The title of this article is not merely a rhetorical flourish nor an emotional plea to the now seemingly invincible powers of the United States—especially its judiciary—to extend a hand of solidarity towards Colombia. Far from it; this is a clarion call for American authorities to act within their constitutional mandates and apprehend a criminal of significant repute, one who has been denounced for his involvement in the unspeakable kidnappings of three U.S. citizens and the murder of one among them, a crime still languishing in the shadows of impunity.
The figure in question, Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego, has emerged as a leading face of the leftist political movement known as 21st Century Socialism, allied with the Puebla Group. His recent appointment as interim president of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) adds a layer of irony to his dubious legacy. It is no coincidence that Petro has forged close ties with Nicolás Maduro, the beleaguered leader of Venezuela, a nation under the yoke of Cuban influence.
To better understand this situation, let’s delve into Petro’s past. In 1985, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison for affiliation with an armed group tied to drug trafficking, notorious for its terrorism across Colombia. At the time of his arrest, he possessed a cache of military-grade weapons. He spent a mere 15 months incarcerated before being released early due to a leniency clause for educational and labor reasons, a decision that underscores the complexities of criminal justice.
In 1989, a Colombian government, perhaps too eager for peace, signed a “peace agreement” with the defeated M-19 guerrilla group, of which Petro was a key member. This agreement, facilitated through dubious legal frameworks, effectively granted pardons to many combatants—many argue in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). However, I unearthed evidence in 2018 that Petro had never formally requested a pardon, thereby leaving his criminal record for terrorism intact.
Under the current Colombian Constitution, articles 122, 179, and 197 stipulate that individuals with a criminal record for terrorism are permanently disqualified from holding public office or entering into state contracts. Yet, somehow, Petro’s legal standing was altered through questionable means, erasing three active arrest warrants for him in March 1990.
Despite my efforts in 2018 to challenge Petro’s eligibility for the presidency through Colombia’s high courts, my appeals were swiftly dismissed—an outcome that can only be characterized as politically motivated. I endeavored to pursue international justice, contemplating universal jurisdiction as a viable path forward.
Years of research culminated in my drafting of an INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT (ICC), targeting Petro for his unpunished war crimes, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of IHL. Drawing upon the principle of universal jurisdiction, I ensured the complaint included U.S. citizens victimized by Petro and his M-19 associates.
My findings were alarming: an 800-page document detailing forty of the atrocities committed by Petro Urrego and his comrades, while the National Center for Historical Memory in Colombia has cataloged over 5,900 such offenses, all remaining unpunished. This raises the question: how have we allowed such a culture of impunity to flourish?
Four myths persist among Colombian political operatives that facilitate this disregard for human rights:
- First Myth: No international law condones the violation of human rights, even under the guise of “social struggle.” This is firmly established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- Second Myth: Atrocities committed by these criminals cannot be classified as political crimes eligible for amnesty. IHL clearly delineates war crimes and crimes against humanity that are ineligible for pardon.
- Third Myth: There are no immunities preventing the prosecution of war criminals. Article IV of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide firmly establishes this principle.
- Fourth Myth: Membership in a criminal organization entails individual responsibility for all crimes committed therein, as established by the Nuremberg Trials.
Armed with this knowledge, I submitted my INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT (ICC) to the U.S. Department of Justice, invoking universal jurisdiction. This complaint, which I filed both in Spanish and English, details the crimes of kidnapping and murder against three American citizens, including Donald Cooper, who endured 87 days of captivity and degradation at the hands of Petro’s M-19, and Chester Allen Bitterman, who was ultimately murdered after 48 days of harrowing confinement.
Given the gravity of these crimes, U.S. authorities are mandated to investigate. As stated in 18 U.S.C. § 1201, the kidnapping of American citizens is a federal crime, and the law dictates severe consequences for those who perpetrate such acts.
Can we collectively agree that a nation like the United States, with its robust legal framework, should not allow a kidnapper and murderer to roam free? Is it not the essence of justice to hold accountable those who have inflicted such suffering?
For decades, the ideology of “21st-century socialism” has wreaked havoc across the Americas, leading to societal collapse. Yet, Petro Urrego’s obscured legal history may now serve as the key to his downfall. The impunity he has enjoyed might soon transform into accountability, dismantling the façade he has constructed around his presidency.
The future now rests in the hands of the U.S. judicial system, which possesses the power to end this cycle of violence and lawlessness. There exists no justification—political, ideological, or otherwise—for obstructing the pursuit of truth and justice. Petro Urrego’s ambitions to drag Colombia into the mire of countries like Cuba and Venezuela must be resisted; accountability is the only path forward.
