Colombia scandal: Police wiretapped Uribe's main opponent during campaign

[Judi Lynn]

Source: International Herald Tribune/Associated Press

Colombia scandal: Police wiretapped Uribe's main opponent during campaign
The Associated Press
Published: May 15, 2007

BOGOTA, Colombia: An illegal police wiretapping operation against journalists, opposition figures and government members included the man President Alvaro Uribe defeated in the last election, his defense minister acknowledged Tuesday.

Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos insisted that the Uribe administration was unaware of the police spying operation. "We don't know who ordered these interceptions and the government has never learned what they contain," he said.

Santos refused to reveal all the known victims of the wiretapping, but he did acknowledge that Carlos Gaviria of the Polo Democratico Alternativo party, who finished second in May 2006 presidential elections, was spied on. "That's as much as I'm going to say. I saw others but I don't think it merits giving the names," he told a news conference.
(snip)

"It's impossible to think that Uribe didn't benefit from this," said Sen. Juan Fernando Cristo, a spokesman for the opposition Liberal party. "A middling rank officer didn't come up with this ... someone gave the order and someone received the transcripts."



Read more: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/15/america/LA-GEN-Colombia-Scandal.php

[Judi Lynn]

1. Opposition Politicians Demand Explanation for Illegal Wiretapping in Colombia

Opposition Politicians Demand Explanation for Illegal Wiretapping in Colombia

By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 15, 2007; 3:44 PM

BOGOTA, Colombia, May 15 -- Opposition politicians in Colombia demanded an explanation from President Alvaro Uribe's government on Tuesday after it was revealed that an elite police intelligence unit had for two years been illegally tapping the phones of opposition figures and journalists.

The disclosures, made late Monday by Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos after a long meeting with Uribe, was embarrassing for an American ally that has received upwards of $4 billion in mostly military and anti-drug aid. Democrats in the U.S. Congress have expressed reservations about supporting a free trade pact with Colombia, citing its troubling human rights record, and some on Capitol Hill are pushing for more restrictions on military assistance.
(snip)

Opposition politicians said they were particularly troubled by the revelations because Uribe himself had suggested last month that he knew about at least some operations involving surveillance of the opposition. At a news conference, he accused his opponents of attempting to doom a free trade agreement that his government wants with the United States.

"I have proof, which I am not going to reveal -- it is from military and police intelligence -- that some of those who have gone to the United States say: 'We're going to attack the treaty by accusing this guy Uribe,' " the president told a small group of reporters in the briefing, which was televised nationally.

He then added: "Going {to Washington} to discredit the government has been a persistent purpose. And the coincidences -- many of the critics who go there to defame the government are the adversaries of the FTA here. And I have specific proof. In order not to reveal them, I will not make any personal references."

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501320.html





Colombian President Uribe

[Judi Lynn]

2. Colombia’s “Watergate” Scandal

May 15, 2007

Colombia’s “Watergate” Scandal

by Garry Leech

Almost weekly new evidence emerged revealing the names of high-level government officials engaged in illegal activities including the wiretapping of political opponents, maintaining links to an illegal group and issuing lists containing the names of the president’s political enemies. While Senate hearings and widespread media coverage initially failed to directly link the president to the escalating scandal, they did begin to undermine the government’s credibility. Less than a year after the scandal erupted onto the political scene, the president was forced to fire two of his political allies for their role in the illegal wiretaps. Meanwhile, supporters of the president repeatedly pointed out that, while many high-ranking government officials had been charged with wrongdoing, the president himself had not been directly implicated in any illegal acts. While the aforementioned scenario sounds eerily similar to the current “para-politics” scandal in Colombia, it is actually a description of the first year of the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s that eventually brought down US President Richard Nixon.
(snip)

The greatest similarities between the para-politics scandal and Watergate exist in the drama that unfolded after the initial crimes were committed. In both cases, Senate hearings and other investigations revealed links between government officials and the covert activities being perpetrated by the illegal groups. Investigations in Colombia have revealed the existence of “hit lists” containing the names of unionists and other political opponents of President Uribe. High-ranking intelligence officers drew up the lists and then passed them to AUC leaders who threatened or killed the targets. Similarly, the Nixon administration drew up an “enemies list” of political opponents who were to be targets of illegal investigations by US federal law enforcement agencies.

In Colombia last week, President Uribe demanded the resignations of the chief of the country’s National Police, General Jorge Daniel Castro, and his head of intelligence, General Guillermo Chavez, after it was revealed that the National Police had illegally wiretapped members of the political opposition. Spokespersons for Uribe immediately proclaimed that the president knew nothing of the affair and that he will not tolerate any illegal activities by members of his government. Similarly, ten months after the Watergate scandal had broken, President Nixon fired two of his closest aides, H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, when evidence emerged linking them to the illegal Watergate wiretappings. Nixon’s spokespeople immediately pointed out that the president was unaware of their illegal activities and would not tolerate such wrongdoings. As was the case with Watergate, public knowledge of official involvement in Colombia’s illegal wiretappings resulted from investigations conducted by journalists, not by the government.

The current para-politics scandal is less than a year old and has so far failed to directly link President Uribe to any illegal activities. At the same point in the Watergate scandal, Nixon had also not been directly linked to any wrongdoings. It wasn’t until two years after the Watergate scandal erupted that it finally became evident Nixon was personally aware of the illegal activities that had occurred. Furthermore, he had been involved in ordering them. However, these facts only became apparent after it was revealed that the paranoid Nixon had taped all conversations that took place in the White House’s Oval office. Those tapes turned out to be the “smoking gun” that finally brought down the president. Up until that point, Nixon had fired all those around him who were implicated in the scandal while proclaiming his own innocence. Without the discovery of the White House tapes, Nixon might well have succeeded in remaining above the political fray in much the same way that President Ronald Reagan did during the Iran-Contra scandal a decade later.
(snip/...)

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia257.htm

[Blue_Tires]

3. somewhere G.G. Liddy is smiling

[Alexander]

4. Maybe Colombia will get it right and send Uribe to prison...

Like we should have done with Nixon during Watergate.

When Ford pardoned Nixon for crimes he "may" have committed, that was the first clue that something far more sinister and terrifying than Watergate was going on.

[Peace Patriot]

5. I've been following James Comey's explosive testimony today, and something is

going on here as well, regarding the Bush Junta's illegal domestic spying. We don't yet know who they were spying on, but, whatever they were doing, it got some establishment types like Comey and Robt. Mueller very, very alarmed. Bush & Cabal wanted to spy without any kind of warrant (even the after-the-fact review permitted by FISA court law, supposedly designed to allow law enforcement to spy on an emergency basis and get an ok later). They wanted all constraints off. But the more lawful lawmen like Comey (friend and mentor of Patrick Fitzgerald) and Mueller convinced then AG John Ashcroft to refuse to sign off on it. As Comey tells it, "hours after" the new rules came to DoJ, Ashcroft took deathly ill with a pancreatic/bladder infection and was hospitalized, and put on heavy medication. He was in ICU. He had turned over AG duties and authority to Comey, his Asst. AG. Comey's driving home, and gets a call from aide who says that Mrs. Ashcroft (who had said no visitors for her husband, he was too ill) had called and said that White House Counsel Gonzales and Bush chief aide Andrew Card were headed to the hospital to get the sick, drugged Ashcroft to sign off on their illegal spying program. Comey calls Robert Mueller (head of FBI) and asks him to come and bring agents; Comey fears that Ashcroft will not know what he's signing. Comey rushed to the hospital and gets to Ashcroft first, then Gonzo and Card arrive. Ashcroft rises from drugged stupor, and, to Comey's amazement, a) refused to sign, and b) points to Comey and says, "I'm not the AG. He is!"). Card calls Comey out into the hallway and they have a big argument.

From Card/Gonzo's point of view: mission not accomplished. They all go away. But driving home, Comey gets a call from Card, which is apparently a shouting match. Card tells him to get over to the White House NOW. Comey says he will not meet with Card without a witness. (!) So he gets the Solicitor General to accompany him. They go to the WH and card WILL NOT ALLOW the Sol. Gen. into his office (!). Comey goes in alone, they have what he describes as a civil conversation, and the whole matter gets bumped up to Bush (as if it had not been there all long). Comey talks to Bush, says he won't sign off on illegal spying. Bush says he disagrees (national security blah blah blah). Comey advises him to talk to Mueller (talk to somebody other than your Mafia apes Gonzo and Card, in other words). Meanwhile, word has it that there will be mass resignations at the DoJ over this, including Comey and Ashcroft (and maybe Mueller at FBI). Mueller goes to see Bush. He emerges and tells Comey that Bush told them to "do the right thing." (Uh-huh.) So the spying program goes into negotiations. But is meanwhile proceeding ILLEGALLY. They patch it up legally, and finally DoJ signs off. Comey resigns (but not before insulating Patrick Fitzgerald with Special Counsel powers, so he can investigate Plamegate without Gonzo or WH interference). Ashcroft also resigns.

Who were/are they spying on, and why? --that got these upright lawmen types so exercised--and that resulted in this incredible scene over Ashcroft's bed in ICU?

If you're interested in Comey's startling testimony, you can read much of it here (with great commentary) (C-Span did not broadcast it!):
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/15/comey-sjc-testimony-liveblog-three/#respond
(also liveblogs one and two).

Uribe and Bush are cut of the same cloth. And we can be sure that there are parallel activities--if not some direct connections--between the crimes of the Uribe government and those of the Bush Junta. And spying is the least of it.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Colombian people who are disenchanted with Uribe call him "Little Bush," I read today.

I hope they BOTH have major surprises in store for them in the very new future, which will benefit the PEOPLE of their countries, for a change.

Thanks for your summary of Comey's testimony, for educating those of us who didn't know Comey was Patrick Fitzgerald's former boss!

Thanks for the link.

[Peace Patriot]

7. I think there's a better chance of that happening in Colombia, than here, cuz

Colombians have some good models of democracy close by, that they surely know about and our people never hear of. Venezuela and Ecuador, right of their border. Also Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Nicaragua. They are literally surrounded by examples of what grass roots democracy and honest elections can do.

Our people are much more isolated, in our weird North American way. Many people here think that we define what democracy is. But that is not true any more. Others in the world pity us, and look with sorrow (and sometimes anger, if they are US victims), on how tawdry and disreputable the U.S. government has become. I do think that North Americans are extremely unhappy with their government, massively unhappy, but also quite bewildered as to why our democracy is not working right, and they have little clue to the forces at work--global corporate predators--who are acting quite deliberately to disempower us, for instance, by inflicting us with "trade secret" voting counting, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations.

We have to learn the basics all over again. Starting at the bottom rung of the world's democracies, and re-learning transparent vote counting, publicly funded elections, a real spectrum of political opinion (not fascism-lite vs. fascism-brutal), accountability for public officials, grass roots organization, and so on.

We will. But it's going to take time. Meanwhile, something else our people don't know much about are the real purposes of this secret "free trade" deal that the Democratic leaders have just made with Bush--first on the chopping block, Peru (a political outlier on the South American scene, as is Colombia). One main purpose is to try to drive the real South American democracies back into poverty, exploitation and fascism, by pouring corporate and US taxpayer money into Peru, in a temporary infusion, to rip their economy open, to dump US products on them, and kill local businesses, and steal their natural resources. They will eventually go the way to Jamaica and Argentina, and so many ruined economies, but, for a while, the glitz money and the glitz products will bedazzle the elite, and they won't care about the accompanying World Bank loans and IMF policy, eating away at their sovereignty.

South Americans are reaching for self-determination and independence, through institutions like the new Bank of the South (started by Venezuela) and Mercosur (South American trade group). Our haves and have mores--represented by the Democratic and Republican leaderships--want to destroy these institutions. This has been a glaring purpose of the Bush regime. Now we know that the Democratic leadership agrees. No self-determination and independence for South America, if they can help it!

This--and other nefarious purposes (job outsourcing in the north, more harm to the environment)--are why the Democratic/Bush deal was done in secret, just like NAFTA before it. Add this to the already acute betrayal of the American people (north) on the war, on rigged voting machines and other grave matters. The Democratic Party seems hopelessly out of touch with its constituency, just as South American elites have been above, and apart from, the vast poor populations of Latin America. The latter condition is changing fast, with the success of democracy in so many countries, but the disenfranchisement of the poor and middle classes in the north is going to be a lot harder to reverse.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Colombia’s “Watergate” Scandal

Colombia’s “Watergate” Scandal
by Garry Leech / May 18th, 2007

Almost weekly new evidence emerged revealing the names of high-level government officials engaged in illegal activities including the wiretapping of political opponents, maintaining links to an illegal group and issuing lists containing the names of the president’s political enemies. While Senate hearings and widespread media coverage initially failed to directly link the president to the escalating scandal, they did begin to undermine the government’s credibility. Less than a year after the scandal erupted onto the political scene, the president was forced to fire two of his political allies for their role in the illegal wiretaps. Meanwhile, supporters of the president repeatedly pointed out that, while many high-ranking government officials had been charged with wrongdoing, the president himself had not been directly implicated in any illegal acts. While the aforementioned scenario sounds eerily similar to the current “para-politics” scandal in Colombia, it is actually a description of the first year of the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s that eventually brought down US President Richard Nixon.

The Nixon administration had established a small group of operatives called “the Plumbers” whose mission was to plug-up leaks and ensure the secrecy of the government’s illegal activities. The group engaged in illegal operations on behalf of the Nixon White House that included placing listening devices in the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, DC. The wire-tapping occurred during the 1972 presidential election campaign.

Obviously the Plumbers were a small unit engaged in espionage and political sabotage and not the widespread violence and human rights abuses perpetrated by Colombia’s largest paramilitary organization, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). Nevertheless, both the Plumbers and the AUC were used by their respective governments to help ensure electoral victory. In the case of the Plumbers, it was to ensure Nixon’s re-election. For the AUC, it was to guarantee victory for President Alvaro Uribe and his congressional allies in northern Colombia.

The greatest similarities between the para-politics scandal and Watergate exist in the drama that unfolded after the initial crimes were committed. In both cases, Senate hearings and other investigations revealed links between government officials and the covert activities being perpetrated by the illegal groups. Investigations in Colombia have revealed the existence of “hit lists” containing the names of unionists and other political opponents of President Uribe. High-ranking intelligence officers drew up the lists and then passed them to AUC leaders who threatened or killed the targets. Similarly, the Nixon administration drew up an “enemies list” of political opponents who were to be targets of illegal investigations by US federal law enforcement agencies.
(snip/...)

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/colombias-watergate-scandal/