babble home - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Colombia: CIP warns of US military-aid change

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Colombia: CIP warns of US military-aid change
Babbler # 2710

posted 04 March 2006 01:16 AM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A "unified campaign" to contain Venezuela

In 2002, at the Bush administration’s request, the U.S. Congress broadened the purpose of U.S. military assistance to Colombia... This year, the Bush administration wants to expand the military-aid mission yet again. And this time it appears to have more than just drugs and guerrillas on its mind...

Even more worrisome is the wording calling for counter-drug aid to be used “to address other threats to Colombia’s national security.” This definition is so broad that you can drive a truck through it. What “other threats,” beyond guerrilla and paramilitary activity, does the administration have in mind? Common crime and gangs? Street protests?

We all know what the most likely answer to that question is. The “security threat” the White House probably has in mind wears a red beret, has a big mouth, and runs the country just to Colombia’s east. It could only be Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela.

I got this link out of El Tiempo, one of Bogotá's dailies, which is not normally so alarmist. After quoting CIP's Adam Isacson, author of the above-linked blog, they note that

The State Department, without giving any details, rejected the idea that the change had Venezuela in mind.

However, we have clearly seen what the US administration does with language broad enough to drive a truck through -- or even a tank:

Attorney General Gonzales:

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

Now, that -- one might argue, now, wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance. Let me take you back to a case that the Supreme Court reviewed this past -- in 2004, the Hamdi decision. As you remember, in that case, Mr. Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who was contesting his detention by the United States government. What he said was that there is a statute, he said, that specifically prohibits the detention of American citizens without permission, an act by Congress -- and he's right, 18 USC 4001a requires that the United States government cannot detain an American citizen except by an act of Congress.

We took the position -- the United States government took the position that Congress had authorized that detention in the authorization to use force, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention." And the Supreme Court, a plurality written by Justice O'Connor agreed. She said, it was clear and unmistakable that the Congress had authorized the detention of an American citizen captured on the battlefield as an enemy combatant for the remainder -- the duration of the hostilities. So even though the authorization to use force did not mention the word, "detention," she felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield was a fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had been authorized by Congress when they used the words, "authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force."

Source: The White House

ETA: source for Gonzalez quote

[ 04 March 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 5468

posted 04 March 2006 11:06 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isacson and the CIP do good work.

Actually, I've been reading Doug Stokes' book America's Other War: Terrorizing Colombia, and Isacson is one of the blurbists for the book:

America's Other War paints a very disturbing picture. With very thorough research and a highly readable narrative, it goes beyond the liberal-conservative debate over Plan Colombia, the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror', reminding us of the central role played by the often brutal pursuit of economic interests.'

A rather well-known linguistics professor from MIT also provided blurbage, as well as the book's foreword, which you can read here.

From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 March 2006 11:46 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, everytime we hear the dirtbags Orwellian rants about the "war on drugs", we can assume they mean war on the left and human rights. We know who the terrorist organization is.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008