Showing posts with label Colombia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colombia. Show all posts

2/01/2015

Ex-spy chief wanted in Colombia for wiretaps surrenders


Πηγή; GN
By AP
Feb 1 2015

BOGOTA, Colombia: The former head of Colombia’s intelligence agency ended several years on the run and surrendered to face charges of spying on opponents of former President Alvaro Uribe.

Maria del Pilar Hurtado late Friday turned herself over to authorities in Panama, where she fled in 2010. She was taken on a predawn flight to Bogota, where a judge ordered her to be jailed at the chief prosecutor’s office while charges are considered.

Chief prosecutor Eduardo Montealegre said Hurtado was being processed for at least five offences that could bring 15 to 20 years in prison for a conviction. He said he would urge Hurtado to cooperate and reveal “who gave the order for the illegal wiretapping.”

The accusations against the spy chief threaten to further tarnish the legacy of Uribe, for years the United States’ staunchest ally in Latin America and credited with crushing leftist rebels once dominant across large swaths of the country.

Hurtado has never implicated the former president in any wrongdoing. As head of the now-defunct DAS spy agency, she oversaw a scandal-ridden institution whose agents seemed unrestrained in their use of illegal wiretaps to monitor politicians, human rights defenders, journalists and even Supreme Court justices who opposed the former conservative leader.

Dozens of DAS officials, including one of Hurtado’s predecessors, have been convicted of illegal spying and providing assistance to right-wing paramilitary death squads.

When President Juan Manuel Santos took office in 2010, he immediately disbanded the DAS and pursued charges against several of its former officials.

Hurtado was granted asylum in Panama in 2010. But the Central American country’s Supreme Court ruled last year that the decision giving her refuge was unconstitutional.

Her case before Colombia’s Supreme Court is among several investigations that Uribe says Santos has launched against some of his former aides.

While serving as Uribe’s defence minister, Santos oversaw the military offensive that was credited with bringing down one of the world’s highest murder and kidnapping rates. But the two men are now arch enemies, with Uribe accusing Santos of jeopardising security gains in his bid to strike a peace deal with leftist rebels.

Uribe’s former finance chief, Oscar Ivan Zuluaga, was compelled on Friday to testify before prosecutors about his relationship with a computer expert hired by his 2014 presidential campaign to allegedly hack into government email accounts to uncover information that could derail Santos’ peace talks.

Uribe took to Twitter on Saturday to denounce what he called the “political torture” of Hurtado.


1/28/2012

What I saw inside the Cali drug cartel

Four drug traffickers and members of the now-defunct Cali Cartel cover faces on January 15, 2009, in Bogota

Πηγή: CNN
By Jorge Salcedo
Jan 28 2012

Editor's note: Jorge Salcedo is a former member of the Cali drug cartel, and his work with authorities helped destroy the organization. He was relocated to the U.S. along with his wife and children in 1995 and taken into the federal witness protection program. Salcedo's story is told in the book, "At the Devil's Table -- The Untold Story of the Insider Who Brought Down the Cali Cartel," by journalist William C. Rempel. Neither the author nor CNN know Mr. Salcedo's whereabouts or his new name.

(CNN) -- Drug cartels, whether in Colombia or Mexico, cannot function without massive assistance from compromised officials at all levels. Corruption is the oxygen that keeps organized crime alive.

I know something about corruption and organized crime. I spent more than six years in the biggest, richest syndicate in the history of crime -- the Cali cartel. And I know that Mexico, like Colombia, can't succeed against its drug gangs without choking off much of the bribery and intimidation that sustain them.

First, some background: I used to be Jorge Salcedo. I left my name in Colombia when I entered the U.S. witness protection program 16 years ago. I also left a home, a country, friends, family, even my past. But maybe my experience will help show the importance of fighting corruption as a way to fight the cartels.

My primary job in the Cali cartel was security for one of four godfathers, Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela, the daily operations boss. Others were more directly involved in routine bribery, but I still managed to deliver nearly a million dollars in payoffs. And I witnessed many, many millions more.

The biggest bribe I ever handled personally was a half-million-dollar payoff to a Salvadoran air force colonel. I was buying four U.S.-made bombs -- 500-pounders -- that the bosses wanted to drop on Pablo Escobar. It was a very bad idea, but they sent me anyway. The cash was disguised as a birthday present, about the size of a large shoebox, wrapped in red paper with gold trim. I'd never seen so much money. I remember that it was surprisingly heavy.

Then there were the two checks signed by Miguel worth about $50,000. As instructed, I took those to a bank near the Cali airport and deposited one into the account of a sister and the other to the mother of a captain in the Colombian anti-narcotics task force. It was a bonus for the captain's help getting the boss away from a police raid.

In those days, hundreds of high-ranking and lower level police were on the cartel's secret payroll -- tens of thousands of dollars paid every month for inside tips or for looking the other way. The youngest boss, Pacho Herrera, sometimes liked to use local police as sentries at his home.

The cartel had important friends in the military, too -- from helicopter pilots to generals. One well-placed insider was the sergeant and chief of staff to the military commander of the anti-narcotics task force. He cost $20,000 a month.

Between sources like the army sergeant, the police captain and others, my bosses and I were kept informed about dates, times and places for raids and such things as which cartel cars were being followed and what phone numbers were being tapped. On one occasion, we knew that Miguel had time for lunch and a shower before the raiding party was scheduled to arrive. Both the sergeant and the captain were among hundreds of police and military officers fired for corruption.

Besides law enforcement, the cartel bought a piece of Colombia's justice system with payoffs to prosecutors who lost evidence, misplaced paperwork, blocked search warrants or released prisoners before they could be questioned. Some judges became overnight millionaires. I see police and judicial corruption as the biggest price of organized crime.

Politicians were considered a long-term investment. It seemed sometimes that they all had their hands out. The bosses handed out $20,000 checks like hospitality gifts. I was there when campaign officials for a presidential candidate came for help. Eventually, a total of $6 million in secret donations made Ernesto Samper our president. After top campaign aides acknowledged receiving cartel funds, Samper insisted that if such contributions were made, it was without his knowledge.

And I was there when Cali cartel lawyers were allowed to rewrite our national constitution to outlaw extraditions of Colombian traffickers to the United States. You may be skeptical when I tell you, but no true Colombian could have watched that spectacle of democracy for sale without suffering some heartache.

When I agreed to assist U.S. drug enforcement agents 16 years ago, the Cali cartel was making $7 billion a year. Cartel documents turned over to Colombian authorities exposed a vast network of corruption. There was public outrage. Widespread arrests and firings followed, and the grip of corruption was broken.

That's what brought down the Cali cartel, and it can make a difference in other countries where a culture of acceptance makes corruption especially stubborn. The Mexican public needs to express its outrage. And, then, Mexican leaders need to sweep out officials at all levels who have sold their souls to organized crime.


9/25/2011

Farc's drug submarine seized in Colombia

The submarine cost about $2m and could hold a crew of five, officials say


Πηγή: BBC
Sep. 25 2011

Police in Colombia have seized a submarine belonging to Farc rebels which had the capacity to carry at least seven tonnes of drugs.


The 16m-long (52ft) vessel - equipped with a sophisticated navigation system - was captured near the Pacific port city of Buenaventura.

The police said the submersible was about to be used for the first time to deliver its load.

The vessel would have been able to travel as far as Central America.

"It was going to be used by the narco-terrorist 29th front of the Farc (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) in alliance with organisations of drug traffickers who operate in this southern area of the country," drugs police chief Gene Luis Alberto Perez told Eke news agency.

He added that it was "probably one of the biggest" drug ships seized in Colombia in recent years.

The authorities believe it cost about $2m (£1.3m) and could hold a crew of five.

Many cocaine traffickers are based in Buenaventura, where poverty and unemployment are high.

Colombia is the centre of the world's cocaine trade, and traffickers are increasingly seeking new ways to avoid detection - including going underwater.

The drugs are mostly smuggled to Mexico or Central America by sea and onward by land to the US and Canada.

Colombia is also the source of most European cocaine.


9/23/2011

US Longest War



Πηγή: wfo
By Rick Rozoff
Sep. 18 2011


On October 7 it will enter its ninth calendar year and with the projected deployment of at least 30,000 more American and thousands of more fellow NATO nations' troops this year it promises to go on indefinitely.

The US-NATO war in Afghanistan is the largest and longest war in the world.

It is the second longest war, both on the air and ground fronts, in the United States' history, with only its protracted involvement in Indochina so far exceeding it in length.

The Afghan war is also the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's first armed conflict outside of Europe and its first ground war in the sixty years of its existence. It has been waged with the participation of armed units from all 26 NATO member states and twelve other European and Caucasus nations linked to NATO through the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Partnership for Peace and the Adriatic Charter with the first-ever invocation of the Alliance's Article 5 mutual military assistance provision.

The twelve European NATO partners who have sent troops in varying numbers to assist Washington and the Alliance include the continent's five former neutral nations: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland.

The European NATO and partnership deployments count among their number troops from six former Soviet Republics - with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine tapped for recent reinforcements and the three Baltic states represented disproportionately to their populations - although Western officials and media refrain from using words like invasion, empire and occupation that were tossed around so profligately in the 1980s.

The conflict marks the first time since the Vietnam War that US, Australian, New Zealand and South Korean troops have fought in the same campaign in the same theater. (Although all four also had troops in Iraq after March of 2003, only American forces were engaged in combat. In Afghanistan, however, over 1,000 Australian troops, including special forces, participate in counterinsurgency operations and ten of their soldiers have been killed.)

In all, 42 nations have military contingents ranging from a handful to thousands of troops serving under NATO in a war nearly as far removed from the North Atlantic as could have been imagined and embroiled in an endless engagement because of a 1949 commitment by the major Western powers to render each other military aid in the event of a conflict in Western Europe or North America.

Over a thousand US, NATO and NATO partner nations' soldiers have been killed in the war, including servicemen from all three Baltic States, Australia and South Korea.

From the beginning of the invasion of and war in Afghanistan in early October of 2001 under the aegis of so-called Operation Enduring Freedom, which commenced with US and British air and missile attacks, the model used seventeen months later in Iraq, the conflict has not been limited to Afghanistan itself but rather has exploited the nation's alleged and highly tenuous connections to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington to situate US and other NATO military forces in several neighboring and nearby nations, including airbases and troop and naval deployments in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and the Indian Ocean (where the Japanese navy has been assisting Operation Enduring Freedom).

The Russian press wire agency Itar-Tass reported last December that 120,000 US and NATO soldiers passed through the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan in 2008.

2009 has brought the Pentagon and NATO the bad news that the government of Kyrgyzstan may close the base to warplanes used for the war in Afghanistan, a base that since 2001 has hosted military personnel from the United States, Australia, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Turkey, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, France and South Korea.

The Pentagon officially defines Operation Enduring Freedom's area of responsibility as encompassing fifteen nations: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay Naval Base), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, the Philippines, the Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

After the invasion of Afghanistan in October of 2001, the US and its NATO allies obtained from the United Nations of ever-obliging Secretary-General Kofi Annan (who in 1995 held the posts of Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations to the former Yugoslavia and special envoy to NATO and was installed as Secretary-General after the US deposed his predecessor Boutros Boutros-Ghali and browbeat the other 14 Security Council members in 1997 to accept him) a resolution authorizing the establishment of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), initially to oversee Afghanistan's occupation, but later to wage a full-blown counterinsurgency campaign inside the country and across the border into Pakistan.

There was and is nothing international about ISAF. It is a NATO operation entirely.

From December of 2001 until August of 2003 command of ISAF was held in six month rotations by major NATO nations. At the end of that period it passed to NATO collectively. Initially its mission was limited to the capital of Kabul, but by 2003 its mandate was extended beyond the capital and by 2006 to all of Afghanistan's provinces.

To deploy combat forces to a nation that was bombed and invaded and to conduct aerial and ground assaults throughout its territory is as good a working definition of the words war and occupation as could be devised.

Afghanistan has become a permanent training ground and firing range for providing the US and its NATO allies and candidate members opportunities to test out new weapons systems, wage 21st Century counterinsurgency operations and integrate so-called niche deployment military units from over 42 nations to achieve weapons and warfighting interoperability.

Polish military officials among others have openly stated that in Afghanistan NATO has provided them with the conditions to modernize their armed forces, which had not been employed in war zone and combat operations since the beginning of World War II. Coupled with recent statements by Polish and Baltic officials that NATO should renew its focus on "defending" Europe, the Greater Afghan war theater is a laboratory for preparing Eastern European and South Caucasus nations for actions on Russia's eastern and southern borders.

Last month the US signed an agreement with Poland to train their special forces (comparable to what the Pentagon has already done with Georgia), citing Afghanistan as the immediate locale for its joint implementation.

The comparative size of each NATO nation's contribution is less important than the fact that several tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of NATO troops have been rotated through Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan over the past seven and a half years and in the process gained experience in serving under the command of major NATO powers.

Earlier this year the US's Central Command chief David Petraeus began focusing on the Caucasus nations of Georgia and Azerbaijan as military transit routes for the expanding war in Afghanistan and visited the former Soviet Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan and Tajikistan to also incorporate them into the ever-widening South Asian war vortex.

Late last year?é?á General Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of Russia's Armed Forces, warned that "American military bases are dotted throughout the world. The U.S. has opened bases in Romania and Bulgaria, and according to our information plans to establish them in Kazakhstan
and Uzbekistan."
....
Much is made in Western official circles and in the obedient media about the pretexts under which the US and NATO attacked and invaded Afghanistan, took over all its strategic Soviet era airbases (as was done most recently with the Shindand airbase in 2005 in Herat Province, near the Iranian border) and installed a compliant puppet government to rule over the nation and its people.

At first as the memory of the attacks of September 11, 2001 were still freshly burned into America's and the world's imaginations, the rationale for Operation Enduring Freedom was to hunt down and "bring to justice" - or kill - Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and several of their top associates in a lex talionis punishment for the deadly attacks on New York's financial center and the headquarters of the US Defense Department.

As the years proceeded and not only weren't bin Laden and Mullah Omar apprehended but their whereabouts couldn't even be determined, emphasis was shifted to the fight against Taliban for having hosted the above two.

That fallback position was belied by the fact that Washington in the person of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld right after 9/11 asserted that as many as sixty nations, almost a third of the world's, were harboring terrorists and as such were fair game for missile and other attacks, but conspicuously left off the hit list the only three nations that had recognized, funded and no doubt armed the Taliban: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Nor was the Taliban argument helped by US-installed President Hamid Karzai being quoted regularly on the US's Voice of Afghanistan (an offshoot of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) applauding "our Taliban" who "fought shoulder-to-shoulder with us in the jihad against the Soviets."

The US and NATO tact was then to adopt an ex post facto humanitarian guise to justify their fanning out into Afghanistan's provinces in 2003 (in addition to the original in Kabul, NATO launched North, South, East and West commands): Establishing so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs).

Invading armies with their bombers, cruise missiles, 15,000 pound Daisy Cutter bombs and long-range artillery are designed to destroy and not construct buildings and the PRTs would be better termed provincial pacification teams, with the model being the Strategic Hamlet Program in South Vietnam in the early 1960s.

More reasons would be devised to explain the West's continuing and growing presence and intensifying military operations in Afghanistan and its environs.

Four years of Taliban power had at least accomplished one objective; it had curbed opium cultivation.

However, after a few years of NATO occupation Afghanistan became the world's largest producer and exporter of opium and so last autumn the Alliance announced that it was planning to conduct armed raids against opium and "drug traffickers," however the West decided to define the second.

The ongoing and endless war in Afghanistan - and now Pakistan - has metamorphosed from a hunt for bin Laden, to a fight against Taliban to a drug war modeled after the US's murderous Plan Colombia initiated in 1999. There are reports that 300 Colombian troops are slated for deployment to Afghanistan to replicate that model.

Notwithstanding recent talk by US President Barrack Obama about an Afghan exit strategy, it's not apparent that Washington and its allies ever intend to leave the country and the broader South-Asia/Central Asia/Caspian Sea Basin/South Caucasus circumference whose center Afghanistan is.

Two weeks ago the Russia Novosti website featured this observation: "Central Asian states think the U.S. started the Afghan war to change the regional regimes into local analogues of Georgia's Saakashvili and Ukraine's Yushchenko, and that it began with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Iran, China and Russia think the war could be Washington's attempt to reduce their influence in Central Asia to zero."

Less than four months before the invasion of Afghanistan China, Russia and four of the five former Soviet Central Asia republics - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - founded the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a mutual security grouping that would later include India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan as observers.

It's purpose is to provide regional security and to address the issues of trans-border crime, including narcotics smuggling, armed extremism and separatism.

Since its inception it has also increasingly focused on joint development projects in the spheres of energy, transportation, trade and infrastructure.

With the breakup of the Soviet Union, Central Asia was seen by the SCO's founding members and since by its observers as a mechanism for fostering mutually beneficial relations among the nations of Central Asia and Russia, China, Iran, India and even Turkey eventually.

Afghanistan has been hurled into interminable turmoil, with hundreds of thousands of its citizens displaced; almost daily bombing runs, drone missile attacks, middle-of-the-night commando raids, indiscriminate shooting of civilians at checkpoints; mass-scale drought and famine; an explosion of opium cultivation and trafficking; expansion of that destabilization by setting Pakistan aflame with the potential for its fragmentation and dismemberment and heightened tensions with its - fellow nuclear - neighbor India.

This is the current, grave situation seven and a half years after the invasion of Afghanistan.

With the deployment of another 30,000 US troops and thousands more from NATO's ranks (recently Italy, Poland, Georgia, Azerbaijan and other nations have announced increases) Western troop strength will soon approach 100,000.

This is pouring fuel on fire. Taliban has become as amorphous a term as al-Qaeda has been; anyone in Afghanistan, even in the non-Pushtun North and West of the nation, who takes issue with Western warplanes and combat troops dealing out death and destruction in their nation and their villages is now a Talib. An enemy.

The more US and NATO troops that arrive in Afghanistan, the more resentment, resistance and violence will ensue. Inevitably.

The US and NATO have arrogantly spurned offers by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the post-Soviet Collective Security Treaty Organization to assist in bringing a regional - and non-military - resolution of the myriad crises afflicting Afghanistan, its long-suffering people and the region.

NATO is not a nation-building, peacekeeping or humanitarian outfit - it is an aggressive military bloc. When it and its individual member states' military forces leave South and Central Asia then healing, reconstruction and lasting peace can begin.


8/11/2011

Crisis may speed up big trade deals


Πηγή: Bilaterals
By Shin Hyon-hee
10 August 2011


Although a dreary outlook for the U.S. economy coupled with a rating cut has triggered mayhem throughout the world’s stock markets this week, it may serve as a catalyst for free trade agreements, experts said Wednesday.

A spate of grim economic figures stoked fears of a “double-dip” recession. The world’s largest economy grew at an annual rate of less than 1 percent in the first half of the year, its jobless rate is stuck at 9.1 percent and consumer spending fell in June for the first time in nearly two years.

The U.S. Federal Reserve now sees its economy remaining feeble for another two years but its $600-billion bond-buying bucket is already exhausted. The Fed would need further measures other than promising rock-bottom interest rates to bring the economy back ― such as trade deals ― experts say.

“For the U.S., the weak dollar means stronger export competitiveness,” said Kwak Soo-jong, a senior researcher at Samsung Economic Research Institute. “The current situation can stimulate competition in the manufacturing sector given lower prices of American products.”

Pending U.S. agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama would benefit the U.S. economically and strategically, said the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank.

“Carefully developed accords will boost U.S. exports significantly, especially in the key automotive, agricultural and commercial services sectors,” the organization said in a paper, adding to other benefits such as the enhancement of diplomatic ties and new investment opportunities.

Korea and the U.S. signed a deal in 2007 but legislatures of both countries have yet to approve it. President Barack Obama had sought its ratification before a summer recess begins on Aug. 6, but lawmakers got caught up in a partisan brawl over raising the federal debt ceiling.

If ratified, the pact would be the largest for the U.S. since the North American FTA with Canada and Mexico, which went into effect in 1994. Korea has seven free trade partners in effect with the European Union being the largest.

“For the U.S., the only means it could lean on right now is exports,” said Ko Hee-chae, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.

“The slump has squeezed consumer spending and the government budget. The deal can be a good tool to invigorate sentiment despite a decline in Korea’s share in U.S. exports compared with the past.”

Upon implementation, tariffs on 95 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial exports will be eliminated within five years, data show.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the tariff removal alone would boost U.S. exports by more than $10 billion and help the Korean economy expand by 6 percent.

“Whether you’re an American manufacturer of machinery or a Korean chemicals exporter this deal lowers the barriers to reaching your customers,” she said last month in Hong Kong.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s estimates, failing to enact the deal with Korea will cause the U.S. to lose $35 billion in exports and 345,000 jobs.

U.S. Congress is now moving to pass the long-stalled deals next month as it made progress on the debate over a controversial worker aid program, which provides aid to workers who lose their jobs or suffer hours and pay cut as a result of increased imports and foreign competition.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance has been one of the lingering hurdles. The Obama administration is behind the trade deals but demands the extension of the 40-year-old program alongside it. Republicans have called for a separate legislative process.

“We believe we have a framework for an agreement that will allow us to approve and have a vote on TAA very quickly when Congress convenes in September and to move forward with passage of the FTAs at the same time,” Ron Kirk, the U.S. Trade Representative, told the Bretton Woods Committee last month in Washington.

6/11/2011

California fighting back on Colombia free trade act




Πηγή: California Progress Report  
By Tim Robertson
24 May 2011


Since 2005, more than half the trade unionists murdered in the world have been killed in Colombia. That's more in Colombia alone than in the other 190+ countries combined. Just last year, 51 more trade unionists were murdered bringing the total since 1986 to over 2700. Unfortunately, President Obama is ignoring these facts to push for the long-stalled Colombia Free Trade Agreement, a relic of the Bush Administration, in a move that can only be seen as an affront to his union base.

Not only is Colombia the most dangerous place in the world for union activity, an implied complicity with Colombia's government, in particular the Department of Administrative Security (DAS), has led to an approximate 96% impunity rating. Could you imagine the U.S. response if over the course of 2010, there were one CEO murder per week in Colombia with little investigation and few convictions or punishments? It certainly wouldn't be to liberalize trade rules.

Sadly, the President knows and understands the plight of unionists, peasant leaders, Afro-Colobians, and other organizers in Colombia. He even campaigned against the FTA because of such violence.