Colombian Government Found Guilty in Massacre

poco says on Feb 27, 2006, 11:54:

I mean killing people for stealling cows? I doubt they were gnawing on them because they were hungry.

Not very many years ago they would have been hanged in the U.S.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 27, 2006, 17:16:

It isn't a first and the title is misleading Courts both abroad and nationally have made the Colombian government have to pay money to victims of crimes committed through its inaction or action more than a few times in the past, so this is nothing new, really. On that note, they are far from being the only judges with "cajones grandes", GringoD.

What must be cleared up are the details, in light of the somewhat misleading title, which vladimiro apparently chose on his own.

The government IS guilty of sharing responsibility for the crime because the local military chose to let it happen for one reason or another, and by extension that means that the government has to give money and reparations to the victims.

It is also responsible, in another sense, for drafting a 1968 law that, as used by other people (druglords, landowners and others) about two decades later, was interpreted and used as a unilateral excuse to create paramilitary groups through private, not government, initiative (including among those, obviously, military officials, but acting in a private capacity). So, until the law became invalid sometime after the fact, it is somewhat reasonable to link the government to the crime in that sense.

In a loose sense though, since to think that the people in this specific case ever had to "ask for permission" to create paramilitary groups is ludicrous. Heck, paramilitary groups existed during La Violencia when, AFAIK, no law allowed anything like that.

Still, that the government has some responsibility that it must assume for these kind of crimes is true. But that wasn't what the title is stating.

Because the government IS NOT guilty of actually committing the crime itself or intentionally planning it all along, as the title might imply. Nor did the government "create" the particular paramilitaries involved, which would mean basically the same thing.

Which is a small but significant difference, that the Court itself recognized when making the sentencing, and which was not addressed at all in the "Colombian Government Found Guilty in Massacre" bit, nor in the the text that followed it.

So, I insist, the title is somewhat misleading, to say the least.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Feb 27, 2006, 17:42:

"Abigeato" Or "cow theft" is still a common source of tension between cattle ranchers (small and large) in rural Colombia (I don't think this is a uniquely Colombian phenomenon, though). Seems to me that the Tangueros wanted to send a clear message, and let everyone know who is in charge. The Colombian government may not be guilty of comission of the massacre, but there appears to be evidence of omission, and comission of other criminal activities (cover up, etc.)

IMHO, I wouldn't mind so much biting the bullet and let the actual murderers go away with minor penalties and at least partial reparation, but only in exchange of information about Government involvement: the punishment that is not taken to the former should be taken by the latter, and let's see after that how much is any official willing to collaborate with illegal organizations.

That, of course, is unlikely to happen. Quite conveniently for the parts in "negotiation," forgive and forget is the rule rather than the exception.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 27, 2006, 17:56:

... Well, it depends on what you understand by "government" (pointing out that I've used the term "incorrectly" too...guilty as charged).

The military and police aren't part of the government, but of the state.

Same with local officials or politicians, unless they were given responsibilities at the specific level of government, and not at the state level.

The thing is, different governments are elected every four years (until now), while the state itself tends to remain (along with much of the police and the military, which are subject to their own internal cycles much of the time, beyond some top officers but even they tend to stick around for a long time in other positions).

The point is that any government, since it represents the state, has to share a degree of responsibility for the actions or inactions of the state, as well as the different actors that in some way or another are part of it in a certain capacity .

That being the case, the government that was in power during the massacre might have had absolutely nothing to do with it, in itself, and so those directly involved belong to another of the "sectors" of the state, so to speak (in this case, it appears to be the military).

What does this change? Not that much, in itself...except that it reiterates some basic concepts that, when overlooked, may lead to gross simplifications and misunderstandings (military = government = state = country and so on).

0 funny, 0 helpful.