NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, as a part of the raid, the Colombian troops seized several computer hard drives, which Colombia claimed provided evidence that linked Hugo Chavez to the group. Chavez alleged that the documents were forged by the Colombians, and as a result, Colombia requested that Interpol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol) review the hard drives to determine the legitimacy of the documents.

Interpol's review of the hard drives and the documents has recently concluded, and Interpol analysts have come to the conclusion that the documents are genuine, that they were not faked, and that the Colombian government did not fake the documents.

BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403685.stm)

What does this mean, if Chavez has been toying around in Colombian domestic affairs? The tensions that seemed to peak this March might well be back up towards skyrocketing, this time with the violation of Colombian sovereignty being far more egregious than a single strike of questionable legality in Ecuador.

Someone just got FARCed. :)

And just in time for the EU-Latin American summit. Ouch. Bad news for Chavez and Correa if they were hoping to take centre stage.

From the article:


Mr Noble said that deep forensic analyses showed Colombia did not modify, delete or create any files, although it did not always follow internationally accepted methods when handling the computers.

But he was quick to stress that the fact that the files had not been tampered with did not prove that the information contained within them was totally accurate.

But the files use codes and aliases throughout and nowhere is Mr Chavez mentioned by name.


My emphasis.

Please. Everyone knows Chavez is in league with these guys to some extent. How much is the question.


This shouldnt shock anyone.

So, what I gleaned from the article is that Colombia may have done shady things, Venezuela and Ecuador may have done shady things, the United States may have done shady things, and that everything we all pretty much already knew is, in fact, true.

It was one thing when "we all knew it". It's another when it is no longer "plausibly deniable".

It was one thing when "we all knew it". It's another when it is no longer "plausibly deniable".

Thats true. I hope now someone does something about that prick. Or at least smacks him back into his place.

From the article:



My emphasis.

What this has proved, though, is that Mr. Chavez's accusations that the Colombians had falsified or tampered with files are entirely incorrect. Interpol has certified that this is the case, even if the Colombians handled the hard drives incorrectly.

Further, the reason why Interpol has added the stipulation that it isn't certain about the accuracy of the information is because that is not their job. What they were asked to do was to certify if the Colombians had falsified the data, which they had not.

What this has proved, though, is that Mr. Chavez's accusations that the Colombians had falsified or tampered with files are entirely incorrect. Interpol has certified that this is the case, even if the Colombians handled the hard drives incorrectly.
Yeh, you see it's the whole "we did it but not to international norms or standards" bit that gets me. That's like saying "we got a confession from this suspect, but we didn't stick to international standards or norms to get it" *wink wink nudge nudge*

I'm not defending anyone, but this just seems....... dodgy?

Further, the reason why Interpol has added the stipulation that it isn't certain about the accuracy of the information is because that is not their job. What they were asked to do was to certify if the Colombians had falsified the data, which they had not.

I know.

this time with the violation of Colombian sovereignty being far more egregious than a single strike of questionable legality in Ecuador.

Well, let's be frank: The legality wasn't questionable, it just was not legal.

Effectively, we see Colombia backed by the US and Ecuador and Venezuela ALL being shady towards one another.

Thanks God for Article 84, Incise XIX, of our Constitution (the self-defense clause, it's not unlike Japan's Article 9 or Germany's Article 26.).

Thats true. I hope now someone does something about that prick. Or at least smacks him back into his place.

If you're suggesting a war here in South America...

If you're suggesting a war here in South America...

I wouldnt mind Colombia knocking him down a few pegs.


At the very least lets see some sort of diplomatic backlash.

You guys new to politics or what?

Chavez (or anyone else for that matter) will admit to doing anything short of being caught on live TV doing that.

If you're suggesting a war here in South America...

It would be good TV.

I wouldnt mind Colombia knocking him down a few pegs.

I would, because my country fucking borders both.

It would be good TV.
No actually it would be crap. A Colombia-Venezuela war would just be people stepping on landmines in the middle of the jungle.

No actually it would be crap. A Colombia-Venezuela war would just be people stepping on landmines in the middle of the jungle.

I'd hope there would be a few pitched battles. Hopefully some urban combat in the middle of a wrecked city. Kinda like those movies. We just have to make sure we have cameras in place so we can catch the action on CNN.

Yeh, you see it's the whole "we did it but not to international norms or standards" bit that gets me. That's like saying "we got a confession from this suspect, but we didn't stick to international standards or norms to get it" *wink wink nudge nudge*

I'm not defending anyone, but this just seems....... dodgy?

Maybe we're coming at it from our own biases, but it seems likely that the reason why this comment was included is because the Colombians likely just plugged the hard drives straight into their own computers and copy-pasted all the files.

It's not like you can torture a confession out of an HD, after all.

We don't need another war, let alone one so close to the U.S. I think all the rest of South America ignoring Ol' Chavez would be a big enough blow to his overinflated ego.

We don't need another war, let alone one so close to the U.S. I think all the rest of South America ignoring Ol' Chavez would be a big enough blow to his overinflated ego.

I never advocated war and I dont know why everyone thinks I did. I just said Columbia should knock him down a few pegs. I dont care how.

Yeh, you see it's the whole "we did it but not to international norms or standards" bit that gets me. That's like saying "we got a confession from this suspect, but we didn't stick to international standards or norms to get it" *wink wink nudge nudge*Are you suggesting the computers were water-motherboarded? :p
I'm not defending anyone, but this just seems....... dodgy?That they weren't always handled properly can mean anything, except that said files were falsified or manipulated to say what the Colombians claim they say.

Chavez and Equador should step up attempts to arm FARC, the sooner the far-right reactionary regime of Uribe is toppled the better.

Meh.. even if it's true, what's the real issue here? Like they'd be the first government to support/fund a revolutionary group in another country.

Or is the US just indignant because we think we're the only one's entitled to that?

Doesn't anyone think it's more concerning that President Uribe supports right-wing death squads against his own people?

Doesn't anyone think it's more concerning that President Uribe supports right-wing death squads against his own people?Proof?

From the article:
...


Hence I call fail on the OP.

Doesn't anyone think it's more concerning that President Uribe supports right-wing death squads against his own people?

Not really.

No actually it would be crap. A Colombia-Venezuela war would just be people stepping on landmines in the middle of the jungle.

For the next 20 years, given high-quality landmines.
Hey, the UN could always bomb back into the stone age the countries who still produce anti-personnel landmines! ;)

I've just read the rapport, and it's quite different from what the western mass media claim.

The first problem is that both experts were from USA-friendly country, memer of the Irak Coallition, and chosen by their own governments, which in a basically "USA against Latin America leftist leaders" affair is problematic - I'm not saying they lied, even if they might have, but if they were siding in one side, they may not have done all the efforts they could to find problems - that's just very human.

But then, if you look into the rapport, it just says that they didn't *find* any tampering. Not that there wasn't any. In addition, they said that the "proof" were not handled conforming to international standards from march 1st to march 3rd, which is more than enough for any skilled computer scientist to fake the data and make it very hard, if not impossible, to detect any tampering.

They also say they can't prove the data were from the FARC - the Colombian secret services may very easily have exchanged a USB key or a hard disc with one of their own, the Interpol report only said they didn't detect any tampering of the data from March 1st until March 10th (when they got the data).

So well, this doesn't say much - but the way the western mass media speak of it is a very demonstrative show of how biased they are in anything concerning Chávez.

What this has proved, though, is that Mr. Chavez's accusations that the Colombians had falsified or tampered with files are entirely incorrect. Interpol has certified that this is the case, even if the Colombians handled the hard drives incorrectly.

Wrong. Interpol certified they didn't *detect* tampering with the data. Not that it didn't occur. No sane computer scientist would claim that there cannot have been a tampering they didn't detect. That's why the "not following the international standard" is so problematic. They could have done anything during that time - so in fact this rapport doesn't say much.

Strange how things like this happen so conveniently for US foreign policy, it's almost like they planted it - of course they never ever do anything like that.

I've just read the rapport, and it's quite different from what the western mass media claim.This can't be good.
The first problem is that both experts were from USA-friendly country, memer of the Irak Coallition, and chosen by their own governments, which in a basically "USA against Latin America leftist leaders" affair is problematic - I'm not saying they lied, even if they might have, but if they were siding in one side, they may not have done all the efforts they could to find problems - that's just very human.Both experts were from USA friendly countries and therefore not trustworthy? WTF?
But then, if you look into the rapport, it just says that they didn't *find* any tampering. Not that there wasn't any. In addition, they said that the "proof" were not handled conforming to international standards from march 1st to march 3rd, which is more than enough for any skilled computer scientist to fake the data and make it very hard, if not impossible, to detect any tampering.They also didn't find any evidence for WMDs in Iraq, but that of course doesn't mean they aren't there. Just that they haven't been *found*.
Also, the mishandling most likely happened due to people being untrained and inexperienced with handling the things properly. That these people would then have the experience to fake the data and cover their tracks is highly unlikely.

They also say they can't prove the data were from the FARC - the Colombian secret services may very easily have exchanged a USB key or a hard disc with one of their own, the Interpol report only said they didn't detect any tampering of the data from March 1st until March 10th (when they got the data).

So well, this doesn't say much - but the way the western mass media speak of it is a very demonstrative show of how biased they are in anything concerning Chávez.Chavez is a dimwit, though. He referred to a party founded by a strong opponent of the Nazis (and founded after WWII) as a party that helped the Nazis into power.

Strange how things like this happen so conveniently for US foreign policy, it's almost like they planted it - of course they never ever do anything like that.They don't. US planted information is usually debunked. :p

That they weren't always handled properly can mean anything, except that said files were falsified or manipulated to say what the Colombians claim they say.

And why so ? According to their report, their main analysis data was the modification and access times of files on the computer - that's something I could temper with even at the age of 13. I'm pretty sure they did more checks than just that, but it's technically much, much easier to temper with data than to ensure the data were not tempered with. So assuming the Colombian secret agents and the Interpol experts have the same skill level, it would be quite easy for Colombia to fake the data in those 2 days without the Interpol guys detecting it. And they just said that "we didn't find anything".

And why so ? According to their report, their main analysis data was the modification and access times of files on the computer - that's something I could temper with even at the age of 13. I'm pretty sure they did more checks than just that, but it's technically much, much easier to temper with data than to ensure the data were not tempered with. So assuming the Colombian secret agents and the Interpol experts have the same skill level, it would be quite easy for Colombia to fake the data in those 2 days without the Interpol guys detecting it. And they just said that "we didn't find anything".I hear that same excuse from people about the Iraq War. Supposedly, us not having found the stockpiles of WMDs doesn't mean they're not there.

I hear that same excuse from people about the Iraq War. Supposedly, us not having found the stockpiles of WMDs doesn't mean they're not there.

Strange that they have not been used yet against coalition forces if they did.

Proof?

Several high-ranking members of his political party, including some of his ministers and tens of elected representative of his party are involved in "parapolitic" scandal. That's already a lot, even if Uribe is not directly implied.

But the worse is that the AUC (extreme right paramilitaries who massively killed people) growth rate was the highest in the Antioquia region, with the official support of the regional government ... while Uribe was the governor of the region !

The AUC also played a huge role in Uribe's election. According to several NGO and former high-ranking members of Colombia secret services, the terror lead by the AUC conducted to the stealing of around 300 000 votes for Uribe in 2002.

The links between Uribe and the Medelin's cartel of Pablo Escobar are also quite numerous, so much that the USA even considered Uribe to be a "politician specialised in the cooperation with the Medelin cartel" ... before he became their allies.

Strange that they have not been used yet against coalition forces if they did.It leads me to suspect they aren't there, much like there being no evidence that the files were manipulated leads me to suspect that there were no manipulations.
Several high-ranking members of his political party, including some of his ministers and tens of elected representative of his party are involved in "parapolitic" scandal. That's already a lot, even if Uribe is not directly implied.

But the worse is that the AUC (extreme right paramilitaries who massively killed people) growth rate was the highest in the Antioquia region, with the official support of the regional government ... while Uribe was the governor of the region !

The AUC also played a huge role in Uribe's election. According to several NGO and former high-ranking members of Colombia secret services, the terror lead by the AUC conducted to the stealing of around 300 000 votes for Uribe in 2002.

The links between Uribe and the Medelin's cartel of Pablo Escobar are also quite numerous, so much that the USA even considered Uribe to be a "politician specialised in the cooperation with the Medelin cartel" ... before he became their allies.And where would I find sources that corroborate this?

Both experts were from USA friendly countries and therefore not trustworthy? WTF?

Not only "from", but "chosen by the local governments". That both experts were chosen by USA-friendly countries in such a matter is troublesome, to be fair, one should been chosen by a "USA-friendly" gov, and another one by a non-"USA-friendly" gov (why not NZ instead of Australia for example ?).

They also didn't find any evidence for WMDs in Iraq, but that of course doesn't mean they aren't there. Just that they haven't been *found*.

That the experts didn't find any WMD didn't prove that the WMD didn't exist. Invading Irak with no proof of WMD was a crime, and punishing Colombia without proof of falsification would not be acceptable either. But blaming Venezuela when there is no proof that the data are genunine is, for exactly the same reason, not acceptable. The only thing we can say on this from a neutral pov is that we don't know. I tend to trust Chávez for many other reasons (like the fact Colombia lied several times in this story, for example by saying they crossed the border in the middle of a fight while in reality they bombed a sleeping camp during the night), some may trust Uribe - but the only objective fact is that we don't know.

Also, the mishandling most likely happened due to people being untrained and inexperienced with handling the things properly. That these people would then have the experience to fake the data and cover their tracks is highly unlikely.

That could cover the first few hours. Not the whole day after. When you've personal computer from your foe number 2, you don't give them for a full day to incompetent people. Or you're very dumb, which Uribe is not.

Chavez is a dimwit, though. He referred to a party founded by a strong opponent of the Nazis (and founded after WWII) as a party that helped the Nazis into power.

If you're speaking about the comments regarding the CDU, Chávez was right. He didn't say the CDU is nazis. He said they are ideological heirs of those who helped Hitler to seize power - the "democratic" right of the Weimar republic which used Hitler as a tool against the communists (until it backfired). That's a fact of history, and the ideological framework of today's CDU is very close to the one of this "democratic right". That doesn't mean they are nazis themselves.

Given how politicized this is, and how much the Reactionary Powers have to gain by this information appearing true, I think Interpol cannot be trusted.

I hear that same excuse from people about the Iraq War. Supposedly, us not having found the stockpiles of WMDs doesn't mean they're not there.

From a technical pov, it's much harder to hide stockpiles of WMO in a country without being found by an occupation army in 5 years, than faslfying the data of a computer without this being detected.

But the main difference is that: in the absence of proof, your not allowed to attack someone. That's the basis of "justice". Invading Irak with no proof of WMD was a crime. Punishing Colombia with no proof of tampering would be bad. But so will punishing Venezuela with no proof the data were genuine. When we don't know (as it is in this case), the only acceptable way of action is to not point to a culprit.

Are you suggesting the computers were water-motherboarded? :p


No, they were threatened with magnets while they were stripped of their protective casings.

Not only "from", but "chosen by the local governments". That both experts were chosen by USA-friendly countries in such a matter is troublesome, to be fair, one should been chosen by a "USA-friendly" gov, and another one by a non-"USA-friendly" gov (why not NZ instead of Australia for example ?).Australia is no longer run by John Howard, you know. And please don't bring up this "If we have two sides of a story, the truth must be in the middle" bullshit. I get that enough from people claiming Fox is an acceptable source for news.
That the experts didn't find any WMD didn't prove that the WMD didn't exist. Invading Irak with no proof of WMD was a crime, and punishing Colombia without proof of falsification would not be acceptable either. But blaming Venezuela when there is no proof that the data are genunine is, for exactly the same reason, not acceptable. The only thing we can say on this from a neutral pov is that we don't know. I tend to trust Chávez for many other reasons (like the fact Colombia lied several times in this story, for example by saying they crossed the border in the middle of a fight while in reality they bombed a sleeping camp during the night), some may trust Uribe - but the only objective fact is that we don't know.Oh, but there is proof that the data is genuine. Or are you claiming the Colombians are wrong because they're Colombian and Chavez is right because he's Chavez?
That could cover the first few hours. Not the whole day after. When you've personal computer from your foe number 2, you don't give them for a full day to incompetent people. Or you're very dumb, which Uribe is not.Uribe is also not a micromanaging dictator. Beauracracies are full of incompetent people or people that aren't skilled in everything they need to know. Considering that Colombia isn't up to Western standards in quite a lot of things, it should come as a surprise that the international standards were not met for three days instead of not met all the time.
If you're speaking about the comments regarding the CDU, Chávez was right. He didn't say the CDU is nazis. He said they are ideological heirs of those who helped Hitler to seize power - the "democratic" right of the Weimar republic which used Hitler as a tool against the communists (until it backfired). That's a fact of history, and the ideological framework of today's CDU is very close to the one of this "democratic right". That doesn't mean they are nazis themselves.The CDU was founded by Konrad Adenauer. I suggest you read up on his relations with the Nazis. Claiming that Chancellor Merkel is a political heir of Hitler is pretty much the same thing as calling her a Nazi.

No, they were threatened with magnets while they were stripped of their protective casings.Well then that clears that up. The chance that a magnet didn't destroy information and instead changed non-incriminating evidence into incriminating evidence is negligibly small.

From a technical pov, it's much harder to hide stockpiles of WMO in a country without being found by an occupation army in 5 years, than faslfying the data of a computer without this being detected.

But the main difference is that: in the absence of proof, your not allowed to attack someone. That's the basis of "justice". Invading Irak with no proof of WMD was a crime. Punishing Colombia with no proof of tampering would be bad. But so will punishing Venezuela with no proof the data were genuine. When we don't know (as it is in this case), the only acceptable way of action is to not point to a culprit.The data is there. It's up to Chavez to provide genuine evidence that he is not involved now. You can't just claim a piece of evidence is fake either. You need some form of evidence that supports your claim.

Given how politicized this is, and how much the Reactionary Powers have to gain by this information appearing true, I think Interpol cannot be trusted.Chavez has a lot more to gain and/or lose.

I've just read the rapport, and it's quite different from what the western mass media claim.

Indeed. Headlines overreacted everywhere, it seems.

The first problem is that both experts were from USA-friendly country, memer of the Irak Coallition, and chosen by their own governments, which in a basically "USA against Latin America leftist leaders" affair is problematic - I'm not saying they lied, even if they might have, but if they were siding in one side, they may not have done all the efforts they could to find problems - that's just very human.

Didn't know that Singapore was a member of the coalition and directly US friendly, but I can be mistaken. I don't think a police officer would be siding upon one side just because he belongs to a particular nationality. Sorry, but that is pulling a strawman on the experts. The nations involved here are Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. The US is not directly involved, is just as involved as Brazil, for instance, being a relative ally of one of the countries in dispute. That the experts came from a country allied with a country allied to one of the affected is just not close enough as to doubt about their objetivity.

You're french, the french president is Nicolas Sarcozy, so, I guess you are right wing and western sympathizer?

But then, if you look into the rapport, it just says that they didn't *find* any tampering. Not that there wasn't any. In addition, they said that the "proof" were not handled conforming to international standards from march 1st to march 3rd, which is more than enough for any skilled computer scientist to fake the data and make it very hard, if not impossible, to detect any tampering.

Of course, they can't say anything apart from that they didn't find any tampering. That means that so far, as good as they could know, the information wasn't tampered. In a judicial proccess, the police say "we found evidence" or "there wasn't any evidence", they hardly say "he's guilty" or "he's innocent".

And Chávez biased himself bashing the Interpol so hard for what they did. I think they were pretty objective in what they did. They didn't say "it is true that the venezuelan and ecuatorian goverments helped the FARC", they are just saying that as far as they can find, the information wasn't tampered with. They even made the remark that the complete set of information could had been falsified in the first place, because they cannot corroborate the source of it.

If you're speaking about the comments regarding the CDU, Chávez was right. He didn't say the CDU is nazis. He said they are ideological heirs of those who helped Hitler to seize power - the "democratic" right of the Weimar republic which used Hitler as a tool against the communists (until it backfired). That's a fact of history, and the ideological framework of today's CDU is very close to the one of this "democratic right". That doesn't mean they are nazis themselves.


He said. "She belongs to the same ideological right that helped Hitler to rise to power".

And please don't bring up this "If we have two sides of a story, the truth must be in the middle" bullshit.

I'm not saying that at all - I personally believe that it's very likely that the data was faked. But I say that objectively, we have to admit we don't know, we no proof in a sense or another.

Oh, but there is proof that the data is genuine.

No, and even Interpol says there is none.

Or are you claiming the Colombians are wrong because they're Colombian and Chavez is right because he's Chavez?

Well, no. But since Colombia lied several times since the beginning of this whole affair, I'm not inclined into believing them - even ignoring my opinion of Uribe and Chávez.

Claiming that Chancellor Merkel is a political heir of Hitler is pretty much the same thing as calling her a Nazi.

Chávez never said Merkel is a political heir of Hitler. She said she's the political heir of people who helped Hitler to seize power - that's quite different. I'm pretty sure that many of those who helped Hitler to seize power in their fight against the communists later on regretted their act, and were sincerely not wanting things to end up this way. But that doesn't change the fact that Merkel is the political heir of an ideology which considered it acceptable to cooperate with Hitler when it suited their need - and that's dangerous in itself, and especially when judging with whom Merkel allies herself now.

The data is there. It's up to Chavez to provide genuine evidence that he is not involved now. You can't just claim a piece of evidence is fake either. You need some form of evidence that supports your claim.

When the evidence comes out of nowhere from your well-known ennemy, no, it's up to him to prove it's real.

Didn't know that Singapore was a member of the coalition and directly US friendly, but I can be mistaken.

It is, as far as I could check.

The nations involved here are Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. The US is not directly involved, is just as involved as Brazil, for instance, being a relative ally of one of the countries in dispute.

Hum, no, the USA is directly involved because of the "Plan Colombia". There is nothing comparable to that between Brazil and Ecuador or Venezuela. Brazil is not training Venezuela secret services, doesn't have many military bases and personal in Venezuela, isn't directly working with the Venezuela military in the war against a common enemy, and so on.

That the experts came from a country allied with a country allied to one of the affected is just not close enough as to doubt about their objetivity. You're french, the french president is Nicolas Sarcozy, so, I guess you are right wing and western sympathizer?

As I already said the problem is not they are from those countries - but that they were chosen by the governments of those countries. Sarkozy would never have chosen me to represent France in such a "hot" matter, to take your example.

He said. "She belongs to the same ideological right that helped Hitler to rise to power".

Exactly. "That helped Hitler to rise to power" is not "that Hitler belonged to". It's an historical fact that german's "democratic" right helped Hitler to raise to power, hoping to use him to destroy the german communists and then discard him - but the plan didn't work as expected.

Chávez never said Merkel is a political heir of Hitler. She said she's the political heir of people who helped Hitler to seize power - that's quite different. I'm pretty sure that many of those who helped Hitler to seize power in their fight against the communists later on regretted their act, and were sincerely not wanting things to end up this way. But that doesn't change the fact that Merkel is the political heir of an ideology which considered it acceptable to cooperate with Hitler when it suited their need - and that's dangerous in itself, and especially when judging with whom Merkel allies herself now.

Merkel was 1) Born after WW2, 2) Raised in Eastern Germany. So, how can Chavez ever consider Merkel a heir of 'Hitler voters' ?

Also, how can one still, in 2008, link a modern christian-democrat ideology to voters' emotions in 1933 ?

Merkel was 1) Born after WW2, 2) Raised in Eastern Germany. So, how can Chavez ever consider Merkel a heir of 'Hitler voters' ?

Well, because she is ? You can consider myself a "heir of Stalin supporters" because I belong to a political party which, in its time and before I was born, supported Stalin. I strongly oppose Stalin, and consider this support to Stalin to be the greatest error in the history of my political movement, but yes, I'm the heir of an ideology which supported Stalin in a given context, and I'm aware of that. And I use this as a warning to avoid doing the same dramatic error again, and to not follow blindly this "ideology". That doesn't make me a Stalin supporter - but that's a fact I have to accept, even if it greatly displease me. The same goes for Merkel. She is the ideological heir of the socially conservative, economically liberal right which, in 1933, chose to support Hitler - she has to accept this fact, and draw lessons from it, instead of yelling when someone tells her this truth.

The same goes for Merkel. She is the ideological heir of the socially conservative, economically liberal right which, in 1933, chose to support Hitler - she has to accept this fact, and draw lessons from it, instead of yelling when someone tells her this truth.

Fair enough, but Chavez' remark was meant rather offensively than telling a truth because it was a response to German critique of Venezuela's policy, and because he swallowed a remark 'Merkel can go to .....''

And she didn't yell, in fact, she didn't give official response.

Exactly. "That helped Hitler to rise to power" is not "that Hitler belonged to". It's an historical fact that german's "democratic" right helped Hitler to raise to power, hoping to use him to destroy the german communists and then discard him - but the plan didn't work as expected.

Yeah, I was just providing the exact quote, nothing else.

Well, at least I've never heard of Merkel trying to change constitution so she can be in power forever and ever.

Face it, fellows, Chavez wants to be South America's Castro. Although the old Fidel had his merits back in the 50s, everyone knows he turned Cuba into a "Corrupt Ditactorship" :)

Doesn't anyone think it's more concerning that President Uribe supports right-wing death squads against his own people?

You'd have no-problem with it if my edit was the situation \/
Doesn't anyone think it's more concerning that President Uribe supports communist death squads against his own people?

Well, at least I've never heard of Merkel trying to change constitution so she can be in power forever and ever.

She doesn't need to, there is already no term limits in Germany.

Edit: actually there is for the "president" which has few power, no for the chancellor, which has the real power (and which Merkel is).

Edit 2: Uribe also did the same change... and wants to do it again. But unlike Chávez he did it without a referendum. But no one complained.

Not only "from", but "chosen by the local governments". That both experts were chosen by USA-friendly countries in such a matter is troublesome, to be fair, one should been chosen by a "USA-friendly" gov, and another one by a non-"USA-friendly" gov (why not NZ instead of Australia for example ?).

The Rudd government, though, is significantly different from its predecessor, and is likely no more friendly no more hostile towards the US and/or Latin America than New Zealand.

To say that because the investigators come from a US-friendly country disqualifies them from judging fairly is to paint with an exceedingly broad brush, and is an invalid argument. OcceanDrive tried to make that argument in the past, and he wasn't able to offer any more than sweeping generalizations.


That could cover the first few hours. Not the whole day after. When you've personal computer from your foe number 2, you don't give them for a full day to incompetent people. Or you're very dumb, which Uribe is not.

It certainly wasn't Uribe himself handling the computers and the documentation, it was Colombian government officials, military officers and police officers. Likely, some low-level Lieutenant or bureaucrat who excitedly plugged the drives into their laptops in the field.



If you're speaking about the comments regarding the CDU, Chávez was right. He didn't say the CDU is nazis. He said they are ideological heirs of those who helped Hitler to seize power - the "democratic" right of the Weimar republic which used Hitler as a tool against the communists (until it backfired). That's a fact of history, and the ideological framework of today's CDU is very close to the one of this "democratic right". That doesn't mean they are nazis themselves.

In other words: "If you think differently than I, then you're a Nazi apologist." He wasn't admonishing Merkel to be worried about the potential for the Nazis to rise to power. He's not some sort of wise political guru looking out for the civil and political rights of the German people. He doesn't give two shits about civil and political rights anywhere.

Nazism is not a realistic threat in modern Germany. He's attempting to specifically discredit the Merkel government in the eyes of some audience or another, and more generally to discredit the moderate right opposition. We all know he hates it when people disagree with him. This was in reaction to a criticism of his government by the Merkel government. It is totally different from the legitimate criticism that you're trying to portray it as.

He's acting like a juvenile forum N00B, whose only arguments are the goofy ones.

Although the old Fidel had his merits back in the 50s, everyone knows he turned Cuba into a "Corrupt Ditactorship" :)

A lot of things can be said on Cuba, the dictatorship part is very arguable (that's not the topic so I'll stop here), but the corrupt part is definitely not true - especially if you compare with the situation in most of latin america, and of before the Cuban Revolution.

A lot of things can be said on Cuba, the dictatorship part is very arguable (that's not the topic so I'll stop here), but the corrupt part is definitely not true - especially if you compare with the situation in most of latin america, and of before the Cuban Revolution.

Cuba: Home of the World's Second "Communist" Monarchy.

Hence I call fail on the OP.

You really can't call fail on this one, unless you've tied Chavez to your own political beliefs, in spite of the fact that he's the one who's made of fail.

The Rudd government, though, is significantly different from its predecessor, and is likely no more friendly no more hostile towards the US and/or Latin America than New Zealand.

The Rudd government is less fanatically pro-USA, that's true - but unlike what happened in Spain or Italy for example, they didn't withdraw from the "coalition" in Irak. So they are still much more pro-USA than the huge majority of countries of the world - including most "western democracies'.

To say that because the investigators come from a US-friendly country disqualifies them from judging fairly is to paint with an exceedingly broad brush, and is an invalid argument.

As I already said twice after, the problem is not they come from such countries, but that they were chosen by the government of such countries - that is much more problematic.

It certainly wasn't Uribe himself handling the computers and the documentation, it was Colombian government officials, military officers and police officers. Likely, some low-level Lieutenant or bureaucrat who excitedly plugged the drives into their laptops in the field.

That could have explained the first few hours. It is totally unrealistic to pretend that Uribe wasn't informed in a few hours that they found massive amount of computers and storage (if they did, we still have absolutely no proof that those even belonged to Reyes once), and that he or his very close advisers didn't give orders to what to do with them.

In other words: "If you think differently than I, then you're a Nazi apologist."

Well, that's what Uribe and Bush do with "if you think differently than us, then you're terrorists apologists" ;)

He wasn't admonishing Merkel to be worried about the potential for the Nazis to rise to power. He's not some sort of wise political guru looking out for the civil and political rights of the German people.

Not in Germany, indeed. But he was certainly keeping in his mind the fascist coup in 2002 against him, and the Pinochet history too. He was more warning Merkel to not do the same error *in South America*. That is, that by supporting people who oppose her political ennemies (the german communists in 1933, the "bolivarian left" in 2008), she is supporting fascist people (Hitler in 1933, Carmona in 2002). And that's very dangerous. And yes, Merkel was not in power in 2002, but that's the idea. He warns Merkel to not support the fascist right in South America as her political side did support Hitler in 1933.

The Rudd government is less fanatically pro-USA, that's true - but unlike what happened in Spain or Italy for example, they didn't withdraw from the "coalition" in Irak. So they are still much more pro-USA than the huge majority of countries of the world - including most "western democracies'.

Then you can count Singapore as such, because they withdrew in 2005. We have our balance.

As I already said twice after, the problem is not they come from such countries, but that they were chosen by the government of such countries - that is much more problematic.

Were objections raised at the time of appointment from elsewhere in the international community, or from other member states in Interpol? If there were any raised, then I would appreciate hearing them. So far, the only way you can discredit these individuals is by making this argument, which is questionable at best, and likely a total fallacy.

That could have explained the first few hours. It is totally unrealistic to pretend that Uribe wasn't informed in a few hours that they found massive amount of computers and storage (if they did, we still have absolutely no proof that those even belonged to Reyes once), and that he or his very close advisers didn't give orders to what to do with them.

As it stands, at this point in time we don't know how, exactly, the hard drives were handled. Knowing my professional experience with the security apparatus of my own country, I wouldn't be surprised if out of sheer incompetence the information hadn't trickled up to the higher levels of government, or was mishandled without anyone higher up recognizing the fact for several days.



Well, that's what Uribe and Bush do with "if you think differently than us, then you're terrorists apologists" ;)

Irrelevant, and slightly tu quoqueish. I'm neither defending Bush nor Uribe. I'm condemning Chavez.



Not in Germany, indeed. But he was certainly keeping in his mind the fascist coup in 2002 against him, and the Pinochet history too. He was more warning Merkel to not do the same error *in South America*. That is, that by supporting people who oppose her political ennemies (the german communists in 1933, the "bolivarian left" in 2008), she is supporting fascist people (Hitler in 1933, Carmona in 2002). And that's very dangerous. And yes, Merkel was not in power in 2002, but that's the idea. He warns Merkel to not support the fascist right in South America as her political side did support Hitler in 1933.

He's not warning prudence of any sort. He's tossing a juvenile insult at someone who disagrees with his policies, nothing more.

Then you can count Singapore as such, because they withdrew in 2005. We have our balance.

Not exactly, they had intermittent presences until 2006, but the point still holds that they are a close ally of USA, and didn't withdraw because they disagree with the Irak invasion or with global USA policies - only because they are a tiny country.

So far, the only way you can discredit these individuals is by making this argument, which is questionable at best, and likely a total fallacy.

I'm not "discrediting them", I'm issuing a warning. And I definitely do not see how it is a fallacy to say "the experts were chosen by people (govs) who are not neutral in the conflict, but have a sympathy for one side". That's totally valid argument.

As it stands, at this point in time we don't know how, exactly, the hard drives were handled.

Which in itself is enough to disqualify any "proof" in them.

Irrelevant, and slightly tu quoqueish. I'm neither defending Bush nor Uribe. I'm condemning Chavez.

You're defending that Uribe and Bush say the truth and Chávez and Correa lie. I'm defending the opposite position. So it's exactly as relevant as your own argument - that is, only slightly relevant.

He's not warning prudence of any sort. He's tossing a juvenile insult at someone who disagrees with his policies, nothing more.

That's your own judgment, which is quite incoherent to what Chávez said. If it was a "juvenile insult", he would have called her "Hitler supporter" or "Hitler nostalgic". The fact that he pointed to a true historical fact, totally meaningful in the context (of the foreign support from European and USA right to the extreme right groups in South America, including those who were behind the coup of 2002), is contradictory with your "juvenile" judgment on him. It was a very wise accusation - even if a bit exaggerated.

From the article:

My emphasis.

Interpol says they are "genuine". It also ties the FARC to the Venezuelan government.

Who is the Venezuelan government?

Chavez.

If you're going to have people say, "Bush knew about interrogation techniques" then you're going to have to say, "Chavez knew about supporting the FARC".

Just because we don't have a document with Bush's signature on it saying, "Waterboard their asses" dosen't mean he didn't know.

That's the same argument that people use when they say, "Hitler never ordered the Holocaust, and knew nothing about it" because he wasn't at the Wannsee Conference.

The fact that he pointed to a true historical fact, totally meaningful in the context (of the foreign support from European and USA right to the extreme right groups in South America, including those who were behind the coup of 2002), is contradictory with your "juvenile" judgment on him. It was a very wise accusation - even if a bit exaggerated.

Merkel doesn't support extremist right groups, and has never said she does. She criticized Chavez because he suggested all of South America supports Chavez' ideals, which Merkel denounces. Chavez wasn't 'wise', he was provoking. And he supports the FARC group, so what's your point ?

Interpol says they are "genuine".

It also says it cannot certify it belonged to the FARC, and that the computers were handled in violation of international norms. So, if you take care of reading the rapport to the end, it doesn't really conclude anything.

Not exactly, they had intermittent presences until 2006, but the point still holds that they are a close ally of USA, and didn't withdraw because they disagree with the Irak invasion or with global USA policies - only because they are a tiny country.

They're no longer within that coalition, though.



I'm not "discrediting them", I'm issuing a warning. And I definitely do not see how it is a fallacy to say "the experts were chosen by people (govs) who are not neutral in the conflict, but have a sympathy for one side". That's totally valid argument.

No, no it isn't. The links between Colombia, Singapore and Australia are tertiary links, through another power. Their governments are not having policy dictated to them by the US. These states are not some sort of monolithic bloc taking command from a central authority, after all.

Further, the lack of condemnation from the rest of the international community, or any challenges to their determination or qualifications from inside Interpol gives them a significantly greater degree of credibility than your charge could ever take away.

What you're trying to argue is the equivalent of the "Satanic Cult" defense husbands who murder their wives try.

Which in itself is enough to disqualify any "proof" in them.

No, actually, it isn't. And by "we", I mean the denizens of Nationstates General.

As it stands, the experts have indicated that there is no evidence that the data was tampered with, and that is plenty sufficient.



You're defending that Uribe and Bush say the truth and Chávez and Correa lie. I'm defending the opposite position. So it's exactly as relevant as your own argument - that is, only slightly relevant.

I'm arguing that Chavez is closely linked to FARC, it's not that difficult of a money trail to follow, especially given his behaviors towards said group.

Further, there is a significant degree of evidence, especially if this data is verified, that Chavez does indeed have ties to a terrorist organization, whilst there is no evidence that Merkel has any sort of ties to Nazis or fascists, internally or in Latin America.



That's your own judgment, which is quite incoherent to what Chávez said. If it was a "juvenile insult", he would have called her "Hitler supporter" or "Hitler nostalgic". The fact that he pointed to a true historical fact, totally meaningful in the context (of the foreign support from European and USA right to the extreme right groups in South America, including those who were behind the coup of 2002), is contradictory with your "juvenile" judgment on him. It was a very wise accusation - even if a bit exaggerated.

More than slightly exaggerated, dear. References to Hitler (see: George Bush before the Knesset) in the modern international arena are just as appropriate as calling the leader of another country "the devil". Chavez has a record of this sort of ridiculous polemics to make even George seem straightforward. This is an inappropriate comparison.

It also says it cannot certify it belonged to the FARC, and that the computers were handled in violation of international norms. So, if you take care of reading the rapport to the end, it doesn't really conclude anything.

First off, the word is "report", not "rapport". A "rapport" is a noun that describes when two or more people are "in sync", or "of the same mind". A report is something that is written and published.

Further, the Interpol investigators used language that significantly downplays the degree to which these norms were violated.

Further, documents found on the computers include more than just these files that indicate ties to Venezuela. There are photographs, videos and music. There is even a photograph of Reyes working on the laptop from which these files were pulled.

Further, it does conclude that the files were not tampered with.

Your pro-Chavez bias is like the pro-Bush bias that many people seem to have, it's blinding you to the straightforward conclusions of the international community, once again proving my assertion that Chavez and Bush have far more in common than most people realize.

Exactly. "That helped Hitler to rise to power" is not "that Hitler belonged to". It's an historical fact that german's "democratic" right helped Hitler to raise to power, hoping to use him to destroy the german communists and then discard him - but the plan didn't work as expected.Indeed it is. Unfortunately for Chavez, neither Merkel nor the party she's from, nor even the party that's considered the predecessor for her party are part of said right, democratic or no.

Merkel doesn't support extremist right groups, and has never said she does.

The CDU supported the fascist TV "RCTV" (which participated in organizing the coup of 2002, and called to the murder of the president), and backed the EU parliament resolution condemning the sovereign right of Venezuela to not a renew an expired license on a hertzian frequency. That's already a lot.

And I'm pretty sure that if you dig more, you'll find much more example of collusions and aid between the CDU and the right of Venezuela, which by participating into the fascist coup of 2002, and ratifying the Carmona decree (which abolished the Constitution, dissolved the Parliament and the Supreme Court, and suspended all guarantees).

That's what Chávez was warning her about - that by opposing him, she's siding with fascists.

She criticized Chavez because he suggested all of South America supports Chavez' ideals, which Merkel denounces.

Well, showing he's the most popular of the region according to polls, and that all countries elect allies of Chávez one after the other (the most recent being Paraguay), it's not too broad to claim that South America in general support the main policies of Chávez (wealth redistribution, South America unification, and refusal of US imperialism).

Chavez wasn't 'wise', he was provoking.

He does provoke. That's also a good point in him - he breaks the ice of political correctness and not saying things that everyone think but no one dares to say. Sometimes he goes a bit too far, but on the core, he's right, and that's what matter. Where he is wise is that the core is often exactly to the point - and it definitely was in saying to Merkel: "remember, by supporting anyone who oppose their enemies, your own political side ended up supporting Hitler... don't do the same with us". That's a fundamental thing.

And he supports the FARC group, so what's your point ?

That's what all this thread is about - and I stay to my arguments: in no way the Interpol rapport can be used to claim "Chávez supports the FARC". Any attempt to do so is either a lie or a mistake.

No, no it isn't. The links between Colombia, Singapore and Australia are tertiary links, through another power. Their governments are not having policy dictated to them by the US. These states are not some sort of monolithic bloc taking command from a central authority, after all.

That's irrelevant. Through Plan Colombia, the Colombia services, armies and policies to fight the FARC are done in a complete cooperation, and often under direct supervision, from USA. Their services are directly trained by USA agents. When the FARC are involved, anything that involves Colombia involves the USA too, directly.

Further, the lack of condemnation from the rest of the international community, or any challenges to their determination or qualifications from inside Interpol gives them a significantly greater degree of credibility than your charge could ever take away.

That's just a fallacy. My argument can hold or not hold, and the reaction of the "international community" has absolutely nothing to do with it. The experts were chosen by entities who are not neutral in the conflict. That's a fact. And that's a problem. End of it. Unless you can disprove one of those two, which you can't.

What you're trying to argue is the equivalent of the "Satanic Cult" defense husbands who murder their wives try.

I don't know satanic cults or their defense well, so I don't get your point here.

As it stands, the experts have indicated that there is no evidence that the data was tampered with, and that is plenty sufficient.

Oh, really ? That's just ridiculous. Just because I can't prove you cheated in a game, it means you didn't cheat ? As I said, as a computer scientist I'm very well aware that tampering with data is WAY more easy than detecting any tampering in them. So that it wasn't found doesn't mean it never occurs - and as long as they acknowledge than for during more than one full day the "proof" were not handled according to international standards, it can very well mean they have been tampered with - and therefore they also of their values as "proofs".

I'm arguing that Chavez is closely linked to FARC,

With is a FUD spread since 10 years and never proven since. And quite surprising because Chávez never hid his "sulfurous" friendship and doesn't care about PC. If he really supported the FARC, he would say it openly.

it's not that difficult of a money trail to follow, especially given his behaviors towards said group.

Which was never done, once again proving there is no link between the two.

Further, there is a significant degree of evidence, especially if this data is verified, that Chavez does indeed have ties to a terrorist organization,

First, the FARC hardly qualify as terrorists. They are drug dealers, murderers and kidnappers, but hardly terrorists.

Then, this is the first item that remotely looks like an "evidence" of ties between Chávez and the FARC.

And finally, as we saw, those "evidences" were not handled according to international standards, and could very easily have been tampered with - so they are not a proof.

whilst there is no evidence that Merkel has any sort of ties to Nazis or fascists, internally or in Latin America.

There is clear evidence that the CDU supported the fascist TV channel "RCTV" which supported the coup of 2002 and called to the murder of the President. That's more than anything you have linking Chávez and the FARC.

That's what all this thread is about - and I stay to my arguments: in no way the Interpol rapport can be used to claim "Chávez supports the FARC". Any attempt to do so is either a lie or a mistake.

Which is why I've been using (or at least thinking of using, I cannot recall) the word "if", in the event that this does turn out to be true.

First off, the word is "report", not "rapport". A "rapport" is a noun that describes when two or more people are "in sync", or "of the same mind". A report is something that is written and published.

Hum, sorry, remember that I'm not a native englishs peaker.

Further, the Interpol investigators used language that significantly downplays the degree to which these norms were violated.

That's not what I got from the french version. Translation issue ? Maybe I should read the english one.

Further, documents found on the computers include more than just these files that indicate ties to Venezuela. There are photographs, videos and music. There is even a photograph of Reyes working on the laptop from which these files were pulled.

And what does that proof ? And if you're referring of the photo of Reyes with a ministry from Ecuador... that has been debucked to be a lie of Colombia quite a long time ago, the guy on the photo is an Argentinian politician, not a ministry of the Correa government.

Further, it does conclude that the files were not tampered with.

No, it concludes they didn't detect any tampering. Anyway affirming it was not tampered with is necessarily a fool, as anyone claiming that a computer network is "unhackable" or a software "free of bugs" is a fool. There is absolutely no way to be sure something was not tampered with - as long as skilled person as a few hours with direct access to the hardware, ANYTHING can be put in it in a way that no tampering will ever be detected. Unless the tamperer does a mistake, which is of course always possible too.

Your pro-Chavez bias is like the pro-Bush bias that many people seem to have, it's blinding you to the straightforward conclusions of the international community, once again proving my assertion that Chavez and Bush have far more in common than most people realize.

I don't have any pro-Chávez bias, and I do criticize him when he does things that displease me, like when he plays friend with Iran. But this whole computer is just totally ridiculous from my point of view of computer scientist, so I'm a bit fed up with it, that's true.

Indeed it is. Unfortunately for Chavez, neither Merkel nor the party she's from, nor even the party that's considered the predecessor for her party are part of said right, democratic or no.

Her ideology, values and views of the society are. Which is what matter.

Her ideology, values and views of the society are. Which is what matter.Now that's just fucking stupid. Her values certainly are not somehow supportive of Nazism.

Now that's just fucking stupid. Her values certainly are not somehow supportive of Nazism.

Once again, Chávez didn't accuse her of being "supportive of Nazism", he accused her of being part of the political family and ideology which, in a given situation, chose to support Hitler as a "lesser evil" to counter what they perceived a "greater evil", that is the communists. And warning her to not commit the same error, by helping people which she may consider the "lesser evil" (the latin american extreme right) in opposing the "bolivarian left". That has nothing to do with saying she's supportive of nazism !

That's irrelevant. Through Plan Colombia, the Colombia services, armies and policies to fight the FARC are done in a complete cooperation, and often under direct supervision, from USA. Their services are directly trained by USA agents. When the FARC are involved, anything that involves Colombia involves the USA too, directly.

Neither Singapore nor Australia, though, are even remotely closely linked to the Plan Colombia, and neither are involved in this conflict. They are neutral parties.



That's just a fallacy. My argument can hold or not hold, and the reaction of the "international community" has absolutely nothing to do with it. The experts were chosen by entities who are not neutral in the conflict. That's a fact. And that's a problem. End of it. Unless you can disprove one of those two, which you can't.

These parties are neutral in this conflict, though. It is a stretch to link them to Colombia, and it requires linking their involvement in the war in Iraq, to the US, and then linking the US to this issue. Singapore and Australia are neutral in this conflict, and only obfuscation, such as what you're trying to do, can make it seem that they are not.

Your claims are more than a stretch. They're absurd.

Further, if any questions of the legitimacy of their appointments existed, then this objections could have been addressed upon their appointment.



I don't know satanic cults or their defense well, so I don't get your point here.

It's obfuscation, trying to create doubt by positing a theory that can explain the situation, but that there is absolutely no evidence of such a plot existing.



Oh, really ? That's just ridiculous. Just because I can't prove you cheated in a game, it means you didn't cheat ? As I said, as a computer scientist I'm very well aware that tampering with data is WAY more easy than detecting any tampering in them. So that it wasn't found doesn't mean it never occurs - and as long as they acknowledge than for during more than one full day the "proof" were not handled according to international standards, it can very well mean they have been tampered with - and therefore they also of their values as "proofs".

These were not mere amateurs who were reviewing the files, and we don't know what violations of international standards occurred. Until then, I'm withholding judgement.



With is a FUD spread since 10 years and never proven since. And quite surprising because Chávez never hid his "sulfurous" friendship and doesn't care about PC. If he really supported the FARC, he would say it openly.

Looking at how he has handed the FARC, and behaved in relation to them, and the moral support he has offered them creates a question that is legitimate.







First, the FARC hardly qualify as terrorists. They are drug dealers, murderers and kidnappers, but hardly terrorists.

They utilize terrorist tactics, especially the use of murder and kidnapping, for the purposes of creating terror and influencing the body politic, and the leadership of Colombia.



And finally, as we saw, those "evidences" were not handled according to international standards, and could very easily have been tampered with - so they are not a proof.

Once again, we need to understand how these deviations occurred, and what these deviations are.


There is clear evidence that the CDU supported the fascist TV channel "RCTV" which supported the coup of 2002 and called to the murder of the President. That's more than anything you have linking Chávez and the FARC.

There remain other issues in the CDU's support of the RCTV, and none of them have to do with their behavior during or prior to the coup d'etat. Specifically, concerns about the government using it's ability to control the airwaves for political goals.

Her ideology, values and views of the society are. Which is what matter.

That's ridiculous. None of those things are indicative of a support for Nazism. Once again, as Laerod is indicating, Chavez is using polemic to demonize someone who should not be demonized.

Hum, sorry, remember that I'm not a native englishs peaker.

I learned the German word for report in my first year of studying that language, I thought that it was a common word that should be understood.



That's not what I got from the french version. Translation issue ? Maybe I should read the english one.

What I got from the English version was that the irregularities were in how the hard drives were handled and accessed shortly after they were acquired.



And what does that proof ? And if you're referring of the photo of Reyes with a ministry from Ecuador... that has been debucked to be a lie of Colombia quite a long time ago, the guy on the photo is an Argentinian politician, not a ministry of the Correa government.

I'm referring to a propaganda photo of Reyes working on the Computer (the famed "socialist intellectual" pose) in the encampment.



No, it concludes they didn't detect any tampering. Anyway affirming it was not tampered with is necessarily a fool, as anyone claiming that a computer network is "unhackable" or a software "free of bugs" is a fool. There is absolutely no way to be sure something was not tampered with - as long as skilled person as a few hours with direct access to the hardware, ANYTHING can be put in it in a way that no tampering will ever be detected. Unless the tamperer does a mistake, which is of course always possible too.

I believe the standard that should be applied is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond the pale of possibility".

Further, in depth examination of the computer can help to determine if the hardware was altered.



I don't have any pro-Chávez bias, and I do criticize him when he does things that displease me, like when he plays friend with Iran. But this whole computer is just totally ridiculous from my point of view of computer scientist, so I'm a bit fed up with it, that's true.

You have repeatedly expressed your admiration for Chavez on this forum, and your political stances would indicate such a support. As it stands, you don't have access to the information that the experts have, and the ridiculous stretches you've made as ad hominems against the INTERPOL experts add further evidence.

As is your strange attempts to justify Chavez's behavior in the international arena, especially when foreign leaders disagree with him. Straight up, his comments towards Merkel are ridiculous and inappropriate.

Once again, Chávez didn't accuse her of being "supportive of Nazism", he accused her of being part of the political family and ideology which, in a given situation, chose to support Hitler as a "lesser evil" to counter what they perceived a "greater evil", that is the communists. And warning her to not commit the same error, by helping people which she may consider the "lesser evil" (the latin american extreme right) in opposing the "bolivarian left". That has nothing to do with saying she's supportive of nazism !But that's not even true! Back in the days of the Weimar Republic, her ideology wanted to ban the Nazis, and the only one that could seriously have been accused of cooperating with them, von Papen, got kicked out when he did!

And prove that she's supporting the latin American extreme right (yes, prove that RCTV actually is hardcore fascist).

Neither Singapore nor Australia, though, are even remotely closely linked to the Plan Colombia, and neither are involved in this conflict. They are neutral parties.

So you would say friends of the wife of one of the parties are neutral ?

These parties are neutral in this conflict, though.

The conflict is between USA-Colombia on one side, Venezuela-Ecuador on this other side. And those countries are, politically, supportive of USA, and opponent of the "bolivarian", "socialist" government of Venezuela and Ecuador. The war in Irak was a very significant proof of this bias, but it's not the only one. Consider their issues about free trade, free market, about socialism, ... and you'll clearly see which whom they side.

Neutrality hardly exist in politics.

Further, if any questions of the legitimacy of their appointments existed, then this objections could have been addressed upon their appointment.

Your argument remind US courts argument in the Mumia case saying "yes, you have valid arguments to show you're innocent, but they come too late, so we'll not consider them, go to the execution room". It's just ridiculous.

These were not mere amateurs who were reviewing the files,

And ? Colombian secret services are no mere amateur either. Especially since they work so closely with USA ones - you know, the best founded intelligence services of the world ?

and we don't know what violations of international standards occurred. Until then, I'm withholding judgement.

Withholding judgment is sane. Claiming those files are valid proofs is not.


Looking at how he has handed the FARC, and behaved in relation to them, and the moral support he has offered them creates a question that is legitimate.

The moral support he has offered them ? He called them plenty of time to stop taking hostages and to release them all. Yes, he said he's ready to consider them as legitimate belligerent - IF they accept to respect the Geneva conventions, which means liberating the hostages. Which is a very sane way to find an issue to the crisis, liberating the hostages, and opening a way to a peaceful solution (you can negotiate with a legitimate belligerent much more easily than with an illegal criminal group). That's not a support for the FARC.

They utilize terrorist tactics, especially the use of murder and kidnapping, for the purposes of creating terror and influencing the body politic, and the leadership of Colombia.

Unlike the AUC, the FARC doesn't murder at random to terrorize people. They fight a war, and for that they kill. They kill people who oppose them, or those who are unlucky to be too close - that's being criminal, that's not being terrorists. As for the kidnapping, they don't kidnap people to terrorize the population, they kidnap to exchange them against their own prisoners. Which doesn't make it acceptable, but that's NOT terrorism.

There remain other issues in the CDU's support of the RCTV, and none of them have to do with their behavior during or prior to the coup d'etat. Specifically, concerns about the government using it's ability to control the airwaves for political goals.

Denying to a democratically elected government the right to enforce the law and constitution of his country and to withdraw a license from a group which used it to organize and support a fascist coup is totally unacceptable. How would you react if a german TV supported a coup against Merkel, called to have her murdered, and that when Merkel, in accordance to the laws of germany, don't renew the license of this TV channel, but Chávez then supports the channel ? Wouldn't you be outraged ? You would be right to be.

That's ridiculous. None of those things are indicative of a support for Nazism. Once again, as Laerod is indicating, Chavez is using polemic to demonize someone who should not be demonized.No, Chavez is trying to distract from her comment that Mr. overblown ego isn't the voice of Latin America by comparing her to Hitler.

I learned the German word for report in my first year of studying that language, I thought that it was a common word that should be understood.


Rapport/report = when written down they can be easily confused phonetically.

I learned the German word for report in my first year of studying that language, I thought that it was a common word that should be understood.

Well, the french word for "report" is "rapport", so you can understand my confusion I hope, but anyway, sorry ;)

What I got from the English version was that the irregularities were in how the hard drives were handled and accessed shortly after they were acquired.

During the first 36 hours, which is more than "shortly", and way more than enough for a competent computer scientist to temper with the data in a way hard to detect - if even possible to detect.

I'm referring to a propaganda photo of Reyes working on the Computer (the famed "socialist intellectual" pose) in the encampment.

How is that relevant to the case ?

Further, in depth examination of the computer can help to determine if the hardware was altered.

According to the report, the Interpol guys did a copy and then studied the copy at home. So they couldn't detect tempering on the hardware. But you don't need to temper on the hardware, when I'm calling with "hardware access" is the ability to boot your own operating system on the computer - that's the key to be able to do tampering without being detected.


You have repeatedly expressed your admiration for Chavez on this forum, and your political stances would indicate such a support.

Admiration is a bit too strong, but yes, I do have sympathy for him - which doesn't prevent me from seeing, as a CS, how ridiculous this computer story is.

As it stands, you don't have access to the information that the experts have, and the ridiculous stretches you've made as ad hominems against the INTERPOL experts add further evidence.

Saying they were chosen by biased entities is in no way "ridiculous".

As is your strange attempts to justify Chavez's behavior in the international arena, especially when foreign leaders disagree with him. Straight up, his comments towards Merkel are ridiculous and inappropriate.

You may repeat it as many time as you wish, without any argument, after I demonstrated how insightful they were, but that will not make it any more real.

No, Chavez is trying to distract from her comment that Mr. overblown ego isn't the voice of Latin America by comparing her to Hitler.

"She's german, right?. Is she a communist or a socialist?, no?. Then she comes from a nazi supportive background".

His reasoning is that simple.

During the first 36 hours, which is more than "shortly", and way more than enough for a competent computer scientist to temper with the data in a way hard to detect - if even possible to detect.

In the realm of after-action events, a day and a half is a comparatively short time frame.



How is that relevant to the case ?

It is indicative of the fact that the computer wasn't merely a prepared plant. It was used by Reyes.



According to the report, the Interpol guys did a copy and then studied the copy at home. So they couldn't detect tempering on the hardware. But you don't need to temper on the hardware, when I'm calling with "hardware access" is the ability to boot your own operating system on the computer - that's the key to be able to do tampering without being detected.

Which is why further investigations should be undertaken.




Admiration is a bit too strong, but yes, I do have sympathy for him - which doesn't prevent me from seeing, as a CS, how ridiculous this computer story is.



Saying they were chosen by biased entities is in no way "ridiculous".

Saying that these entities were biased is what is ridiculous. You literally have to link both of these states to the Iraq war to actually link them to this incident. I'm not willing to make that jump.



You may repeat it as many time as you wish, without any argument, after I demonstrated how insightful they were, but that will not make it any more real.

There's nothing insightful about his commentary. He's just lashing out at Merkel because she called him out on the fact that he is not, nor has he ever been, the voice of Latin America. There's nothing insightful about calling Bush the devil. There's nothing insightful about crudely attacking the Spanish government. He's second rate when it comes to rhetoric, and his commentary is not insightful. He's nothing but an ex-military populist, who managed to sway the emotions of the people to give him power, when he proved incapable of taking it by force.

A lot of things can be said on Cuba, the dictatorship part is very arguable (that's not the topic so I'll stop here), but the corrupt part is definitely not true - especially if you compare with the situation in most of latin america, and of before the Cuban Revolution.

I know that, I was just using NS terms to make a joke.

So you would say friends of the wife of one of the parties are neutral ?

More like the Best Man's drunk buddy at the wedding's friends. They're decidedly neutral parties in this arena.



The conflict is between USA-Colombia on one side, Venezuela-Ecuador on this other side. And those countries are, politically, supportive of USA, and opponent of the "bolivarian", "socialist" government of Venezuela and Ecuador. The war in Irak was a very significant proof of this bias, but it's not the only one. Consider their issues about free trade, free market, about socialism, ... and you'll clearly see which whom they side.

Besides the fact that calling Chavez's system "bolivarian" is a joke, Singapore is a country where the single political party's platform is based on "Asian Communitarianism". It derives economic benefit from exports to the West, just like Venezuela.

Neutrality hardly exist in politics.

These two parties are are as close as you are going to get to neutral, though.



Your argument remind US courts argument in the Mumia case saying "yes, you have valid arguments to show you're innocent, but they come too late, so we'll not consider them, go to the execution room". It's just ridiculous.

Mumia has been resentenced, you do realize that, right?

Further, the federal court overturned the sentence on the grounds that:

* in relation to sentencing, whether the jury verdict form had been flawed and the judge's instructions to the jury had been confusing;
* in relation to conviction and sentencing, whether racial bias in jury selection existed to an extent tending to produce an inherently biased jury and therefore an unfair trial (the Batson claim);
* in relation to conviction, whether the prosecutor improperly attempted to reduce jurors' sense of responsibility by telling them that a guilty verdict would be subsequently vetted and subject to appeal;
* in relation to post-conviction review hearings in 1995–6, whether the presiding judge—who had also presided at the trial—demonstrated unacceptable bias in his conduct.


Not that there was any new evidence that Mumia was innocent.



And ? Colombian secret services are no mere amateur either. Especially since they work so closely with USA ones - you know, the best founded intelligence services of the world ?

Having worked with the the US National Security Apparatus, I can say their skills are dramatically overrated.



Withholding judgment is sane. Claiming those files are valid proofs is not.


I'm saying that, if, in the end, these files hold up, they are extremely damaging to Chavez.




The moral support he has offered them ? He called them plenty of time to stop taking hostages and to release them all. Yes, he said he's ready to consider them as legitimate belligerent - IF they accept to respect the Geneva conventions, which means liberating the hostages. Which is a very sane way to find an issue to the crisis, liberating the hostages, and opening a way to a peaceful solution (you can negotiate with a legitimate belligerent much more easily than with an illegal criminal group). That's not a support for the FARC.

He's also referred to them as a legitimate revolutionary movement, and strong socialists.



Unlike the AUC, the FARC doesn't murder at random to terrorize people. They fight a war, and for that they kill. They kill people who oppose them, or those who are unlucky to be too close - that's being criminal, that's not being terrorists. As for the kidnapping, they don't kidnap people to terrorize the population, they kidnap to exchange them against their own prisoners. Which doesn't make it acceptable, but that's NOT terrorism.

We are talking about the same FARC, right? The one that abducts and enslaves random people because they're low on manpower?



Denying to a democratically elected government the right to enforce the law and constitution of his country and to withdraw a license from a group which used it to organize and support a fascist coup is totally unacceptable. How would you react if a german TV supported a coup against Merkel, called to have her murdered, and that when Merkel, in accordance to the laws of germany, don't renew the license of this TV channel, but Chávez then supports the channel ? Wouldn't you be outraged ? You would be right to be.

There's methods to do that, and merely no renewing the stations license is not one of them.

I just held a ruler up to the screen, and while it's been delightful Kilo, I just realized I've violated my personal rule in regards to post length. Even with my new widescreen monitor, I'm violating my "screen-inches" rule by over three inches, so I'm gonna have to cut myself out of this. If I'm not careful, I could spend as much as ten hours sitting here at my keyboard bashing away at it, and I don't want that to happen. Cheerio!

And I'm pretty sure that if you dig more, you'll find much more example of collusions and aid between the CDU and the right of Venezuela, which by participating into the fascist coup of 2002, and ratifying the Carmona decree (which abolished the Constitution, dissolved the Parliament and the Supreme Court, and suspended all guarantees).

Well, I've searched a lot, but I cannot find an internet source backing that allegation. If you can, go ahead, and post a source.

That's what Chávez was warning her about - that by opposing him, she's siding with fascists.

Oh, so all Chavez' opponents are fascists then ? Please..

He does provoke. That's also a good point in him - he breaks the ice of political correctness and not saying things that everyone think but no one dares to say. Sometimes he goes a bit too far, but on the core, he's right, and that's what matter. Where he is wise is that the core is often exactly to the point - and it definitely was in saying to Merkel: "remember, by supporting anyone who oppose their enemies, your own political side ended up supporting Hitler... don't do the same with us". That's a fundamental thing.

All countries, including Germany have a certain foreign policy based on their ideals. The EU only condemned Chavez for getting rid of an oppositional TV station, because there was no direct proof this station supported a coup against him. Condemning. Big deal .*shrugs*. Chavez does the same: ''By supporting the FARC militia who oppose Uribe, he ends up supporting..... (insert party )'' My point is: Meddling with foreign affairs is something Chavez also does, with regard to the FARC row between Ecuador and Colombia. He brew mischief by inciting C and E against each other.

That's what all this thread is about - and I stay to my arguments: in no way the Interpol rapport can be used to claim "Chávez supports the FARC". Any attempt to do so is either a lie or a mistake.

So, if a reliable source, other than Interpol comes up with proof against Chavez, you would still consider it a lie ?