Committee to interrogate extradited paramilitaries leaders in US

[Judi Lynn]

Committee to interrogate extradited paramilitaries leaders in US
Tuesday, 16 August 2011 08:49
Travis Mannon

A committee from Colombia's Prosecutor General's Office will travel to the U.S. this week to interview extradited demobilized paramilitary leaders to assess their status of the Justice and Peace process.

According to news site CM&, the prosecutor general's committee will question the former AUC leaders who have dropped out of the Justice and Peace program to see if they are committed to the process and if they will continue.

Among the prisoners to be interviewed is Salvatore Mancuso who had previously refused to cooperate with the reconciliation process until the security of his family was guaranteed. Mancuso also said he is not able to document the some 7,500 crimes he and his men committed, which he estimated would take over 40 years to confess.

Diego Murillo Bejarano, alias "Don Berna," and Ramiro Vanoy, alias "Cuco Vanoy," also discontinued their cooperation with the process, claiming that they and their families were not receiving the security promised to them in the Justice and Peace Law.

More:
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/18356-committee-to-give-ultimatum-to-extradited-paramilitaries-leaders-in-us.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. This ought to be interesting...

...although I imagine that the real problem has been taken care of, by the midnight extradition of these 30 death squad witnesses to the U.S., on mere drug charges, and their 'burial' in the U.S. federal prison system (by complete sealing of their cases in U.S. federal court in Washington DC), arranged by Mob boss (ahem, president of Colombia) Alvaro Uribe in collusion with U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield (Bush Junta appointee). It's been more than year. Plenty of time to make certain things clear to certain U.S. incarcerated individuals. Uribe and any connecting dots to the Bush Junta are off limits.

The question I want to explore is whether it is Uribe and his closest cohorts whom the U.S. was protecting with these extraditions, because of something the 30 may know about the Bush Junta (i.e., U.S. military activity in Colombia) or because of something Uribe knows about the Bush Junta/U.S. military (thus he gets help silencing witnesses who know something about him).

That somebody knows something about Bush Junta crimes in Colombia is pretty clear--but whether Colombia's prosecutors' finally getting access to these prisoners will bring this info out is less clear, and this access probably means that it will not. Would the U.S. give access if there were any further risk to Uribe or the Bushwhacks?

I have no doubt that anyone who can rat on Uribe has worries about his family. But there is a bigger picture here, indicated, for instance, by Uribe/Brownfield's other secret activity, around the same time--their secretly negotiated U.S./Colombia military agreement that gave "total diplomatic immunity" to all U.S. military personnel and all U.S. military 'contractors' in Colombia. What I suspect is being covered up is U.S. military involvement in some of Uribe's many crimes--most likely, illegal domestic spying and death squad murders.

There is additional evidence that Uribe is being protected from prosecution and even coddled by the U.S. government (Obama)--including the overnight asylum given to the chief spying witness against Uribe, in the U.S. client state of Panama, and Uribe's academic sinecures at Georgetown and Harvard and appointment to a prestigious international legal committee. And there was this curious tidbit in the news, early this year, that the State Department had "fined" Blackwater for "unauthorized" "trainings" of "foreign persons" IN COLOMBIA "for use in Iraq and Afghanistan."

As we know, the Obama administration is under some sort of obligation to prevent investigation/prosecution of Bush Junta crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and cohorts are too powerful to be prosecuted, or even investigated. The question, with regard to Colombia, is, does Uribe qualify for full "made man" protection from the U.S. government? It appears so far that he does. And it also appears that the far right here may even have plans to return him to power in Colombia. Next year, Diebold/ES&S can easily--easily!--insure that the Miami mafia will be in charge of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, by completing the fascist takeover of Congress and installing Bush Junta II in the White House. The Miami mafia reps in the U.S. House have already declared war on parts of Latin America (the ones with the most democratic governments--i.e., full on, FDR-like leftists elected--Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, et al). Rumsfeld was grooming Colombia as the launching pad for such a war. Uribe re-gaining power in Colombia could signal another Oil War.

CIA Director Leon Panetta has been the point man on the matter of Uribe. The most relevant fact about him is that he was a member of Bush Sr.'s "Iraq Study Group" (which very likely ousted Rumsfeld, over Cheney-Rumsfeld plans to nuke Iran and the outing of CIA agents). Panetta is a powerful individual, now at the Pentagon, likely tasked with healing the war between the Pentagon and the CIA that Cheney-Rumsfeld started. My guess is that one of his tasks at CIA was dealing with Uribe, as to Junior's mess in Colombia.

Among his very first actions as CIA Director was a visit to Bogota amidst rumors of a Uribe coup to stay in power. Uribe had been running Colombia for eight years (including a second term that he achieved by bribing legislators, at least one of whom is in jail for it). He was in great peril from Colombian prosecutors for many crimes--including illegal domestic spying (even on judges and prosecutors) and ties to the rightwing death squads and drug trafficking, and apparently needed to retain government powers to protect himself and his Mob. Panetta appears to have guaranteed his immunity possibly in exchange for keeping his lip zipped about Bush Junta involvement in crimes. Uribe was getting a bit hysterical in his last two weeks in office, still trying to foment a war with Venezuela as cover. But he left office peaceably (to go teach students at Harvard and Georgetown what the law is all about), and Colombia's rightwing political establishment, very likely with Panetta's vetting and approval, put Manuel Santos in charge of Colombia, Uribe's former defense minister, who seems to have kept his hands clean, and who immediately made peace with Venezuela, and recently promised universal free medical care to Colombians (--taking a page from the Leftists who now dominate the region). He is also interested in "south-south" trade and in the new clout that the Leftists have created for Latin America in trade negotiations--a "level playing field" on which foreign corporations have to compete for LatAm business often with social justice requirements (as opposed to U.S. corps taking all the profits, and writing their own rules in every way, U.S. banksters looting social programs, etc.).

All this appears to be in keeping with Obama's original stated policy of "peace, respect and cooperation" in Latin America, which got sidetracked by the rightwing coup in Honduras, likely a Bush Junta plan that unfolded only 6 months into the Obama administration but to which Obama/Clinton reacted very badly (basically endorsed the coup and rigged an election around it). They also appeared to let Jim DeMint (SC-Diebold) and the far right blackmail them on this, by holding up their LatAm appointments. That may be how Bush appointee U.S. ambassador to Colombia, Wm. Brownfield, got left in place long enough to accomplish (at least) two cover up tasks--extradition of the 30 death squad witnesses and the U.S./Colombia military agreement with immunity for all. Obama then put Brownfield in charge of the whole region, creating a very ambivalent picture of Obama policy in LatAm. Panetta came in as CIA Director after the Honduran coup. I don't have a guess as to what he did with regard to that situation, but he took charge in Colombia--another Obama administration headache--"handled" Uribe and gave the go-ahead for Santos and (at least to appearances) non-criminal rule of Colombia. Uribe's RW Mob, however, is still committing murders and issuing death threats and the cocaine just keeps on flowing.

My guess is that the Bush Junta flipped the already corrupt U.S. "war on drugs" (a war profiteer boondoggle) entirely around into a criminal organization protecting, not deterring, the cocaine traffic out of Colombia, and, indeed, consolidating it into fewer hands and getting better ability to direct its trillion+ dollar revenue stream. Mob boss Uribe was their operative for doing this. (He's been Mob-backed--rightwing death squad murders; drug trafficking--from the beginning of his career. Perfect operative for the Bushwhacks!) Among other crimes that Uribe oversaw was the forced displacement of 5 MILLION peasant farmers--small coca leaf and food farmers; tiny family farms--from their land, leaving much that prime coca growing land to the big drug lords. They and the Colombian military also murdered peasant farmer organizers, union leaders, teachers, community activists, human rights workers and others, in a reign of terror against the countryside, with $7 BILLION in U.S. military aid and the U.S. military on the ground, in Colombia, providing "training" and "technical aid" and also the latest Pentagon/USAID "pacification" plans (similar to ops in Afghanistan).

Mid-junta, the Bushwhacks added the "war on terror" to the "war on drugs" in Colombia--claiming that the leftist guerrillas (the FARC) in Colombia are "terrorists" (rather than combatants in a civil war--a civil war that's been going on for 70 years!). Uribe publicly stated that "all" those who oppose him "are terrorists." So even non-combatants--ordinary Colombian citizens merely exercising their civil rights--were basically grouped together with Islamic jihadists and Al Qaeda and subjected to murder and mayhem. Converting the "war on drugs" and a long existing civil war into the "war on terror" set the stage for out-of-control rightwing death squads and the Colombia military to murder anybody they damned please--including the Colombian military murdering innocent youngsters and dressing up their bodies like FARC guerrillas, to up their "body counts."

The motive for all of this was not "law and order." The motive was cocaine profits. That is my thesis.

Salvatore Mancuso and the other 30 extradited death squad witnesses were rightwing operatives--thugs and murderers--carrying out this plan. Through illegal spying on judges and prosecutors, Uribe could not only find out who and what they were investigating--and how much they knew about him and his cohorts-- he could anticipate their moves. Thus, the sudden, midnight extradition of these 30--out of the each of Colombian prosecutors.

But why would the U.S. cooperate with such a thing? One of the most plausible reasons is that these 30 hold the connecting dots between Uribe and the Bush Junta. If not--if they only hold connecting dots to Uribe--why was the U.S. protecting Uribe by extraditing them? So, another plausible reason is that they did it as a favor to Uribe, to keep his mouth shut about something else. For instance, the 30 maybe don't know the "dots" on the illegal, domestic spying--say, "training" and "technical assistance" that the U.S. military may have provided. Those who received his "hit lists" from the spying program in fact would not likely know how that info was obtained. That is a high level item that Uribe would know. And it is very interesting, indeed, that Uribe's pal in Panama, rightwing President Martinelly--who gave instant asylum to Uribe's wanted spy chief, Maria Hurtado--demanded exactly this--help with spying on his "enemies"--from the U.S./Bush Junta government (as revealed in a Wikileaks memo). Why did he think that U.S. government might do that?

The illegal domestic spying is one of Uribe's biggest legal vulnerabilities in Colombia. Chances are that, whatever the 30 death squad witnesses know, it won't help Colombian prosecutors with their investigation of Uribe (nor "connect the dots" to the Bush Junta). They likely have been "gotten to" by now and are aware of what it isn't safe to disclose. This is a very "managed" affair--and by that I mean CIA managed, to protect Uribe, and thus Bush Junta principles, and the chain of command in the U.S. military and at the U.S. embassy in Colombia. The cover up has involved the U.S. embassy in Colombia, the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. federal court in Washington DC, the U.S. federal prison system, the U.S. embassy or operatives in Panama, and, likely, agencies involved in the "war on drugs" (FBI, DEA, et al), as well as the main designer and arbiter of U.S. foreign policy, the CIA, inferring from past history in LatAm, Panetta's visit to Bogota, Panetta's close connection to Bush Sr., the clout needed to get asylum for Hurtado in Panama, and other items.

This sort of dance that has been going on to keep Uribe--an obvious criminal--out from under prosecutorial pressure--while allowing the cleaner faction of Colombia's rightwing political elite to regain its footing--has a CIA/"Mission Impossible" odor to it. The interference with Colombia's justice system is a "signature" of such missions. (If they can't control Colombia's prosecutors, they get the witnesses out of Colombia.) It may help the Obama administration gain some "Brownie points" in LatAm, where the U.S. is truly a pariah and where the leftist political establishment that now dominates the region are livid about Honduras (--Brazil--where U.S. corporations would like to get more inroads--in particular). I don't know how deep this policy is in our own establishment or if the far rightwing here, who clearly have Diebold/ES&S working on their behalf, with escalating fervor--will permit Latin America to have peace if it doesn't enrich their corporate, war profiteer and cocaine running supporters, let alone have independence, self-determination, self-rule, democracy, honest elections and all those goods things that they lie about promoting. I don't think they will win a war in LatAm, if that's what they intend. People with democracy and independence in their hearts are difficult and probably impossible to beat with a hijacked military.

Nevertheless, though Obama/Panetta policy seems more benign than the Bush Junta, I don't trust it. Panetta may have just been getting Junior and his pal Uribe out of trouble with prosecutors whom the U.S. could not control. Santos' peace and good will could be a temporary ploy. The history of the U.S. in LatAm would certainly point that way.

[bemildred]

2. The beltway policy since 2002 seems to be mostly long-range mouthfighting. nt

[Peace Patriot]

3. Yet, when you look closely you find not only $7 BILLION in U.S. military aid to Colombia,

plus costs of U.S. bases in Colombia, USAF and USN presence in Colombia, plus costs of all the 'contractors' (Dyncorp, Blackwater and others) in Colombia; plus billions, all told, in USAID, Pentagon and other propaganda (support for rightwing candidates and causes, buying journalists, etc.) all over LatAm; plus black ops (the "miracle laptops," that CIA caper out of Miami with "Guido" and the suitcase packed with $700,000); plus costs of the 500 lb U.S. "smart bombs" dropped on Ecuador; plus costs of supporting the coupsters in Venezuela, Bolivia, Honduras and probably Ecuador (in Bolivia, white separatist rioters and murderers funded/organized right out of the U.S. embassy; Peace Corps and DEA used for spying; in Honduras, very expensive, indeed, including multi-millions to the coupsters, costs of U.S. military base--the one used for refueling of the plane carrying the elected president out of the country at gunpoint--and now, more U.S. military bases in Honduras; in Ecuador, costs of infiltrating the police and the military, among other things); plus costs of reconstituting the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean (mothballed since WW II) to patrol the U.S. "circle the wagons" area (Central America/the Caribbean) and spy on Venezuela's oil coast; costs of spying on Venezuela's oil coast from the U.S. air base on the Dutch islands right off that coast; costs of the new Colombian military base overlooking the Gulf of Venezuela only 20 miles from the Venezuelan border; costs of "training" and "technical assistance" to the most fascist militaries in LatAm (Colombia, Honduras), billions more in costs of militarizing the U.S. "war on drugs" in Mexico (and securing that cocaine route for the most well-armed, best organized gangs--the ones who know who to pay their "taxes" to); costs of U.S. military maneuvers in supposedly de-militarized Costa Rica; cost of State Department-rigged election in Haiti (and in Honduras); costs of running a U.S. Navy torture base in Guantamo Bay and monitoring Cuba (other end of the island), and more.

This is more--much more--than long-range mouth-fighting. This is, in my opinion, a Rumsfeld war plan--very costly, all in all, and involving billions and billions of our tax dollars in establishing U.S. boots on the ground wherever possible and creating what the Pentagon calls "forward operating locations" (use of LatAm military bases--coordination of high tech airspace systems; "training" of the local military; buying, bullying or cajoling military cooperation agreements, etc.). And it also constitutes a lot of interference in LatAm countries' affairs, beyond propaganda campaigns--involvement in efforts to topple at least four governments (and likely more than that--given the number of leftist governments to target); involvement in efforts to start a war (between the U.S./Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela); serious interference with Colombia's justice system, etc.

A lot of the worst items above were Bush Junta, but the budgets for funding rightwing candidates and causes, for pushing militarism everywhere possible, for spreading the Pentagon's footprint, black ops budgets and other such U.S. activities continue. As Lula da Silva said in his last speech in office: "The U.S. has not changed." The U.S. may have backed off a bit on visible coup-mongering--because it got stung on Honduras (LatAm stung them back)--but coup-mongering really is its policy, visible or not (and successful or not). That has not changed and it is by no means just mouthfighting. It is active, budgeted, on the ground interference and planned interference. This is why I don't trust Panetta and Santos' apparent peacefulness. If I saw the U.S. mothballing the 4th Fleet again, for instance, or the U.S. pulling out of its many military bases, or using USAID funds for true democracy building and helping civil society (rather than for rigging elections and supporting rightwing candidates and causes), I might be more inclined to think that U.S. policy has changed. In essence, it hasn't. And, frankly, I don't think Obama has the power to change it. Everything is still in place for a Bush Junta II government to pick up where the Bush Junta left off (on its despicable support for the white separatists in Bolivia, Sept '08). Meanwhile, Honduras--the traditional launching pad for U.S. aggression in Central America--has been secured as a Pentagon asset. And Colombia remains secured, with many U.S. military bases, should Uribe be re-installed and start warmongering again. He has been acting like he has support for doing just that.

I don't agree with those who say that the Bush Junta was "distracted" by the Middle East and "neglected" Latin America--and thus "lost" Latin America for U.S. corporate/war profiteer plundering. They "lost" Latin America, all right, but not because of "neglect." They "lost" it precisely because of their active efforts to topple elected leftist governments, their warmongering (through their proxy Uribe) against Venezuela and Ecuador, and their placement of military assets all around Venezuela, their obvious first target. When Lula da Silva said that the U.S. 4th Fleet is "a threat to Brazil's oil," when everybody knew that it was a plain threat to Venezuela's, he was signaling the new LatAm consensus, not about U.S. anti-Left propaganda ('mouth-talking"), but about U.S. aggression. Bush Junta aggression and planned aggression in LatAm came up against an historic Leftist democracy movement in LatAm which has swept Leftist governments into office all over the landscape. Among the goals of this movement is LatAm independence from U.S. domination--the necessary premise of the new consensus on LatAm unity, cooperation, "south-south" and "global south" trade and social justice. This movement would have happened with or without a far rightwing Junta here. But it was, indeed, partly fueled, not by U.S. "neglect," but rather by U.S./Bush Junta aggression, as outlined above. It wasn't Bush Junta bad-mouthing the Left that so fired up LatAm voters, candidates and grass roots movements. It was the U.S.-supported coup attempt in Venezuela, followed by a USAID-funded recall effort against Chavez (and more), the colonial behavior of U.S. corp Bechtel in Bolivia, followed by active U.S. government efforts to topple the Morales government, and so on.

There was also profound, widespread revulsion at the Iraq War--but that was also just part of the fuel. The main fuel was poverty and the desire for social justice. To get social justice in LatAm, U.S. interference must be repelled. It was aggressive interference, and not "neglect" and not mere propaganda, that inspired Rafael Correa, in Ecuador, for instance, to promise to throw the U.S. military base out of Ecuador. It was aggressive interference that prompted Chavez to call Bush Jr the "devil" in his UN speech. This was not just words. And it's interesting what Correa replied when he was asked about this on the campaign trail. He said that it was "an insult to the Devil." The boost he got in the polls was not about U.S. "neglect." It was about the U.S. infiltrating Ecuador's police and military; it was about the U.S. using its military base to plan a bombing/raid on Ecuador itself (which unfolded a year and half later). It was about the U.S.-stoked civil war in Colombia spilling over the border--sending tens of thousands of poor refugees into Ecuador, fleeing from the Colombian military and its death squads. It was about active evil, not "neglect" and not a war of words.

I do think we need to understand this, and also to be aware that, while gross U.S. interference and aggression in LatAm may have been put on the back burner for the moment, the military assets and budgets are still in place, and I don't think that LatAm--especially Venezuela with its huge oil reserves--has been taken off the Pentagon's Big Dartboard.