Or its front rooms, for that matter, since all is darkness and obscurity. I'm using 'Langley' as a catchall word for whoever the hell is really running the MIC these days.
So many weird things: Panetta jetting to Bogota, of all places, in his first days as CIA Director (straight from Bush Sr.'s "Iraq Study Group"--the entity that I think engineered the ouster of Rumsfeld and curtailment of Cheney, re Iran, in 2006, and--not incidentally--protected Bush Jr. from CIA wrath over the Rumsfeld-Cheney war on the CIA). Uribe was, at the time, trying to stay in power as the Bush Junta 'made man' in Colombia, by bribing legislators, etc., but was shitcanned by Panetta (my guess) for being uber-dirty, yet then given cushy academic sinecures at Harvard and Georgetown and other soft landing perks! Gawd. One of the dirtiest, not to mention bloodiest, fascist politicians in LatAm history.
Then--THEN--comes this concocted 'asylum' for his spying chief in Panama--something that I have always maintained could not have been achieved by anyone other than the CIA Director, given its flaunting of international law and outrageous contempt for Colombian prosecutors and courts. (--given these things in the NEW Latin America, which is now controlled by the Left, i.e., by real democracies, with real, asserted sovereignty over their own affairs).
WHY? Why were they protecting Uribe? And what is going on now? Possibly they have Maria Hurtado (the former spy chief at leisure in Panama until now) sufficiently scared or bribed to keep her mouth shut about Bush Junta crimes in Colombia. (The Bush Junta was actively aiding Uribe's spy operations on judges, prosecutors and others, including spying on labor leaders and others who were targeted by fascist death squads.) i think that that is 'Langley''s main concern--exposure of U.S. (Bush Junta) crimes--and may also be why they have been coddling Uribe.
Possibly Hurtado's loss of asylum has something to do with cleaning up Colombia's image for U.S. "free trade for the rich." Other LatAm countries--mostly with leftist governments--don't like this U.S./Uribe contempt for the law, nor other aspects of Colombia's status as a U.S. client state, such as Pentagon expansion and horrendous militarization and official and unofficial (fascist death squad) violence. Re-imaging Colombia may be necessary to further Pentagon and U.S. Corporate incursions not only into Colombia and other U.S. client states (such as Honduras) but into the south-south trade agreements that are being forged by newly sovereign LatAm governments. Hurtado's asylum in Panama may be seen--as I see it--as a U.S. move. How can real democracies work with, and trade with, countries run by U.S. puppets who spit on LatAm laws?
I doubt that Panama's supreme court would take such an action--rescinding Hurtado's asylum--without at least a signal from 'Langley' that it is now okay to do so. So, what does it mean? That 'Langley' is becoming more lawful? (Ha.) That 'Langley' has become more cognizant of the new political climate in LatAm? (Possibly.) That Uribe has become too 'hot' to handle? (Also a possibility.)
However--as much as I would like to think that our government is finally trying to remedy huge, unconscionable U.S. mistakes in LatAm policy, and many outright crimes--I doubt that 'Langley' is jettisoning Uribe. He is much too useful as to future plans of conquest (maybe for when Jeb is Diebolded into the White House?). What I DON'T expect is that, if Hurtado is extradited to Colombia (and doesn't, say, end up in Miami instead), prosecution of Uribe and exposure of his ties to U.S. criminals Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will proceed unimpeded. That is, I suspect that cancellation of this asylum may be cosmetic.
= new reply since forum marked as read
