Judge orders arrest of Colombian living in Panama

[Judi Lynn]

Panamá, miércoles 25 de mayo de 2011
Judge orders arrest of Colombian living in Panama

A judge in Colombian Tuesday ordered the arrest of former Security Director María del Pilar Hurtado, who has been living in Panama under asylum since November.

Hurtado is accused of ordering illegal wiretaps while working for the administration of former President Alvaro Uribe. Judge Luis Fernando Ramirez ordered her arrest after hearing evidence presented by prosecutors last week.

The decision clears the way for Colombia to issue an extradition request, one that Panama President Ricardo Martinelli said he will not grant.

Earlier this week, victims of the wiretaps petitioned Martinelli to change his mind about the matter, but Martinelli has said repeatedly that Hurtado will be allowed to remain in Panama. An appeal of Martinelli's decision has been filed with the Supreme Court, claiming the president violated the constitution in granting the asylum request.

http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2011/05/25/hoy/english/news_7244.asp

[Peace Patriot]

1. VERY interesting situation...

TWO U.S. client states duking it out over the chief witness against Alvaro Uribe, a Bush Cartel "made man" whom the U.S. is protecting from prosecution and is in fact coddling ("laundering" his image with cushy academic sinecures at Georgetown and Harvard, and appointment to a prestigious international legal committee) more than likely because of what he knows about Junior and Bush Junta crimes in Colombia.

But one of these U.S. client states, Colombia, has independent and particularly courageous judges and prosecutors. In fact, that is WHY mafioso Uribe was spying on Colombian judges and prosecutors (among other spying victims). They were pursuing Uribe's crimes and criminal network even when he was still in power, with some 70 of his closest political cronies under investigation or already in jail, for ties to drug trafficking and the RW death squads, bribery and other crimes.

The key question, I think, for us U.S. taxpayers--in addition to the general question of, WHAT has our $7 BILLION in military aid to Colombia been used FOR, is, which of Uribe's crimes are the reason for his "made man" status with the U.S. government, i.e., which of them could land Junior or other members of the Bush Junta in court?

Uribe's vast illegal domestic spying is a good candidate for traceable ties to the Bushwhacks. Uribe's RW pal, Martinelli, in Panama, maybe gave the game away, in a Wikileaks cable, in which the U.S. ambassador to Panama wrote that she was "shocked--SHOCKED!" that Martinelli had asked for U.S. help in spying on his political enemies. Martinelli had likely heard from his pal Uribe how helpful the Bush Junta was being in Colombia on this matter and just wanted the "equal right" of a U.S. client state to illicitly obtained info, so that he, too, could threaten judges and prosecutors, and anticipate their moves, and could threaten and blackmail other "enemies" and maybe even murder some trade unionists (which Uribe's "lists" were likely being used for).

Two situations have already arisen in which the U.S. government (first under the Bush Junta, then recently under the Obama administration) intervened in death squad cases against Chiquita International in Colombia (Bush Junta) and Drummond Coal in Colombia (Obama/H. Clinton)--cases brought in U.S. courts by the survivors of trade unionists who were murdered by death squads hired by these corporations.

In the first, the interlocutor for Chiquita was none other than Obama's appointee as U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, when he was in private practice. He arranged a handslap for Chiquita with the Bush Junta, that left the victims' survivors high and dry. In the second, similar case, recently, the plaintiff victims subpoenaed Alvaro Uribe (they caught him at Harvard, if I recall correctly) to testify. He ignored their subpoena, claiming "sovereign immunity" (as former king of Colombia), and while the U.S. State Dept. avoided that "hot potato," they did write to the judge saying that U.S. national security should be considered in forcing Uribe to testify.

That's the background for U.S. protection of "made man" Uribe. The foreground is blatant subversion of the Colombian justice system, when Uribe and the U.S. ambassador to Colombia arranged swift, midnight extraditions of death squad witnesses, on mere drug charges, to the U.S. and their burial in the U.S. federal prison system--out of the reach of Colombian prosecutors and over their objections--by complete sealing of their cases in U.S. federal court in Washington DC, circa 2009/2010 (Obama/Holder), and then, more recently, when Colombian prosecutors were poised to question Uribe's spy chief, Hurtado, she and six other spying witnesses disappeared from Colombia and showed up in Panama, with Hurtado receiving instant asylum as a "political refugee." (Asylum for the other six was still be pending, last I read--but Hurtado is the closest to Uribe.)

It could be that Martinelli is also mafia and thus blood brethren with Uribe, and will never give up Hurtado for that reason. But I think something else is going on. Martinelli is not popular in Panama, and spitting on another LatAm's justice system is a particularly bad offense, in sovereignty-sensitive LatAm. Martinelli is taking a lot of heat, within Panama and within the region, for this defiance of Colombian legal authorities. I think he is under more pressure than mafia togetherness or simple pal-ship with Uribe. I suspect that he has been arm-twisted or bribed by the CIA itself, to keep a lid on the Uribe spying scandal because it is the Uribe crime that is most tie-able to the Bush Junta.

I do think that this was one of CIA Director Leon Panetta's assignments--covering up Junior's trail in Colombia. Panetta is a Daddy Bush crony--member of Daddy Bush's "Iraq Study Group" (that I think intervened on Rumsfeld-Cheney plans to nuke Iran, in alliance with military brass who opposed it, and the CIA, which was "hair on fire" mad about the outing of their agents--got rid of Rumsfeld and de-fanged Cheney, circa late 2006). Panetta thus got appointed as CIA Director, with a number of tasks, including ending the war between the Pentagon and the CIA that was hampering U.S. efforts to dominate the world (esp. its oil supplies) and implementing the Obama/Bush Cartel policy that "we need to look forward not backward" on the crimes of the rich and powerful.

There is some quite interesting (but circumstantial--no "smoking gun") evidence that the U.S. (Bush Junta) was training death squads in Colombia for use elsewhere in the world (Iraq, Afghanistan) and possibly even using innocent Colombians as "turkey shoot" victims--or at the very least authorized such trainings. But that is so incredibly scandalous--and would be such a black mark on the U.S., in the new Latin America now controlled largely by leftist governments--that the trail of such activity has likely been thoroughly covered up. The other exceedingly scandalous Bush Junta crime may be use of the "war on drugs" to consolidate and control the trillion dollar-plus cocaine revenue stream out of Colombia. This, too, has probably been so covered up, we will never be able to unravel it. Although Bush Junta involvement in Uribe spying may well be related to, and lead to, drug trafficking and death squads, it is arguably "less scandalous," in itself, and may not have been covered up so well. For instance, the chief spying witness is still at large, albeit absconded to Panama.

I am quite sure that the U.S. does not want her to be returned to Colombia, and has put max pressure on Martinelli about it. I really don't think Uribe has the clout to do this by himself. He is under U.S. protection and that is one of the protections he is receiving. Colombian prosecutors would have nabbed Uribe long ago, if he wasn't under U.S. protection. He is filthy dirty on many fronts--death squad murders, Colombian military murders, drug trafficking, vast corruption of every kind, massive land left from peasant farmers, bribery, election fraud and on and on. But the spying may be his Achilles' Heel, and the Colombian prosecutors seem to be treating it that way. It is the one charge that they have not been blockaded from pursuing until Hurtado and her spies fled to Panama, and they are diligently trying to undo that scofflaw grant of asylum.

What kind of aid would the Bush Junta have been giving to Uribe for illegal domestic spying? Probably technical aid, re "Total Information Awareness." Probably provided through a private corp--a Pentagon subcontractor?--to make it less trackable to official decisions and authorizations.

We know that the U.S. was seeking secretly negotiated and secretly signed "total diplomatic immunity" (signed by Uribe) for all U.S. military personnel AND all U.S. 'contractors' in Colombia, circa 2009-2010. This could be one of the 'contractors' they were trying to protect--and, most especially, trying to keep out of the reach of Colombian prosecutors and judges. I don't know enough about U.S. 'contractors' in Colombia to be able to guess which of them might have been involved. Dyncorp comes to mind (expelled from Ecuador in 2009; likely involved in the bombing of Ecuador in early 2008). But it could have have been a smaller 'contractor' which may have morphed by now and vanished in the night (the way Blackwater morphed into Xe and vanished into the U.A.E. sheikdom--among other things, after getting "fined" by the State Dept. for "unauthorized trainings" of "foreign persons" IN COLOMBIA "for use in Iraq and Afghanistan").

In any case, I think somebody is vulnerable on this issue--Pentagon? Pentagon 'contractor'? U.S. ambassador? Rumsfeld? Junior?--and that is why Hurtado is still in Panama.

[Judi Lynn]

2. As it has been discovered, the US knew Uribe's bad when they put him & his father on a report

of Colombian criminals after an investigation by the Department of Defense during the 1990's. They mentioned in it that he was a friend of Pablo Escobar, and had initiated helpful legislation for the narcotraffickers.

Appreciate your "king of Colombia" remark, as he DID rule as if he were the total emporer, and last word in Colombia, and most people didn't want to deal with the death squads for crossing him.

Figures he's so protected, and insulated now. He truly is someone they don't want talking to anyone.

Do you recall that he made his students in the class he taught at Georgetown agree to never discuss what he told them in his class? Unbelievable.

[Zorro]

7. "As it has been discovered..."?

As has been pointed out to you several times over the past few years, the document you continue to reference does have the disclaimer "THIS IS AN INFO REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTEL".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/dia910923.pdf

And both the State and Defense Departments disavowed your assertions:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-08-02-columbia_x.htm

I look forward to you castigating the president of Ecuador with the same vehemence over his close former relationship with a convicted cocaine narcotrafficker.

[gbscar]

8. DIA's report is actually a bit sloppy elsewhere too, if you read fine print, but in Uribe's case...

...there is a lot more where that came from, regardless of any nitpicking or corrections applied to said "unevaluated" text. You are correct about mentioning it, particularly whenever the report is taken as the literal Word of God or described in equivalent terms, but the issue doesn't start nor end there.

Whether or not the report is perfectly accurate as a whole (it admittedly isn't) doesn't change this. To put it lightly, a mountain of circumstantial evidence from different sources points at Uribe's dirty past, which he has consistently failed to convincingly dispel. Taking his dirty present into consideration only makes things worse.

Uribe and at least a few members of his family have been linked to the Ochoas, a certain helicopter in the Tranquilandia drug complex, the promotion or creation and the activities of both legal (Convivir) and illegal (Los doce apóstoles) paramilitary groups, Escobar's Medellín sin Tugurios front, Pablo Escobar himself, irregular or suspicious licensing and operation permits for aircraft and airstrips, a close friend of his was investigated for importing chemicals used in drug production, etc. And this is limited to the time before he was elected President of Colombia.

How exactly those pieces of evidence should be interpreted and connected is something we can definitely debate and I don't necessarily agree with all of the previous reconstructions or hypotheses -that must be made clear- but in Uribe's case almost everything stinks. Unless he's somehow the unfortunate victim of Murphy's Law, it's reasonable to conclude that a plurality of the accusations against him appear to be rather convincing. He certainly doesn't help his case by labeling his opponents as "terrorists" and surrounding himself with perhaps some of the worst criminals in all of Colombia's bloody history, as the ongoing "parapolitics" scandal continues to show on a regular basis, without even going into the details of what human rights violations he has knowingly promoted, indifferently tolerated or irresponsibly ignored.

I am, nevertheless, speaking only for myself here...but Uribe would still deserve to be scorned even if only half of the charges happened to be true.

[Zorro]

9. Uribe is hardly a paragon of virtue

and Colombia has suffered terribly over the past 40 years; on this reasonable people can agree. But there's blood on the hands of many Colombian political elements, and that includes the FARC, AUC, and the Colombian military and police -- where corruption remains endemic, just as it is in many Latin American countries.

15 years ago it appeared that Colombia was evolving in to a failed narcostate, with notorious factions carving up and controlling areas of the country; if Uribe's policies were considered extreme and ruthless in dealing with that dangerous situation, they only matched in scope the same extreme ruthlessness of his adversaries. We in the US and elsewhere may not have cared for the man or his tactics, but the majority of Colombians seem to have approved of his methods, and are now enjoying a relative normalcy in their daily lives.

What now is encouraging is that it appears Colombian society is returning to a stable (although still dangerous) state, and that their judiciary does seem to be operating in a more independent fashion. It is disingenuous to ignore the significant improvement of Colombian social and economic conditions during Uribe's terms of office.

And it is rather myopic is to reflexively assign every act of past or current violence solely to agents of the Colombian government; it has been -- and remains -- a complex and dynamic situation. But the persistent howls of outrage by knotheads who rely primarily on information from dubious web sources merely demonstrates their certain agenda, which always seems to be to blame the US for any and all sins of its allies, imagined or real.

[gbscar]

11. He certainly isn't..and that, unfortunately, is also reflected in his work and its "results"

But there's blood on the hands of many Colombian political elements, and that includes the FARC, AUC, and the Colombian military and police -- where corruption remains endemic, just as it is in many Latin American countries.

Yes, I can definitely agree with that myself and have consistently argued about the need to keep it in mind.

We in the US and elsewhere may not have cared for the man or his tactics, but the majority of Colombians seem to have approved of his methods, and are now enjoying a relative normalcy in their daily lives.

Depends on your perspective, considering there are many who have lost normalcy because of him. In fact, it almost feels too cruel to put things this way.

Uribe can be considered popular, because he has the support of perhaps the most visible and largest plurality of Colombians, which isn't limited to the filthy rich despite what the most stereotypical portrayals would suggest. I'll give you that (which is worrying and dangerous enough, as I have argued before), but his popularity is far from universal and absolute.

Throwing poll numbers around, for example, is of limited use and perhaps ultimately meaningless in light of their methodology and the conflict, including but not limited to the effects of state repression. Add to that the simple apathy found throughout many sectors of the urban population and the exact truth of Uribe's "majority" becomes hard to estimate.

What now is encouraging is that it appears Colombian society is returning to a stable (although still dangerous) state, and that their judiciary does seem to be operating in a more independent fashion.

True, a certain measure of stability was recovered...but any stability restored, at least in part, through terror and propaganda has its limits. There are many who do not approve of his methods within Colombia itself, not the least of which are those victimized by his policies and decisions.

Or, to put it another way...stability for whom and at what cost? Those questions have certainly been asked before and still remain relevant. There are improvements which can be described as beneficial for the country as whole or at least potentially so, sure, but they co-exist with others that are very questionable or outright soaked in blood.

If the judiciary has been independent, that was mostly because of its tradition. Not because of what Uribe did, other than presenting a challenge that had to be met.

It is disingenuous to ignore the significant improvement of Colombian social and economic conditions during Uribe's terms of office.

Frankly, I think it is just as disingenuous to ignore the significant negatives that Uribe's terms in office also brought to Colombia's social and economic conditions.

There is, even from the most constructive and positive perspective I can possibly think of, an unavoidable dark side to what he accomplished that isn't merely rhetorical. Inequality remains shameful, displacement and land theft continues, poverty has barely improved, both common crime and political violence continue to be a reality, economic growth has not brought much of anything in terms of job creation, the paramilitary demobilization was basically a half-aborted farce...honestly, I believe you get the idea.

This doesn't mean there isn't anything good, in spite of all these criticisms and objections, but in my view the proper response to excessive bleakness is not excessive whitewashing.

Neither statement reflects the entire situation and all of its multiple contrasts or contradictions. Just as well, only the passage of time will reveal certain details we currently ignore.

And it is rather myopic is to reflexively assign every act of past or current violence solely to agents of the Colombian government; it has been -- and remains -- a complex and dynamic situation.

Despite my prior criticisms and comments, I actually do share the gist of your line of thought there. Which is why I've tried to bring some dissent and a fragment of that complexity into these discussions, but without neglecting to recognize that even questionable sources aren't automatically worthless. The Colombian state does bear a huge responsibility here, even if it doesn't do so in solitude or isolation. The same thing goes for other actors and parties, no doubt, including the U.S.

[gbscar]

3. The gist of your hypothesis is interesting, but circumstantial evidence can be rather flexible

...in more than one direction. It's entirely possible that the actual flow of events could turn out to be far simpler or, just as well, constructed by following a different kind of logic than what you've already provided.

In essence, the U.S. need not be so directly involved in the specific matter of keeping Hurtado away from Colombia. Are Uribe and Martinelli incapable of reaching a secret deal on their own? No, not really. The U.S. is most likely aware of it though...and the concept of plausible deniability comes to mind, if you want to put it in a way that's consistent with the rest of your hypothesis.

Regardless of this, I don't agree with every single statement in your post. If I were to make a complete list and properly respond to its contents, I'd be here for half the day. I imagine saying this will be irksome for those who prefer uniformity, but I prefer to be frank about these matters. There are opinions of yours I don't share and details which I consider to be inaccurate or incomplete (see below for an example). But you've made a good job of interpreting the inkblots in this Rorschach test, so to speak, in a potentially workable manner.

I believe you're more than justified in being suspicious, to say the least, and it's likely some of those deductions and descriptions will be true. But some of them won't be. Of course, it's also a fact that we may never know for sure just how far down the rabbit hole goes.

Having said that...

Hurtado, she and six other spying witnesses disappeared from Colombia and showed up in Panama, with Hurtado receiving instant asylum as a "political refugee." (Asylum for the other six was still be pending, last I read--but Hurtado is the closest to Uribe.)

I believe you have mentioned this several times, but looking at the original sources for this claim does not establish that any actual "disappearance" of these people took place. The original rumor was that up to six people could be seeking to gain asylum from Panama, not that they had in fact fled the country. As the cases of Mario Uribe and others shows, you can seek asylum (and fail) while still inside Colombia. That there has been no leak as to their names or roles is also worth noting.

See (in Spanish):

http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/articulo-235774-seis-ex-funcionarios-del-das-tambien-estarian-tramitando-solicitud

[Judi Lynn]

4. Mario Uribe fled to Costa Rica and was denied asylum there. n/t

[gbscar]

6. Nope. Mario Uribe tried to get asylum by going to the Costa Rican embassy

He never had to leave Colombia in order to do so.

Colombian prosecutors on April 22, 2008 ordered Mario Uribe’s arrest for allegedly conspiring with drug-running paramilitary death squads that are responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities in Colombian history. Before the arrest warrant was carried out, Uribe sought refuge in the Costa Rican embassy in Colombia, and his lawyer has reported that he is preparing an application for asylum in that country.

<...>

"Mario Uribe is still in Colombia," said Vivanco. "Costa Rica shouldn’t let itself become a tool to further impunity in Colombia by allowing him to evade justice."

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,CRI,,480f10431a,0.html

Mario Uribe unsuccessfully sought political asylum in the Costa Rican Embassy prior to his detention.

http://indymedia.nl/nl/2011/02/74007.shtml

Uribe, a cousin of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, went to the Costa Rican embassy in Bogota today on the grounds that he doesn't have adequate procedural guarantees in Colombia, the daily newspaper said, citing a source it didn't name.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3278863

[Judi Lynn]

10. I remembered reading your post earlier today when I saw this article,

thought I'd mention it to you:

DynCorp Wikipedia

~snip~
Private drug enforcement and military interdiction in Latin America
See also: Colombian armed conflict and Plan Colombia

In September 2001, a group of Ecuadorian farmers filed a class-action lawsuit against DynCorp under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), the Torture Victim Protection Act and state law claims in US federal court in the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs claimed that from January to February 2001 DynCorp sprayed the herbicide almost daily, in a reckless manner, causing severe health problems (high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, dermatological problems) and the destruction of food crops and livestock of approximately 10,000 residents of the border region. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the toxicity of the fumigant caused the deaths of four infants in this region.

The plaintiffs alleged under ATCA that DynCorp's intensive aerial spraying of a toxic fumigant amounted to torture, a crime against humanity and cultural genocide. DynCorp moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it raised non-justiciable questions of foreign and national security policy. DynCorp also argued that the plaintiffs' claims of violations of international law were based on actions by DynCorp that were expressly authorized by the US Congress under Plan Colombia. In May 2007, the district court granted DynCorp's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act, but ordered that the balance of the plaintiffs' claims should stand. The court found that the case did not raise non-justiciable questions because the action did not call into question US foreign policy in Colombia. The court also found that the claims raised by the plaintiffs were outside the scope of the Congressional authorization of DynCorp's contract.

In December 2006, 1,660 citizens of the Ecuadorian provinces of Esmeraldas and Sucumbios who were not part of the class-action lawsuit described above filed a separate lawsuit against DynCorp in US federal court in Florida. The provinces of Carchi, Esmeraldas and Sucumbios also sued DynCorp in Florida federal court over the spraying, in lawsuits filed in December 2006, and March and April 2007. The plaintiffs in these four cases allege that DynCorp's spraying of fumigants injured the residents of these provinces, for which they are bringing claims under Florida state law, Ecuadorian law and international law.<15>

DynCorp employees "are engaged in combatant roles, fighting in counterinsurgency operations against the Colombian rebel groups," says Peter W. Singer, a foreign-policy fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of Corporate Warriors. "Indeed, the DynCorp personnel have a local reputation for being both arrogant and far too willing to get 'wet,' going out on frequent combat missions and engaging in firefights."<3> DynCorp has not responded to the allegation.<3>

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp

Seems a very long time ago when their deadly spraying started becoming so destructive, doesn't it? This is horrendous.

Also, have never heard that info. about getting "wet." Hideous. They are monsters.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Arrest warrant issued for former Colombian secret service director

Arrest warrant issued for former Colombian secret service director
14:57, May 25, 2011

Bogota's criminal division of the Superior Court Wednesday ordered the arrest of a former secret service director who has been accused of participating in illegal spying during the administration of former President Alvaro Uribe.

Maria del Pilar Hurtado, who was granted territorial asylum in Panama last November, served as director of the Department of Administrative Security (DAS). She has been accused of ordering the illegal wiretapping and surveillance of opposition politicians, High Court judges and journalists.

"The long list of facts for the prosecution, although in some areas undermined by the activities of the defenders, is still allowed to make reasonable that there can be criminal offenses for which a trial is necessary," Luis Fernando Ramirez, the judge at the criminal division of the Superior Court, said.

Ramirez took into account the testimonies of former DAS officials Fernando Tabares and Jorge Lagos, who had admitted to espionage and testified against Hurtado.

More:
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90852/7390956.html