is proven to be correct beyond any reasonable doubt, I will gladly applaud any judicial punishment. But in the meanwhile…if I am naive about Uribe’s rights to due process before assuming his guilt, then perhaps you are being naive in the other direction: any and all accusation count as valid, a person’s rights be damned. And I ask: if Uribe can lie to save his own neck, why can’t people lie *about* Uribe, one way or another, for exactly the same reason? Criminals slime each other, but they can also do that to specific innocents they see as scapegoats (even if those same individuals are in fact criminals themselves, in other cases).

Again, I can understand -even if I do not do so- calling Colombia a “narco-state”, if you wish, but not stopping right there. Ignoring that, to say the least, the rest of Colombia’s economy cannot be seriously compared to Afghanistan’s, let alone its history. I still see no real explanation or proof that Colombia has been intentionally “designed” by some mysterious hand(s) to be a “narco-state”, as it has been implied. And no, I am not up to date on Afghanistan, not right now at least, so I don’t get your last point.

Btw, I certainly don’t go around saying to everyone that Colombia is a “land of assiduous workers and nice people”, nor that “Colombia is Passion” is a good slogan, so that music pretty much goes right through my ears. If anything, at the end of the day, other people might accuse me of the opposite.

I am not vouching for every other Colombian, but I know what it is to be treated unfairly just because of how things “manifest”, so I believe in due process for all human beings (even for SOBs), as imperfect as it may be.

Better to let the guilty go free than to condemn innocents, is what I think. And that’s one reason I cannot accept the arbitrary detentions Uribe has carried out, ironically enough, nor his slandering against critics.

In the first place I am not suggesting I am mistake proof, as you hint, events are fully loaded of unexpected twists and turns.

However, considering you my friend I will share some info with you, and let you draw pertinent conclusions.

Macaco won’t ever step back on Colombian soil. He won’t ever be the person he used to be, at least to the outside world. Even if the press announces he is in a security jail, he might as well be growing pepper mint in Arizona. Money matters.

The guy who accused Uribe of being one of the perpetrators of the Massacre, had declared so since his first court appearance. As you say there are some contradictions but I believe most of the testimony, taking into account previous clues as to Uribe’s involvement in the massacre (not the only one by the way).

Don’t forget there were previous declarations by people having seen The yellow Governor’s helicopter hovering over and supervising the massacre.

Colombia is not only a narco state is the biggest narco State in the world, along with Birmania and probably now Afghanistan. Can you tell me what happened in Afghanistan lately by the way?

LIsten the fact that you can live a relatively calm bourgeois life in Bogota, and that you are decent person don’t automatically speak the same for most of your country fellas. It’s so difficult to accept? Why? you must only vouch for yourself, not for every other Colombian that by chance was born in the same land coordinates you were.

I guess when you get to understand this, you won’t get so excited when you read something about Colombia, that in your mind is a conspiracy to discredit the land of “assiduous workers and nice people”. Think.

In other words, you’re right (because all you’re doing is, supposedly, calling on things as they “manifest” and adding no interpretation or opinion or your own…yeah right, tell me another one) and I am not.

Even in the unlikely event that you’re right about, say, 75% of the issues we’ve disagreed about, I’d still point to the other 25% and that’d be enough to justify my skepticism regarding certain things you automatically take for granted . Although I suspect that the real figures will be less one sided, to be honest, but it’s not like it matters right now. Have it your way then.

“I remember a long discussion we had about Uribe being involved in the El Aro massacre, While you said the evidence was too feeble to be considered then, I wonder what you think now that the testimony of one of the participants has come to light.”

Does it not seem curious that said testimony only emerges 10 years after the guy had given himself up to authorities and first talked about the case, and that certain details in his new declarations are contradictory or conflicting? For example, whether General Manosalva could be at the meeting, if he was supposedly already dead. It’s also the firs time the guy, who has given other declarations to authorities, is claiming that the massacre was intended to rescue kidnapped (!) individuals from the guerrillas. Nothing about that was in his earlier testimony, so it’s not just the Uribe bit which is questionable. But no…you must be right, because things are just “manifesting” themselves, the rest of the details doesn’t matter.

Btw, I am not saying that Uribe isn’t involved in this, or any other, crime. But I do believe in due process and not in “popular justice” or what have you, which would reduce everything to lynchings depending on how events “manifest”.

“There are things that are evident even if history itself, will never acknowledge them to have been true or ever occurred.”

And there are also things that were not evident and not true, even if history acknowledges them as such…and some of them are later revealed to be incorrect.

“As to Colombia being a carefully designed Narco State, suffix to say no other country with zillions invested supposedly against combating the “scourge” would have persisted for such a long time in the business otherwise, with such strong evidence of money therefrom having infiltrated the highest political institutions and society’s creme de la creme, and still continue to do so. (For further proof you’d have to read plenty of books supporting this position, from a more formal perspective).”

In other words, that’s the only explanation you can find, even though it’s very difficult to imagine how and why such a “design” would have been established and implemented, let alone by who. I think there are other explanations that don’t require any conspiracy-like “designs”, also supported by other books and authors, even if they are critical of the situation and of the wasted money. Plus there’s also the fact that the drug war itself is fundamentally flawed and hasn’t had lasting success elsewhere, at best leading to balloon effects. Guess that’s also part of the “design”.

“I hope you have read Semana’s articles on the para’s at Itagui being negotiating their extradition since more than a year, as well as from several others that showed how the paramilitaries secluded there continue to be involved in crimes. You don’t need to be too smart to realize what they are seeking is to be left out of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. So I’d dare say Berna will be extradited sooner or later, that is if Uribe don’t get busted out of Office before that happens.”

I have in fact read a fair amount of those articles. The success or failure of those negotiations will vary, however, unless you claim to know all of their results and are convinced that they are all positive. If extradition were such a good thing, I wonder why Escobar didn’t just give himself up. It was just so easy, it seems.

So essentially you believe that they want to go to the U.S. because they won’t end up in an international court. In the short term, at least, you have a point and I think that may be a good reason for those negotiations.

However, what you are forgetting is that even if they ended up serving, say, a mere 5-10 years in a U.S. jail for drug trafficking, they’d have to be freed and returned to Colombia, where they could face any other charges that still stand (especially those for atrocities and war crimes, as there are provisions that alone them to be judged years after the fact), and in such a situation the ICC could in fact still play a role. Even if the sentences are much longer, it’s not like the Court would never be able to reach them. And even if some of these individuals end up with juicy deals with U.S. prosecutors, again, I don’t think that applies to every single one of them.

I will have to respectfully disagree that Uribe’s comments didn’t cross the line into an implied threat. I think that what Uribe says about Ivan is tantamount to a call for his execution.

Observe, “The protection of victims serves them as a way to instigate the violation of the human rights of those people who do not share their ideas. And nothing happens to them.”

He has stated directly that Ivan is responsible for human rights violations, that is, Ivan is responsible for people’s deaths. And he gives and impression of shock that nothing has happened to Ivan, framing the idea of killing him as a matter of self-defense, to a paramilitary group that calls itself an autodefensa. This is more than an implied threat, this is a call to patriots to cleanse their country of those that perpetrate human rights abuses, namely Ivan.

May God protect him.
-Jeremy John

I remember a long discussion we had about Uribe being involved in the El Aro massacre, While you said the evidence was too feeble to be considered then, I wonder what you think now that the testimony of one of the participants has come to light.

I agree that affirming things based on unofficial evidence is something that can backfire on you. That’s when your sound judgment comes into play. There are things that are evident even if history itself, will never acknowledge them to have been true or ever occurred.

As to Colombia being a carefully designed Narco State, suffix to say no other country with zillions invested supposedly against combating the “scourge” would have persisted for such a long time in the business otherwise, with such strong evidence of money therefrom having infiltrated the highest political institutions and society’s creme de la creme, and still continue to do so. (For further proof you’d have to read plenty of books supporting this position, from a more formal perspective).

I hope you have read Semana’s articles on the para’s at Itagui being negotiating their extradition since more than a year, as well as from several others that showed how the paramilitaries secluded there continue to be involved in crimes. You don’t need to be too smart to realize what they are seeking is to be left out of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. So I’d dare say Berna will be extradited sooner or later, that is if Uribe don’t get busted out of Office before that happens.

When you try to get you opinion through for the first time, you have to be monolithic, otherwise you can be sure your opinion will remain yours. Most of us are too busy in other matters to read anything but.

Jaime Bustos: Simply calling Colombia a “narco-state”, while it can be explained one way or another, leaves a lot to be desired if it means ignoring that the economy is far more diversified and complex than that, not merely “designed” (which sounds too voluntaristic and monolithic anyways) to be a “narco-state”, and that even cocaine booms do not make the country immune to economic crisis, depending on other factors. Remember 1999.

Also, about “Don Berna”, it seems that no matter what happens to him you’ll view it as favoritism, whether he leaves (which I don’t think is exactly a favor for him) or stays.

1. Uribe’s speech accuses Cepeda of “cowardice” because international actors complained about José Obdulio Gaviria’s public attempt to link Cepeda to the FARC. Uribe also dismisses the recent letter on this subject from the 63 members of the U.S. Congress. He thus dismisses concerns about Gaviria’s words, which crossed the line between hardball politics and actually threatening someone’s security.

2. In his other comments, Uribe takes on León Valencia for “failing to give reparations” to his victims as a former guerrilla. (It’s debatable whether Valencia, had he demobilized today, would have had to go through the Justice and Peace process or – like most paramilitary members – would have been immediately amnestied under Law 782.)

Strange timing – choosing to pick on Valencia only a few days after he publicly denounces a serious death threat from narcotraffickers.

-Thank you

Colombia is a carefully and successfully designed narco State, and not only by Colombian native incumbents.

However, I may sound pessimistic but still I am left wondering, how long will it last? How will the global food crisis and inflation from oil exports with a rising dollar effect Colombia? Adding to this, how profitable will increasing demand from Europe for Colombian cocaine be for armed groups and how will this effect their future militant capabilities?

Uribe faces great challenges. These challenges are not insurmountable but he must recognize that in the near future he may not be able to ‘ride on’ some of the same successes he is currently championing. ‘Hardball politics’ could run its course more sooner than later if current challenges are not addressed with a perspective of foresight.

The “Oficinas” in Envigado (Don Berna’s crime structures) continue to run business as usual and proofs abound as to the paras at Itagui, operating their rackets and having people killed.

No wonder even Berna might be sent to the US, according to reports by Semana, that give supporting evidence that Itagui’s genocides are “in talks” with the US justice, since some time ago.

For the president to be calling his detractors unpatriotic or cynical is certainly intimidating, and reflects badly on him since he didn’t respond to the specific charges. But it’s not as severe as saying – without any proof – that his critics are members or allies of the FARC. In Colombia, people are routinely killed on suspicion of being tied to illegal armed groups.

So in this case, Uribe is playing hardball politics but not quite crossing the line into implied threats. The question is why he chose to do so now.

With the capture/killing of the “Twins” and the extradition of “Macaco,” his government could be signaling that it is combating paramilitarism with greater seriousness. The president just blurred that message with these verbal attacks, which leave an impression of petty bullying.

If he wanted to question or reject anything, which he has a right to do, he could but in a more respectful manner, talking about the issues and not about the persons, much less attacking them.

That is not what Uribe is doing and he is still as irresponsible as always, tragically.

Sergio: Actually, there are at least three references to Uribe in Cepeda’s text, though the rest depends on who you ask.