When Obama says he objects to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement because of human rights violations

[EFerrari]

against trade unionists (they keep getting killed) and then he appoints an AG that defended the killers of those people, Obama's message contradicts itself.

Which is it? Is he against the murder of union organizers in Colombia or not? Is that loss of life diminished because his buddy defended the other side? Was that "just business"? Is it okay to oppose Bush on these grounds but also okay to overlook the same grounds when making his AG pick?

I've never expected Obama to be a liberal or to please me in particular or to suddenly become someone else. He will be a good president and he's going into his first term facing the scorched earth Bush leaves behind.

But, Obama needs to clarify where he now stands on the slaughter of union organizers in Colombia and on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. And he needs to go through that exercise if only to learn that in the same way that the net rallied for him, it also informs itself and that as an informed constituency, the netroots expect some kind of coherence in his positions.

For background on Eric Holder in Colombia, see Peace Patriot's thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x9608

[Thrill]

1. The AG works for the President.

.

[EFerrari]

2. Precisely. n/t

[Thrill]

5. Thats why he will enforce Obama's agenda

[EFerrari]

10. Let me put this another way: If I tell you I disapprove of the Mafia

and then turn around and hire a mob lawyer, what kind of signal does that send out to you?

Obama may have a reason that makes sense. I'd like to hear it.

[mmonk]

38. The contradictions are obvious. Therefore, reasons and policy

clarifications are deserved. I agree.

[Thrill]

81. As Attorney General you enforce the law. PERIOD

[EFerrari]

85. If that were as true as you and I would like it to be

the last eight years would have been impossible.

[Thrill]

87. But come on. We know Obama isn't Bush and the neocons

[EFerrari]

Brent, I was so happy to cast my vote for Obama and I will support him

in any way I can.

But, it isn't in me to overlook stuff like this -- moves that are important and that have consequences for not only our relations with Latin America but that indicate a predisposition to roll over civil rights.

[IsItJustMe]

110. You make a damn good point but I would not hold my breath for answers.

[EFerrari]

111. Agreed. That would be a bad idea.

:)

[FrenchieCat]

3. I consider that thread a smear thread.......

against Eric Holder....and nothing more.

[Solon]

4. Its only a smear thread if the information presented is either exaggerated and/or inaccurate...

If you have a problem with the thread, then debunk it, don't claim its a smear without evidence.

[FrenchieCat]

9. The information is historical but non conclusive, and doesn't even provide

information that provides evidence that one should be afraid of Holder.

I don't need to prove that Holder doesn't beat his wife, or that he "supports" death squads in Colombia. Read the thread and get back to me on Holder's role.

This is very similar to guilt by association as promoted by McCain/Palin throughout the elections. The Left doing this doesn't make it any more right than when the Right does it.

[EFerrari]

13. You know of course that Peace Patriot and I regularly smear Democrats.

Do you have a broken arm? You can't search it for yourself?

I wish that you would debunk this and thoroughly. That would be a good outcome. And more convincing than your actual smear of me and her.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I am not smearing anyone.....

and for you to make it personal to you and the author of the other thread is your problem, not mine.

[EFerrari]

22. I have no problem talking to you, FrenchieCat. n/t

[EFerrari]

7. He smeared himself when he took the case, but nice try. n/t

[cali]

12. wow. who knew? lawyers represent less than savory people/businesses

One case does not relegate him to the status of "evildoer" in my eyes.

[EFerrari]

14. That's just sad, cali. We're not talking about any lawyer.

We're talking about the appointment to be the highest law enforcement official in the nation.

Aim low!

[cali]

20. My guess is you know very little about Holder.

And, yeah, I don't believe that representing Chiquita puts him in the realm of the damned. I honestly don't know enough about Holder to make that judgment. My bet is you don't either.

[EFerrari]

26. I don't know a great deal about Holder but I do know a little about this case.

He chose to take it. And Obama objects to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement because of human rights abuses. How can the two be reconciled?

[FrenchieCat]

30. Because Holder was the attorney, not the client......

and Obama is not the client either....and so neither are guilty of the client's crime.

That's how it is reconciled.

[EFerrari]

33. So, Holder taking money to defend these killers by choice

is nothing he should be held responsible for?

I see.

[cali]

45. let's see if you have even a remotely open mind

Eric Holder at Justice will be a hammer against Bush remnants like Guantanamo and torture policy
from American Prospect: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month...


WHATEVER one makes of conflicting media reports regarding the Obama Administration's likely position on torture, if Michael Isikoff is correct in reporting that Eric Holder will be the new Attorney General it's probably a good sign that Obama really does intend to abandon the Bush torture policy.

Via Spencer Ackerman, Mark Halperin provides a release from the American Constitution Society highlighting Holder's record: http://thepage.time.com/release-from-the-american-const... /

Eric H. Holder Jr., Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, asserted in a speech to the American Constitution Society (ACS) that the United States must reverse “the disastrous course” set by the Bush administration in the struggle against terrorism by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, declaring without qualification that the U.S. does not torture people, ending the practice of transferring individuals involuntarily to countries that engage in torture and ceasing warrantless domestic surveillance.

“Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe,” Holder told a packed room at the ACS 2008 Convention on Friday evening. “For the sake of our safety and security, and because it is the right thing to do, the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights.”

There's a video of Holder's speech to ACS here, from which Ackerman provides a partial transcript: http://wm.nmmstream.net/genasx/acs/receptionwmv55514.as...

“We owe the American people a reckoning. It is our responsibility as citizens to preserve and protect our constitution… Let me be clear: I firmly believe that there is evil in the world, and that we still face grave dangers to our security. But our ability to lead the world in combatting these dangers depends not only on the strength of our military leadership but our moral leadership as well. … To recapture it, we can no longer allow ourselves to be ruled by fear. We must evaluate our policies and our practices in the harsh light of day and steel ourselves to face the world’s dangers in accord with the rule of law.”


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4487939

[EFerrari]

51. Be careful what you ask for. You may be asking Eric Holder

to move against the two leaders of Obama's intelligence transition team, one a member of the Slam Dunk club and the other a defender of torture. Brennan and Miscik.

I don't expect people to be pure or perfect. But, I don't see how Obama can reconcile his position on the Colombian Free Trade agreement and this appointment. It's likely that Latin America can't see it either. This isn't a very complicated point I'm making.

[cali]

58. you didn't address the content of my post

at all.

[EFerrari]

60. Well, yes I did. I'm sorry. Holder apparently holds a different mandate

or at least different positions than the two leaders of Obama's intelligence transition team. One of whom was up to her eyeballs in the lies that got us into Eyerack and the other who made the cable rounds defending torture.

[Whisp]

47. that's what I'm thinking... doesn't Everyone deserve legal representation?

i thot most here thot how Gitmo is operated is repugnant?

[EFerrari]

52. Yes, everyone deserves representation.

And who you take money from matters.

[Whisp]

75. that is true, but sometimes people do get accused of things they didn't do

even nasty ones.

I just wouldn't want someone to be not represented because the judge and jury has already decided guilty

[EFerrari]

78. Multinational corporations aren't as much at risk as you and I are, are they?

And to compare the throngs of lawyers that would love to have that gig to the guys that defend people like you and me for our little stuff is sort of screwy.

[FrenchieCat]

15. No he didn't.

That's like saying that if a attorney takes a case defending a terrorist, then he becomes a terrorist himself. That is how the RightWingers think. That's you saying is that individuals and companies sued or charged aren't allowed an attorney....unless that attorney wants to also be held guilty of the crime of those he/she defends.

I consider that an extreme view and one that I cannot agree with...as I am a progressive, not a hard right winger who looks for guilt of association.

I remember those who held Hillary Clinton guilty for her work done in the course of legal work that she did. I didn't think that was right either.

[EFerrari]

21. Lol! Holder got a nice big fat fee for defending the murders of union workers.

He wasn't a public defender in the inner city. He had a choice.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Wow. Attorneys are now guilty of the same crime as their client!

and based on your OP......Obama becomes guilty by extension of Holder by extension of a Holder Client.

That sounds like something that would be done in a Banana Republic....or under a McCain/Palin Presidency.

[EFerrari]

28. He chose to defend these people. When you look up "Banana Republic"

the Chiquita logo is in that entry. That is what they do. They move into these countries and get their way at any cost and hire people like Holder to keep their costs down.

You defend him all you want. I'd be very happy to hear how being opposed to human rights crimes in Colombia can be married to defending them.

[rockymountaindem]

76. So he should have taken the job for free?

Would that make it better. I guess not. But then you could say he should have never taken the job in the first place. But if that's our standard then who would defend murderers who are either 1) already convicted or 2) have a large amount of evidence stacked against them.

I had a teacher who once told us that to understand something in science, it's often a good exercise to start at the most extreme point you can think of and then work backwards to some point where it makes sense. Let's try that here. Are the men who defended people like Goering and Streicher complicit in their crimes? Is their defense of these men a tacit endorsement? I think not. So, as a lawyer, it seems to me that Holder was just going his job. Even the worst people deserve a competent defense, and lawyers deserve to get paid for their labor. Simply defending someone doesn't constitute an endorsement of their actions.

[EFerrari]

77. Your post is a recruitment poster for attoneys who need a justification

to defend multinational corporations against the people they are killing. Congrats!

[rockymountaindem]

79. Why?

There's no justification needed. A competent lawyer is not just a luxury for the wrongly accused. Why should anybody defend Timothy McVeigh otherwise? Did his lawyers need to justify that decision?

[EFerrari]

80. Because you are conflating an individual with a multinational.

Because you are conflating the real situation of people like McVeigh to multinational corporations who have lawyers tripping over themselves to defend them for a big fat cut. There is no comparison.

Do you seriously believe that Holder felt he had to defend Chiquita because no one else would?

[rockymountaindem]

83. No, I don't

I presume he wanted to do that because it would be good for his career. But, there's nothing morally wrong with that because, again, a lawyer is not responsible for the previous actions of their clients, nor does their service constitute an endorsement thereof.

But, since you don't seem to want to discuss that aspect of the matter, I'm outta this thread.

[EFerrari]

84. I've been discussing nothing else.

Holder is responsible for the cases he chooses to take.

[mod mom]

128. Smear? Wanting to expose connections is now a smear when it's inconvenient?

Marching in lockstep allows for more of the same. I believe the Obama landslide was a mandate for CHANGE-not more of the same!

[ieoeja]

6. So you don't believe criminals should have lawyers?

I know a website where you would find a lot more people who would agree with that sentiment than here.

[EFerrari]

8. I hope you didn't break your neck making that leap.

[ieoeja]

11. Accused of a crime. Amendment VI. Lawyer does his duty.

Ouch! My fucking neck!

[EFerrari]

18. Holder had no "duty" to take that case but, nice try. n/t

[girl gone mad]

125. He represented them in the civil trial, too.

That's not just once, but twice that he chose to take a fat check to defend terrorist supporting corporate murderers.

This is the same man who thinks people who sell small amounts of pot should serve 5 year felony convictions.

But killing poor brown people is a crime he can defend, even when only the only thing at stake is money.

[4lbs]

16. Is this about Chiquita paying protection money to the AUC so they would stop kidnapping their

employees and holding them for ransom or killing them outright?

[EFerrari]

24. No. There is a link in the OP and there is always the google.

This is about trying to get Chiquita off for paying death squads to kill of the union workers screwing up their deal in Colombia. The same thing Obama says he has a problem with.

[4lbs]

29. I did. It's the same thing if you follow the money.

Chiquita paid $1.7 million to the AUC because they kept threatening to kidnap Chiquita employees in Colombia and hold them for ransom, or kill them if the ransom wasn't paid.

That $1.7 million that the AUC got probably wasn't used for good things seeing as how the AUC was already kidnapping and extorting.

So, what was Chiquita supposed to do? Not pay, and keep letting their employees get kidnapped and even killed?

Where was the Colombian government and authorities in all of this? They weren't doing jack to resolve it.

[EFerrari]

35. The US backed Colombian government were where they always are,

in bed with these people.

Have it your way. Chiquita is chaste, the Colombian government clean and Holder just a lawyer doing his duty.

Thousands of little brown people got slaughtered. Obama says he objects to that. He can't have it both ways.

[4lbs]

41. No, I said it's hypocritical of the Colombian and US governments to hold Chiquita accountable for

those deaths, funded by the $1.7 million to the AUC, and make them pay $25 million restitution, when those governments didn't do anything to prevent Chiquita employees from being kidnapped in the first place.

Chiquita asked for help in protecting their employees so they wouldn't have to pay the monies, but didn't get any. Not from Colombia. Not from the US. So, instead of pulling out of Colombia altogether, they decide to pay the $1.7 million demand from the AUC.

The AUC used that $1.7 million, without Chiquita's knowledge to fund operations that killed people.

Then the Colombian government charged Chiquita with being complicit in those murders because they paid that money to AUC, and thus were their bankrollers?

If the Colombian government had protected Chiquita in the first place, no monies would ever have been paid to the AUC at all.

I maintain that both the Colombian and US governments are much more liable and responsible for all deaths and kidnappings in Colombia than Chiquita was. Their failures to protect a U.S. company trying to do business and employ people in Colombia indirectly led to the payoff and the murders that resulted from the payoff. That's what Holder was defending and arguing on Chiquita's behalf.

Why should Chiquita have to pay the additional $25 million because of fuckups by the Colombian and US government?

[EFerrari]

42. Sorry, I misread that. Completely agree.

The Colombian government is going nuts right now, trying to get that agreement passed up here before our Torture president is out of power. Uribe looked ill the last time he was up here.

[4lbs]

44. Yeah. I agree that Chiquita felt it had to pay the money and was probably shocked and dismayed to

discover that it led to murder operations by the AUC.

They were caught between a rock and a hard place. Sort of a Catch-22 "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

They did what they thought was best for their employees.

The Colombian and US governments royally screwed this one, and instead of taking responsibility, they scapegoated Chiquita for it.

[EFerrari]

55. They all take their shot at screwing each other. They love that better than golf. n/t

[NashVegas]

56. Chiquita Had An Option: Pull-Out

The money they paid AUC was the cost of doing business. They had a choice.

[4lbs]

59. That shouldn't have even been an option. The Colombian government didn't protect them.

So, if a foreign company wants to open up shop in the U.S. and hire American workers, then is harassed into paying protection money, shouldn't the local authorities, FBI, and US Government in general protect that company and prevent the extortion from happening?

Or is it the company's fault and they should have just pulled out of the U.S. instead, firing all the employees in this country?

[NashVegas]

62. Of Course, We Should Protect Any Company Operating In the US

And if we fail to, that company should pull its investment out of our country, wouldn't you agree?

[4lbs]

68. Not necessarily. If it gets no protection from the local or federal authorities, let it do whatever

it takes to continue business.

If it involves paying protection money, well then so be it. Businesses paying protection to criminal elements has been going on for hundreds of years in the U.S. alone. Especially small businesses.

Or let them hire their own security forces, but then write off that cost entirely from any taxes they have to pay to state and federal governments. Even lower tariffs to offset it.

Oh sure, Chiquita could have pulled out of Columbia, but then all their food products they get from Colombia would have cost more in U.S. grocery stores. There would be increased acquisition and shipping costs since the company wouldn't have a real presence in the country anymore. It would have to go through middlemen adding an extra layer or two of costs. Would you be willing to pay, say, 25% more for those foodstuffs if it lets Chiquita pull out of Colombia?

Maybe Chiquita should have paid, or not, pulled out, or not.

However, where my main problem lies is that Chiquita was being scapegoated by the same people who failed, even refused, to help them when they asked for it.

The same government(s) that failed to protect them were telling them to pay up $25 million in fines for trying to protect their own employees.

[NashVegas]

70. We Make Choices. Reject Corruption or Become Part of It

Chiquita chose to become part of it.

There's no moral dilemma. The only necessary object they were providing was money to their stockholders.

[4lbs]

82. I'm glad you feel comfortable passing judgment from your ivory tower.

If you ever have to run your own business you'll find out it's not as easy.

I've been working on my own for 5 years now, owning my own business, and I've had to deal with more crap, red tape, and bureaucracy than I ever did as a simple employee of a company.

[FrenchieCat]

113. Odd......

How you were not outraged when Bill Clinton accepted $800,000 from Colombian interests also linked to Death Squads....as well Hillary Clinton's Campaign Manager.

The Clinton-Colombia Connection: It Goes Back a Long Way
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-clinton-colombia-conn_b_95929.html?page=4

CNN: Clinton laughs off $ 800,000 payment to Bill for Columbia free trade speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5453996

[EFerrari]

114. I was and I posted about that.

You can't claim to be for Joe Lunchbucket and at the same time, take money from the Colombian government.

[NashVegas]

117. Cut the Shit

Everytime Bush did something the left criticized, RWers responded with some "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton blah blah blah, so whaddya think of THAT?"

The subject at hand is not Hillary Clinton or her campaign. The subject is our apparently future AG.

I wasn't even talking about him, specifically, I was talking about Chiquita, and you just had to come an accuse someone who doesn't happen to worship at Barack Obama's altar of not being outraged enough about Clinton's ties to Colombia? Stop it.

[EFerrari]

121. It's not even true. Several of us pointed out that while Hillary was courting lunch buckets

Bill was getting speaking fees from Colombia.

It's just beneath the poster.

[treestar]

17. Who a lawyer represents should not be used as a judgment

they are the same. John Adams defended the British. Ordinary criminal lawyers every day defend people accused of DUI. It's immature to identify the lawyer with the client in that way.

[EFerrari]

31. When did ethics become immaturity?

Holy cow.

[treestar]

57. "Defended the killers of these people" isn't that while they are still

at trial?

Was whoever defended Charles Manson "unethical?"

We would live in a police state of lawyers if they made the decision of guilty or innocent in their offices.

[EFerrari]

65. I'm sure there are many good reasons for an attorney to take Chiquita's money.

:)

[treestar]

129. In actual fact, the ethics rules is

that a lawyer not refuse to take a case because the cause is unpopular.

Yeah, rich people and corporation can afford attorney's fees. The only answer is perhaps to provide legal services for the poor but attorneys fees are for work performed, so "taking" their $$ isn't quite accurate.

It's not unethical to represent the rich, the last time I checked.

Rich lawyers usually do some pro bono work, too. (Representing those who can't afford attorneys for nothing).

[girl gone mad]

126. But why should he be rewarded with AG..

when there are so many qualified candidates without the questionable ethical background?

Why not give the position to someone who has walked the talk rather than one who has thrown his lot in with corporate scum?

What this appointment says is that rich people in our society can do whatever the fuck they want. Kill poor working people, evade paying tens of millions in taxes.. it's all forgivable as long as you have the right connections. Just don't be poor and get caught selling a little bit of pot, because that'll get you hard time if AG Holder gets his way.

[ellacott]

23. Even though Johnny Cochran Defended OJ

I would not have hesitated to use him as my lawyer if I was given that option.

Do you think the head of Chiquita bananas might sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. They might say, Been there, done that.

Also, your link implies that Obama made a deal with the DLC so they wouldn't let him win in spite of the voting machines.

This is from your link:

"Clearly, Obama had to make a deal with the Clinton/DLC faction of the leadership, to get the corpo/fascist vendors of 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, and the corpo/fascist media, to back off and let him win.


This diminishes the credibility of the rest of the information in your link.

[FrenchieCat]

27. It is a conspiracy/guilt by association/they are all out to get us

smear thread.

[EFerrari]

32. It's a matter of public record. You sure are suddenly free with the lives

of other people.

And Obama set up this conflict, not Holder and not me.

[ellacott]

36. Lawyers frequently represent questionable clients

Like Johnny Cochran. President Clinton had the head of Chiquita sleep in the Lincoln bedroom and he was chiefly responsible for destroying the banana industry in the Caribbean. That will be excused by most people on this board. They don't see a moral equivalency.

[EFerrari]

43. That's right. A lot of lawyers just do their jobs

no matter who is cutting the paycheck.

[ellacott]

49. You must not know a lot of lawyers

If you will use this to disqualify Holder will you hold Hillary Clinton to the same standard?

[EFerrari]

54. There is a lot of money to be made defending people like Chiquita, I agree. n/t

[ellacott]

37. That's what it is

[EFerrari]

40. That's right. I put up all kinds of threads to smear Obama.

I made up Eric Holder's association with Chiquita and with the death squads they paid to kill people.

Busted.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Why is Obama palling around with human rights abusers?

[EFerrari]

39. So, is he or isn't he?

You know, this news is being consumed in Latin America. Not just here, on this highly thoughtful thread.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. I guess in the sense that Bill Ayers was a terrorist.

Or Atticus Finch was a rapist.

Sure, why not.

[EFerrari]

48. Well, no. Thousands of people were killed and it was Eric Holder's job

to make sure their killers didn't pay for that very much.

That you can even equate the two is sort of saddening. Fighting government terror v defending it? Nope. Not the same!

It's also telling that not a single respondent to this thread asked a single question about those thousands of people. Or a single question about how this appointment will communicate to Latin America.

That's cool.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Meh.

I assume that most people in South America aren't knee jerk rubes, so I'm not too worried about it.

[EFerrari]

53. Fair enough. n/t

[NashVegas]

61. It's a Bit Upsetting

But perhaps just a tiny bit more so than those who are holding onto their talking points, defending it.

[EFerrari]

63. I didn't do a very good job on this thread, did I?

Bush has so alienated Latin America, I was really looking forward to Obama changing that -- if only by being sworn in.

The crux is, the American government/s over time have usually sided with the corporations over human rights in what we arrogantly call our "backyard". It would be too bad to signal, this will just be more of the same.

It's not a hugh deal in the panoply of what Obama has to put on. But, it's a mistake to believe this appointment went unnoticed.

[NashVegas]

67. I Don't Think It's Possible

To do a good job. People would be pissed, either way. It's impossible to have an *honest* conversation among all the marketing games.

[EFerrari]

69. That's the best and most honest remark I've read in a long time.

Thank you.

[NashVegas]

94. For What It's Worth

Check out FALN

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/12/next_on_the_gop_list_eric_hold.html

The RW is gonna say he loves terrorists, now, regardless which stripe.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

101. Oh, well. ef me, then.

lol

[Guaranteed]

64. And John Adams, too, that bastard. Defending the soldiers in the Boston Massacre.

Screw that guy.

[EFerrari]

66. Because foot soldiers are just like multinational corporations and can pay just as much!

Eric Holder is just like John Adams!!!!11

[Guaranteed]

71. Foot soldiers- you mean those Loyalist representatives of King George,

enforcing unjust taxes. Who killed a number of people. And were acquitted.

[EFerrari]

72. I can't even believe you are minimizing this.

That's just simply disgusting.

ETA: Your next AG went into a court of law and argued that the thousands of union workers that his clients had killed weren't killed by his clients. Maybe you can sit with that. I can't.

[Guaranteed]

73. Look, why don't you just ADMIT that John Adams was a treasonous snake

who obviously stood for none of the principles in the Declaration of Independence that he helped Jefferson draft since he not only defended but got off the hook a junta of tyrannical Redcoats who killed children in the streets of Boston.

[EFerrari]

74. John Adams didn't sign off on thousands of murders

of union organizers and members in some marginalized "backyard".

I want to laugh with you but I can't. This is now.

[LiberalColombian]

89. Got a link to the paper where someone signs off on thousands of murders?

Because, not only was the number of murders that this event involves greatly inflated by this post, but theres a lack of any evidence that anyone signed of on them.

The only evidence there is is of police failing to investigate them.

[EFerrari]

92. Yes, the number of deaths was a typo.

:puke:

[LiberalColombian]

95. Have you ever been to Colombia?

Just a question, it would be nice to know for future reference, to see if you've ever actually experienced being in the nation.

[EFerrari]

97. No, I've never been to Colombia. You do realize that by the same logic

every single major university on the planet should just close down, right?

lol

[LiberalColombian]

100. Well I sure would hope...

someone talking about the extreme intricicies of the domestic policies and foreign policies of a nation with as long as a History as Colombia you'd have scouted out the terrain somewhat.

Seeing as your a longtime vocal critic of the only first Elected President in the History of the nation, you know very little of the nation itself.

[EFerrari]

102. Are you not able to use the google to become literate?

Sad.

[LiberalColombian]

86. You do realize that the events in Colombia are not the Colombian Goverments fault don't you?

They are the result of 50 years of war that saw hundred of thousands of Citizens killed, and thousand kidnapped.

The Colombian Goverment didn't act in those cases because they're simply wasn't anyway TO act. There were no major suspects, no way to catch any suspects. These are Guerrilas. You'd have to launch a major offensive in a entire army thats made up of 40,000 people, just to try to catch these guys.

The Colombian Goverment wasn't subverting anyones rights here, they were simply unable to act.

Now when you have a American Goverment that regularly subverts peoples rights, and spies on them illegally, passes laws that do away with the constitutionally protected securities, Don't even give the guerrila forces they capture trials and place them eternally in legal limbo, and then turn right around say that somehow Colombia doesn't deserve a Free Trade Agreeement because some Union Workers were assasinated by a submersive guerrila organization that is very hard to track, and then say you're a morally superior nation? Well thats just the root of hypocrysy. And when the lack of a TLC ends up only taxing your exports, well thats just irony.

[EFerrari]

88. My thread is about Obama's mixed messages, not about the Colombian government.

If you want to defend Uribe, you have to start your own thread.

[LiberalColombian]

93. Uribe doesn't need defense here. He's not on trial.

Parts of his goverment are. Something completely different from Uribe himself.

In fact Uribe is as good as a God to any Colombian. You don't get a 85% approval rating easily.

[EFerrari]

96. LOL! Obama is not on trial, either.

He's going to be the best president we've had in 40 years.

I hope you're not betting the farm on Uribe's ratings, which have nothing to do with this thread.

[LiberalColombian]

98. And where did I state that Obama was on trial?

Whats on trial is the logic of the people in this thread. Beleiving things spewed about foreign nations without even thinking to actually investigate it themselves.

I bet most of them would support a TLC with Venezuela before Colombia.

Its everything thats wrong with the sheep in this nation.

[NashVegas]

127. Whose Sock Puppet Was That?

[BzaDem]

90. What the heck? Now you are saying that Obama might be in favor murder of union organizers?

I might just have to go to freerepublic, since I don't even think they are going that far.

[EFerrari]

91. Maybe your logic process would be more at home there.

[Redstone]

99. So, are we going to start eating our young now? What a disappointment.

Redstone

[EFerrari]

104. I never gave birth to Holder nor did I compel our next president to choose him.

There are some things that are problems, Redstone, especially when it involves justifying the slaughter of thousands of short brown people with no consequence, I think that's a problem.

It appears that I'm in a minority. That's cool. It won't be the first time, I guess.

[Redstone]

107. Ah, my dear friend SFEX2K, I'm exactly the wrong guy to be preaching to about

"slaughter of short brown people."

Please trust me on this one. Not only am I one of those "brown people" (though not short), being half American Indian, and not either to add the fact that I'm married to a woman who is half African (so I really DO know from being "brown"), but I've also been involved, inadvertantly though it was on my part, in one of those "slaughters of short brown people" that America has made some of its citizens part of, though we never wished to partake in the process individually nor by our own volition.

I've been there. I've been in a place where the only equation was this: "I can take the life of this short brown person, or I can allow him to take mine."

Nobody who has not been in that place has a right to judge. Which I say only as my own opinion, because others' opinions may vary, and that's fine with me.

But I beg of you, do not preach to me regarding matter of which I am FAR more intimately familiar than you are. I've seen the death. I've smelled the blood.

I know.

Redstone

[EFerrari]

108. I wasn't trying to preach at all, just trying to explain..

We seem to be very easy about who gets killed "down there" as if they aren't any kin to us at all.

I just don't feel that way.

[Redstone]

112. "We," who? Not me. Not me at all. Did you read what I wrote? I did LIVE that.

Redstone

[EFerrari]

116. If you did live that, then you understand the inclusive gesture

and you don't take it as pertaining to you as an individual.

If you feel you need to dance on my head, that's okay. You are a friend I've appreciated for years and hope to appreciate for many more. This dance is on me, Redstone.

[elkston]

103. What it tells me is that Obama looks ahead and chooses the best people ...

to enact HIS agenda. He looks at Holder's work objectively and knows it was just a job, not ideology. Now he's got that talent on HIS team, doing what HE (Obama) thinks is right.

[EFerrari]

105. So, how does his anti- human rights abuse agenda in Colombia

mesh with Holder's defense of human rights abuse in Colombia? That was the question in my OP.

[Peace Patriot]

106. Right. Chiquita's death squad attorney. Aw, fuck...

:wow:

[FrenchieCat]

109. Chiquita had no death squad......

and you know it.

Chiquita paid off a death squad in order to keep its employees alive.
The Death Squad used that money for what they do.

Holder was hired after the fact, when the Bush's US Justice Department decided to go after Chiquita for paying what they had deemed were terrorists....

To hold Holder and by extension Obama for picking Holder for a death Squad's action is really guilt by association....and not much else.

Hell, throw in Ayers and Rev. Wright, and call it a day.

[EFerrari]

115. I am speechless.

I can't believe you are defending this.

Holder chose to defend murderers and to be paid very well for doing that. But, that must be just business and not personal.

And there have been fewer more active defenders of Obama, Wright or Ayers than I have been.

[kid a]

123. Wait? Is Holder defendingn AUC? NO. He is defending Chiquita.

Chiquita claims the payments were for protection of their workers FROM AUC.
Kinda like paying a mob boss for protection on his turf - then the mob kills in your neighborhood.
Its a fucked up case dealing within a fucked up, corrupt govt.
I'd like to know the true details, but until I know, I'm not gonna condemn Obama or Holder

Have you seen the depositions, documents, legal briefs, etc. of the case?

[EFerrari]

124. That's right. Holder was representing Chiquita. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

118. I'm pretty sure Obama mentioned this in one of the debates with McCain.

I recall it because I remember McCain rolled his eyes a teensy bit when Obama talked about protecting labor, specifically mentioning the violence against union activists, as well as other prerequisites for a responsible trade agreement with Colombia.

I don't feel any better about this than I do about James Baker defending the Saudis against 9-11 families. :(

[EFerrari]

119. Yeah, he did. And it was the first time I understood that he knew

what was happeing in Colombia.

Wow.

[AtomicKitten]

120. I think Obama is pretty knowledgeable so it doesn't surprise me.

He talks about crappy bankruptcy laws with Biden on the ticket, so I'm thinking he probably comes down on the right side of this. The question remains if his policy will reflect it. We shall see.

[EFerrari]

122. His Latin American stuff has been sort of sketchy.

He went to kiss the ring of the old school anti Castro Cubans, CANF, first thing and they have a history of sponsoring terror not only in Habana but also in Miami. (Not to mention, that generation is dying off and their kids are more liberal every year.) He's also called out Chavez for shutting down that teevee station that hosted the coup against him which was a little weird. I imagine Obama would be less forgiving if Fox hosted a coup against him in their studios.

That may be a separate if related issue to Holder. But, people have a way of cobbling things together.

Latin America is waiting to embrace Obama. It will be much harder to do that if his Attorney General is the guy who helped get Chiquita off when the deaths of thousands of people were at issue to their many more family members.

Latin America has been burned many times by American adminstrations. I don't know why anyone there extends any goodwill at all in any form any more. And yet, they do.

[tekisui]

130. I understand Holder to be smart, fair and the RW hates him.

What exactly do you think he will or will not do as Obama's AG? I think he will work to correct the Constitutional violations of chimpy's days. He is working for the American people now. We are his client. I want the toughest and the best.

I see the disconnect that you mentioned, but what exactly do you think Holder's negative effect will be?

[EFerrari]

131. DoJ is a sewer right now. The torture president didn't only break the law

his administration developed a true culture of corruption that may take years to clean up. Whoever gets AG has to be clean in order to be effective -- especially if people like Mueller are allowed to stay. He can't be seen by his staff or the rest of the department as just Obama's Gonzalez. I don't know if that makes sense. If Obama can get Justice in order by the end of his first term, that will be a huge accomplishment.

It's hard to say if someone who worked for the Clinton Whitehouse and who worked for the likes of Chiquita can be that clean. Clinton had a creative relationship with the law at times and Chiquita is profoundly corrupt. It's like Exxon with fruit.

The other thing is, when Obama sends Hillary to ask Colombia to clean up their human rights act, his credibility may be undercut because of his AG's Chiquita association (or, his firm's). That would be unfortunate.