The story of Pegasus has taken a decisive turn with new ingredients of suspense. The newspaper El Tiempo revealed that White House officials confirmed that they had made the purchase of the software as part of government-to-government cooperation agreements against drug trafficking. The day after that revelation, the Colombian ambassador to Washington, Daniel García-Peña, addressed the Presidency of the United States by order of the president who asked him to demand precise answers from the American government.
Upon his departure he made statements to journalists that further clarified the situation. “We had a frank meeting with the White House team and they explained and confirmed many of the information that appeared in the Colombian media (…). What they assured us was that these were North American assets (…) they assured us that the software was never handed over to the Colombian authorities,” the ambassador said.
And he added that “it seems suspicious and irregular to me that these payments are made in cash (…) presumably to avoid asset tracing, which makes it even more suspicious.” When one of the journalists asked him if former President Duque knew about it, García-Peña replied that White House Security Council officials replied: “no.”
This version, corroborated by the White House, leaves several objective facts to be analyzed and other questions that remain open and unanswered. The first thing is that the acceptance of the purchase disproves the initial hypothesis of President Gustavo Petro who had speculated on national television without concrete evidence. Petro had suggested that Pegasus had been purchased as part of a money laundering operation, but the US said they were legitimate assets although the details of the origin remain to be known; He also pointed out that the software may have been used to persecute young people in the 2020 and 2021 protests, but there is no support for this.
Petro also accused Semana Magazine of having received information allegedly collected by Pegasus in the magazine’s publication of some conversations of the president’s inner circle during the campaign, which it has not proven so far.
The American government’s revelation also puts Attorney General Luz Adriana Camargo in a bad light. In a recent interview, Camargo stated that he added the Pegasus investigation to that opened by the Prosecutor’s Office due to the warnings of the magistrate of the Constitutional Court, Jorge Enrique Ibáñez, for possible surveillance and attacks on his cell phone, that of his wife and his squad. The prosecutor did not explain why she linked one thing to another without there being any material connection. But the White House claims in its statement that the software was not delivered to Colombia, but was used under the supervision of that country’s agents in operations exclusively against drug traffickers.
Why then did Camargo anchor without evidence the current and serious complaint of a magistrate on the possibility of illegal wiretapping against him to the use of software which, according to the White House version, will no longer be used in 2022 in Colombia?
This statement could be a quick guess from the prosecutor showing the gaps in the investigation of Ibáñez’s complaint and the lack of progress in obtaining answers, as happens in most cases of the accusing body. Even though almost a year has passed since the La Guajira tanker case broke out, and with it the whole UNGRD scandal, the Prosecutor’s Office has not taken any action against those who were splashed, all current or former government officials. .
The questions that remain for Pegasus
The questions that remain after the confirmation of Pegasus are contradictory. The
It is a triangulation between Colombia, the United States and Israel, that is, two of the military powers in the world. “That level of autonomy in intelligence matters is workable. But within the framework of bilateral cooperation, which brings with it an agreement of will between the two countries. Therefore, the cash payment coming from Colombia would prove that the Duque government knew about Pegasus. It is very difficult that the president was not aware of it or did not delegate it,” said the expert who worked directly with intelligence organizations in Colombia.
And along the same lines, Ambassador García-Peña asked White House advisors for precise information on the targets on which Pegasus was installed in the 2020-2022 period in order to verify that this was done against powerful drug traffickers. “They talked about Colombian and Mexican cartels,” the diplomat said.
However, it is not clear whether this information will actually be provided to the embassy or the government because intelligence cooperation agreements include confidentiality clauses and the president has already violated the confidentiality of a classified document from the Egmont group, which has led to serious consequences for access to other information in the persecution of assets and properties of Colombian criminals. If the president’s revelation of Pegasus on national television and in prime time made anything clear, it is that the president is not to be trusted when it comes to keeping secrets, even if they involve interstate intelligence.
And if the secret services that pursue drug traffickers, especially in Latin America, have learned anything, it is that they must act in absolute secrecy so that their enemies do not know the strategies and protect the undercover agents (in Colombia there are more than 100) . . A historic event was the case of DEA agent Enrique Kiki Camarena, captured by Jalisco cartel drug traffickers and murdered in Guadalajara in 1985 by Rafael Quintero Caro when he was known to be working with the authorities of that country.
Against whom was Pegasus used?
So the final question is who Pegasus was used against. While it will be difficult to incontrovertibly establish the exact details of this response, EL COLOMBIANO had already revealed that serious strikes against FARC dissidents occurred between 2020 and 2022, most of them in Venezuela. Among these hits were those of El Paisa, Romaña and Jesús Santrich, who died due to the force and precision of the attacks. There was also an attack against Ivan Márquez, who survived and is today negotiating with the government on behalf of the group called “La Segunda Marquetalia”. It was never known who was behind these actions on Venezuelan territory.
the president’s hypotheses were more speculation than certainty, but they had a consequence that Colombia still deals with today. The expulsion of the most important multilateral group fighting against organized armed groups, drug traffickers and criminals who launder and hold assets abroad. The country does not have the channels to access this information and, therefore, prosecute these criminals. And the White House insists that it was a legal act for legitimate purposes. Proving otherwise is practically impossible for the president who did not consult with the United States before his speech.
The Pegasus chapter will continue to have unresolved questions and answers and the president’s theories which, as already demonstrated, are sometimes not focused on proven facts.
I’m sorry, but there is no content provided for me to edit. Please provide the article you would like me to work on.
Interview between Time.news Editor and Pegasus Surveillance Expert
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome, everyone! Today, we have a special guest joining us — an expert in surveillance technology and government cooperation in intelligence, who has worked directly with intelligence organizations in Colombia. We’ll be discussing the recent developments regarding the Pegasus software and its implications for Colombian politics and U.S. relations. Thank you for being here.
Expert (E): Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such an important topic.
TNE: Let’s dive right in. The recent revelation by El Tiempo about the U.S. purchasing Pegasus software for anti-drug trafficking efforts has stirred quite a controversy. What is your initial take on this situation?
E: It’s fascinating yet troubling. The admission from White House officials that Pegasus was purchased for government-to-government cooperation is significant. It raises questions about the oversight and transparency in how intelligence tools are used, particularly in Colombia, where there has historically been tension around surveillance and human rights.
TNE: Exactly, and what do you make of Colombian Ambassador Daniel García-Peña’s statements? He mentioned that the U.S. confirmed the software was never handed to Colombian authorities. How does that impact the narrative?
E: García-Peña’s comments suggest a deliberate separation of responsibility. By stating that the software was used solely by U.S. assets, it adds layers of complexity to the bilateral relations. It implies that while Colombia is involved in the operation, the U.S. retains ultimate control. This can create distrust and lead to questions about the autonomy of Colombia in its drug trafficking fight.
TNE: Ambassador García-Peña also expressed concern about cash payments possibly made in these transactions. Why do you think that detail stands out?
E: The use of cash is indeed suspicious and raises red flags about transparency. In intelligence circles, cash payments can often be used to obfuscate the trail of funds, which can be indicative of illicit activity. It suggests there might be more to uncover about the possible motivations behind obtaining Pegasus software beyond mere drug enforcement.
TNE: President Gustavo Petro had speculated that the Pegasus purchase may be linked to a money-laundering operation, which the U.S. has countered by saying these were legitimate assets. How do you see the conflict in these narratives?
E: Petro’s claims reflect a broader concern among some political factions about the potential misuse of surveillance technologies. With the U.S. denying any wrongdoing, it leaves questions about what constitutes ‘legitimate’ and how both countries interpret the use of such powerful tools. The divergence in narratives indicates a schism in political intent and public perception.
TNE: You mentioned the relationship dynamics between the U.S., Colombia, and Israel. Could you elaborate on how this triangulation affects intelligence operations?
E: Certainly. This hookup between three powerful entities suggests a deeply interconnected web of intelligence operations that may not always align with national interests. Each country has its own agendas and operational protocols. While cooperation is vital for combating drugs, it’s important that each respects the sovereignty of the other. If not handled carefully, such arrangements can lead to international incidents or intrusions into internal affairs.
TNE: With the discussions around who was surveilled using Pegasus during the protests in 2020-2021 and the claims of it being used against drug traffickers, how important is it to clarify who the targets were?
E: It’s absolutely crucial. Transparency regarding who was targeted helps ensure accountability in governance and trust in public institutions. If surveillance technology is misused against civilians rather than intended targets like drug lords, it undermines the integrity of the very institutions that are meant to uphold law and order.
TNE: Lastly, what lingering questions do you believe still need to be addressed regarding Pegasus and its use in Colombia?
E: There are many unanswered questions. How much did the Duque administration know about the purchase and its intended use? What safeguards are in place to protect citizens’ rights? Moreover, will there be a thorough investigation holding accountable those responsible for the decisions made? These questions are vital to prevent a repeat of past abuses and to ensure that intelligence gathering is conducted ethically and legally.
TNE: Thank you for your insights today. It’s clear that the Pegasus situation is complex and multifaceted, requiring careful scrutiny and dialogue moving forward.
E: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure discussing these critical issues.
TNE: That concludes our interview. Stay tuned for more analysis on this developing story and its broader implications for international relations and civil liberties.
[End Interview]