Spy v. Colombia: Domestic Espionage Scandal

Lealtad, Valor, Honradez. Loyalty, Valor, Honesty. This was the motto of the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), Colombia’s now defunct intelligence agency. These values were put into serious question when Maria del Pilar Hurtando, the former head of the agency, fled Colombia in 2010 after accusations of spying on judges, journalists, and politicians. This past week, after 5 years on the run, Hurtando was convicted of several crimes in Colombia including conspiracy, and faces up to 10 years in prison.

The scandal surrounding DAS first emerged in 2008 when former-Senator Gustavo Petro received intelligence documents demonstrating that he had been shadowed and wiretapped. Soon it emerged that other politicians including former Presidents Samper and Pastrana had also been targeted. More controversially, judges in the Supreme Court, human right defenders and NGO’s, and journalists, had also been the subject to DAS wiretaps.

The cause for this wiretapping scandal originates from an earlier DAS scandal in 2006. Members of DAS were arrested and charged with taking bribes from paramilitaries and drug traffickers in exchange for erasing and altering their judicial history from state intelligence databases. Additionally, high-ranking members of DAS such as the former deputy-director, Jose Miguel Narvaez, gave workshops at paramilitary camps. The wiretaps sought to discredit the country’s institutions and leftist politicians that were investigating the links between paramilitaries and more rightist-politicians.

Given that many involved in the scandal were former pundits of then President Uribe many ask – what role, if any, did then President Uribe have in the scandal? Uribe denies any allegations of spying or wiretapping and Hurtado denies that the president ordered the illegal actions. Uribe seems to believe that these allegations are President Juan Manuel Santos’s efforts at “bullying” and “political persecution disguised as indictment.” The two politicians have historically continued to butt heads over issues such as FARC, economic reform, legalization of drugs, and relations with Venezuela.

This is not the only scandal surrounding intelligence agencies in Latin America at the moment. In Argentina, President Kirchner seeks to disband the Intelligence Secretariat because they “have not served the interests of the country.” Additionally, Kirchner’s government has charged former head of operations, Antonio Stiusso, of tax-fraud and leading a smuggling ring, only two months after she fired him in December 2014.

These actions in Argentina, however, come after the suspicious death of Prosecutor Alberto Nisman. Nisman was investigating President Kirchner’s role in a cover-up of the Iranian officials that authorized an attack on a Jewish center in 1994. President Kirchner accused Stiusso and other rouge factions within the agency of feeding false information to Nisman in order to sabotage and destabilize her government. She also accused Stiusso of assassinating Nisman to make it appear as though her government was responsible for his death. In spite of Kirchner’s claims, many believe that she is partially or wholly responsible for Nisman’s death.

While intelligence agencies are necessary for governments to close the information gaps that put their country at risk, their lack of oversight for “national security purposes” leads to vast exploitations of power. Additionally intelligence agencies are riddled with politics. Rather than being a tool for the country or the people, factions of governments are misusing the intelligence agencies to serve their ends. As more scandals surrounding intelligence agencies come to light, establishing a system of intelligence service accountable to the people will surely become one of the most daunting and demanding challenges faced by modern states.