Colombian court blocks military agreement with U.S.

[rabs]

Source: CNN



(CNN) -- Colombia's Constitutional Court on Tuesday ruled that a military agreement that would give U.S. troops access to seven Colombian military bases is unconstitutional.

The agreement has been a source of tension between Colombia and neighboring Venezuela.

The court said that the agreement must be sent to the Colombian Congress for approval before it can become effective.

The court ruled that the agreement over use of the bases was not an extension of treaties signed between the two nations in the past, but a new treaty that requires the approval of the legislature to be valid.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/08/17/colombia.us.military.bases/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29

---

Only brief version in English so far. This broke about two hours ago. For readers of Spanish, longer versions posted in Latam America forum.

This is major setback to Pentagon in Latin America. The accord was signed almost in secret in October of last year by the uribista government (now out of office) and the U.S. ambassador in Bogota. The Colombian Congress, although totally controlled by acolytes of uribe, was not even consulted.

The virtual carte blanc to the Pentagon in Colombia raised serious objections from South American leaders and especially in Brazil, Venezuela and Ecuador, neighbors of Colombia.

[Crowman1979]

1. Good! I guess it will take foreign governments to help put an end to this MIC.

[rabs]

2. Probably a temporary setback for the Pentagon

The Congress of the new president, Juan Manuel Santos, is about 80-percent right-wingers and corrupt politicians backed by Colombia's murderous paramilitaries.

So I expect that a new treaty will be ratified within a year by that Congress.

Btw, the use of the seven bases on Colombian territory came after the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, closed and kicked the U.S. military out a base in Manta, Ecuador.

The U.S./Colombian explanation that the U.S. needed seven bases to fight the war on drugs -- later expanded to the war on terror, was ridiculed all over Latin America.

But it generated fears that the bases are meant to be a platform for future Pentagon intervention in South and Central America, especially in Venezuela, which is awash in oil.

(edit to correct typo)

[Peace Patriot]

3. I felt speechless for a few moments, in another thread on this, but now I'm going to make a speech..

It ain't over until the "existing arrangements" that this secretly negotiated U.S./Colombia military agreement were supposed to be mere ratification of (according to its promoters) are gone, too. Gone on paper. Gone in reality. What does the U.S. need SEVEN military bases in Colombia for, except to cause trouble? And what has it BEEN using them for? What does the U.S. military need use of all civilian infrastructure in Colombia for, except to cause trouble? And what has it BEEN using that access for? And what does the U.S. military need total diplomatic immunity for all U.S. soldiers and U.S. military 'contractors' in Colombia for, except to cause trouble? And what has it BEEN using that immunity for, and those soldiers and those 'contractors' for? (They say they are military 'advisors' and 'trainers.' They said that about Vietnam, too, in the early years. But what those 'advisers' and 'trainers' were doing was preparing for war.)

EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS.

Does the Pentagon, once it has its boots in a country, just pull up stakes and leave, over a mere constitutional trifle, or a "piece of paper"? They don't leave unless they are told, in no uncertain terms, to do so--as Ecuador did, recently.

So this doesn't mean much until Colombian's political establishment rescinds "existing arrangements" and kicks out the U.S. military, as the will of the people who live there--as in Ecuador, when they voted overwhelmingly for Rafael Correa, who made this a campaign promise. Colombia doesn't really have a democracy. We can't know what most people think because if you think, speak and/or advocate for the "wrong" things in Colombia, you can end up dead, as a murder victim of the Colombian military or its closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads. Thus, whether or not to REALLY kick the U.S. military out is decided at the top, by leaders who are bought and paid for by the U.S.

Is this more Honduran-type democracy cosmetics--declaring a piece of paper unconstitutional, but not declaring the reality (U.S. military occupation of Colombia) unconstitutional?

Don't know yet. But my suspicion, of course, is that it's all show.

[rabs]

6. The court shot down the agreement based mostly on the immunity clauses

The ruling said the accord with the uribista government far exceeded the authority of the president (Uribe, who railroaded the treaty bypassing Congress).

No U.S. military or contractors will be allowed to use the seven bases under the agreement reached in Oct. of last year. Still unknown how many, if any, troops/contractors may have arrived in Colombia under last year's pact.

The immunity allowed free entry and exit of U.S. military personnel and civilian contractors and their families into Colombia at the seven bases without passports.

There U.S. military would have had authority to establish their own satellite communications without licenses, unfettered use of Colombia's telecommunications networks, free access to any Colombian infrastructure needed to carry out their mission (such as housing rentals), no taxes, and even not have to pay highway tolls.

Not mentioned was that the troops/contractors would have had immunity from local criminal laws, i.e. freedom from Colombian justice in the event of troops/contractors killing, raping, pillaging or other crimes against civilians.

Still to early to grasp the full ramifications, but for the moment it is a huge embarrassment for the Pentagon and another slap in the face of Alvaro Uribe, who if in the past 10 days has been chewing his fingernails, today he is up to chewing on his elbows.

[Peace Patriot]

9. Re Uribe chewing his elbows: It has occurred to me that this was a tit for tat...

say, continued CIA protection for Uribe (immunity from prosecution, like Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld got) in exchange for SIGNED immunity from prosecution for all U.S. military personnel and U.S. military 'contractors' in Colombia. 'You protect me; I'll protect yours.'

The immunity provisions occur in this strange, mooshy context of the promoters of this agreement saying that it merely ratifies EXISTING arrangements. We can possibly gather from this that U.S. military personnel/'contractors' already had total diplomatic immunity but perhaps this was only by the personal guarantee of pResident Uribe? (They did something nasty, they got whisked out of the country?) And the Pentagon didn't want to leave it to the vagaries of politics, so US ambassador (Bushwhack) Wm Brownfield, Leon Panetta & Uribe cocked this deal up in secret and Uribe signed it under threat of losing his U.S. protection? (And it is interesting how the U.S. immediately put this criminal on a prestigious international committee whose mission is to evaluate Israel's legality in killing people on unarmed, humanitarian aid boats. Uribe to judge their legality! That is mind-boggling!)

Also, if U.S. military personnel/'contractors' have already been operating out of seven Colombian bases, with total diplomatic immunity, on the personal guarantee of the pResident, what have they been doing that, a) required total diplomatic immunity, and b) required SIGNED total diplomatic immunity (urgent, in secret, last year)?

My first guess was the La Macarena massacre ("turkey shoot" practice for Afghanistan?) and I'm sticking with that until proven otherwise, or some other possible crimes by "immunized" U.S. military personnel/'contractors' emerge that would need retroactive SIGNED immunity. I think there is sufficient weirdness around this U.S./Colombia military agreement to warrant such suspicions.

And while they were at it, the Pentagon got freedom from local taxes, free use of telecommunications, not having to pay road tolls, etc., etc. Uribe would give away bundles of Colombia's sovereignty to keep his ass out of jail.

Why the Pentagon would need secretly negotiated, SIGNED permission to stay at bases where they were already ensconced (giving the Colombian military the benefit of their 'advice') is the core question about this agreement--that is, the core hidden question. One wonders how extensive this U.S. military presence in Colombia had become, under the Bush Junta, that they would need to get a SIGNED legalisation of it. (And how are the numbers verified? The agreement mentions about 1,500 U.S. soldiers/'contractors.' How do we know that number isn't much larger? On the word of the Pentagon, or the Colombian military?)

The Colombian court's declaration that this agreement is unconstitutional could be a preliminary to an investigation of both U.S. and Colombian military war crimes, under the Uribe and Bush regimes. The courts have shown a certain amount of courage and independence in dealing with Uribe. Or it could merely be a Leon Panetta/Hillary Clinton plan for creating some democracy cosmetics in Colombia (like they did in Honduras), and the declaration of unconstitutionality won't mean a thing. The U.S. military will continue its buildup in Colombia, and its 'advice' and 'training' (and equipping) of the Colombian military for enforcement of "free trade for the rich," with a war plan for triggering hostilities with Venezuelan, on cue, when and if the U.S. finishes its military/political preparations.

It is truly hard to believe that former Defense Minister Santos is anything but a savvier Uribe, and that any significant change could occur in the Colombian oligarchy's attitude toward the vast poor majority (killable, removable, ignorable) or in U.S. policy in Colombia and Latin America (rotten to the core). So we have to figure that there is something BEHIND both the secret signing of this military agreement (the true reasons for it) and its being declared unconstitutional (the true impacts, if any, of that decision). I notice that Brownfield has skulked away. (There's a man with secrets!)

The watchwords of the Obama administration are, "We need to look forward not backward." If you are a lesser death squad operative, or even just a petty criminal, that doesn't apply to you. 'We' need to look backward at what you did,--even if it's just having a marijuana joint in your pocket--and spend $35,000/yr keeping you in prison. But if you are extremely rich and powerful (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) or a significant tool of U.S. war profiteers (Uribe), the past doesn't exist, and, in fact, the bigger and more horrible your crimes are, the quicker they are 'disappeared.' And it is pretty sure that whatever the "watchwords" are in Washington, they are also the "watchwords" in Bogota.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Colombia declares US base share deal unconstitutional

17 August 2010 Last updated at 21:28 ET
Colombia declares US base share deal unconstitutional

A Colombian court has declared as unconstitutional a deal which gave US troops access to its military bases.

The constitutional court ruled the 2009 accord should be redrafted as an international treaty and sent to the Colombian Congress for approval.

~snip~
The deal, passed by former President Alvaro Uribe in October 2009, gave the US access to the bases for 10 years and would see a maximum of 800 US military personnel and 600 civilian defence contractors based in Colombia.

They would operate the US aircraft that maintain 24-hour monitoring of the region, intercepting communications and coordinating with spy satellites to protect US interests.

But the court's chief justice Mauricio Gonzalez said the deal was "an arrangement which requires the State to take on new obligations as well as an extension of previous ones".

He said that as such, it should be "handled as an international treaty, that is, subject to congressional approval".

More:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11007822

[Judi Lynn]

5. The court members are living dangerously, considering the Colombian secret service has been spying

on the country's top judges for the President who signed the invalid agreement and sent his D.A.S. after the Supreme Court Justices after they denied him his right to override the Constitution and run for office again.

Hope for their sake that Santos isn't as vindictive!

Recommending, and thank you.

[maddezmom]

7. not sure this is going to change anything

~snip~

The court's decision, reached by a 6-3 majority, said however that the ruling does not affect US military personnel and contractors working from Colombian bases covered by earlier accords.

This means any US personnel at the seven bases included in the 2009 pact could shift to bases permitted by previous agreements while the government decides whether to put the latest accord before congress, where new President Juan Manuel Santos has a big majority.

Last year's agreement with Washington intensified frictions with neighbouring Venezuela, with President Hugo Chávez, a strong critic of US influence in Latin America, calling it a threat to his country. Brazil and Bolivia also criticised the deal, saying it would unsettle the balance of forces in the region.

more:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/colombia-us-bases-unconstitutional

[Judi Lynn]

8. Colombian court rules US bases deal is unconstitutional

Colombian court rules US bases deal is unconstitutional
Colombia's constitutional court has declared that a US-Colombian accord from 2009 that gave the American military access to at least seven Colombian bases to be unconstitutional.
Published: 7:00AM BST 18 Aug 2010

The deal allowed the US to use the bases to help with operations against drug trafficking and terrorism. The deal, which was struck when president Alvaro Uribe was in power, was denounced by other Latin American countries, including Venezuela, over concerns that it signalled a rise in US influence in the region.

But the court has said that the deal was "an arrangement which requires the State to take on new obligations as well as an extension of previous ones" and that it should be executed in the form of an international treaty that would be subject to congressional approval.

~snip~
Opponents accused Mr Uribe of ignoring the advice of the State Council - the highest court on administrative matters - which also urged that the congress take up the agreement before it was signed.

The Uribe administration deemed the State Council's opinion non binding, and said the accord was not new but merely an extension of a 1974 military pact with the United States, and as such required no legislative oversight, government officials said.

In a region in which the United States historically has been the power player, its partners still are keen to stress that they are not being dominated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/colombia/7951319/Colombian-court-rules-US-bases-deal-is-unconstitutional.html

[Green_Lantern]

10. and when their Congress votes to accept the agreement

We'll hear the chorus of DUers saying they're all CIA backed puppets.

[rabs]

11. The Colombian Congress will NOT be voting on this particular agreement

because the Constitutional Court yesterday ruled the current accord unconstitutional and therefore non-existent.

The Colombian government of new President Santos and the Pentagon will have to negotiate a NEW treaty.

Then it will be put to the Colombian Congress for a vote and if passed, the Constitutional Court will again have to rule on whether the NEW treaty does not violate the constitution re Colombian sovereignty.

[Judi Lynn]

12. Ah, resorting to stating the facts, eh? You just may be one of them pinko sympathizers, sidewinder!

http://www.hollywoodsgoldenage.com.nyud.net:8090/images/gabby.jpg
Thanks for providing real information where it's clearly needed.

[Green_Lantern]

17. if by real information you mean incorrect information

nt

[Judi Lynn]

18. Get a hobby, why not? This poster is beyond reproach, he's been well known to many of his friends

extending to message boards well before D.U. was created.

Don't follow people around who make comments to him, trying to disrespect him to them. Bad, stupid form.

Either provide worthwhile information of drop it.

[Green_Lantern]

19. I don't understand what you just said...

nt

[Green_Lantern]

15. no you are actually incorrect...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129269002">The Constitutional Court ruled Tuesday that last year's agreement giving the U.S. military access to more Colombian bases is unconstitutional because it wasn't approved by legislators. This means any U.S. personnel at the seven bases included in the 2009 pact could shift to bases permitted by previous agreements while the government decides whether to put the latest accord before Congress, where new President Juan Manuel Santos has a big majority.

It'll be the same exact accord...but that's even if their President tries to put it before Congress.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129269002">But since taking office Aug. 7, Santos has been working to improve relations with Chavez and there was no immediate comment from the government on whether it would ask Congress to ratify the base deal.[/div

[Odin2005]

13. Those justices should stay away from small planes and sleep with a gun.

[Judi Lynn]

14. You've got that right! They have a horrid time in Colombia if they're honest.

Honest journalists, among other groups, who don't compromise ("self-censor") for survival have body guards, bullet-proof cars, and protection for their kids, as well. Since that's expensive, honest journalists either leave the country or pay the price.

They even assassinated a popular political tv comedian, Jaime Garzon. The right-wing warlord who ordered it claimed he did it as a favor to the Colombian military.

[Enrique]

16. how many Americans even know about this?

so the Colombian Congress needs to be involved. What about the American Congress?

[Green_Lantern]

20. I'm pretty sure the US Congress approved this...

They have to approve all treaties before it becomes law.