US Rep Gabrielle Giffords + Six Others Shot Dead

U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and six others have died after a gunman opened fire at a public event on Saturday, Pima County sheriff's office in Arizona confirmed to National Public Radio.

A gunman ran up to Giffords, 40, and shot her in the head as she addressed supporters outside a Safeway grocery store, according to media reports.

The gunman was in custody, according to media reports.

Giffords, who was re-elected to her third term in November, was hosting her first "Congress on Your Corner" event at the store in northwest Tucson, NPR reported.

Giffords, 40, a Democrat, is married to U.S. astronaut Mark Kelly. She took office in January 2007, emphasizing issues such as immigration reform, embryonic stem-cell research, alternative energy sources and a higher minimum wage.

Earlier events in Tucson, Oro Valley, Green Valley, Sierra Vista, and Douglas had attracted between at least a crowd of 150, according to a statement announcing the event.

Assassin Honored in Pakistan

Ghazi Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, centre, the accused killer of Punjab province Gov. Salman Taseer, arrives at court in Islamabad on Wednesday.

LAWYERS showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived Wednesday for his first court appearance.

Ghazi Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, 26, was remanded in custody in Islamabad court a day after he allegedly sprayed automatic gunfire at Salman Taseer while he was on duty as a bodyguard for the Punjab province governor.

The lawyers who tossed handfuls of rose petals over him were not involved in the case. Several government officials and Police personnel also joined and greeted Mumtaz Qadri.

Majority of Ulema (Islamic scholars) and Islamic groups praised the assassination of the outspoken opponent of laws that order death for those who insult Islam. A rowdy crowd slapped the accused on the back and kissed his cheek as he was escorted inside.

As Qadri left the court, a crowd of about 200 sympathizers chanted "death is acceptable for Muhammad's slave." The suspect stood at the back door of an armoured police van with a flower necklace given to him by an admirer and repeatedly yelled "God is great."

Muslim Death Threats as a Matter of Policy

Ok, let's recap. Wali ur-Rehman, a senior Taliban commander, recently issued a direct threat against the Netherlands and the Dutch people. (here)

"The Dutch government is on a dangerous course," he was quoted on Friday, October 1, in the Dutch TV program RTL4 News. "Therefore, we will teach them a lesson and they will pay a price because of recent anti-Islam laws." A direct threat to stage terrorist attacks in Holland. Obviously, Taliban terrorist leaders are following closely what is happening both in Europe and Holland.

Free speech is insulting. No free speech. Do not insult Islam. Do not reveal the truth about Islam. No historical accuracy or context.

Check!

The ummah gets offended if you draw Muhammad. Embassies are burned, people are slaughtered because of innocuous little cartoonist renderings. Brutal assassination attempts on made on the lives of Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks. American cartoonist Molly Norris must go into witness protection, change her name, her home, her life at her expense. No drawings of Moe.

Check!

Controversial radical Imam wants to build a 15-story mega mosque on a site destroyed by the 911 attacks and iconically name it Cordoba House. The American people and free men across the world express outrage, grief and pain and request the mega mosque be moved. The West is warned by the radical imam that if the 15-story mega mosque is not built, we will be attacked by the devout, by the jihad. The radical imam is standing between us and "the extremists." Ground Zero mega mosque mocking, taunting the greatest loss on American soil in our considerable history must be built.

Check!

The United States is attacked in the name of Islam on September 11, 2001. Almost 3,000 good souls are mercilessly slaughtered, the last words they hear, 'allahu akbar.' America goes in to Afghanistan and Iraq to begin to fight this scourge. Defense of nation is "creating more jihadis." No self defense.

Check!

Let me know if you want me to go on. Don't get me started on Islamic anti-semitism and their annihilationist dreams of wiping the Jewish people off the map.

UK Update: Six Muslims Arrested on Pope Assassination Plot

UK: Police arrest five Misunderstanders of Islam in plot to kill Pope

They no doubt want to kill him because of his Regensberg address, in which he quoted the 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologos: "He said, I quote, `Show me just what (Islamic Prophet) Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'" And so to prove that Muhammad didn't bring what was evil and inhuman, they want to murder the Pope.

That'll show us, all right.

"Pope visit: Five suspected Islamist terrorists arrested over assassination plot," by Duncan Gardham in the Telegraph, September 17 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):
Police have arrested five suspected Islamist terrorists planning to assassinate the Pope.

The men were arrested during raids at 5.45am at a business premises in central London based on an intelligence tip off received overnight.

The suspects, aged 26, 27, 36, 40 and 50 were arrested by officers from Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Command on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

They are said to be from a variety of nationalities including a number of Algerian origin.

The men have been taken to a central London police station where they will be interviewed by detectives.

Searches are being carried out under the Terrorism Act 2000 at the business premises and at residential premises in north and east London....

Free Sudan

Despite pleas for humanity and the promise of an independent state, Obama has distanced himself and his administration from the plaintive cries of the brutalized, routed people of Darfur and Southern Sudan.

From September 15 to October 7th, former Sudanese slave Simon Deng, alongside DHRO of the USA founder and President, Dr. Abdelgabar Adam of Darfur, will partner to lead The Sudan Freedom Walk 2010 from New York Washington DC to call attention to the referendum in Southern Sudan, the genocide being perpetrated against the people of Darfur and the continuation of slavery and other horrific human rights violations though out the country.

"We must hold our elected officials accountable to their commitments to bring peace to Sudan," said Deng. Deng was persecuted during the Civil War era between the Muslims and Christians in his homeland. Abducted into slavery by Arab northerners, Deng amazingly escaped and returned to his family after 3 years.

He recently escaped an assassination attempt in New York and was hospitalized for two months. That's what we are dealing with.

McCain Fingers Obama for Assassins

McCain Locates Obama for Assassins

Reuters

Reuters reports that McCain shared details of Obama's trip to Iraq at a fundraiser:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.

The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

Obama and Osama on Fox Assassination Menu

Obama and Osama on FOX Assassination Menu

Jeffrey Feldman, HuffPost

During a live interview, FOX Contributor Liz Trotta jokingly wished for the assassination of Sen. Barack Obama.

This latest incident from FOX News continues the trend in violent rhetoric about Sen. Obama from pundits, politicians, and entertainers.

Grinning While Joking About Killing A Candidate
The incident happen in an exchange with the FOX News anchor. When asked her opinion of the recent scandal surrounding some comments made by Sen. Hillary Clinton, which Trotta described by saying that, "some are reading [it] as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama." Hemmer quickly corrected Trotta, having noticed that she had said "Osama" when she meant "Obama." At this point, Trotta said, "Obama. Well...both if we could!" Trotta then laughed gleefully.

Are Americans Going to Hell?

Are Americans Going to Hell?

Almost daily subscribers to the progressive literature can enjoy revelations of malfeasance in high places. Graft, corruption and murder are so commonplace to escape notice.

There is where the information stops. At most we will get an address or a phone number where one can voice a complaint.

Who acts on this? Nobody. Most likely the telecom company will report the caller to law enforcement authorities.

Essentially, no one deals with the real problems that beset the country.

It may benefit the reader to devote a few minutes per day to this issue. How can we put the perpetrators into the jails or onto the gallows?

I address these notions and will be glad to swap ideas on the subject.

People who share the program of Hagee, Bush and McCain have always been willing to fight to the last drop of Jewish blood. Even as Hitler was losing the war, he denied his troops supplies so the trains could carry human cargo to the death camps.
Few Americans appreciate the depths to which their country has fallen. While many of us Jews abhor McCain's kowtowing to the religious right, he and his cohorts have done much more damage to other groups. I refer to six millions Third World citizens murdered during the CIA inspired incursions Vietnam for example. Despite the estimated 70,000 victims who have fallen into the grasp of American torture experts, few Democrats have made it a campaign issue. The US Congress has funded the effort that put 1,000,000+ Iraqis into their early graves.
Many Americans are too sure they are going to heaven despite the evil they have done. Do they think they can fool God with a few slogans?

For example, does Hillary qualify as accessory before the fact [assassination]?

Assassination Bears Bitter Fruit

The Most Savage Shock Jock on Talk Radio
Rory O’Conner and Aaron Cutler, Alternet
Why do so many different people dislike Savage and his Nation? Perhaps it's because Savage dislikes so many different people. In his book The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture, he writes, "I was raised on neglect, anger, and hate. I was raised the old-fashioned way." Despite claiming to have originated the term "compassionate conservative" (and threatening to sue George W. Bush for appropriating it), Savage is usually far more passionate than compassionate. On the issue of illegal immigration, he said:
"We, the people, are being displaced by the people of Mexico. This is an invasion by any other name. Everybody with a brain understands that. Everybody who understands reality understands we are being pushed out of our own country."
On CNN news anchors:
"Wolf Blitzer, a Jew who was born in Israel, [is] probably the most despicable man in the media next to Larry King, who takes a close runner-up by the hair of a nose. The two of them together look like the type that would have pushed Jewish children into the oven to stay alive one more day to entertain the Nazis."
On homosexuality:
"The radical homosexual agenda will not stop until religion is outlawed in this country. Make no mistake about it. They're all not nice decorators
They threaten your very survival
Gay marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. They want full and total subjugation of this society to their agenda."
And in conclusion:
"Why should we have constant sympathy for people who are freaks in every society? I'm sick and tired of the whole country begging, bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick."
Listening to a host for whom even George W. Bush is too liberal (Savage particularly lambastes the president on immigration issues) can be an intense experience. Yet millions of people do it. As New Yorker editor Ben Greenman says, "People who listen to Savage say that he's a little extreme but that some of the things he says are also true. I think his show does encourage you to think for yourself, because he's so weirdly contradictory."
Savage's three-hour program often consists of apoplectic rants-usually against a particular group or groups of people allegedly doing damage to America-that end with an animalistic, Network-like cry of "I can't take this anymore!" During calmer times, Savage ends his monologues with a huffy "That's just the way I see it." Sometimes Savage exhibits a rare and startling tenderness, for instance in his fond recollections of the lm director Elia Kazan (famous not only for On the Waterfront but also for naming names to the House Un-American Activities Committee).
And every so often Savage changes the subject, mentioning a great barber he's been to recently or a good movie he's just seen. There is something almost hypnotic about the up-and-down anger on the program; even though Savage's views are not always internally coherent, he is supremely confident and comfortable in expressing them. His ability to steer the course without having to resort to logic to support his points is a trait more often seen in politicians than commentators. Indeed, Savage briefly (if laughably) mulled a run for the 2008 presidency on the grounds that since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans were to be trusted, a nonpolitician like him might be exactly what the country needed.
Savage's main sources of anger these days are illegal immigrants, Islamic terrorists (a near-redundancy for him), and homosexuals. Unlike his parents, who legally emigrated to the United States, arriving in Ellis Island, illegal immigrants assault fundamental American values-or so Savage claims. They not only compromise the security of the border and bring drugs, crime, and disease with them, but they threaten the American way of life-or at least the white male way of life. In reference to Arabs, Savage has said that the "racist, fascist bigots" should be converted to Christianity because "Christianity has been one of the great salvations on planet Earth. It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings."

A Promise to the Dead

A Promise to the Dead: The Exile Journey of Ariel Dorfman is an indictment of torture and a powerful study of individual and collective memory.

Chile Under Pinochet and the Post-9/11 "War on Terror"

By Sophia A. McClennen, AlterNet.

Torture, the suspension of democracy and civil rights, illegal surveillance, forced displacement, and a culture of fear led by a despot who gains power through an act of violence committed on September 11. Sound familiar? Canadian director Peter Raymont's new documentary, A Promise to the Dead: The Exile Journey of Ariel Dorfman, covers familiar ground but in less familiar territory as he intertwines the life of Chilean writer Ariel Dorfman with the history of Chile and with the events of 9/11 in both Chile and the United States. Author of the award-winning play Death and the Maiden, Dorfman is a novelist, playwright, poet, essayist, journalist, and human rights activist. Born in Argentina in 1942, his family was forced to move to the United States in 1945 only to then become the victims of McCarthyism in 1954. They next fled to Chile, where Dorfman eventually gained citizenship. Exiled again from Chile in 1973, Dorfman has lived since the 1980s in Durham, North Carolina where he teaches at Duke University. Tracing the Dorfman family's multiple displacements, the documentary is an exploration of exile and loss, but it is equally the story of persistent hope, the survival of collective ties, and the triumph of memory.

Dorfman should have died on September 11, 1973 when a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet ousted the democratically-elected Socialist President of Chile, Salvador Allende. Dorfman served at the time as Allende's cultural advisor and his name was included on a list of government officials that would be called in the event of an attack. But he wasn't called. Rather than die alongside his friends and comrades, he lived -- and lived to tell the story. Or, as he tells readers of his memoir, Heading South, Looking North, which served as the basis for the film, "If it is not true that this was why I was saved, I have tried to make it true. In every story I tell. Haunted by the certainty that I have been keeping a promise to the dead."

The haunting presence of the dead and the even more haunting ways that the living hold radically contradictory memories of the dead form some of the central questions that guide Raymont's film. What does it mean to keep a promise to the dead? For Dorfman it means first and foremost telling the story of the thousands of Chileans who were tortured, disappeared, and exiled during the Pinochet years. It means using literature and the power of words to rescue stories that history would like us to forget. It also means being a voice for those that survived but suffered the trauma of losing loved ones. In one especially moving scene Dorfman accompanies Aleida, the daughter of Sergio Leiva, to a Chilean courthouse where he signs an affidavit confirming that he saw her father shot by a sniper while he was a refugee in the Argentine embassy. Until Dorfman's words provided a challenge to official history, she had suffered the trauma of not only losing her father but having his death completely erased from public memory.

Viewed in the current context of extraordinary renditions, secret prisons, and enemy combatants, where bodies disappear and die with no public record, Dorfman's story is both inspiring and chilling. During exile, Dorfman dedicated himself to advancing the cause of the Chilean resistance. His perfect bilingualism, due to having lived in the United States and in South America as a young man, and his skills as a writer uniquely positioned him to tell the story of the dictatorship. But, even though the exile years were spent tirelessly struggling for the return of democracy, those long years also served to distance him irremediably from Chile. This distance became painfully clear when his play, Death and the Maiden, about a torture survivor who confronts her torturer, opened in Chile to less than enthusiastic reviews. Yet it is arguably the most internationally significant play authored by a Latin American writer and has been staged across the globe -- to resounding success. After receiving an Olivier Award for its production in London, it opened on Broadway with Gene Hackman, Glenn Close, and Richard Dreyfus and was later made into a film directed by Roman Polanski and starring Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, and Stuart Wilson. But it has yet to fully reach Dorfman's intended audience. Dorfman's most internationally successful work brought the story of Chile closer to the world but left him even farther away. Rather than focus merely on Dorfman's successes as a writer, the documentary explores this gap when he has dinner with the actor, Paula Sharim, who diplomatically characterizes the play as "putting a finger in a wound."

Another scene in A Promise to the Dead presses the point of his outsider status when Dorfman appears on a television talk show with a Pinochet supporter shortly after the general's death. The debate is whether Pinochet deserves to have a military burial. Dorfman adamantly opposes the idea, arguing that a man who denies his enemies the ability to bury their dead has violated military codes of conduct. He then directly asks the program's host when he first knew about the torture conducted under Pinochet. The simple truth of Dorfman's words shocks the host and the viewer is left savoring one of those few moments when they have seen someone absolutely refuse to self-censor. It's a moment reminiscent of Stephen Colbert's speech in front of George W. Bush at the correspondent's dinner, except in this case Dorfman was dead serious.

The documentary does an excellent job of balancing between Dorfman's life and the events he has witnessed, but the real success of Raymont's film lies in the way that it captures essential features of Dorfman's aesthetic approach to writing his memoir. The memoir moves back and forth through time and across nations as it recalls the events of the coup in chapters that alternate with memories of Dorfman's life before the coup. Similarly, the film gracefully moves across time and space showing the ways that memory structures not only our sense of the past but also our dreams for the future. Memory is messy, it is flawed, it can confuse us and haunt us. A first-time visit to Dorfman's grandmother's grave reveals that she has been moved to a common unmarked burial ground. Dorfman, running from the loss of her death, had refused to remember her.

Yet memory also is what gives him strength, what inspires his writing, and what allows him to relive the extraordinary camaraderie of the Allende years. In a brilliant scene that reveals both the limits and the resilience of memory, Dorfman meets up with old friends and they reenact a pro-Allende victory march. Linked arm and arm the three men in their 60s erupt in song. When it comes time to turn, they move in opposite directions, having forgotten the actual route they used to take. As they break into laughter over the misstep, the message is clear: Some forgetting is inevitable. Some forgetting is willful. And some forgetting is criminal. When a nation has suffered radical trauma its greatest challenge is over which memories will survive, which will be suppressed, which will be fabricated, and which will be punished.

Pinochet's systematic denial of the dead, the tortured, and the exiled has drastically scarred Chile. It is impossible to watch this film and not feel deep connections between the story of Chile under Pinochet and the post 9/11/2001 world of the war on terror. At one point, Dorfman speaks about all the people who had to have known about the torture -- not just the government and the torturers, but also the people who cleaned the rooms, who cooked for the torturers, and who worked in the myriad jobs that were required to sustain them. Dorfman asks viewers to think about all of the people who knew something horrible was happening to their country and said nothing. He also visits Ground Zero in New York where the tragedy of the attacks and of the response to the attacks resonates eerily with his own memories of Chile.

Measured against these bleak experiences Raymont's film tells another story. It is a story of extraordinary hope. It is the story of the jubilance of the Allende years and the exhilaration of the vote to oust Pinochet. We watch democracy in action: first voting in a Socialist President and then removing a dictator from power. Ballots slip into a box and we think of other elections to come, other opportunities for change, other ways to keep a promise to the dead.

"A Promise to the Dead" will be shown on June 12th at the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival in New York. Go here for a full schedule.

Assassination is Hillary's Best Hope

Assassination is Hillary’s Best Hope

David Rees, HuffPost

Anybody watch Step It Up And Dance last night? HOT STUFF!

Anyway gang, I just read something remarkable. "Remarkable" as in, "It is remarkable that my eyeballs are still in my head after reading that."

In an interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader today, Hillary Clinton brought up Bobby Kennedy's June, 1968 assassination as an argument against her dropping out of the Democratic primary.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

She has a point: June is a great month for political assassinations.

Why drop out of the race before all the assassins have had their say?

After all, we know Barack Obama has received multiple death threats -- because he is black, of course, and because some of our fellow citizens think he's a secret Muslim terrorist who is going to take the oath of office on the Koran and make us all pray to Mecca five times a day with that screechy music coming over the loudspeakers(?) and then he'll crash Air Force One into the White House(?) and force our wives to wear those Muslim beekeeper helmets(?).

And the truth is, Obama has consistently failed to win over those voters who want to see him murdered.

UPDATE (5:45 PM):

In the interest of fairness, I should note that Hillary has since apologized for her curious statement. That is, she has apologized to the Kennedys.

The Ends Do Not Justify the Means

Rewarding Assassins

'Colombia: Reward for FARC Guerrilla for Killing His Commander'

by Carlos Raúl van der Weyden Velásquez



On March 7th, 2008, it was revealed that guerrilla commander José Juvenal Velandia, aka Iván Ríos, had been killed. Ríos was a member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) Secretariat, whose number two in command, Luis Édgar Devia, aka Raúl Reyes, had been killed earlier in the month, unleashing a diplomatic crisis with Ecuador, Venezuela, and Nicaragua (Reyes died in a camp inside Ecuador).



First it was thought that the Colombian Army had killed Velandia, but as the afternoon passed, the truth came to light: it turned out Pedro Pablo Montoya, aka Rojas, one of his bodyguards, had murdered Ríos to get a reward from the Colombian government:



Montoya [...] shot his boss Rios with a single bullet to the head, and then killed Ríos's girlfriend. He then cut off Ríos's right hand to take to the security forces to prove he had killed the rebel leader, a member of FARC's seven-man secretariat.



One week later, and after a controversy, on March 14, the government decided to pay Montoya and another guerrilla member a US $2.5 million reward, for the "information" which allowed Iván Ríos to be found. But according to weekly news magazine Cambio's March 13 issue, a former guerrilla gave the information which allowed the Colombian Army to infiltrate FARC's Central Bloc and, through the help of the informant, who was in contact with Rojas, which instigated the latter to kill his commander.



At the digital magazine equinoXio [es], Marsares says:



Al dificultarse su captura, se le da instrucciones para que lo mate, como efectivamente lo hizo, convirtiéndose en instigador del crimen el propio Gobierno que se coloca por encima de la ley. Sencillo. Si no puedes capturar a tu enemigo, ¡mátalo!

A Ríos se le acusaba de haber cometido delitos de lesa humanidad, crímenes de guerra y delitos comunes, es cierto, pero según la Constitución, debía comparecer ante los jueces de la República para luego de ser oído y vencido en juicio, imponérsele una pena. Su ejecución extrajudicial no diferencia al Gobierno de las que hace la misma guerrilla, porque ambas carecen de legitimidad y violan nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Al gobierno sólo le compete la labor de capturarlos, salvo un enfrentamiento armado que determine su muerte.



When his capture became difficult, they [the Colombian Army] instructed [Rojas] to kill him, as he indeed did, making the Government, who puts itself above the Law, the instigator of the crime. It's simple. If you can't capture your enemy, kill him! Ríos was accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and common crimes, that's true, but according to the Constitution, he should have appeared before the judges of the Republic to be, after being heard and defeated in trial, sentenced. His execution outside of the law does not differentiate the Government from those perpetrated by guerrilla, because both lack legitimacy and violate our legal system. The Government has the duty to capture them, unless there is an armed confrontation which determines their death.



Liberal Colombiano [es] seems to agree with Marsares in his blog:



No se pueden lograr buenos objetivos con malos medios. No se puede mejorar la seguridad y alcanzar promoviendo y pagando por asesinatos. La política de delaciones esta bien para DELACIONES. Nunca para asesinatos. El estado no debe pagar por el crimen de "Ivan Ríos" a menos que de verdad se demuestre que fue en legítima defensa. El derecho a la vida es inviolable e inalienable. [...] Ojala que lo sucedido con Rojas lleve a algunas personas a la reflexión sobre los límites de la acción estatal.

La pregunta de fondo siempre será: que le esta permitido al Estado?



You can't achieve good goals through poor means. You can't improve security by promoting and paying for murders. The tip-off policy is fine for TIP-OFFS. Never for murders. The State should not pay for Iván Ríos' crime unless it's really proved that it was in legitimate defense. The right to live is inviolable and inalienable [...] I wish what happened to Rojas leads some people to reflect about the limits of State action. The bottom question will always be: what's the State allowed to do?



Bloggings by Boz summarizes the debate. These are the pros:



Rojas did bring an end to a top FARC commander (which is the reason the reward exists), possibly saving lives in the process. Additionally, the government wants to create the incentive for other FARC combatants to desert and turn over information about their commanders, and failing to give Rojas the reward could harm that effort. This reward has the added bonus of possibly creating internal dissent within the FARC.



And here are the cons:



Most of the reasons not to give the reward focus on the fact Rojas was a FARC combatant for 16 years and confessed to murdering his commander. Private citizens murdering other citizens does not help the Colombian government's overall goal to enhance the state's legitimate authority across the country. Rewards are meant for citizens to provide information for the government to act on, not for them to act as a mercenary.



At the end, Boz finds himself



tempted to support giving the reward because I want to see the reward program work and I want to see more mid-level FARC commanders desert and turn in information about their superiors. However, a democratic state should not offer mercenary payments. It's a tough rule, but the Colombian government is not going to win back control of the state by taking short cuts.



Finally, Ricardo Buitrago Consuegra is overtly supportive of the payment [es]:



Nadie cuando se instauro la política de recompensas, previo este caso, como nadie, alcanzo nunca a imaginarse, la degradación a la que llegarían los grupos al margen de la ley y la misma sociedad. La recompensa debe pagarse. No hacerlo, seria un pésimo mensaje a miembros de la guerrilla susceptibles de delación de que el estado no cumple. Se constituiría en un retroceso en la aplicación de la política de recompensas, que ha sido fundamental, en el quiebre que ahora se vislumbra en la organización guerrillera. ¿Si el país entero se alegra por la muerte de delincuentes, cual es la razón de privar de la recompensa a quien propicia la alegría? Por lo tanto, o dejamos de ser hipócritas y aceptamos la degradación de nuestros principios, o nos convencemos que en guerra, el pago de este tipo de recompensas se mira desde otro contexto. En ambos casos, a pagar se dijo.



When the reward policy was established, no one could ever imagine to what point the illegal armed groups would go and where Colombian society would reach. The reward must be paid. Not to do it would be a dreadful message to the members of the guerrillas willing to tip-off that the State does not carry out their agreements. It would become a step back in the application of the reward policy, which has been essential getting a glimpse into the guerrilla organization. If the entire country is pleased with the death of the criminals, what's the reason to stopy the reward to those that provide that joy? Therefore, either we stop being hypocrites and accept the degradation of our own principles or become convinced that, in a war, the payment of this kind of rewards can be seen from another context. In both cases, it's time to pay.



On Wednesday it was learned that Rojas will have to answer for other crimes [es], such as "conspiracy for drug trafficking, terrorism, and multiple homicide" relating to massacres he allegedly helped to perpetrate, according to Colombia's Attorney General Office. This should keep the former FARC guerrilla in jail for a while. At the moment, Rojas is staying in a military facility in Risaralda Department, Western Colombia.



You may view the latest post at

http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/03/21/colombia-reward-for-guerrilla-man-who-killed-his-commander/

What is So Liberal about the Mass Media?

The US mass media ignores the State Department theft of nuclear secrets, the violent deaths of over one million Iraqis, the lack of US government oversight, the detention and torture of victims grabbed illegally by the CIA, the unconstitutionality of NSPD 51, the threat of martial law etc.
What 'liberal' bias do you detect?
Maybe you call them biased for not urging the lynching of Michelle Obama and the assassination of her husband.