Colombia planned leaks to link Chavez, Correa to FARC: WikiLeaks

[Judi Lynn]

Colombia planned leaks to link Chavez, Correa to FARC: WikiLeaks
Thursday, 24 March 2011 07:03
Adriaan Alsema

The Uribe administration in 2008 carefully planned the leaking of information from computers of killed FARC commander Raul Reyes to link Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa to the rebel group, diplomatic cables released Wednesday by WikiLeaks.

In a cable from March 27, 2008 -- little over three weeks after the computers were found -- then-U.S. ambassador to Bogota William Brownsfield informed Washington that the Colombian government would "selectively leak information from FARC computers connecting Presidents Chavez and Correa and their Governments to the FARC over the next 4-6 weeks."

~snip~
Interpol eventually reported that the computers had not been tampered after March 4 when the evidence entered a chain of custody. The International police organization did not guarantee the content could not have been tampered in the period between the March 1 bombing and the time the computers entered the chain of custody.

~snip~
The erroneous handling of the computers made Colombian courts reject the laptops as evidence in cases against politicians and human rights workers who were accused of having ties to the FARC.

More:
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/15108-colombia-carefully-planned-using-farc-computers-to-link-chavez-and-correa-to-rebels-wikileaks.html

[naaman fletcher]

1. on a side note,

does anyone know what happened to vheadline? it has not been updated in a few weeks?

[Judi Lynn]

2. Last line of the article is a good one:

The Colombian government never released the full content of the laptops to the public.

Yessir. Never will.

[EFerrari]

3. No! Really?!

No one could ever have imagined that the progressive leaders of Latin America would be set up. :)

[Judi Lynn]

5. Yeah, what the heck? That's never happened before, has it?

Remember the Maine? What's that?

And don't even consider mentioning they get assassinated. Who would believe it?

[Bacchus39]

4. of course they did, Raul Reyes' laptop is a gold mine

why wouldn't they use the info to make their case?

[EFerrari]

6. LOL

[Bacchus39]

7. lets read on

Then-Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos promised to give the U.S. the full set of information coming from the computers "on the condition that the USG not release any information publicly or for attribution without prior consultation with the GOC."

Santos told the ambassador that Bogota planned to release all contents of the computers to an international organization after Interpol verified the content of the computers was not tampered.

Interpol eventually reported that the computers had not been tampered after March 4 when the evidence entered a chain of custody. The International police organization did not guarantee the content could not have been tampered in the period between the March 1 bombing and the time the computers entered the chain of custody.

Colombia used the information on the computers to accuse Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of financially supporting the FARC and Ecuadorean President of having received FARC funds for his presidential campaign in 2006 as leverage to the aggressive attitude of the two neighboring countries following the cross-border attack that killed Reyes.

[EFerrari]

8. LOL

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

9. I do wonder about the stuff "damaging to the GOC" that is supposed to be on the disks.

One may assume the GOC did not put that stuff there. So what is it, what does it say, and why is it there, why was it not erased by the GOC? If they are good enough to plant stuff, they are good enough to erase stuff, and vice-versa.

I do not understand how Interpol could guarantee anything without having full access to the drive either, assuming they could do it at all, which I question. A knowledgeable person can put anything they want on a hard drive, it's not even difficult.

[Bacchus39]

10. why would Colombia erase info on the computer of the FARC leader ??

they are using it. they aren't going to release sensitive info they can use to public. Interpol inspected the actual computer and determined it wasn't tampered with. how could Interpol verify the chain of custody, they didn't find the computer???? only the people that were there could do that. its been a gold mine for Colombia.

[bemildred]

12. Calm down, let's try it again.

I'm just trying to find a consistent description of the situation. I start with assumption that everybody will lie when it is expedient to do so, except where they can be checked on, so unverifyable statements mean nothing.

Note: I know how to write anything I want on that hard drive, and nobody can tell when I did it. The only way to tell when something was done on a hard drive is IF YOU WRITE the information. So you can lie, easily, edit the timestamps, etc.

1.) So one option would be that the computer was all legit, taken from Reyes, not tampered with, and its content being taken out of context and used for propaganda purposes, which is what the OP seems to suggest. I am leaning in that direction, too.

2.) The OP admits that there is information damaging to the GOC on the computer, that is the rationale for not releasing the entire contents of the computer. Of course that could be a lie, to make the rest of the story more credible for example.

3.) If you follow the reasoning of people that believe some or all of the content of the computer were fabricated, fake, you have to ask why the information damaging to the GOC is there, no? If you are out to damage FARC, you don't add stuff to damage GOC too, without a reason.

4.) I do not believe that Interpol is in fact in a position to guarantee the computer was not tampered with, the best they can offer is an opinion that what they see is consistent with a certain version of events.

So anyway, I am still not really happy with any of the stories about how this happened.

[Bacchus39]

13. where was it said that there was info damaging to GOC?? anyway, your points are rational

not sure about the others who are posting. of course Colombia would leak the info for their benefit especially if it implicates Colombia's "friends". what if the US killed Osama and found his computer? would the US release info as they say fit?? of course.

[bemildred]

14. That is from the cable excerpt:

"The GOC would carefully review all material before
release to filter material that could be damaging to the GOC."

We do not disagree that GOC would pursue its own interests as it sees them, I don't know where you got such an idea.

[Bacchus39]

15. ahhh yes, I therefore agree with all your points thank you yes, the cable then

would seem to give greater indication that the computer is authentic.

[bemildred]

16. Actually all it really shows is an intent to smear Chavez and Correa.

As various people have noted. It raises far more questions than it answers.

The fact that the computer and its contents are being "closely held" still is not a good sign, it suggests that somebody knows the evidence won't stand up to close examination. If there is damaging stuff on it, that can be redacted, the rest released, and someone can read through it all to decide if it looks like a consistent package or not, it is the complexity of the whole thing that gives you and idea of how artificial it is or is not.

I was more interested in the question of whether it is a total fabrication or they did actually get a FARC computer and then add some tweaks to it. I have never considered the story to amount to much in terms of its content, first because it is not news that Chavez and Correa communicate with FARC, and second because they were selective in what was released, a genuine FARC computer would have LOTS of damaging stuff on it, I would think, drugs, kidnappings, child soldiers, lord knows what all.

[Bacchus39]

17. yes, and I'm sure the GOC uses the info for strategic benefit and thus wouldn't want to release that

and Chavez and Correa involvement with the FARC certainly be used to their benefit. its not smearing if the information is true.

drugs, kidnapping, child soldiers and the like is old news. sure the computers could have that info but I am sure the GOC is more interested in FARC activities of who and where these activities are occuring and use that info strategically. thats info they wouldn't want to release and give away that knowledge to the enemy.

[bemildred]

18. I am sure they would use drugs, kidnapping, child soldiers and the like if they had it.

It is smearing if you push your conclusions beyond what the evidence allows, even if the evidence is true. Smearing does not consist merely in spreading false information, it also consists in drawing false conclusions from true information, or in offering as fact what is only opinion, in fact it works better that way than bald falsehood does.

[EFerrari]

19. Two things seem important to me.

First, I don't see how FARC could operate in Colombia without a good deal of cooperation from actors in the Colombian government and military. So, any magic laptop that is real would also show footprints of that activity.

Second, tons of material was and still is coming out linking the Uribe cabal with paramilitary activity. This fakery about Chavez and Correa, which is a tweak of a stink tank campaign developed for Rumsfeld to place Al Qaida in South America, is pretty much a projection of that real Uribe/paras situation and a distraction from it.

Ingrid Betancourt herself has said that inviting Chavez to negotiate with FARC was a set up, iirc, in one of her BookTV segments during her book tour and she is not a FARC loving Chavista.

[Bacchus39]

20. only to you it would seem

Placing Al Qaida in South America????????????? you are just full of nonsense.

[EFerrari]

21. Al Qaeda Said to Recruit in Latin America

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129676,00.html

No, I'm not "full of nonsense", I have a good memory. There was a big right wing campaign to make the American public believe Al Qaida was in Latin America.

[Bacchus39]

22. oh, I don't doubt that. they probably talk with each other about tactics

the FARC already is a terrorist organization. I am sure they already have the Al Qaeda seal of approval.

[bemildred]

23. OK:

First, I don't see how FARC could operate in Colombia without a good deal of cooperation from actors in the Colombian government and military. So, any magic laptop that is real would also show footprints of that activity.

No doubt. FARC is pretty much an internal "problem" in every sense, and a very long-standing one. I haven't kept up, but they used to "control" around 40% or half of Colombian territory. They are not controlled or financed from outside, nobody as near as I can tell orders them around, and they are not monolithic. The striking thing is that Colombia, despite boatloads of money and decades of "support" cannot control its own territory. I suppose that has to do with the jungle and the mountains, "difficult terrain".

Second, tons of material was and still is coming out linking the Uribe cabal with paramilitary activity. This fakery about Chavez and Correa, which is a tweak of a stink tank campaign developed for Rumsfeld to place Al Qaida in South America, is pretty much a projection of that real Uribe/paras situation and a distraction from it.

Well, one should not ignore the red herring effect or the sheer desire to make lots of noise and drown out unpleasant opposition messages, true. Sometimes making sense of things requires and admission that the babble is intentionally babble. That could apply here, because the substantive argument being advanced is weak and hard to make sense of. Nebulousity is often intentional.

Ingrid Betancourt herself has said that inviting Chavez to negotiate with FARC was a set up, iirc, in one of her BookTV segments during her book tour and she is not a FARC loving Chavista.

That doesn't really tell you anything new. One had to be a bit stunned at the time when all that nice talk was going back and forth between Chavez and Uribe. Mr Brownsfield is a known quantity from the Abrams/Negroponte school of diplomacy and may be expected to stoop to anything he thinks he can get away with. So you can't get anywhere thinking about what he might or might not do, nothing is excluded in principle.

But anyway, the laptop has interested me from the beginning precisely because it does not make sense.

[EFerrari]

24. And to me it's always seemed like the same ham fisted kind of stuff

one could expect from Cheney/Rumsfeld, from the "we found a passport at the WTC" school of dirty tricks, stuff that is so transparently dumb that people shouldn't be able to believe it automatically. Stuff that is only one step removed from Andrew Breibart's MO.

[bemildred]

25. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/were-an-empire-now-and-when-we-act-we-create-our-own-reality.html

[bemildred]

26. And it's not new, the attitude and the MO are as old a civilization.

And what happens is clear too, and it's not pretty, but nobody cares, it's all short term get your jollies while you can, that's politics, grab and run at a high level.

[EFerrari]

27. You're right. It's not new.

I keep wanting to say, it didn't used to be this flagrant -- but that's probably not true. I was just too young or distracted to notice.

[bemildred]

28. I think we are a bit more subtle these days, mostly.

War really is much, much too expensive and the outcome is just not as satisfactory as it used to be. You can sense a longing for the old days when it was easy to keep things secret and there were no rules at all.

[EFerrari]

29. The security apparatus misses their privacy but not ours.

:)

[Peace Patriot]

31. Brownfield is constructing an artifice, in the cables, and "info damaging to GOC" may be part of

his artifice. It adds a real-sounding detail to the story that he is telling. You didn't consider this possibility in your list, so I thought I would mention it. Premise: There was NO info in the laptop (whether it was Reyes' or not) "damaging" to the Colombian government (GOC). But to make it appear that the U.S. was NOT involved in concocting this plot and its "evidence," Brownfield provides realistic-sounding but false "conditions" for Colombia to share this info with the U.S.

The overall lie that he is concocting is that he is Mr. Innocent merely "reporting" what Bush Junta tool Uribe is up to. That little dickens is going to "selectively leak" bits from the laptop, he says. And here's a good "talking point" (Brownfield subtly advises) for any State Dept flak who gets asked any embarrassing questions about said "selective leaking": Colombia needs to protect its "national security" and the U.S., of course, if it gets its paws on the laptop, will also protect Colombian "national security."

This is cover for everyone. And it is a false story. Cuz (in my opinion) U.S. spooks already had it all. It went right to one of their underground high tech bunkers the moment it was seized from the bombed out camp site, or came from one of those bunkers all ready to go. They may have had Reyes' hard disk contents already and it just needed a bit of updating.

I think it's helpful to view the whole event in this way: that Brownfield is concocting a story that covers his own and other U.S. asses in various ways, and including in regard to hidden issues, such as U.S. aiding and abetting Uribe's illegal spying, "dirty tricks" and death squad operations.

But there are some intriguing, unanswered questions, for sure: Why, for instance, did they wait for 3 days to give the laptop to Interpol? Did something occur that prompted a need to involve Interpol? Had they planned to give it to Interpol but somebody diverted it (and Interpol's head had to be called upon to do what he could to cover it up)? Given 3 days with the laptop, why didn't they come up with better "evidence" against Chavez and Correa? If they had a laptop prepared ahead of time, again, why not better "evidence"? (The stuff that Uribe cited was, in the end, just laughable. It didn't even hold up in the given context.)

So, I think it's helpful to also view the whole event as a series of missteps, failures, blunders, stupidities, miscommunications, incompetencies, etc., much like Rumsfeld's WMD ops re Iraq. (Its signature was incompetence--unbelievability--and if the invasion hadn't been rushed, it would all have soon come out--no WMDs, no threat.)

Overall, Rumsfeld's plan to invade Venezuela, via Colombia, may have gone awry with ousting of Rumsfeld that occurred in Dec '06 (re the nuking of Iran). A year later--Dec '07-Mar '08--a plan is unfolding, designed more than a year earlier, with various aspects to it, including this propaganda tool (the "miracle laptop"). Rumsfeld had since lost access to his "Office of Special Plans"? Or he is distracted and only manages an op-ed in the Washington Post, to aid and abet? Uribe and his DAS spooks are on their own? Or things are confused, messed up--with changes of personnel, changes of orders, changes of secret agreements, changes of secret handshakes? (For instance, was the secret handshake with the head of Interpol messed up? He couldn't get his underlings to help Uribe more?) Etc.

So, the upshot may be that Uribe was stuck with what he had--a half completed plot. They never got delivery of his OSP laptop. They had Reyes' actual laptop and only had 3 days to stick some things in, before somebody rang an alarm (Brownfield?) and said, 'you better get this to Interpol or we won't be able to back it.'

The Colombian government secretiveness, ill intention and deviousness are among the REASONS we can't answer outstanding questions about the "miracle laptop." But then there are our own government's secretiveness, ill intention and deviousness in covering up Bush Junta crimes. And items like Venezuela being on the Pentagon's Big Dartboard and a Bush Junta secret handshake with the head of Interpol (so obvious in that report--the "executive summary" contradicts the report--it got them the headline, that's all they wanted) may never be known, or not in our lifetimes.

[Peace Patriot]

30. Interpol said the laptop contents "could not be used in a court of law," because chain of custody

(they mentioned "standard procedures" for chain of custody) had been broken.

You wrote: "how could Interpol verify the chain of custody, they didn't find the computer????"

What kind of stupid "know-nothingism" is this? All evidence is NOT in police custody to begin with. There are "standard procedures" for protecting chain of custody and the integrity of the evidence, recognized worldwide. Colombia broke those rules. Interpol is a police organization. They verify evidence and chains of custody all the time.

They furthermore deliberately did NOT employ ANY Spanish translators in their examination of the laptop, so they could NOT say anything about the content. Uribe then proceeded to pick and choose bits and pieces of text that could be falsely construed, from content that had NOT been verified by any outside party, from a laptop that was so mishandled, nothing in it can be use used in court.

You wrote: "...its been a gold mine for Colombia." Not true. It's been a big embarrassment for Colombia. They could not even respond to Rafael Correa's request for the hard disk contents. They gave him a corrupt, unreadable disk.

The "miracle laptop" is a "gold mine" for liars, propagandists and murderers. It is not a "gold mine" for anything of use to honest people.