The Uribe era appears on the brink of ending

[rabs]

In 48 hours or so (sometime Friday), the Colombian Constitutional Court is expected to rule on the legality of Uribe being allowed to run for a third term.

Initial indications are that the Court will rule against Uribe by a vote of 6-3. The nine judges are scheduled to express their opinions beginning at 9 a.m. Friday, with a vote to follow, presumably on the same day.

Today Uribe called for "prudence" before the ruling, but he took a swipe at the Court, saying it should be Colombians who should decide whether he should be elected for a third term. In other words, he hinted it should NOT be a judicial decision.

Juan Manuel Santos today said he understood a national referendum to allow Uribe on the ballot was practically dead.

Two national legislators said they too had information that the court would rule against Uribe. Semana magazine, El Tiempo and El Espectador newpapers are reporting the same in tomorrow's (Thursday) editions.

Uribe today suffered another political blow; his cousin, former Senator Mario Uribe Escobar, was arrested and thrown in the notorious La Picota prison in Bogota. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Uribe Escobar should stand trial for paramilitary connections that helped him to win a Senate seat and to acquire land from displaced campesinos. (Uribe Escobar, the president's cousin, is related to the late cocaine baron Pablo Escobar.)

(Above compilation from El Espectador, Semana and El Tiempo.)

Then there is the possibility that something may happen between March (legislative elections), May (the presidential election) and August that will keep Uribe in power after his term is scheduled to end.

So suggest keep on eye on developments in Bogota on Friday.

[Downwinder]

1. SOUTHCOM has their bases, Uribe is no longer necessary. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

2. So interesting! It's true we can't dismiss any extension of his Presidency immediately,

considering they have at their disposal any number of bogus events they can contrive to engage Uribe in declaring martial law and staying right where he is, for "national security".

(I was almost certain _{George W. Bush} was going to pull that trick right up until he was gone.)

One horrible aspect of seeing Uribe go, as ridiculous as it is, something Peace Patriot has discussed, is the fact Juan Manuel Santos will undoubtedly replace him, and he's even worse.

It would be glorious to see that nasty little troll Uribe finally has gone. It's an insult to have to be on the same planet with him and other treacherous, deceitful, corrupt, vicious, festering hate machines and frauds.

http://cryptome.quintessenz.at.nyud.net:8090/mirror/brp/pict20.jpg

Kings go forth....

http://api.ning.com.nyud.net:8090/files/KNaXE6d3fXSrhDWx63fgcnBota1urcWnYIJmp6XLpYGySoQdPpmz9NvSIRnTlYXMPHHuVRRgkNvce2QjoMyNh7UaBdTMIBce/face270.jpg http://www.thereheis.com.nyud.net:8090/nucleus3.22/media/gallery/20071109-snake%20bite.jpg
Will be waiting for that Colombian Constitutional Court decision next Friday. Thanks for the news! :hi:

[rabs]

3. The mantra of Juan Manuel Santos

El Tiempo and the other uribista media have repeated the mantra that JM Santos will replace Uribe should the latter not stand for a third term.

I have doubts, because it is not at all certain that Colombians would elect him because he would be merely an extension of uribismo, and as Peace Patriot says, worse.

Colombians are keenly aware that Santos:

1. Was the architect of the "false positives" extermination program. Then instead of assuming responsibility, he slithered out as defense minister and instead let Army officers and soldiers shoulder the blame.

2. Was defense minister when the Colombian (and U.S.?) air attack on Ecuadoran territory happened.

3. After that attack, advocated a "hot pursuit" doctrine that provoked the ire of Ecuador, Venezuela and Brazil.

Add this up and it is not certain (at least to me) that Santos is a shoo-in should Uribe ride off into the sunset.

[Bacchus39]

4. yes, Colombians will certainly choose their next president

I don't think that Colombians are too upset that Raul Reyes was killed though. and I do believe that Colombia has a hot pursuit agreement with Brazil.

[Meshuga]

5. I believe that...

...Brazil and Colombia signed a "bilateral military co-operation agreement" back in 2008 to deal with these border issues by sharing military information and cooperating with each other mostly to prevent the FARC guerrillas from crossing the border. The incident in Ecuador didn't draw "ire" from Brazil (although the act was condemned by Brazil). The ire came from Chavez mostly and obviously from Rafael Correa.

[protocol rv]

6. A working democracy

Uribe's failure to gain a third term will be good for Colombia's democracy. It also shows Colombia's courts are independent of presidential power, as they should be. Too bad this isn't the case in Venezuela.

[Bacchus39]

8. agreed. I am sure there would be some anxiety in Colombia however the process not the person

takes primacy in a democratic society. I don't know if I care much for Santos though, but its not my election.

[Peace Patriot]

11. Protocol rv, your racism against the Indigenous has discredited you. Other DUers should know

In Comment #36, here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x30994

Your comments about the "rainforest Chernobly" in Ecuador--the Chevron-Texaco toxic oil spill the size of Rhode Island, which has destroyed fisheries, rivers and streams and the living of 30,000 Indigenous people in the Amazon forest--and your racist remark, that the charges against Chevron should be disregarded because they were "presented by an Indian," taint all your other comments on Latin American issues. You are an oil corporation apologist. And your remarks are so ignorant, uninformed and so like the crap put out by Chevron's 12 P.R. firms--which they hired to discredit the Indigenous who filed suit against them for damages and cleanup--that your views have no credibility whatsoever.

In fact, I advise other DUers to use my Rule No. 1 from the Bush Junta as a guide to determining the truth of your statements: To wit, whatever you assert, the opposite is the truth.

Thus, we can surmise--if we don't already know from other facts, information and analysis--that conditions of democracy do not exist in Colombia, that the judges are not independent (are rendering a CIA verdict, to get the Pentagon/CIA's candidate, Manual Santos into a position of power) and that the courts in Venezuela are, in truth, independent.

The Rule for discovering the truth from the statements of Bushwhacks, rightwingers and oil corp apologists--and racists--doesn't always work out exactly, if the fascist assertion is garbled or seriously deformed with twisted lies. In this case, you attribute the change to the Venezuelan Constitution, which will permit Hugo Chavez and others to run for office again, to the Venezuelan courts. The Venezuelan courts had absolutely nothing to do with that Constitutional change. It was put to the voters--in a fair, honest, transparent and internationally monitored election system--and they overwhelmingly approved it. Like our FDR, Chavez will be able to run for office again and be judged by the voters again, and will more than likely be elected again, for much the same reason: The "New Deal" was good for most people, as the Chavez government has been. Only the rich object to presidents like FDR and Chavez. And of those, FDR famously said, "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred!" Too bad for the rich in Venezuela--they will be made to pay their taxes, and won't have the tyrannical influence over government they think they were born to assert.

Your remark is garbled in the following way. You say, "It also shows Colombia's courts are independent of presidential power, as they should be. Too bad this (independent courts) isn't the case in Venezuela."

The truth here is a bit more difficult to ferret out, than just reversing what you say to get the truth. The truth--that Venezuelan voters approved lifting the term limit on Chavez and others--is contained in the black hole in your assertions where information should be. The people of Venezuela made this choice, not the courts.

I would approve of Colombian voters doing the same if conditions for fair elections existed in Colombia. But tens of thousands of Colombians have been murdered by the Colombian military and its death squads, for expressing their political views--with one grave containing 2,000 bodies recently found--and 3 to 4 million peasant farmers have been displaced from their lands. No election and no opinion poll is valid in these circumstances. We cannot know what the people of Colombia want. For every one of the tens of thousands who have been murdered, there are a hundred or more people--family, extended family, community, village, region--who are thus made fearful that the same will happen to them, if they speak out, if they run for office, if they organize a political campaign, if they say anything at all or even look crosswise at the military or the at the local death squad boss.

This is the other black hole in your assertions. Colombia is not a democracy. It is a war zone: rich against poor. But as with your P.R. for Chevron-Texaco, you either don't care that the poor and the brown are being murdered and terrorized in Colombia, or you choose to ignore it--and slam Venezuela, where the people are not terrorized, where they speak and vote freely, where human rights are respected and promoted and where the people of the country are blessed with a truly legitimate government, not one propped up by the Pentagon and $7 BILLION in U.S. military aid.

[Peace Patriot]

7. It was not "hot pursuit." Reyes and the 24 other people whom the U.S./Colombia blew away

with a load of U.S. "smart bombs" were all asleep. The Ecuadoran military found bodies in their pajamas shot in the back. Furthermore, it was a temporary hostage release camp and part of Reyes' bid for a peaceful settlement of Colombia's 40+ year civil war. Ingrid Betancourt's family had been notified. French, Swiss and Spanish envoys had traveled to Ecuador and were on their way to the camp to receive Bettancourt and other hostages. They were warned off by Colombian authorities who said that "everyone at the camp is going to be killed." Ergo, the Colombian authorities knew very well what the camp was for. Furthermore, some Mexican students were present at the camp for the humanitarian mission, along with an Ecuadoran citizen. They, too, were blown away. This is WHY this illegal and unnecessary mass murder--aimed at ending all hope for peace in Colombia's civil war--almost caused a war between the U.S./Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela. Countries permit "hot pursuit" in some rare circumstances. This was not "hot pursuit." There was no fire fight, no chase, and no act by the FARC, or the non-combatants present, that precipitated it. It was a mass murder committed on Ecuadoran territory without provocation, by which 25 sleeping people were convicted and executed without benefit of trial. It was done without Ecuador's permission and without even notice. And when Uribe did call Correa, after the fact, he lied to him that it was "hot pursuit."

This act of war caused a furor in South America. Ecuador and Venezuela rushed military battalions to their borders because they couldn't know what was coming next. Was this Act One of the U.S. oil war? How could they know? If the Mexican military dropped a load of "smart bombs" on a ranch outside El Paso because they thought a drug gang was meeting there, without getting U.S. permission and without even warning the U.S., what the hell do you think the U.S. government would do about it? There were also meetings of the OAS and the Rio group at which Uribe was raked over the coals and obliged to issue an apology and a pledge never to do this again. This was an unacceptable, lawless act. The opinion of Latin American leaders was unanimous against Colombia.

[Bacchus39]

9. I never said it was a hot pursuit, I said Brazil has a hot pursuit agreement with Colombia

and I also said that Colombians were not upset about the death of Raul Reyes as the poster I responded to claimed. Colombians are not fond of the FARC

[rabs]

16. Would you be so kind as to show this OP

where I "claimed" that "Colombians were not upset about the death of Raul Reyes" ... gracias.

------------------------

Btw, Brazil does not have a "hot pursuit" agreement regarding only the FARC with Colombia. The agreement reached in 2009 is to deter cocaine from being transhipped through Brazil by the Colombian narco traffickers, be they paramilitary or the FARC. The agreement calls for air surveillance (radar) along a 25-mile buffer zone along their common border.

Here is a Reuters story to refresh your memory.

-----------------------------

Brazil, Colombia agree on anti-drug border defense


By Raymond Colitt

BRASILIA, March 12 (Reuters) - Brazil and Colombia have agreed to develop military equipment together, conduct joint maneuvers in the jungle and monitor airspace used by drug smugglers, officials from both nations said on Thursday.

-----------

Brazil's Air Force, which since 2004 has had a policy of shooting down aircraft suspected of drug smuggling, currently gets little advance warning of traffickers flying in from Colombia, the world's leading cocaine producer.



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1253576420090312

[Bacchus39]

20. perhaps you can elaborate why you think your 3 points add up to

Santos not being a shoe-in for the election. You stated that Colombians are keenly aware that Santos was defense minister during the air strike that killed Reyes and pursued a hot pursuit agreement with other countries including Brazil. how do these points relate to Santos not being a shoe-in for the election if Uribe doesn't run??

I never said the hot pursuit agreement was restricted or even related to FARC, I pointed out that Colombia and Brazil have a hot pursuit agreement. I didn't state the nature of the agreement.
how does the seeking of the hot pursuit agreement effect Santos' election chances as you seem to think it will?

likewise, how does Santos being defense minister during the airstrike effect his election chances?


I am not saying Santos would be a shoe-in either, I am questioning how your points have any affect on his chances. I don't think those points are ones that would jeopardize Santos' chances in the minds of Colombians. They may have other doubts, but I don't see those you suggested as negatives.



here is what you stated so we are clear:


I have doubts, because it is not at all certain that Colombians would elect him because he would be merely an extension of uribismo, and as Peace Patriot says, worse.

Colombians are keenly aware that Santos:

1. Was the architect of the "false positives" extermination program. Then instead of assuming responsibility, he slithered out as defense minister and instead let Army officers and soldiers shoulder the blame.

2. Was defense minister when the Colombian (and U.S.?) air attack on Ecuadoran territory happened.

3. After that attack, advocated a "hot pursuit" doctrine that provoked the ire of Ecuador, Venezuela and Brazil.

Add this up and it is not certain (at least to me) that Santos is a shoo-in should Uribe ride off into the sunset.

[bemildred]

21. FARC ARE Colombians.

Where do you think they came from? What do you think they are if they are not Colombians? Everybody who lives in Colombia is Colombian.

[Bacchus39]

25. no, not everyone who lives in Colombia is Colombian, and yes the FARC are Colombians

your point being?????????????????

[bemildred]

27. You said "Colombians are not fond of the FARC"?

So do you feel that FARC is not fond of itself? If FARC are Colombians, is it not also fair to say "Colombians are not fond of Uribe"?

[Bacchus39]

31. oh ok, so perhaps we can say most Colombians are not fond of the FARC

would that put your mind at ease? I would say that Americans are not fond of the Iraq war too but obviously I'd have to qualify that with "most".

considering their activities I would wonder if the FARC is fond of itself but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say they are proud terrorists and criminals.

however, if we are going to be precise, it certainly isn't true that everyone who lives in Colombia is Colombian.

[bemildred]

33. True, no doubt there are immigrants and temporary residents.

So you confirm my point that quantifiers (most, some, a few, etc.) are necessary. Thank you.

[Peace Patriot]

10. You can get chainsawed and your body parts thrown into a mass grave by rightwing death squads

and by the Colombian military for having the wrong political views in Colombia.

Here's a story not yet covered by our corpo-fascist press about two thousand bodies recently found in a mass grave in La Macarena, Colombia, whom local people claim were 'disappeared' local community organizers, union leaders, political activists, human rights workers and others opposed to the fascist, narco-thug government. (There is also evidence pointing to U.S. and U.K. military involvement in this massacre.)

The La Macarena massacre (includes a description of, and links to docs about, U.S. ops in La Macarena)
http://www.cipcol.org/?p=1303

The UK military connection
http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2010/02/04/silence-on-british-army-link-to-colombian-mass-grave/

In addition to thousands of murders against local political activists, 3 to 4 million peasant farmers have been forced from their lands--the second biggest human displacement crisis on earth, next to Sudan. Tens of thousands of these displaced people have crossed the borders into Venezuela and Ecuador, fleeing from the Colombian military and its deaths squads as well as U.S. toxic pesticide spraying, and creating a huge humanitarian problem for those countries.

Conditions for fair elections do not exist in Colombia. Political murder, torture, 'disappearances,' and extensive intimidation and terror are pervasive and are used to prevent political organization by the poor majority.

The "will of the people" cannot be determined. So I expect the CIA/Pentagon candidate, Manual Santos, to be installed. Control of Colombia is too important to SOUTHCOM to be left to the voters--those who aren't dead, 'disappeared,' terrified or displaced.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Santos must have a crystal ball...or a direct line to Langley...

"Santos today said he understood a national referendum to allow Uribe on the ballot was practically dead."--from the OP

Gee, how does he know what the judges are going to rule?

We have reason to presume the worse. (That the judges have received death threats, bribes, a visit from Brownfield or one of his covert agents...)

---------------------

The CIA "talking point"--which we see echoed in this thread--that the court's ruling against Uribe (which the Pentagon/CIA's boy seems to be sure of) is "evidence" of Colombian democracy, would be laughable if it weren't so ominous.

[Bacchus39]

13. so now you are in favor of Uribe running again????

and you might want to look at some of the actual sources rather than quoting the original posters' story.

[Peace Patriot]

14. I think Uribe's going the way of Diem, and it is kind of pathetic to see a CIA puppet

lose his usefulness, but--putting aside what may really be going on behind the scenes--just as a theoretical, I would love to see Uribe run in an honest election, without death squads terrorizing the voters, and without a $7 BILLION military boondoggle from the U.S., and without Medellin and Bush Cartel money and operatives behind him. The tens of thousands who have been slaughtered by the Colombia military and its death squads wouldn't get to vote but their relatives and friends would.

It would be kind of like Bush Jr running again, if we had transparent vote counting here.

I oppose term limits on the president in a democracy--as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and our other Founders did. The term limit on the president here was a Puke creation in the 1950s--to ensure that no "New Deal" could ever happen here again. But it does have to be accompanied by fair, honest, transparent elections, such as they have in Venezuela, and such as we once had here. There is no reason why a good president shouldn't be re-elected as long as the people want and need his services.

[Bacchus39]

15. yeah, sure Venezuela. the Chavez government takes elected offices away from those not in the party

anyway, George Washington established the precedent of two terms. It wasn't legally binding just tradition. I think two terms if fine but it will be up to Court and Colombians to decide.

the OP isn't very informative. just someone's summary of various purported newstories from someone's perspective. no links

Colombia received aid prior to Uribe and will after Uribe. so that point is not valid. even as a theoretical.

I imagine if Uribe does get to run a third term he will win in a landslide. sounds like you are starting to back him now?

[rabs]

17. So, the director of the CIA pays a surprise visit to Uribe

First, Santos said what he said about the referendum after a meeting of the Party of the U of which he wants to be the presidential candidate if Uribe is out of the picture. I happened to watch the video yesterday.

--------------------

Now, talking about CIA links -- what do you think of Panetta's early morning visit to Uribe today in Bogota?

Is Panetta down there to be briefed on the collapse of Uribe's bid for a third term, or on a plan to keep Uribe in power no matter what the Constitutional Court ruling may be?

Are we really to believe that the director of the CIA would suddenly travel to Bogota to discuss the state of the war on drugs in Colombia?

-------------------------------------
Uribe se reúne con director de la CIA

La cita se produjo temprano en el Palacio de Nariño y el tema centra fue el apoyo contra la lucha del narcotráfico.
Jueves 25 Febrero

El presidente Alvaro Uribe se reunió el jueves con el director de la CIA León Panetta, quien ratificó el apoyo de Washington a la lucha contra el narcotráfico.

La cita se produjo temprano en el Palacio de Nariño.

"Estados Unidos a través de su agencia de inteligencia ratificó a Colombia el apoyo en su lucha contra el narcotráfico", indicó telefónicamente el portavoz presidencia César Mauricio Velásquez.

La embajada de Estados Unidos en Bogotá sólo confirmó la presencia de Panetta en el país, pero declinó ofrecer detalles.

[Peace Patriot]

36. Shit. Panetta's got a lot to cover up in Colombia and it looks like he's working hard at it.

I more and more think that U.S. soldiers and/or 'contractors' were involved in the La Macarena massacre and that it was "turkey shoot" practice for Afghanistan. The dates are right (2005 thru 2009). That "total diplomatic immunity" clause in the U.S./Colombia military agreement looms larger and larger, especially considering how they are explaining this deal--that it's merely confirmation of existing arrangements (i.e., retroactive immunity, now signed, sealed and delivered). And there, of course. may be a lot more at risk of exposure beyond that the La Macarena horrors.

There's also the CIA money flow at risk. Uribe knows a lot, I'm sure, but I wonder if he's smart enough not to try blackmailing the CIA.

I repeat my best guess. He's going the way of Diem. And they'll either blame it on the FARC or on Chavez. That could be their 'Gulf of Tonkin.'

I could be wrong and they're arranging for him to remain as President Death Squad. But I don't think I'm wrong. It is Panetta's role, in my opinion--designated by none other than Daddy Bush (of whose Iraq (really Iran) Study Group Panetta was a member), to clean the bloody dung off Junior's trails. And we wouldn't be hearing about the Colombian deaths squads and Uribe's 70 political associates in jail, under indictment or under investigation for death squad and other criminal activity (drugs), from the frigging New York Slimes or other Associated Pukes if the CIA did not want us to hear about it. So the fact that we do hear some of it from the controlled press probably means that the CIA is dumping Uribe and it could be a hard dump.

[bemildred]

18. Sea varon!!!

:popcorn:

[rabs]

19. This photo is dedicated to Bacchus39

who says that as an OP, I am not "very informative." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


En esta foto de la oficina de prensa de la presidencia colombiana, aparece el presidente de Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, izquierda, reunido con el director de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia de Estados Unidos, CIA, Leon Panetta, derecha, en el Palacio Presidencial en Bogotá, el jueves 25 de febrero de 2010 (AP Photo/Oficina de prensa presidencia de Colombia, Cesar Carrion)

[Bacchus39]

22. and the photo is relevant to what now??????? n/t

s

[bemildred]

26. Alvaro Uribe is the subject of the OP.

The fact that Panetta has time to visit him now seems very relevant. In fact anything about him is relevant.

[Bacchus39]

29. how do you suppose its relevant to the OP? please elaborate

or speculate if you like.

[bemildred]

32. Uribe is the subject of the OP, and therefore anything about Uribe is relevant,

because it is about the subject of the OP. How do you define what is relevant to an OP, if not as information about the subject of the OP?

[Bacchus39]

34. Uribe was born July 4th, 1952. he is from the Antioquia Department

his wife is Lina Moreno de Uribe and they have two sons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_Uribe

[bemildred]

35. Damn, he's younger than I am.

He's done well for himself.

[Judi Lynn]

37. He has had a lot of powerful friends (and brutal ones), going back to his father.

I'm certain you may be older, but by gosh, you absolutely don't look like a white, damp, bag of vomit!

He looks as if he's been underwater some of the time since 1952. It must have warped his character.

[Bacchus39]

40. yeah, his father was the one who did allright, until he was murdered by the FARC

and yes as president he has some powerful friends.

[Bacchus39]

23. and the photo is relevant to what now??????? n/t

s

[Judi Lynn]

38. That's one strange, spooky photo. Creepy! Thanks. n/t

[bemildred]

24. Rant:

<rant>Why does every tin-pot "leader" get his own "era" now. I used to think "era" meant a big piece of time, like the "pre-cambrian era". Now we have the Bush era and the Obama era and the "Uribe era". What a load of self-serving political bullshit.</rant>

[rabs]

28. Okay, how about "the long night of Uribe"

or the "Bush nightmare years," or the "Obama tin-pot term."

:-)

[bemildred]

30. Better.

Language is important, it's what we (try to) think with. I like "Uribe despotism", "Clinton interregnum", and "Bush usurpation", or even "Obama restoration", things like that. There is a lot of room to explore once you start.
:-)

[Downwinder]

39. Aren't periods of time remembered by disasters, the depression,

the cold war, WWI, WWII? I think Bush and Uribe will qualify.

[bemildred]

41. Yeah, that works. It's the "Bush era" sort of thing that annoys me.

Though "Uribe aeon" has a certain poetic appeal, since it has the sense of something dragging on far too long.

[bemildred]

42. The thing is all of these "leaders" are pimples on the butt of time.

Castro is the only one who is likely to have any real historical stature, who did something amazing, and Bozos like Tony Blair and Uribe will be known only for being disastrously bad leaders - like most leaders, who are generally bad - but worse.

[Downwinder]

43. Just think of BUSH as a four letter Anglo-saxon word that the Fundies can't ban. n/t

[rabs]

44. Countdown for Uribe is under way (11:21 EST)

Constitutional Court judges (nine) are in session. They are voting on five illegalities discovered in the petition for a referendum allowing Uribe to run for a third term. The petition was passed by the Uribe-controlled Congress 11 months ago.

[EFerrari]

45. I could use a little good news today!

Thank you, rabs. :hi:

[Judi Lynn]

46. They've been busy legally with the last re-election bribery as late as last year!

Ex Congressman sentenced to eight years house arrest for 'Yidispolitica'
Wednesday, 03 June 2009 12:00

http://colombiareports.com.nyud.net:8090/pics/politics/teodolindo_avendano.jpg

A former Colombian Congressman was sentenced to eight years house arrest for not voting on the 2006 re-election of President Alvaro Uribe in exchange of favors.

Former Senator Teodolindo Avendaño disappeared on the day of the vote that would allow the 2006 re-election of Uribe possible. Avendaño had always been a vociferous opponent of the constitutional change.

According to the Prosecution, the senator received 200 million pesos (US$97 thousand) for his disappearance.

A second senator, Yidis Medina, had earlier been sentenced to house arrest for having voted in favor of the proposal after having been promised political favors by the government officials.

Congressman Ivan Diaz (Conservative Party), accused of being one of the promoters of the constitutional change who bribed the two, received six years in jail. Current Social Welfare Minister Diego Palacio and Sabas Pretelt de la Vega, current ambassador to Rome, are also suspected of being part of the bribe.

More:
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/4361-ex-congressman-sentenced-to-eight-years-house-arrest-for-yidispolitica.html

http://www.vanguardia.com.nyud.net:8090/archivofotos/stories/politica/nacional/polit02a003_big.jpg

Another bribed Senator who voted for Uribe re-election, Yidis Medina.

[rabs]

47. latest at 1:30 EST

EXTRA En este momento toma forma una votación 6 - 3 en contra


EL Espectador reporting vote shaping up to be 6-3 AGAINST Uribe.

Will be out for next three/four hours so euggest keep an eye on El Espectador, El Tiempo or Semana for latest.


http://www.elespectador.com/

[Judi Lynn]

48. Just checked them, no word yet. Thanks. n/t