The last paragraph is very interesting. Sometimes I believe Evo to be very canny and sometimes, well, very silly.

He doesn't seem at home with his party, yet doesn't exactly rail against them.

Even as somebody very skeptical of MAS, Evo's integrity at least is something that has always amazed me.

@Steve: I've actually often been amazed at Evo's opportunism. He was barely involved in the October 2003 "Gas War" ... but managed to become its chief beneficiary. And his political career is littered w/ the political corpses of his former allies (frankly, people who "made" him). There is something to be said for party loyalty, I think. At the very least, it reduces personalism & makes it easier for voters to hold candidates accountable.

I suspect that the canniness/silliness ratio would improve substantially if Chavez were out of the picture.

I think that Evo's multifaceted political behavior reflects the varied influences that are apparent in his career: the 1952 revolution, indigenismo and cocalero unionism. The later helps explain why he is so combative. When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

As for the FARC/Quispe connection I heard allegations that in the correspondence Quispe allegedly requested guerrilla training from the FARC. A little bit non-sensical since the jungle FARC tactics are unlikely to work as well in El Alto. While I agree that the electronic age might facilitate communication between the groups, it also facilitates fraud. I mean do we even know who handled the "FARC laptop" and what might have been installed after the fact. Similar doubts here as to the grand Chavez-Evo conspiracy to do I don't know exactly what, but according to the media luna they are definitely conspiring.

What ever happened to Quispe? He seems to be politically dead weight. My favorite Quispe anecdote, which I do not know if it is true, is that when he resigned from the Senate he said the reason was that his culture taught him not to lie, steal or be lazy and that in the Senate all around him were lazy, lying thieves. And then he walked...

For what it's worth, the FARC laptop was independently verified by Interpol. I'm guessing the fallout from that treasure trove of intelligence will continue for some time.

While it's true that there are no jungles in El Alto, you don't have to drive very far from there to get to them.

You are absolutely 100 percent right Frank!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are also jungles in el Chapare, as you all know. Several years ago, I want to say back when Evo was still a cocalero and National Deputy, cocaleros were planting booby-trapps to defend their crops against eradicators. This was a departure from their usual anti-erradicator tactics. I'd be more interested to know of the links between the cocaleros and the FARC, not to say Evo and the FARC, than FARC links with Quispe.

For what it's worth, the FARC laptop was independently verified by Interpol. I'm guessing the fallout from that treasure trove of intelligence will continue for some time.

Miguel, Interpol verified that they could not find any evidence of tampering, they did explicitly not verify that it had not been tampered with. They also verified that the Columbians broke the "chain of evidence" rules by having been in the possession of Columbian officers who had the opportunity to tamper with it. Breaking the chain of evidence means that the data on the laptop could have been compromised, without leaving a trace, which with the right expertise is not only possible but with the right know-how very do-able.

What the Washington Post has done is take the Interpol statement completely out of context. Interpol made clear they could not account for the period before the laptop was allegedly taken - which means it could have been planted. They also made clear that they could not confirm that it hadn't been tampered with, only they couldn't find any evidence.

But since the chain of evidence was broken, it means this evidence is not trustworthy. A point made loud and clear by Interpol but ignored by the Post and it's companions. When it comes to Latin American affairs I wouldn't trust a single word out of an American broadsheet - here they have told lies of omission, which many people have fallen for. Every single one of them has an editorial line that sees Latin America as a sphere of influence, and simply have no credibility when they report on FARC, Chavez or Evo etc.

@Steve: The argument that major newspapers like the Washington Post or the New York Times are so biased as to have "no credibility" is as tired when progressives make it as when conservatives do. Often, both sides cherry pick the articles they agree w/ and dismiss all the rest.

But your argument about the Interpol claim is valid. Yes, the chain of custody was suspect. But a number of the items discovered on the laptop have been verified through other means, suggesting that much of the evidence is accurate. But whether not finding evidence of tampering is the same as verifying the lack of tampering ... that's a semantics argument. Very scientific, of course. Much like there is no proof that the theory of gravity is false, only lack of evidence that it is not false. But most people will take the Interpol statement as what I think it is: there is no reason to suspect that the evidence on the laptop was falsified.

I read yesterday that the Venezuelan helicopter that crashed as it was supposedly heading from Cochabamba to Cobija crashed near Colomi. That seems like a rather indirect route to get to Cobija, more likely towards the heart of the Chapare.

Interesting comments on the Interpol verification or lack thereof. I think that there is a concerted effort on the part of right in the U.S. and Latin America to paint left-leaning social movements in the "terrorist" veil. While FARC is fairly categorized as a terrorist organization, at least from the point when they began targeting civilians for kidnap and murder. At the same time I think there should fair amount of skepticism about efforts to link FARC to a broader regional conspiracy and I think Miguel did a pretty good job in regard to Bolivia. I would be interested to hear what Quispe has or has not said on the subject. Does he admit or deny the connection/communications with FARC?

Frank, What is your point? Evo goes to the Chapare whenever he wants and does not hide it.

I'm just curious as to why the Venezuelans apparently feel the need to hide their flight itinerary.

Miguel, I believe you are a little naïve regarding the dangers coming from abroad to the country, I also realize it is very hard for you to believe Evo’s nature could be as violent and racist as proven to be.

Regarding this specific topic there is an extreme correlation between Evo in his early political career and the FARC, and ideology is not it; as you mention. Narco traffic and political power is. Unless you are one of those people that really think the cocaleros don’t have direct ties with the narco Traficant, it is impossible not to believe that the narcotraficants in Bolivia don’t have close ties with the one in Colombia that have the close ties, if aren’t the same people, with the FARC in that country.

In addition, GS is right, there is proven direct FARC participation in the training of cocalero booby-trapping skills, there was a Colombian in prison for this reason that was liberated and send abroad, possible Venezuela, immediately after Evo took possession of the presidency of the country.

Finally, by your comments I can see you have very little doubts the contents of Raul Reyes might no be real, which means you shouldn’t have any doubts of the certainty of the close links between Chavez and the FARC. Have you any idea of the quantity of direct Venezuela – Bolivia flights the Venezuelan army currently has between our countries? Many a week and nobody know who enters or leaves.

Strange things like the 4 Venezuelan military in the helicopter that recently fell in Bolivia give us hits, I mean, I just took a flight on a Boeing 777, and they only needed 3 pilots to run it, most large commercial planes need 2. Why were necessary 4 pilots to run a helicopter, plus the Bolivian pilot they were 5. Sure thing many of the pilots, helicopter mechanics, doctors and teachers coming from Venezuela and Cuba are not so; why some of them couldn’t be from the FARC?

I leave you with that question?

@Bolivia Libre: I've also long suspected (as have many others) that the cocaleros (and perhaps even MAS) have ties to the drug trade. After all, their primary cash crop (coca) is really only useful for that purpose (yes, there are other uses for coca, but not for "illicit" coca). I've posted speculations about that at times in the past (I've been blogging since 2002 at my previous blog (Ciao!).

My point here was merely that there is no substantiated *strong* link between FARC and Evo's government. FARC and Che inspired guerrilla groups were operating in the Bolivian jungles in the 1970s (including one led by Jaime Paz Zamora's brother). But that was a long time ago. If either Sendero Luminoso or FARC had wanted to start such a guerrilla in Bolivia in the 1980s or '90s, it wouldn't have been difficult. Bolivia's state is, after all, much weaker than Colombia's.

I've no doubt that there are strong "personal" or "idelogical" (or whatever) relationships between members of FARC and Evo's government. But I've seen no evidence of a genuine organizational relationship.

And, yes, I'm also deeply troubled by the semi-covert presence of Venezuelan troops in Bolivian territory. I see no reason why Bolivian leaders should denounce US meddling only to embrace Venezuelan meddling.

Leaving FARC aside for a moment, can someone explain to me what the concerns are regarding small numbers of Venezuelan military officers entering and leaving Bolivia? The countries signed a mutual defense pact and cooperation between the militaries does not inherently amount to meddling or nefarious plans. Should I be concerned about the 100s of Latin American military officers that come to US every year for training. Given that Morales and Chavez share ideological and political values, cooperation is natural. One may not like it, but the "suspicious" activity described by Bolivia Libre is long on speculation and short on facts, results and an actually consequences. Evo certainly sees Venezuelan military support as a counter to potential coup/assasination plots by traditional political parties and the media luna. Again you may favor regime change in Bolivia, but Evo's actions are smart and strategic, not necessarily part of some vague and undefined conspiracy. The acceptance of Venezuelan military aid is also a way to give additional support to Bolivian military, and presumably solidify support, without burdening the state coffers and diverting money from his social programs.

OK, maybe this would be a good analogy, Miguel DLS -

Would you be concerned if President Bush was in the habit of being transported in a helicopter that was manned by Israeli Defense Forces personnel?

(I have no problem with Israel, BTW, it's just that it's a favorite of leftist conspiracies.)

Why does the Bolivian military need such support?

Is Paraguay going to invade?

While I agree that Venezuelan-Bolivian military cooperation is not, by itself, a threat to democracy in Bolivia (otherwise, one would have to accept the same about any country's military in Bolivia), Frank raises a good point: Why is it that Venezuelan military & security personnel are playing an increasingly prominent role in internal domestic security? For a head of state to be transported & escorted **in his/her own country** by military personnel of another state is not typical. Perhaps it speaks to Evo's confidence in the military; but it also gives the Bolivian military cause to be insulted.

Frank's analogy of Bush transported by IDF personnel may not be so good. But former, US-friendly, Bolivian presidents were still transported around the country by Bolivian military & security personnel, not those of the US. Afghan government personnel are regularly escorted by US forces—which leads many to view them as "puppets" of the US. It's no surprise that Evo's opponents will make the same claim when they see him similarly escorted by Venezuelan forces.

Miguel: Off topic,(as most of my comments are ;), but the CNE has just announced that the referendum is going full steam ahead, despite what the last Supreme Court Justice says.
http://lostiempos.com/noticias/23-07-08/23_07_08_ultimas_nac9.php
I hate to say I told you so, but Exeni rolled over like a good dog.
"Se ha dado pleno cumplimiento de la constitucionalidad y mientras no haya fallo del Tribunal Constitucional o una ley del Congreso, el referendo revocatorio del 10 de agosto sigue adelante", dijo el presidente de la CNE, José Luis Exeni en rueda de prensa.

Miguel has articulated my point a bit more succinctly in that Evo's acceptance of Venezuelan military escort/transportation might creat the impression of a puppet-like relationship, but that does not mean such relationship actually exists. I mean could Evo's use of Venezuelan military aid be based on something as something as they have nicer stuff. Bolivia's military like the government in general strapped for casyh. The last time I flew from La Paz and to Cochabamba I went with TAM and watched with mild amusement and some concern as the crew primed the engines on the tarmac in La Paz with what looked like a run of the mill pump garden sprayer. So, technology is a bit lacking in the Bolivian armed forces and if you can get it for free from Venezuela why not.

I agree Frank that Bolivia probably does not face threats of invasion from neighboring countries, though the border with Chile is still mined on the Chilean side and that dispute is unresolved, at least in the opinion of most Bolivians. Nonetheless, the Bolivian military, like all miliaries wants funding and equipment, whether or not there is an immediate threat.

Bush's connections with the Saudis are more worrisome than his ties to the Israelis, but I see your point and it would raise an eyebrow if he were regularly transported about by the IDF. However, even if Bush was on permanent kibbutz, I still would not buy 9-11 conspiracy theories about Israeli and Bush administration complicity and/or participation in the attack. But when Evo hitches a ride on Venezuelan chopper its concrete proof of plot to do something nefarious, even if we don't know what it is, for the Bolivia Libres of the world.

As an editorial aside I think Bush presidency has been an "unmitigated disaster" to use Frank's terminology.

@Steve: The argument that major newspapers like the Washington Post or the New York Times are so biased as to have "no credibility" is as tired when progressives make it as when conservatives do. Often, both sides cherry pick the articles they agree w/ and dismiss all the rest.

Just because it is tired it does not render it an irrelevant line of attack. I find it funny when the White House accuse NYT of having a liberal bias, it is clearly a right-of-centre publication. I gave up reading those publications a long time ago because they allow the editorial line to creep into their news coverage, especially on Latin America. I have become convinced that they see Latin America as a continent that should be subservient to the United States, am convinced they have an impartial line on all affairs Latin American, and therefore I do not trust their coverage. For instance, in all the news stories they carried about Chavez canceling the license of those TV stations, they never once mentioned those stations were involved in the coup against him, not once in the multitude of articles they wrote. They consistently use lies of omission that compromise their credibility - like the Interpol article.

And the Interpol statement was not semantic, it clearly did not say that the laptop had not been tampered with, and coupling that with the fact that it broke the chain of evidence, it is highly relevant. As somebody who has worked in computer forensics, there are a multitude of techniques that could tamper with information and not leave a digital footprint.

@Steve: I've generally found that when a news source is accused of bias from both sides, that means it's generally pretty reliable. They do make errors, of course. But from my experience, those usually stem from ignorance (after all, journalists go to journalism school where they learn how to write, not where they hone expertise on a subject matter they will eventually cover).

@Galloglass: I'm waiting to decide on the referendum. At hear, I think the idea of a recall is a good one, though I've objections to the tilted playing field (as I've noted before). I'm also not so sure how the Tribunal determined the vote was "illegal" since it does comply w/ a host of constitutional & legal norms. Besides, this is the first such vote (though allowed by the 2004 Constitution, which allows referendums), so it's unclear what specific norms for this kind of vote were broken. In short, I think the Tribunal's decision was more "political" than the CNE's. And, yes, having worked w/ various CNE officials over the years (beginning during Lazarte's directorship), I've great respect for that institution.

"If either Sendero Luminoso or FARC had wanted to start such a guerrilla in Bolivia in the 1980s or '90s, it wouldn't have been difficult. Bolivia's state is, after all, much weaker than Colombia's."

Starting a guerrilla is the easy part, particularly nowadays given Internet and communications technologies. Any two blockheads with a cause can get together and "start" a guerrilla. But historical evidence shows that *sustaining* a guerrilla in Bolivia is very much a difficult thing to do. Guerrillas from Che's group in the 1960s to Quispe's group in the 1980s/1990s have had very little success despite Bolivia's weak state. For a guerrilla to succeed you not only need a weak state, but ALSO incompetent security forces, incompetent government and security leaders, a generally supportive population (and one that is also generally not fragmented), and, almost always, considerable support from another country.

"Why does the Bolivian military need such support? Is Paraguay going to invade?"

This misses the point. The Bolivian military needs all the help it can get, so security cooperation, whether it comes from Venezuela, China, or the US, is good for the Bolivian military. The form this cooperation takes is what is important. To have Venezuelan forces ferry Morales around inside Bolivia, as Miguel points out, is rather emasculating. And breeds conspiracy theories.

mcentellas, I think that the ruling of the tribunal is just that the seats on the tribunal need to be filled out before a ruling can be made. The recall is being held up until the tribunal is filled out.

This misses the point. The Bolivian military needs all the help it can get

And this avoids the question that I raised, which is WHY does it need all this help?

Oh, and Miguel DLS, if you're expecting a lengthy rebuttal to the last sentence of your last post, you're going to be disappointed. I hope you didn't intend it as a tu quoque argument against my previous criticism of Evo MAS.

"And this avoids the question that I raised, which is WHY does it need all this help?"

The Bolivian military needs help for the same reasons all other third world militaries need help: lack of and outdated equipment, doctrines, training, etc. Deficiencies that prevent any military force from being fully effective. There are also other maladies, such as lack of professionalization, that the Venezuelan military, far from helping to improve the situation, IMO, can only make worse. But such is the lot of the Bolivian military, stuck between massive requirements, very little resources, and Evo Morales.

But why does the MILITARY need such equipment? Bolivia isn't expecting a war w/ any of its neighbors. For INTERNAL security purposes, most countries rely on the POLICE (not the army). I'd rather see the Bolivian police professionalize; the army shouldn't be used for internal domestic security.

If I can add my voice to the debate on the role of military assistence.

It is absolutely clear what the motivation behind Venezuelan military help is about. Fear of a coup plot from both segments internal to the Bolivian military and their allies in the United States. To claim this concern for a leftist President is not legitimate is to declare ignorance of Latin American history. If one wants to argue against the "subversive" nature all of foreign military assistance, fine, but don't do so with a double standard regarding the well documented subversive history of US military assistence in Latin America. While close scrutiny of Venezuelan military relations with Bolivia are a must, lets put this all in some relative perspective.

On the point of external threats to Bolivia. "Is Paraguay going to invade?" Actually, the US military has a "secret" base and airstrip with a 16,000 troop capacity 200 kilometers from the Bolivian border. The overt US military exercises and trainings carried out in 2005-2006 raised quite a few eyebrows.

Centellas comments on the need to separate the Bolivian military from internal policing is a good one and sentiment I share, but a separate issue. You'll find, Centellas that the most vocal supporters of pushing this separation are within the MAS party. However the Bolivian military leadership obviously has a different opinion.

Ah, so MAS believes that the Bolivian military should handle external security, while Venezuelan security should handle internal security.

I’m not much into conspiracy theories when there might be more logical explanations, so here are a few thoughts.

Concerning the FARC laptops:

As somebody who has worked in computer forensics, there are a multitude of techniques that could tamper with information and not leave a digital footprint.
Admittedly I’m no expert in computer forensics, but I do know that each time a file is written to a system, there is a lot of data attached as well as potential audit trails. – File Size, Date created, date modified, email servers used to route the file, originator, etc. There were a LOT of suspect files and INTERPOL didn’t find any evidence of tampering. It doesn’t rule out tampering, but it does make it doubtful.

But since the chain of evidence was broken, it means this evidence is not trustworthy.
Not at all. Chain of custody is necessary for legal proceedings. When it has been compromised, it affects legal admissibility of evidence which is set to a necessarily high standard. It doesn’t mean that the evidence is not trustworthy; it means that there may be enough cause for doubt not to base a conviction on the evidence.

Concerning the Venezuelan helicopters / pilots:

Why would Evo use Venezuelan helicopters?
He only has two choices: US helicopters or somebody else's. Chavez offered the helo's and Evo wants to minimize the times he has to say “Please” and "Thank you" to Goldberg.

Why use Vz pilots?
I expect that they know the equipment better.

Why were necessary 4 pilots to run a helicopter
Supposing that the aircraft was operating for more than a few hours away from its main base, the president would rate 24 hour service. That means at least 2 shifts of 2 pilots (plus a Bolivian liaison).

Why does the Bolivian military need such support? Is Paraguay going to invade?
It’s best not to wait until you have an enemy before you work on your defenses. Let’s face it, I’d take even odds putting the Rhode Island National Guard up against Bolivia’s military might. Now if you were to ask why Evo wants a stronger military…? A: To keep the opposition in line. Why does he have a lawyer as Defense Minister instead of a former military officer? A: To keep the military in line. I haven’t noticed a lot of Vz military around SC though.

I’m not much into conspiracy theories when there might be more logical explanations, so here are a few thoughts.

Concerning the FARC laptops:

As somebody who has worked in computer forensics, there are a multitude of techniques that could tamper with information and not leave a digital footprint.
Admittedly I’m no expert in computer forensics, but I do know that each time a file is written to a system, there is a lot of data attached as well as potential audit trails. – File Size, Date created, date modified, email servers used to route the file, originator, etc. There were a LOT of suspect files and INTERPOL didn’t find any evidence of tampering. It doesn’t rule out tampering, but it does make it doubtful.

But since the chain of evidence was broken, it means this evidence is not trustworthy.
Not at all. Chain of custody is necessary for legal proceedings. When it has been compromised, it affects legal admissibility of evidence which is set to a necessarily high standard. It doesn’t mean that the evidence is not trustworthy; it means that there may be enough cause for doubt not to base a conviction on the evidence.

Concerning the Venezuelan helicopters / pilots:

Why would Evo use Venezuelan helicopters?
He only has two choices: US helicopters or somebody else's. Chavez offered the helo's and Evo wants to minimize the times he has to say “Please” and "Thank you" to Goldberg.

Why use Vz pilots?
I expect that they know the equipment better.

Why were necessary 4 pilots to run a helicopter
Supposing that the aircraft was operating for more than a few hours away from its main base, the president would rate 24 hour service. That means at least 2 shifts of 2 pilots (plus a Bolivian liaison).

Why does the Bolivian military need such support? Is Paraguay going to invade?
It’s best not to wait until you have an enemy before you work on your defenses. Let’s face it, I’d take even odds putting the Rhode Island National Guard up against Bolivia’s military might. Now if you were to ask why Evo wants a stronger military…? A: To keep the opposition in line. Why does he have a lawyer as Defense Minister instead of a former military officer? A: To keep the military in line. I haven’t noticed a lot of Vz military around SC though.

Ah, so MAS believes that the Bolivian military should only used for external security, while the Venezuelan military should be used for internal security.

@D.Beaulieu: Like most political scientists who study democratization in Latin America, I've long been a supporter of stricter separation of civil & military spheres. I've also long been aware of "bad" uses of US military influence in the region. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned w/ Venezuelan military intervention in Bolivia (I'd be equally concerned if it was Argentina, Brazil, or Chile, or, for that matter, Canada, Belgium, or Sweden). And while the Bolivian military has, like most regional militaries, long been jealous to retain its role as the dominant security force, this is something to be dissuaded by strengthening the POLICE, not by inviting friendly military forces. I think one can both recognize the negative role of US military assistance AND the negative role of Venezuelan military assistance. It's not a zero-sum equation.

mcentellas: you raise two separate and unrelated issues. The military needs “such equipment” (did we define what “such equipment” means? I don’t know the details of the Ven-Bol security assistance program, but I think Ven offers Bolivia some helicopters, ground vehicles, and small arms and related training—all of which are bonafide military stuff), quite simply, because they are a military force and these are military items. It is foolish to think that militaries need to improve their equipment (and capabilities) only when it expects war with its neighbors. By that point, it is too late. So, the military—any military from any country—needs military equipment so they can train and improve their capabilities in order to, hopefully, deter any military action against their country and defend their country if necessary. This, at least, is the ideal. Perhaps the question you should be asking is “why does Evo, and all other governments in the history of Bolivia, use the military to do internal security?”

But many countries—and I would disagree with you and say “most” countries—use their militaries primarily for internal security missions (rather than deterrence and defense against external aggressors). Even countries like Costa Rica and Panama—who officially don’t have militaries—have such potent police forces that the US National Guard would likely drool with envy at their capabilities and equipment. But this is an issue separate from why militaries need military equipment and it gets to the roles of the military versus the police forces. I’d too rather see the Bolivian police handle domestic security, but that doesn’t mean that the Bolivian military should forever be only one step above a Haitian warlord when it comes to military effectiveness.

Miguel, when I first got here I said the same thing about having the police take care of police work. Since then I've come to realize that it will take a lot more than strengthening the police for that to happen. It will require a complete overhaul of the police force. I'm friendly with several of the police around town, but they simply are not disciplined. I've been told the same by others. More than just the equipment, they lack a professional mindset.

@GS: Yes, we never defined what we meant by "such equipment". But I don't want to be bogged down in a semantics argument. Most countries have militaries for preventative purposes. When they are used for domestic security, it is in times of extreme crisis. In the US, the National Guard is only rarely called on to put down riots or to deal w/ natural disasters.

Again, let me repeat: Most countries use non-military forces to deal w/ such matters. And though these may include highly trained and specialized SWAT, bomb, counter-narcotics, or counter-terrorism units, these are not military. The distinction has to do w/ the level of lethality. Cops are trained to keep the peace, but aren't expected to use deadly force. Soldiers, on the other hand, are. When soldiers do police work, the result is often a high death count (e.g. October 2003 in Bolivia). If soldiers are trained to be less than fully lethal, they risk becoming inneffective as a military force. You cite examples of Costa Rica & Panama. These are countries that have explicitly abandoned military forces in favor of non-military civilian security forces. That such forces may be used in lieu of an army when necessary doesn't change the fact that they're trained as civilian police, not as military forces.

Bottom line: Militaries (when they exist) need equipment to keep up their professionalism, not just in anticipation of wars. And when soldiers are used as cops, they lose their professionalism as soldiers.

mcentellas: We are in violent agreement. Yes. Absolutely. My only quible with your argument is your use of "most" countries. I think most western countries use their militaries as you say they do. If you step back and take a global perspective, I think most countries miss use their militaries for internal security functions that, in western countries, would be roles for police forces. But I agree with your larger point and I was never in disagreement with that. I was only in disagreement with your objections to Venezuela conducting security assitance with Bolivia ("But why does the MILITARY need such equipment? Bolivia isn't expecting a war w/ any of its neighbors.")

The police I saw in Oruro during Diablada were pretty disciplined. They took hit after hit of stray balloons, and remained totally impassive.

I can't quite picture American police doing the same.

Frank, they may be able to stand in line for water balloons, but the police that came by my house after the burglary couldn't rent a clue at Sears. They lacked training as well as equipment (they asked to take stuff from my back to the "lab" for fingerprint analysis... never saw the stuff again).

Ask them where they got their side-arms... they have to buy their own which leads to a varied mix of weapons. A friend of mine shoots pistol competively and has seen both the police and the military shoot qualification training on the range... he left the range for his own safety when the police started training.

In Santa Cruz, there is little respect for the law... not for traffic laws, not for sales laws, not for vandalism laws. This is because there is no enforcement per se. IMHO the police are ineffective except as bank guards and armed sirenos.

I would very much prefer to have the police do police work. I fully believe that the military should be reserved. The quote from Heartbreak Ridge is appropriate... You should be sealed in a case that reads break glass only in the event of war.

My point though is this: in Santa Cruz at least, it will take a lot more than money and equipment to enable the police to do their job.

As to US police, I don't judge them by the sensationalist events that come up every couple of years, but by the professional way they conduct themselves on a daily basis. There is no comparison.

Of course, the problem with police reform and moderization is that it is infinitely harder to successfully achieve than that for military reform and modernization. Part of the reason is the culture and institutions. A well trained, professional police force with adequate capabilities can only go so far if: laws, judiciary branches, penal institutions, penal codes, and all other aspects of a "rule of law" state are also not modernized and reformed. Not to mention basic infrastructure, as police forces should be able to operate in the boondocks on a daily and regular basis. This is a much harder task to tackle than simply military reform.

Admittedly I’m no expert in computer forensics, but I do know that each time a file is written to a system, there is a lot of data attached as well as potential audit trails. – File Size, Date created, date modified, email servers used to route the file, originator, etc. There were a LOT of suspect files and INTERPOL didn’t find any evidence of tampering. It doesn’t rule out tampering, but it does make it doubtful.

It really doesn't make it doubtful Norman. All the operations above that leave footprints can be suppressed. It is relatively straight forward to change files without leaving a footprint, especially if you are not writing to a traditional tape disk. In fact if you gave me the right applications and hard drive I could do it right here.

Chain of custody is necessary for legal proceedings. When it has been compromised, it affects legal admissibility of evidence which is set to a necessarily high standard. It doesn’t mean that the evidence is not trustworthy; it means that there may be enough cause for doubt not to base a conviction on the evidence.

Legal terms are irrelevant. There is a process for submitting this kind of evidence to Interpol, and they stipulate the evidence was kept secure and out of reach of those that could tamper with it. Since it had two days with the Columbian tech specialists, this means it has been compromised. No ifs, buts or maybes. It's compromised.