|
For instance....
It is highly likely that the Bush Junta was aiding and abetting Alvraro Uribe in his massive, illegal domestic spying in Colombia, and that Uribe's spying was linked to creation of "lists" for the Colombian military and its closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads (both for assassination, for instance, of hundreds of trade unionists, and death threats, for instance, against judges and prosecutors).
It is also highly likely that the Obama administration--into covering up Bush Junta crimes--helped the chief spying witness against Uribe flee Colombia and receive instant asylum in the U.S. client state of Panama. This occurred recently and over the loud objections of Colombian prosecutors and has caused Martinelli serious political headaches at home and abroad, esp. re Latin American governments that don't like their justice systems to be spat upon.
Martinelli was likely under great pressure--probably from the CIA--to grant this unusual, instant asylum. The stakes for the U.S. would be that, if and when Colombian prosecutors nail Uribe on domestic spying, U.S/Bush junta collusion may be revealed. (--and spying was probably the least of the things that the Bush junta was doing in Colombia).
Now then, consider Stephenson's cable. It could be a text that was intended to be leaked, to make the U.S. look all virtuous on its local tools' domestic spying, thus distancing the U.S. from the matter in Colombia. ("We're shocked...SHOCKED that domestic spying is going here!) In addition, it displays the U.S. as being oh so law-and-order-ish. ("How dare this underling presume that we would use the "war on drugs" to spy on his political opponents!")
If I'm right that the U.S. was doing just that in Colombia--aiding Uribe to spy on his opponents (to have them murdered or threatened with murder)--then these low security cables could have been deliberately and strategically leaked in a P.R. counter-campaign, if one was needed (i.e., if Colombian prosecutors ever nail Uribe on the illegal spying).
But there is another possibility. Barbara J. Stephenson is a FLA University grad appointed by Bush Jr. in spring 2008 as ambassador to Panama. She is no longer the ambassador. (She also served the U.S. State Dept.--Condi Rice--in Iraq.) So she may have been part of the "clean-up crew" on Bush Junta dirty dealings in Latin America (headed by Amb. William Brownfield in Colombia). Notice the date of the cable--July 2009. She's got new bosses. The cable could intended not for public consumption but for Obama administration and CIA/Panetta consumption--that is, as cover for U.S./Bush Junta collusion in domestic spying in Panama as well as flak to deflect from the even worse scandal in Colombia (which likely involved murder "hit lists").
It's important to know who the cable is going to. In this case, it's going Hillary Clinton, at the least, and we don't know who else (who feeds her the info and how), and likely, ultimately, to Panetta, as well as to Pentagon, DEA, FBI, etc., spy and "war on drug" agencies. In general, to the Obama administration, NOT the Bush Junta--and an Obama administration that is only just getting its footing in Latin America policy (and was in the midst of the Bush Junta-designed coup in Honduras, which they ultimately supported).
Martinelli's Blackberry message (asking for spying help) could be a blooper--stupidly leaving a "paper trail" that Stephenson felt she had to cover for (deniability, in case it came out). It could also be a misdirection, entirely made up by Stephenson, in order to hide Bush Junta-aided domestic spying in Panama and in Colombia.
She is described, in Wiki, as "career foreign service." So there is the possibility that she didn't know about the domestic spying in either country. If the Blackberry message was straightforward, why did Martinelli send it, if he was already getting spying help from the U.S.? Possibly Clinton/Panetta had changed this policy, is one answer. His spying intel had dried up. Martinelli would have to be careful NOT to say "continued spying help" in any way.
Or possibly he was getting spying help from Uribe, not directly from the U.S. (but indirectly, since the Bush Junta was shoveling $7 BILLION to Colombia as well as all manner of technical assistance). Thus, when Panetta ousted Uribe, the spying help from Uribe ceased. This is an interesting possibility. Uribe and Martinelli are pals. And Martinelli/Panama was the venue of choice for Uribe's spy chief, Hurtado, to flee to and get asylum, when Colombian prosecutors were about to interrogate her. This suggests prior collusion of the two spy agencies, Colombia and Panama.
In this case, with Stephenson as innocent/ignorant "career foreign service," she might consider Martinelli's request bizarre, but he wouldn't. That makes psychological sense. To him, it was routine that the U.S. or the U.S.-connected Uribe helped him with spying intel. And maybe he didn't know that Stephenson wasn't 'in the loop.' I find it hard, though. to believe in her innocence. The cable is just too stagey--has a phony ring--but it's interesting that Clinton/Panetta pulled her out of Panama. (I don't know where she's ended up.)
One thing is clear: her discussion of the Blackberry message would alert, say, Panetta, to a potential leakage point, on Bush Junta crimes in Colombia. Panetta/Clinton/Holder have been diligent in plugging such leakage points. It's just hard to guess whether Stephenson supplied them with this info inadvertently or as part of a Bush Junta effort to hide things from Panetta/Clinton/Holder (until it was clear that they were also into the cover up). (It may not have been clear at that point--mid-2009; I don't think Panetta was in place yet, as CIA Director; and their bad policy in Latin America was not evident yet, in the first month of Honduran coup.)
A full scale cover up was taking place in Colombia--with Amb. Brownfield and Uribe's extradition of death squad witnesses to the U.S. (where they were "buried" in the U.S. federal prison system), the secret negotiation of a U.S./Colombia military agreement that granted total diplomatic immunity to all U.S. military personnel and all U.S. 'contractors' in Colombia, the "laundering" of Uribe's image here and so on. But much of this has been occurring on Panetta/Clinton/Holder's watch. And there is more, such as Clinton "fining" Blackwater for "unauthorized" "trainings" of "foreign persons" IN COLOMBIA "for use in Iraq and Afghanistan" (possibly a cover up of U.S. death squad activity in Colombia).
Anyway, this is how I read the cables. I don't always end up with a settled opinion about them. But I think it's essential to think about and analyze all the potential motives behind the cables, and the context of the cables. The cables tend to be a superficial read on things--often just gossip. They can sometimes tell you what's going on in a country by assuming the opposite of what they say (my "rule of thumb" for any Bushwhack statement, and increasingly my "rule of thumb" for the entire corporate press corps). They are not terribly informative, but they are useful tools. I think it's a big mistake to take them at face value.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
