Colombian ex-president Uribe guilty of witness tampering
As the judge started reading out her verdict Monday, Uribe -- who attended the trial virtually -- sat shaking his head.
The still-powerful ex-president is expected to hear his sentence on Friday. He risks 12 years in prison.
The judgement brought rapid condemnation from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who decried "the weaponization of Colombia's judicial branch by radical judges."
A law-and-order hardliner, Uribe was a close ally of the United States and retains close ties to the American right.
At home his popularity has waned as alleged rights abuses during his tenure have come to light.
Even before the ruling and Rubio's high-profile attack, a Colombian lawyers' guild asked for more protection for Judge Sandra Heredia, who is presiding over this case.
Colombia's leftist President Gustavo Petro shot back at Rubio's criticism and insisted the judiciary was independent.
Allegations "to the contrary were an insult that would not be tolerated", he said.
Dirty war
Paramilitary groups emerged in the 1980s in Colombia to fight Marxist guerrillas that had taken up arms against the state.
A plethora of armed groups that emerged in the standoff adopted cocaine as their main source of income -- the genesis of a deadly rivalry for resources and trafficking routes that continues to this day.
Uribe led a relentless military campaign against drug cartels and the FARC guerrilla army, which signed a peace deal with his successor Juan Manuel Santos in 2016 -- much to Uribe's chagrin.
After leftist senator Ivan Cepeda accused him of ties with paramilitary groups responsible for human rights violations, Uribe is alleged to have contacted jailed ex-fighters to lie for him.
The judge Monday found him guilty on two charges: interfering with witnesses and "procedural fraud."
Popular politician
Uribe remains popular in Colombia for his anti-FARC campaigns, and is still a prominent voice on the right.
Recent opinion polls revealed him to be the South American country's best loved politician.
In 2019, thousands protested in Bogota and Medellin when he was indicted in the case, and on Monday, a smaller group of followers gathered outside the court wearing masks fashioned after his image and chanting: "Uribe, innocent!"
They clashed with a group of critics.
The investigation against Uribe began in 2018 and has had numerous twists and turns, with several attorneys-general seeking to close the case.
It gained new impetus under Attorney General Luz Camargo, picked by Petro -- himself a former guerrilla and a political arch-foe of Uribe.
More than 90 witnesses testified in the trial, which opened in May 2024.
Prosecutors produced evidence during the trial of least one paramilitary ex-fighter who said he was contacted by Uribe to change his story.
Vengeance
The former president is also under investigation in other matters.
He has testified before prosecutors in a preliminary probe into a 1997 paramilitary massacre of farmers when he was governor of the western Antioquia department.
A complaint has also been filed against him in Argentina, where universal jurisdiction allows for the prosecution of crimes committed anywhere in the world.
That complaint stems from Uribe's alleged involvement in the more than 6,000 executions and forced disappearances of civilians by the military when he was president.
Uribe insists his trial is a product of "political vengeance."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
A ray of housing hope is emerging in Washington
Matthew Yglesias, Tribune News Service Housing affordability is a key issue for the American consumer on which the Trump administration has done nothing useful. From tariffs on construction material to higher budget deficits driving up interest rates to deporting building trades workers, virtually every policy lever is being thrown in an anti-supply direction. At the same time, good news may be coming from Congress where last week the powerful Senate Banking Committee passed an important package of bipartisan housing reforms with unanimous support. The only fly in the ointment is that the package is so ambitious, and the emergence of consensus between Republican Chairman Tim Scott and ranking member Elizabeth Warren so unexpected, that little groundwork has been laid for advancing these ideas in the House. But if champions for these ideas can be found in the lower house, Congress would have the opportunity to get something critical done on the long-neglected issue of federal housing policy. One particular aspect of the package that I've been following for years is the somewhat obscure topic of chassis requirements for manufactured homes. Most aspects of housing policy are state and local in nature, but since the 1970s the federal government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, has been the primary regulatory of houses that are built in factories and transported to their ultimate destination. The process of transporting these 'trailers' generally requires them to have an attached chassis that allows them to be transferred from the factory to their destination. But HUD, for no particularly good reason, requires the chassis to be permanently attached to the structure. This requirement was adopted amidst a boom in the market share of manufactured homes as part of a deliberate regulatory crackdown pushed by traditional homebuilders and affiliated labor interests. The chassis requirement is not single-handedly responsible for the shrinkage of the manufactured housing sector, but it is a big factor as the chassis makes it hard to site trailers on top of basements, hard to engage in architectural innovation, and easy for exclusion-minded local governments to discriminate in favor of stick-built homes. Both Scott and the Biden administration were agreed on the desirability of repealing the chassis rule and promoting a new boom in manufactured housing. But in the previous Congress, Scott paired chassis reform with an effort to roll back some Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations that he felt were unduly squelching the market for entry-level mortgages. Former Senate Banking Chairman Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, strongly objected to Scott's mortgage changes and the whole thing was deadlocked. Brown lost last his Senate seat in November, but that meant he was replaced as top Democrat on the committee by Warren — the CFPB's biggest champion — in a way that made progress seem, if anything, less likely. But rather than continue the deadlock, Warren worked out a deal that includes Scott's proposals on both manufactured housing and mortgages and expands them by some other ideas. One of these is the Build More Housing Near Transit Act long championed by Democratic Rep. Scott Peters of California which would have the Department of Transportation prioritize funding mass transit projects in places that are relaxing zoning requirements to allow dense construction near the stations. Another is the Housing Supply Frameworks Act that would direct HUD to promulgate a set of best practices for supply-friendly local land use planning. The Better Use of Intergovernmental and Local Development for Housing Act (the name makes no sense, but it lets them call it BUILD Housing) and the Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act both streamline National Environmental Policy Act reviews for infill housing, along with a few modifications or the creation of new pro-supply grant programs. A very intriguing development is a small $200 million competitive grant program for local governments that take regulatory action to increase housing supply. This is a notion that has been kicked around in Washington in concept form at least since President Barack Obama's second term but was stymied by, among other things, questions about how to measure compliance. A new Census product based on the agency's Master Address File allows for housing production to be measured at the Census block level for the first time. This administrative improvement makes it possible to take the idea of 'race to the top, but for housing' from concept to legislation. The $200 million isn't enough to radically alter American housing policy, but it will do some good on its own while more importantly allowing advocates to field test the new measurement system and lay the groundwork for more aggressive ideas. If the grant program is a small carrot, Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana worked together on a provision that would wield Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) as a stick by depriving high-priced communities that stymie new housing of their federal grant money. For years now, even the most YIMBY-minded Republicans have tended to shy away from the federalism implications of conditioning federal grants on zoning changes. CDBG is perhaps an easier program for them to get to yes on since it primarily goes to urban areas where Democrats live.
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump administration removes clause that cuts funding to states boycotting Israel
A clause in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (Fema) guidelines threatening US states and territories that boycott Israel with the denial of federal funds for natural disaster preparation was discreetly removed from its terms and conditions directives on Monday after backlash. The change in status came after media reports on Monday explained how funding was conditional on states following Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conditions laid out in April. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) announced on Friday it was making nearly $1bn available to states to protect themselves from natural disasters, such as floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and fires, as well as terrorist attacks and cyber disruptions. However, before being removed, the clause said: 'Discriminatory prohibited boycott means refusing to deal, cutting commercial relations, or otherwise limiting commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies or with companies doing business in or with Israel or authorized by, licensed by, or organized under the laws of Israel to do business,' according to 11 agency grant notices reviewed by Reuters. DHS, which oversees Fema, reportedly removed this clause from section 17 on anti-discrimination under its terms and conditions. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Fema had announced on Friday it was making nearly $1bn available to states to protect themselves from natural disasters, such as floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and fires, as well as terrorist attacks and cyber disruptions. This $1bn allocation, which will apply to 15 different grant programmes, is part of the "Notices of Funding Opportunity amounting to more than $2.2 billion available to state, local, tribal and territorial governments to help them protect American citizens", Fema states on its website. DHS sent Middle East Eye a statement on Monday, saying: 'There is no FEMA requirement tied to Israel in any current NOFO. No states have lost funding, and no new conditions have been imposed. 'FEMA grants remain governed by existing law and policy and not political litmus tests. DHS will enforce all anti-discrimination laws and policies, including as it relates to the BDS movement, which is expressly grounded in antisemitism. Those who engage in racial discrimination should not receive a single dollar of federal funding.' BDS refers to the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which aims to "pressure Israel to comply with international law". Existing law Although the clause has been removed, more than 30 US states already have laws that require 'public entities to certify they do not and will not boycott Israel'. However, public outcry over the worsening humanitarian conditions in Gaza has led to institutions and companies coming under increasing pressure to divest from Israeli and international companies investing in Israel. The momentum for the BD movement in the US was spearheaded by students on college campuses across the country last year due to outrage over the war on Gaza, which to date has killed over 60,000 Palestinians, wounded over 100,000 and decimated the strips infrastructure. While many institutions have refused pressure to divest from Israel, a handful of institutions like Union Theological Seminary have applied new investment screenings to divest from companies profiting from Israel's war on Gaza. San Francisco State University also agreed to disclose its investments quarterly and added new screening policies for investment decisions last year. Following this agreement, San Francisco State University agreed to pull investments from three companies it claimed do not meet its human rights standards, including aerospace and defence company Lockheed Martin, stock positions in Italian defence company Leonardo, and US-based data analysis enterprise, Palantir Technologies.
Dubai Eye
5 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Hezbollah says Lebanon cabinet decision to limit arms to state is 'grave sin'
Hezbollah said on Wednesday the Lebanese government was committing a "grave sin" by tasking the army with establishing a state monopoly on arms, sharpening a national divide over calls for the Shi'ite Muslim group to disarm. The cabinet on Tuesday authorised the Lebanese army to draw up a plan to confine arms across the country to six official security forces by year's end - a major challenge to the Iran-backed Hezbollah. The move came after the U.S. and anti-Hezbollah parties in Lebanon ramped up pressure on the cabinet to publicly commit to disarming the party, amid fears that Israel could intensify strikes on Lebanon if they fail to do so. In a written statement on Wednesday, Hezbollah said the move was a result of U.S. "diktats" and that it would "deal with it as if it does not exist." "The government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam committed a grave sin by taking a decision to strip Lebanon of its weapons to resist the Israeli enemy... This decision fully serves Israel's interest," the group said. The statement said Shi'ite ministers walked out of the cabinet session before the decision was reached as "an expression of the resistance's (Hezbollah's) rejection of this decision". The group said it remained ready to discuss a broader national security strategy and called on its supporters to remain patient. The session at Lebanon's presidential palace was the first time the cabinet addressed Hezbollah's weapons - unimaginable when the group was at the zenith of its power before a devastating war with Israel last year. The cabinet is scheduled to meet again on Thursday to continue discussions on U.S. proposals to disarm Hezbollah within a specific time frame.
