Recent Colombian Mass Grave Discovery May Be "False-Positives"

[Judi Lynn]

Recent Colombian Mass Grave Discovery May Be "False-Positives"
By Conn Hallinan, August 1, 2010

If you want to understand what’s behind the recent tension between Colombia and Venezuela, think “smokescreen,” and then go back several months to some sick children in the Department of Meta, just south of Bogota. The children fell ill after drinking from a local stream, a stream contaminated by the bodies of more than 2,000 people, secretly buried by the Colombian military.

According to the Colombian high command, the mass grave just outside the army base at La Macarena contains the bodies of guerilla fighters killed between 2002 and 2009 in that country’s long-running civil war. But given the army’s involvement in the so-called “false positive” scandal, human rights groups are highly skeptical that the dead are members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army, the two insurgent groups fighting the central government.

“False positive” is the name given to the Colombian armed forces operation that murdered civilians and then dressed them up in insurgent uniforms in order to demonstrate the success of the army’s counterinsurgency strategy, thus winning more aid from the U.S. According to the human rights organizations Comision de Derechos Homanos del Bajo Ariari and Colectivo Orlando Fals Borda, some 2,000 civilians have been murdered under the program.

The bodies at La Macarena have not been identified yet, but suspicion is that they represent victims of the “false-positive” program, as well as rural activists and trade unionists. The incoming Colombian president, Juan Manuel Santos, was defense secretary when the murders were talking place. Santos also oversaw a brief invasion of Ecuador in 2008 that reportedly killed a number of insurgents. The invasion was widely condemned throughout Latin America.

Diverting attention is what outgoing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is all about. While his foreign minister, Luis Alfonso Hoyos, was laying out photos and intelligence claiming that Venezuela was hosting upwards of 1,500 Colombian insurgents, a group of Latin American NGOs were uncovering a vast scheme by Uribe’s Department of Administrative Security (DAS) to sabotage the activities of journalists, judges, NGOs, international organizations and political opponents. Some of these “dirty tricks” included death threats.

Because the U.S.—which has pumped more than $7 billion in military aid to Colombia—supplies the DAS with sophisticated surveillance technology, Washington may end up implicated in the scandal.

The U.S. may also be tarred with the murder of Colombian trade unionists. According to Kelly Nichollas of the U.S. Office on Colombia, testimony at the trial of former DAS director Jorge Noguera indicated that the U.S. trained a special Colombian intelligence unit that tracked trade unionists.

Colombia is currently the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists. According to the International Trade Unionist Confederation’s (ITUC) Annual Survey of Trade Union Rights, out of the 101 unionists murdered in 2009, 48 were in Colombia. So far, 20 more Colombian trade unionists have been murdered in 2010. In the case of Hernan Abdiel Ordonez, treasurer of the prison worker’s union, who had complained about corruption, the government refused to provide him security in spite of receiving numerous death threats. He was gunned down by assassins on a motorcycle.

“Colombia was once again the country where standing up for fundamental rights of workers is more likely than anywhere else to mean a death sentence, despite the Colombian government’s public relations campaign,” said ITCU General Secretary Guy Ryder. “The Colombian authorities must take urgent and effective measures to guarantee the physical integrality of Colombian trade unionists.”

Uribe certainly has reason to shift the attention away from Colombia and toward Venezuela. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is pressing its investigation of the “false-positives” murders, and Uribe’s brother has been accused of working with death squads. Santiago Canton, an Argentinean and former head of the rights commission, said “If you put all this together, the extrajudicial executions, the espionage of human rights defenders, it’s all really consistent over the years.”

More:
http://www.fpif.org/blog/recent_colombian_mass_grave_discovery_may_be_false-positives?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FPIF+%28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+%28All+News%29%29

[laughingliberal]

1. K & R & bookmarked nt

[Peace Patriot]

2. Thanks for this post! I strongly suspect that the Bush Junta has bloody hands in Colombia

and involved the U.S. military in these heinous crimes.

It is certainly not unthinkable that the Bushwhacks--who were pushing the U.S. military to randomly torture prisoners, often completely innocent civilians, in every war venue, and who thought nothing of slaughtering a hundred thousand innocent people to steal their oil--were INSTIGATING crimes in Colombia, requiring it of the Colombian military and even authorizing and encouraging U.S. military personnel to participate. (Note: The La Macarena massacre occurred nearby to a Colombian military base where U.S. military personnel are stationed.) Does "not unthinkable" mean they are guilty of it? No. But my suspicion does have a basis in recent, possibly related events.

Uribe's behavior around the signing of the U.S./Colombia military agreement last year, secretly negotiated by 'our' ambassador, Bushwhack William Brownfield (still in place)--granting total diplomatic immunity to all U.S. soldiers and military 'contractors,' no matter what they do (did?) in Colombia--alerted me to a possible coverup of U.S. crimes. The U.S. military was in Colombia throughout the Bush Junta (with a big check--$7 to $8 BILLION). Why the sudden need for officially signed total diplomatic immunity?

The agreement sent shock waves through Latin America because it officially set up what is essentially the U.S. military occupation of Colombia (U.S. military use of at least seven military bases in Colombia and all civilian infrastructure). U.S. officials at the time defended the agreement as nothing more than confirmation of existing arrangements. This struck me as odd because I don't recall Congress authorizing a U.S. military occupation of Colombia. Can't say that I read the fine print of every bill and the Bushwhacks were certainly capable of getting anything they wanted out of the Anthrax Congress. Still, the total lack of discussion is kind of amazing. I do recall the Bushwhacks seguing the "war on terror" into the "war on drugs" spending bills--a bit of info that somehow made it into the corpo-fascist newsbites. Was this (the "war on terror" being added to the "war on drugs" in Latin America), in substance, the authorization for U.S. soldiers to start killing Colombians, as they do in Iraq and Afghanistan, on "suspicion" of their being "terrorists"?

When the uproar of objection to the U.S./Colombia military agreement occurred in Latin America, Uribe wouldn't attend meetings of Latin American leaders to explain it, but took a tour round to individual leaders to discuss it privately. It may be at this point that the CIA decided to dump Uribe, because it may be at this point that Uribe let one of the cats out of the bag--for instance, something like this: 'The Bushwhacks were REQUIRING better body counts; these crimes (massacres of civilians) are not Colombia's fault; we were being pressured, and some of our people got out of control.' Word reached the CIA (who, in my opinion, are now charged with keeping Bush Jr and brethren out of hot water--long story, see footnote*) and they withdrew support from Uribe's plan to extend his term in office, and dumped him in favor of his Defense Minister, Manuel Santos (ascending to the presidency of Colombia this week). Santos is a person who is much less likely to want to explain himself to other Latin American leaders. (As The Economist--a corpo-fascist rag--recently said, Uribe was too "erratic"**). (They didn't explain.)

I don't know that this was the "cat" that Uribe let out of the bag. I'm just guessing. But it makes sense in the context of this "total diplomatic immunity" thing. Why would U.S. soldiers and U.S. military 'contractors' need retroactive immunity from prosecution in Colombia? Why would they need it SIGNED, 5-10 years into the U.S. military occupation of Colombia?

This U.S./Colombia military agreement is now before the Supreme Court in Colombia. Some politicians and legal experts believe that it violates the Colombian constitution. This may be why these "arrangements" were informal before. Why have they been formalized, now, at the risk of being declared unconstitutional? The whole thing seems rather desperate--the secret negotiations, the secret signing, and then--probably when news of it threatened to leak out and Uribe suddenly announced it publicly (to everyone's astonishment)--Uribe, all flustered, starts going around trying to explain himself in private. Uribe seemed to be under great pressure. Latin American leaders were furious. They had had no warning. (The negotiations were kept secret from everybody, including the Colombian legislature and the Colombian people--and with no courtesy calls to other leaders). They felt abashed, threatened. Venezuela cut off diplomatic relations. Ecuador halted restoration of diplomatic relations (cut off after the U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador in 2008). It was a BIG flap. Why did the agreement happen this way, in total secrecy, evidently under great pressure?

Think of this scenario, regarding the immunity provision: Survivors of one of these massacres in Colombia take the matter to court. They have evidence of U.S. complicity. They name names. The named people are tried in absentia (probably). The court provides a defense lawyer. And even if the Colombian court has declared the U.S./Colombia military agreement unconstitutional, the defense lawyer can say that these people (U.S. special forces? Blackwater operatives?) had diplomatic immunity AT THE TIME and cannot be tried in Colombia. The defense lawyer has a SIGNED document--signed by the president of the country--saying they were immune AT THE TIME. Shaky, yes, because the document was signed after the crimes were committed. But still arguable. The defense lawyer will say that the immunity is retroactive and the trial should be halted, giving the judge (who may be under threat) an excuse to halt it. The survivors then have to take it to Spain or to the Hague, if they can--where "total diplomatic immunity" can also be argued to challenge jurisdiction.

Who was giving the orders? If someone goes after U.S. soldiers/'contractors' in court, surely that question will be asked. Colombian military personnel, under threat of prosecution, may disclose who was giving the orders. Other witnesses might come forward. Secret documents may be leaked. Top military brass in the "Southern Command," and in the Pentagon, and their bosses--Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld--could be charged, or at least raked over the coals in a public venue. This might give impetus to other investigations and charges, in efforts to bring them to account. Best to try to squelch this early on, with SIGNED diplomatic immunity, to remove U.S. perps from anybody's jurisdiction, or at least to make that arguable.

Venezuela, Ecuador and others were concerned about the U.S. military buildup in Colombia and the loss of sovereignty of a Latin American country. But the "total diplomatic immunity" part--a seemingly small part of the bigger picture, and rather routine (though sometimes locally controversial) in Pentagon occupation agreements--struck me as a red flag in the context of the La Macarena massacre. The massacre occurred during a USAID/Pentagon designed "pacification" program in the region. How could so many people (up to 2,000 bodies) be killed without U.S. knowledge, at least by local commanders, and why didn't they stop it? Local people say the bodies are of local 'disappeared' community members. The murders occurred over a period of time (roughly 2005 to 2009), which means that there was time for local U.S. commanders to notice. It wasn't a one-time massacre by bloodthirsty Colombian soldiers--an anomaly that the U.S. would likely try to help cover up. It was an ON-GOING program of murder--whether for "false positives," to up the "body count," or to eliminate local community leaders, or simply to terrorize the region. And local U.S. military commanders didn't notice that this was going on, and didn't stop it?

That is no more credible than that the U.S. military commanders at the U.S. air base in Palmerola, Honduras, didn't notice the plane landing at their base for refueling, that was carrying the kidnapped president out of the country at gunpoint! In both cases, investigation is warranted, as to Pentagon complicity. And, in the case of the La Macarena massacre, and other such horrors in Colombia, the need for "total diplomatic immunity" for all U.S. soldiers and U.S. military 'contractors' warrants investigation.

The secrecy with which this agreement was negotiated makes it suspect up front. The circumstances of its disclosure add to suspicions that its purposes are illicit. WHO signed it for the U.S.--Bush Junta appointee Brownfield--raises yet more questions. (What has HE been doing in Colombia?) And Santos' 'election' in this blood-soaked U.S. client state--the very man who was in charge of the Colombian military during the "false positives" murders and other horrors, working closely with the Bushwhack/Rumsfeld Pentagon--adds yet more worry and suspicion to the whole picture.

Santos is touted as very popular in Colombia--a country where you literally put your life at risk by merely advocating for the poor or forming a labor union. Let me put it this way: If Donald Rumsfeld had been 'elected' here, would we not see a lot of polls saying how popular he was?

Santos is a "little Rumsfeld," in my opinion, and I suspect that he was appointed by the CIA in part to cover up the Bush Junta's tracks in Colombia, in collusion with the Pentagon, whose plans may be worse still: reconquest of Latin America's oil rich countries. Whatever our corporate/war profiteer rulers' plan is, for Latin America, Santos will not be "erratic" about it. I think he is impatient with all these democracy cosmetics that are being required of him, the way Rumfeld was impatient with congressional oversight (why bother?); and I will not be surprised if he moves swiftly and ruthlessly to limit any prosecutions for these crimes to Colombian citizens (to lower level Colombian military, if he can, but he will sacrifice higher-placed "friends," if he must), in order to keep the U.S. out of it. And, as he has said, he will not hesitate to invade another country in pursuit of the FARC guerrillas.**

Uribe's "last hurrah"--charging Venezuela with "harboring" FARC guerrillas, just as he leaves office--may be his payment to his puppetmasters for continued protection. Colombian prosecutors are investigating, and have convicted and jailed, many of his political cohorts, for their ties to rightwing death squads, drug trafficking and other crimes. Uribe is as dirty as they come, and is especially vulnerable to (Pentagon-provided high tech) spying charges. He, too, may be sacrificed--or not, depending on what he knows and what he says, or might say. "Erratic" Uribe.

------



*(My theory goes like this: Bush Jr got into big trouble with the CIA over the outing of its entire WMD counter-proliferation project (and who knows what else), and circa 2005-2006, Daddy Bush intervened. His instrument was his "Iraq Study Group," of which Leon Panetta was a member. Probably in coalition with military brass who didn't want to nuke Iran, they put a deal to Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld guaranteeing them immunity from impeachment in exchange for, a) Rumsfeld's resignation (my bet for the main architect of the CIA outings), b) end of the Rumsfeld-Cheney war on the CIA, and c) exiting peacefully when the time came (no nuking of Iran/martial law here, as they may have been planning). The Democrats were then permitted to win the 2006 (s)elections, so long as they continued the wars (which they did); Nancy Pelosi announced that "impeachment is off the table" and the Democratic candidate for president who was most convincing about our need to "look forward not backward," on the Bush Junta's many crimes, was permitted to win the White House in 2008.

(For those who don't know, all votes in the United States are now 'counted' using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, in all that shiny new electronic voting equipment, with virtually no audit/recount controls, and ES&S--which just bought out Diebold and is even worse than Diebold as to far rightwing connections--now controls 80% of the U.S. voting machine 'market.' So, it is not in the least outlandish to believe that our elections are being rigged. 'TRADE SECRET' code makes it easy. It may be that Obama did win. What I'm saying is that he was permitted to win (and I think they shaved his mandate as a further leash on any serious reform). Obama appointed Leon Panetta as the new head of the CIA. All talk about Panetta being an "inexperienced civilian" was squelched (he is not) and his appointment sailed through Congress. One of Panetta's jobs is to keep a lid on Bush Junta crimes. Another may be to heal the wounds from the Bush-Cheney war on the CIA. Panetta himself personally visited Colombia this year amidst the rumors of a Uribe coup d'etat. Uribe's term was up. He was trying to engineer an extension, sort of legally. When he failed, there were fears that he wouldn't take no for an answer. The CIA jettisoned him, at that point--because he was, as The Economist said, "erratic." "Erratic" people--especially very, very dirty "erratic" people--cannot be counted on to keep lids on things.)

--

**(As to Uribe being "erratic": When a plot within the Colombian military to assassinate Chavez was uncovered, Uribe apologized to Chavez. When the U.S./Colombia bombed/raided Ecuador, to blow the FARC's peace negotiator away (who was camped just inside Ecuador's border), Uribe apologized to Ecuador. Santos presided over the military as Defense Minister when both of these things occurred (and more). When Uribe apologized to Ecuador, and promised never to do such a thing again, his Defense Minister Santos publicly contradicted him, and said that HE would not hesitate to invade another country in pursuit of the FARC. That likely earned him the presidency. The Pentagon/CIA--wounds now healed--can count on Santos. He is not "erratic"--has no weakness for being approved of by other Latin American leaders; will not apologize for crimes; is a totally reliable operative for whatever the Pentagon/CIA has in mind for South America over the next decade.)