2 journalists flee Colombia on death threats

[Judi Lynn]

Source: International Herald Tribune/Associated Press

2 journalists flee Colombia on death threats
The Associated Press
Published: October 24, 2007

BOGOTA, Colombia: Two Colombian journalists have fled the country in the past week because of death threats, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said Wednesday.

Violent drug cartels, far-right death squads and leftist rebels have made Colombia a precarious place for reporters. Dozens of journalists have been killed here in recent years.

The committee said in a statement that television presenter and documentarian Hollman Morris left Colombia on Sunday and radio host Geovanny Alvarez fled Friday.

Morris, who recently won an award from the Foundation for New Journalism, has been threatened before but decided to leave for the U.S. with his family after receiving an e-mail in September from a group calling itself the Colombian Patriotic Front that called him "an anti-patriot, a member of the guerrillas, and a tattletale."


Read more: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/24/america/LA-GEN-Colombia-Fleeing-Journalists.php

[Peace Patriot]

1. Notice the "ap" in the url. That's Associated Press, one of the worst of the

war profiteering corporate news monopolies, particularly bad on South American issues. Be alert for lies and spin. In paragraph 2, for instance, they say, "Violent drug cartels, far-right death squads and..." ...ahem..."leftist rebels" ("have made Colombia a precarious place for reporters"). The embedded lies/spin are in the equation of "violent drug cartels" and "far-right death squads" with "leftist rebels," with further spin in the phrase "far-right death squads."

Regarding the first, according to studies by human rights groups, 95% of the violence in Colombia's civil war (between the rightwing government and the leftist guerrillas) has been perpetrated by the government and the rightwing death squads that are closely tied to the government. How many journalists have the "leftist rebels" threatened or killed? I would suspect: none. Further down in the article, it is VERY CLEAR that the journalists in question are leaving Colombia for undisclosed locations in the U.S. as the result of RIGHTWING threats, including threats promulgated by President Uribe (Bush's pal)! No instance of "leftist" threats against journalists is mentioned, likely because there has been none. (You can be sure that AP would tout any "leftist" threat against reporters, if there was any.) So how do "leftist rebels" get thrown into the mix here, with the RIGHTWING government, and its RIGHTWING President, and the RIGHTWING death squads, as making Colombia "a precarious place for reporters." The precariousness for reporters is entirely the work of the RIGHTWING government and its thugs.

Regarding the second spin, the phrase "far-right," in describing Colombia's government-connected death squads, implies that these death squads are some kind of extremists rather than mainstream rightwing. But the evidence is that the MAINSTREAM of the rightwing in Colombia is violent and murderous, and ALSO connected to major drug trafficking. In recent exposes--by courageous human rights groups, prosecutors, judges, opposition politicians and journalists--rightwing death squad activity has been closely tied to the chief of the Colombian military, to the former head of intelligence (a friend of current President Uribe) and to many Uribe office holders including relatives. In short, the GOVERNMENT--upon which their kindred spirits in Washington DC have larded billions of US tax dollars in military aid--is the chief perpetrator of violence in Colombia.

And the chief victims of this MAINSTREAM rightwing violence have been union organizers, small peasant farmers and political leftists--ordinary citizens who have been trying to participate in civic or political activity, or who are simply in the way of major drug traffickers and global corporate predators (for instance, Chiquita corporation farm workers who have been systematically slain, and in horrible ways, simply for trying to organize unions). To equate the "leftist rebels" with this officially sponsored violence is a falsehood, and is deliberately worded to downplay the connections of the "far-right death squads" to the US/Bush-supported government, and to conflate rightwing murder with leftist rebellion against this murderous regime. And it is especially egregious to do so when statistics show that the government and its rightwing death squads are responsible for most of the violence.

If any of us saw a family or community member chainsawed to death, and their body parts thrown into mass graves, we would have a hard choice between continued political efforts and armed rebellion. I hope I would choose the former, but I really don't know. From my relatively safe situation in the U.S., it's easy to say that armed rebellion is wrong, and, in present-day South America, is as dinosauric as Colombia's fascist government. But I am not there and have not suffered these rightwing horrors for decades. But of one thing I am certain: fascist brutality in the service of the rich and violent leftist rebellion against it are not the same thing, and should never be equated, or squished together into one "violent situation" in which motives are not taken into consideration. I am reminded of protests that turn violent under provocation by the police, wherein the violence of the protesters may be a few people throwing rocks or molotov cocktails, after hours or days of official brutality. The corporate news monopolies will then portray the entire situation as "violent clashes" between police and protesters, without bothering to note who started it--and, of course, without explaining the years of official repression, thievery, and brutality that prompted the demonstration in the first place. Recent AP and other corporate news reports on the Oaxaca (Mexico) teachers' union protest are a good example of this kind of corporate news lie. The protest went on for six months, and was entirely peaceful--even as rightwing death squads, in the employ of the rightwing governor, were kidnapping, torturing and murdering dozens of peaceful protesters. Then the federal government went in, on the side of the murderous governor, and crushed the protest, and the few incidents of rock throwing and molotov cocktail throwing (mostly by students in defense of the university, where, by law, the police are not allowed to trespass) were played up in order to characterize the entire event as "violent clashes."

With distortions like these commonplace in the corporate news, we should always be on the alert for lies, deception and spin, whenever the word "leftist" is used, and whenever the corporate news is describing opposition to corporate/fascist rule. The "leftist rebels" in Colombia may not represent views and activities that most of us would support. They have been accused of kidnapping, drug trafficking and murder--but who knows for sure? Reliable news sources are hard to come by. But, taking everything into consideration--many news sources, studies and historical information--it appears that they are, at worst, a MINOR element in Colombian violence, and that the U.S./Bush (and its phony and highly corrupt "war on drugs"), and the Colombian government and its paramilitary death squads, are the MAIN source of the violence. And yet this AP article sneaks the phrase "leftist rebels" into the list of threats against reporters, contrary to the evidence, and even contrary to the evidence in THIS article, which, further down, cites only RIGHTWING threats to reporters.

We need to use common sense, as well, in reading corporate propaganda news. Why would "leftist rebels" threaten reporters? Leftists--whether armed or peaceful--have grievances, generally legitimate ones, often reflective of the grievances of the vast majority of people. And working journalists (as opposed to their corporate editors, who re-write their lead paragraphs and titles) at least try to provide information on such grievances to the public at large. In other situations of fascist oppression, it is the fascists who suppress the news, not those who oppose them--because their behavior cannot bear scrutiny. Leftists, on the other hand, generally WANT publicity. If journalists were not under constant threat from the RIGHTWING in Colombia, would there even be a FARC (leftist rebel group)? If rightwing murders, torture, thievery and corruption were well-known, and openly discussed, and properly dealt with, by the political and legal systems, why would rebellious people take up arms and flee to the jungles? Horrid oppression, lack of democracy and lack of a free press were the beginning conditions for the leftist insurgency. And a free press NOW would help bring about an end both to fascist oppression and to armed rebellion against it. In short, the "leftist rebels" have no reason to threaten reporters; the rightwing government and its death squads have much reason to do so. And one of those reasons is the billions more of U.S. tax dollars that the Bush Junta wants to shovel to the murderous, rightwing Uribe government, currently at issue in the U.S. Congress. Money for bullets, guns, helicopters and other weaponry with which to kill both armed rebels and thousands of unarmed, innocent civilians who seek social justice and democracy. The Uribe government--with its close ties to death squads and drug traffickers--cannot stand the light of day. It is THEY who have reason to threaten reporters.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Thanks for pointing this constant effort to diminish the real facts. People will never notice until

they have read enough articles to finally start seeing the pattern for themselves. It's a real tragedy that this blatant disinformation continues day after day after day after year after year.

The only way to spot it is to be familiar with the material. That's all it takes, isn't it? Only consciousness itself. Most people don't have the time, or inclination to make time to check it out, but it's right there to be discovered, in full sight of the people who start paying attention.

It shows some progress has been made that the Democrats in Congress haven't rubberstamped _Bush's Colombia FTA, yet. Hope and pray that someday the right side will finally prevail.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Amen to that! Justice in Colombia! Meanwhile, Uribe wants Colombia to become a member

of the Bank of the South, and needs Chavez to negotiate with the FARC. I think he sees the "handwriting on the wall." Wily S.O.B., that one. If he were a character in a novel, you'd be laughing at the evil-doing Machiavel who always slips through the fingers of rogue cop anti-hero. But he's not, and it ain't funny.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Regarding your earlier remarks on death-squad takeover of land for their own narco use,

this surely supplements what you have already read. Colombian Senator Petro was in Washington to talk to the Democratic Congressmembers, and we can be 100% certain almost NOTHING he has said here will be carried by our corporate media!

Colombian Senator Petro Tells U.S. Congress: Free Trade Agreement Would Benefit Narco-Traffickers
Bush and Uribe Administrations Can’t Hide Reality with their Fantasy Tours of Colombia for Legislators

~snip~
On October 16, Gustavo Petro spoke to the national network Caracol Radio from Washington after his statements there – and government officials’ fierce reaction to them – had broken in the Colombian press (they have yet to be reported in the U.S.). “I don’t understand this race of insults the government is in now,” Petro told interviewer Darío Arizmendi, “just because it does not share the opinions of someone of the opposition, who is just reproducing a debate that’s been going on in Congress for two years now.”

Petro began to explain his position in depth:

Well, look, the statistics from the Comptroller General’s Office and the statistics from the National University on the Colombian countryside demonstrate the following situation. In 500 years of Spanish feudalism, the land had never been concentrated in such few hands as has happened in the last 15 years due to drug trafficking. The statistics tell us that of the two-and-a-half million landowners that existed in 1984, 10,000 of them owned 32 percent of the arable land at that time. By the year 2001, of the now three-and-a-half million rural landowners, the 10,000 biggest ones owned 62.1 percent. They had practically dubbled their holdings. In just 15 years. That is the impact of narco-trafficking. The National Comptroller General’s Office, in one of those studies, shows that practically 4 to 6 million hectares (10-15 million acres), the most valuable ones, the most fertile, have passed into the hands of drug traffickers or their front-men.

Colombian’s governments have not been able to do anything, because the policy we have used to recuperate this land for Colombian society has been extinción de dominio . And the statistics show that we have been able to recover just 0.4 percent of that area for Colombian society through these legal processes. That is to say, today nearly 20 percent of the country’s arable land, the most fertile, is in the hands of drug traffickers.

We don’t have to just take Petro’s word for it; his claims are meticulously documented. Petro refers often to the national government’s own Comptroller General’s Office and its magazine, Economía Colombiana. If you read Spanish, take a look at Edition #309 of the magazine, published in 2005 and devoted entirely to “the agrarian question, democracy and peace.” In one article, Deputy Comptroller General Luis Bernardo Flórez Enciso writes:

{M}y essential point… is that the appropriation of land on the part of the drug traffickers is equivalent to an enormous agrarian counter-reform. This can be seen in two ways. On one hand, according to figures from INCORA , the drug traffickers have appropriated almost 50 percent of the best lands in the country, while nearly 70 percent of the landowners, especially the small farmers, now posses only 5 percent, as recorded in an illicit drug study by the United Nations Development Program and the Colombian National Narcotics Administration.
(snip/...)

http://www.narconews.com/Issue47/article2858.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Small wonder Senator has started using nine bodyguards!

[Judi Lynn]

5. Regarding your earlier remarks on death-squad takeover of land for their own narco use,

this surely supplements what you have already read. Colombian Senator Petro was in Washington to talk to the Democratic Congressmembers, and we can be 100% certain almost NOTHING he has said here will be carried by our corporate media!

Colombian Senator Petro Tells U.S. Congress: Free Trade Agreement Would Benefit Narco-Traffickers
Bush and Uribe Administrations Can’t Hide Reality with their Fantasy Tours of Colombia for Legislators

~snip~
On October 16, Gustavo Petro spoke to the national network Caracol Radio from Washington after his statements there – and government officials’ fierce reaction to them – had broken in the Colombian press (they have yet to be reported in the U.S.). “I don’t understand this race of insults the government is in now,” Petro told interviewer Darío Arizmendi, “just because it does not share the opinions of someone of the opposition, who is just reproducing a debate that’s been going on in Congress for two years now.”

Petro began to explain his position in depth:

Well, look, the statistics from the Comptroller General’s Office and the statistics from the National University on the Colombian countryside demonstrate the following situation. In 500 years of Spanish feudalism, the land had never been concentrated in such few hands as has happened in the last 15 years due to drug trafficking. The statistics tell us that of the two-and-a-half million landowners that existed in 1984, 10,000 of them owned 32 percent of the arable land at that time. By the year 2001, of the now three-and-a-half million rural landowners, the 10,000 biggest ones owned 62.1 percent. They had practically dubbled their holdings. In just 15 years. That is the impact of narco-trafficking. The National Comptroller General’s Office, in one of those studies, shows that practically 4 to 6 million hectares (10-15 million acres), the most valuable ones, the most fertile, have passed into the hands of drug traffickers or their front-men.

Colombian’s governments have not been able to do anything, because the policy we have used to recuperate this land for Colombian society has been extinción de dominio . And the statistics show that we have been able to recover just 0.4 percent of that area for Colombian society through these legal processes. That is to say, today nearly 20 percent of the country’s arable land, the most fertile, is in the hands of drug traffickers.

We don’t have to just take Petro’s word for it; his claims are meticulously documented. Petro refers often to the national government’s own Comptroller General’s Office and its magazine, Economía Colombiana. If you read Spanish, take a look at Edition #309 of the magazine, published in 2005 and devoted entirely to “the agrarian question, democracy and peace.” In one article, Deputy Comptroller General Luis Bernardo Flórez Enciso writes:

{M}y essential point… is that the appropriation of land on the part of the drug traffickers is equivalent to an enormous agrarian counter-reform. This can be seen in two ways. On one hand, according to figures from INCORA , the drug traffickers have appropriated almost 50 percent of the best lands in the country, while nearly 70 percent of the landowners, especially the small farmers, now posses only 5 percent, as recorded in an illicit drug study by the United Nations Development Program and the Colombian National Narcotics Administration.
(snip/...)

http://www.narconews.com/Issue47/article2858.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Small wonder Senator Petro has started using nine bodyguards!