I suspect that that is the case with this after-the-fact statement by Humala. I don't know the legal fine print but surely President Humala could have stopped Berenson from leaving Peru and returning to the U.S. if she posed any threat to Peru's security or if her kangaroo court conviction by Peru's former military dictatorship meant anything in the real world.
Looking at the region around Peru...
The president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, belonged to a leftist guerrilla group and was imprisoned and horribly tortured for it, by the U.S.-backed fascist dictatorship of the day.
The recent former president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, was imprisoned by that same regime for union organizing.
The current president of Uruguay, Jose Mujica, belonged to a leftist guerrilla group and was imprisoned and tortured for it, by the U.S.-backed fascist dictatorship in Uruguay.
The current president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, led the leftist guerrilla group that overthrew the U.S.-backed fascist dictatorship in Nicaragua.
The current president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, spent two years in prison for an abortive coup attempt against a neo-liberal government that had slaughtered hundreds of poor protestors.
The recent former president of Chile, Michele Batchelet, was imprisoned and lost her father and other family members to torture by the U.S.-backed fascist dictatorship in Chile, for mere political activity.
The current president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was arrested and beaten up by the U.S.-supported security forces for organizing the coca leaf farmers' union and opposing U.S./DEA policy.
Lori Berenson did far less than any of the above PRESIDENTS OF THEIR COUNTRIES, as to guerrilla activity (or any kind of activity) against U.S.-supported fascists. She was very young, fell in love with a guerrilla fighter and merely provided a house for his group.
The majority of voters in the above countries found nothing wrong with membership in leftist guerrilla groups or other activity against U.S.-backed fascist regimes. It has been no bar to public office, even to the presidency, and could even be interpreted as a "badge of courage" that won votes.
So there is THIS political context in South America, in which Peru released Berenson from her very long punishment (15 years in prison, as I recall) and permitted her to return home. She did far less than some of the most important leaders of South America, during the fascist dictatorship period. Why would Humala say anything against her return to the U.S.? One reason may be that, unlike these other countries, Peru is still in the grip of a Bush Junta-negotiated U.S. "free trade for the rich" agreement that favors U.S. and other transglobal corporations and has done nothing to alleviate poverty in Peru. Humala is doing a tightrope act between these transglobal mining and other corporate interests and his natural constituency, the poor majority. In short, he is torn. So he lets Berenson leave the country and then objects to it.
Another reason may be that his brother, as I recall, has been accused (I don't know if fairly) of more recent guerilla activity. An attack on a police station in which one or more policemen were killed? Something like that. In the prior election in Peru--the one Humala lost in a close vote--Humala was accused of having been involved in some way--and I'm pretty sure that that was not a fair accusation. In any case, voters either didn't believe it or forgave it, this time around. One more thing: Peru still has a remnant guerilla group which security forces have tried to associate with the Indigenous and their protests against transglobal mining operations. Peruvians--especially any who are profiting from the mining or other corporate "free trade" activities--may see Berenson (though she killed no one and wasn't really even a member of a guerrilla group) as a symbol of resistance to the rich getting richer while the poor suffer. Humala may have felt that he needed to throw a bone to this faction of Peruvian society by speaking against her trip home. His language was excessive--Berenson is hardly a "terrorist"--and his statement was unnecessary. It had no legal force and he didn't have to say it.
I think that Humala is in a very dicey position, as president of a U.S. "free trade" country in the midst of South America's leftist democracy revolution. He was vetted and approved by the U.S., in my opinion, yet has the poor majority as his biggest constituency. In some ways he is in a similar position to Obama--with the ravaged poor looking to him for alleviation of their suffering, but very limited in what he can do--unless he allies strongly with the leftist political revolution happening all around Peru. Corporate Rule ain't pretty, here or there. He may have temporary protection as a U.S. vetted and approved president of a LatAm country but, with successful examples of big poverty reductions all around Peru--in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and other countries--he really must deliver reductions in poverty in order to retain his main support among Peruvian voters. This may ultimately be what was behind his remarks on Berenson--frustration on a host of related or semi-related issues.
= new reply since forum marked as read
