U.S. hostages forgotten in Colombian jungle

ColombianoX says on Jun 28, 2005, 10:36:

PART II

U.S. PUBLIC KNOWS LITTLE OF COLOMBIA, HOSTAGES

Rosano's 33-year-old son, who has a daughter and two stepchildren, has been caught up in a war the FARC has been waging for 41 years for socialist revolution. The conflict claims thousands of lives a year.

She believes the American public, absorbed by the conflict in Iraq, is largely ignorant of U.S involvement in Colombia, to which Washington has provided more than $3 billion in mainly military aid to fight rebels and the cocaine trade since 2000.

"Many, many people don't know that there are American hostages here, and I come here in hopes that somebody's heart will soften," she said.

The last news she had of her son, a former member of the Air Force, came two years ago when a Colombian journalist brought a videotape of the three Americans surrounded by heavily-armed FARC rebels in a secret camp.

"He said on the video that he would never give up, that he would never get to the point where he would want to kill himself," said Rosano.

The mother's attempts to obtain help from Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a staunch U.S. ally who is fiercely anti-FARC, also made little progress.

"When I was here last year, I wrote President Uribe a letter requesting to meet with him. But he never responded," she said.

Colombian authorities have said in the past they have had intelligence about the location of hostages but have not been able to act due to fears for their safety.

Rosano is convinced any attempt to snatch the men to freedom would end with their deaths, as when the FARC killed 10 hostages during a botched rescue attempt by Colombian troops in thick jungle in May 2003.

"God tells me in my heart my son is alive, and when I get mad he reminds me, 'Your son is alive and I'm watching over him.' God is the one who'll bring my son home -- not (U.S. President George) Bush or Uribe," she said.

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

ColombianoX 'Defensor de la Colombianidad'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoX says on Jun 28, 2005, 11:01:

GIB,

Do you know how that rescue was planned? I just can't see how you can rescue people being help captive deep in a jungle while being guarded by machine-gun wielding guerrillas twenty-four hours a day.

Saludes,

CX

ColombianoX 'Defensor de la Colombianidad'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gorgonabob says on Jun 28, 2005, 11:09:

you guys obviously dont remember two years back when the army discovered the location of the kidnapped antioquian governer and and other imp. people... lets go and get them they thought... well by the time they got there most were dead and the rebels were way gone....

forget about a rescue attempt
forget about negotiation

they aint getting out anytime soon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 28, 2005, 11:13:

Dear Ms. Rosano Open letter to Ms. Rosano: I understand your pain and suffering and wish only the best for your son but as an American living in Colombia I have to side with the decision not to trade FARC criminals for American hostages. As you yourself noted, the FARC previously wanted 500 of their people released. Now they're asking for 2 for 3. Let's be honest, if the US government traded Trinidad and Sonia for your son and his fellow hostages do you really think it would stop there?

The minute the US makes a deal with the devil like that it will be open season on Americans in Colombia. You only have to look at the experience of the oil companies in Colombia who saw more, not less of their employees become kidnapping victims when they began paying multi-million dollar ransoms. So do you really believe that the US should trade for your son's freedom only to have more of its citizens kidnapped.

If the US ever does make a deal like that, my family and I will be on the next plane out of Colombia because it will no longer be even remotely safe for us here.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 12:21:

Dear Ms. Rosano, Open letter to Ms. Rosano: As someone who, like your son, was also kidnapped and held by guerrillas in Colombia I just want to reassure you that concern for your son's well-being is shared by me, you, and, most likely, the FARC. My experience of being a kidnap victim is that the guerrillas are not heartless monsters only interested in drugs and destruction. My experience is that they are thoughtful human beings motivated by political ideology. They truly want a Colombia without militarism, a Colombia without poverty. Unfortunately they have chosen violent means I do not agree with. Nevertheless, it is in their interest to care for the hostages they hold. They told me they abide by the Geneva Convention regarding treatment of "prisoners of war."

Of course, I have no idea where your son is or how he is being treated. I just wanted to share with you that I was treated extremely well.

I have been praying every day for the release of Ingrid Betancourt and the rest of the hostages. I agree with you that God will care for your son. God will see to his release. With God all things are possible.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 28, 2005, 12:40:

I hope you're right about that Platano, I really hope you're correct about them being treated well. I've talked to a fair number of people who were kidnapped by the FARC and most peoples' experience was a little, shall we say, more rustic than yours. I think a lot depends on which part of the FARC has you. Considering that these guys were part of the US spraying effort, I fear that they're not as welcome of guests as you might have been.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Jun 28, 2005, 12:47:

Platano Are you for real? You can't be for real. I have family members and friends who have been kidnapped and they do not have such a romantic view of their experiences as you do.

Were you really kidnapped by the FARC or do you just say that because you are a FARC supporter and you want to give your arguments credibility?

Honestly, I sound like a very nice guy. I can't understand for the life of me how you can defend a terrorist organization like the FARC, that has wreaked havoc in our country for so long. Maybe the average underaged "guerrillerito" is not an evil person, he or she is just a poor kid who didn't have much more going for him/her in this life. But to actually support the organization?

I am having a hard time believing you were kidnapped.If you are a FARC member, you can come out and admit it. Just come clean and say it and I am sure many of us will respect you for just coming out clean.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Jun 28, 2005, 12:52:

The main flaw in your argument... If they want a colombia without militarism, why are they resorting to military weapons and tactics to achieve their ideal???

If they are so anti-war they should be walking around like Ghandi or the Dalai Lama professing peace and love, not blowing up little kids on their bikes or blowing the heads off old ladies with explosive necklaces.


To talk about non militarization and peace when you are terrorizing your very own people spilling their blood with your modern deadly weapons is to talk out of your you know what.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 13:04:

Mr. H, They definitely did not consider the Geneval Convention regarding treatment of prisoners of war to be a "quaint" document. They consider themselves soldiers bound by the Geneva Conventions. They were pissed when one of theirs was captured and then tortured or "disappeared" in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which by the way, the Colombian government became signatory to as a result of guerrilla efforts to force the Colombian government to behave in a more humanitarian way. The Colombian government did not sign onto the 1977 Protocols until 1995. Guerrilla action was taken to force the Colombian government to respect human rights.

You can read the FARC's own words on their intention to treat prisoners well:

Here is what they themselves say:
It is true that the FARC-EP are not specifically a signatory of all international human rights; however, this supplement [Protocol II] demonstrates that the FARC-EP's rules are adjusted to it, as we are a revolutionary movement that has humanitarianism as one of its logical pillars.
Protocol II Addition to the Geneva conventions of the 12 August 1949 concerning the protection of the victims of armed conflict without international character...

To not believe the FARC's word would be cruel to Ms. Rosano and in direct opposition to my personal experience. I prefer to comfort Ms. Rosano and believe the FARC's words as they did carry them out to the letter of the law in my own experience, even when the Colombian government was acting in an illegal manner toward guerrillas captured in combat.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Jun 28, 2005, 13:14:

Oh look What the peace loving members of the FARC just did to show their love for the people of Colombia:



Junio 28 de 2005
12:25 p.m
Dos personas, entre ellos un niño, murieron por explosión de mina en Vistahermosa (Meta)

Cuatro menores y siete adultos más resultaron heridos en la detonación en plena cancha de fútbol de la inspección de Palestina.

Según versiones entregadas por el coronel Carlos Hugo Ramírez, comandante de la Brigada Móvil Número 12, el acto terrorista fue perpetrado por el frente 27 de las Farc que se encuentra acorralado y realiza ese tipo de actos contra la población civil para mermar la presión que hace el Ejército Nacional en esa zona al sur del departamento del Meta.

El listado de las personas afectadas es el siguiente:

Víctimas mortales:
�lvaro García, de 15 años
Farid Gutiérrez de 28 años

Heridos:
Luis González Díaz (48 años)
Edinson Bernal (31)
Johann Andrea Rodríguez (16)
Carlos Andrés Ospina (14)
Jairo Antonio Verano Ruiz (41)
Maycol Jordan Verano (7)
Fredy José Castañeda (27)
Ricardo Rivera Ibarra (20)
Hamilton López (17)
John Alex González (22)
Horecimo Marín (28 años).

Dos heridos de gravedad fueron trasladados al hospital de Granada (Meta).

Ante la situación, el gobernador, Edilberto Castro Rincón, citó en su despacho en Villavicencio, a los responsables militares y policiales del departamento a un consejo urgente de seguridad.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 28, 2005, 13:16:

Sorry Platano You really did drink the FARC purple Koolaid, then. They respect the Geneva conventions except when it comes to kidnapping civilians, bombing churches, displacing native populations, recruiting children, etc. What a bunch of crap.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Jun 28, 2005, 13:19:

Articulo Junio 28 de 2005
12:25 p.m
Dos personas, entre ellos un niño, murieron por explosión de mina en Vistahermosa (Meta)

Cuatro menores y siete adultos más resultaron heridos en la detonación en plena cancha de fútbol de la inspección de Palestina.

Según versiones entregadas por el coronel Carlos Hugo Ramírez, comandante de la Brigada Móvil Número 12, el acto terrorista fue perpetrado por el frente 27 de las Farc que se encuentra acorralado y realiza ese tipo de actos contra la población civil para mermar la presión que hace el Ejército Nacional en esa zona al sur del departamento del Meta.

El listado de las personas afectadas es el siguiente:

Víctimas mortales:
�lvaro García, de 15 años
Farid Gutiérrez de 28 años

Heridos:
Luis González Díaz (48 años)
Edinson Bernal (31)
Johann Andrea Rodríguez (16)
Carlos Andrés Ospina (14)
Jairo Antonio Verano Ruiz (41)
Maycol Jordan Verano (7)
Fredy José Castañeda (27)
Ricardo Rivera Ibarra (20)
Hamilton López (17)
John Alex González (22)
Horecimo Marín (28 años).

Dos heridos de gravedad fueron trasladados al hospital de Granada (Meta).

Ante la situación, el gobernador, Edilberto Castro Rincón, citó en su despacho en Villavicencio, a los responsables militares y policiales del departamento a un consejo urgente de seguridad.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 13:22:

No purple kool aid, just agua panela... You guys are all talking about military strategies... terrible stuff.
I am talking about the conventions regarding prisoners of war.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Jun 28, 2005, 13:26:

Platano Did you read the article above? So what do you make of that? Is planting a field full of landmines a peaceful strategy? What do you think about the article? Is it a lie? Is it "El Tiempo" that is making up evil lies about the honorable FARC members?

Why don't you go tell the mother of the 7 year old boy that just died that the FARC are peace loving people who have honorable intentions.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 28, 2005, 13:36:

Geneva conventions The Geneva Conventions aren't just about prisoners of war. And how you can possibly think of kidnapping victims as prisoners of war is beyond me. The most important application of the Geneva Conventions in a conflict like Colombia is their strong positions against involving civilian non-combatants into the conflict. Hard to say the FARC is taking that seriously when they put landmines in a soccer field and blow up purely civilian buildings like churches and social clubs.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 14:21:

Look, if you want to get technical.... FARC is under no legal obligation to observe any Geneva conventions for two reasons: 1) they are not signatory and, 2) Uribe refuses de facto recognition of the status of "belligerent force" for the guerilla forces.

My position is that the use of violence by the Colombian military is wrong and the use of violence by the FARC is wrong. Most of you seem to think violence is OK when used by a legitimately elected government, but not right when used by the FARC.

Concerning the OP we are talking about the treatment of civilians who are "prisoners of war" in the perception of the FARC. I was simply trying to comfort Ms. Rosano by sharing my personal experience. Then I had to quote the FARC document and the Protocols to provide documentary evidence for my position.

You can all go on and on about how terrible the FARC is blowing up kids, etc. I agree. Again... I am opposed to FARC violence and I am opposed to government violence used against the FARC which has included torture and "disappearance", i.e. clandestine extrajudicial assassination.

But on the specific subject of this thread, which is about a FARC hostage, I have some credibility because I discussed ("discutir", i.e., I argued) the issue of Geneva Conventions of treatment of prisoners of war with the guerrillas and they assured me they respect the Conventions. Their treatment of me from the moment of my kidnapping until the moment of my liberation confirmed what they said was true.

I don't think your extraneous and gratuitous comments about FARC atrocities are very comforting to Ms. Rosano. The specific issue here is FARC treatment of hostages. You may not care about Ms. Rosano and what she is going through. I do. All I tried to do was comfort her because I believe her son might be treated as well as I was treated... and for the same reasons... a humanitarian respect for the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 28, 2005, 14:25:

a friend of mine was also kidnapped by the FARC last Spring and held for over a week. The following was the experience of her and the other 4 Colombian human rights workers. They walked up to 15 hours a day through the jungle, and were allowed to bathe and they fed them. The reason for their kidnapping was unclear as they kept asking why they were being held and the FARC kept saying a commander needed to talk to them. The commander never came and they were then allowed to call the Red Cross and were released.

I am only sharing my friend's experience here, I'm not making any political statement. I'm not a supporter of either armed group.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 28, 2005, 14:47:

FARC "FARC is under no obligation to observe any conventions for two reasons: 1) they are not signatory and, 2) Uribe refuses de facto recognition of the status of "belligerent force"..."

Right, and that's why it's utterly stupid of the FARC to post a statement on their official website claiming that they do observe them. And why it's silly of you to cite this as some sort of evidence of their "philosophy".

These people do horrible things to their "prisoners" (read, kidnapping victims) and to innocent civilians. Cloaking themselves in nice-sounding rhetoric doesn't change that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 14:51:

007CA, Thank you for sharing a recent experience which confirms my experience of FARC respect for hostages. Yes, we did walk a lot! :) Sometimes "abriendo camino" with machetes.

And in spite of what some on PBH seem to think... I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF EITHER ARMED GROUP EITHER. But I refuse to dehumanize Colombians on either side of the conflict no matter how horrible their actions are. They are all human beings capable of reason... and capable of love. In fact, both sides claim to love Colombia, both sides claim to be patriots fighting for their version of Colombia. None of the Colombians on either side should die. "Colombianos no matan a colombianos" as Mockus said in his presidential bid.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

caslug says on Jun 28, 2005, 15:05:

Platano, you said yourself that.. violence from BOTH side doesn't work. Eye for eye, and we all go blind kinda thinking.. I commend you for condeming BOTH side for the violence against civilians. BUT you can't take the side of FARC on prisoner by saying it's NOT as bad as we think. YOU should CONDEM it too, irregardless of WHY they take hostages, the fact that they do should be condem. I studied the civil movement in the US, and never ONCE did ML King advocated arm struggle, even when the civil rights workers and volunteers were being lynched, burned, and sprayed with water hose. They never waver from non-violent protest, they never kidnap people either. While fringe groups ala Black Panther did advocate violence it was not the SOP of the civil right movement. Same with Gandhi, even when the british threw him and his follower in jailed. Why don't the FARC just stage non-violence sitin, with news organization filming it? If the AUC or gov't forces resort to violence against NON-violence protest, the tide of public opinion will change 180 degree.

One defining moment in the US civil right struggle was when AVERAGE WHITE AMERICANS saw the police brutality(water cannon, batons, and dogs used on black children who were staging non-violence marches) on their living room TV while eating evening dinner. This FORCE the federal gov't(under Kennedy) to act and protect the protester and pass strong law that were ENFORCE by US troops. Instead FARC is fighting guns with guns, their choice, and their consqeunces.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 15:18:

Caslug, you better believe I criticized FARC to their face... I criticized FARC soldiers to their faces (they rotated guards so I got to talk to many of them) for kidnapping me. I argued that I could not be a "prisoner of war" because I was not a combatant on either side. They said their was something in the Geneva Convention about civilians, then they denied I was "kidnapped"; they said I was a "temporary political detainee". At the time I didn't know what the Geneva Conventions said. When I looked it up later I realized they had lied to me and had no legal right to hold me. I also argued against their use of violence, and criticized their military strategies that kill civilians. But they got angry with me when I criticized their movement. (I think many you on PBH might easily agree with FARC that "¡Plátano es cansón!")

So, they lied to me, they threatened me with a "revolutionary trial" to shut me up. They labelled me "intransigente". But they never physically mistreated me (even when angry). And that is the message I wanted to convey to Ms. Rosano. There is a good chance that her son is not being mistreated because the FARC is cognizant of the Geneva Conventions and they do badly want to be officially recognized as a "belligerent force" so they have humanitarian and political incentive to respect the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of what they consider to be "prisoners of war".

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 28, 2005, 15:26:

one thing, caslug I think your post was very thoughtful, but when you said...

"If the AUC or gov't forces resort to violence against NON-violence protest, the tide of public opinion will change 180 degree."

Maybe you were referring to the FARC protesting non-violence, but if talking about civilian communities, many completely out of the conflict have and do protest the violence around them in a peaceful way, and the AUC and certain sectors of the Army still attack these communities. Many young paras are being brainwashed to believe that these "peace communities" are guerrilla supporters and they then commit atrocious acts towards them. The larger issue here is wanting their land that's very rich in natural resources.
Economic interests!

There are about 50-55 "peace communities" or communities living in resistance, meaning they have been attacked/violently displaced/tortured/or killed by guerrillas, paras, or the army itself and have declared themselves neutral and want to be left alone. This is not a passive or easy thing to do as the philospoohy of the armed groups is "you're either with us or against us". Many of these communities have international volunteers living with them as a means of protection. (vols from Peace Brigades Int'l, Fellowhip of Reconciliation, etc)

sorry if this is off topic, but I guess my point is that the AUC and certain sectors of the Army (18th Brigade for example) go after civilians for their land /economic interests too. and not just to fight the rebels.

I can give more examples of these communities as I have visited many, but I now have to run.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 15:36:

"...it's utterly stupid of the FARC to post a statement..." This comment betrays a profound disrespect for a segment of humanity in Colombia and is antithetical to dialog.

I believe in civil discourse and nonviolent communication that respects what the other is trying to say. Sometimes neither side lives up to its rhetoric... but I choose to believe that each side believes its rhetoric.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

caslug says on Jun 28, 2005, 15:36:

007.. what i meant was.. In order for public opinion to CHANGE they(public) HAVE to SEE it on TV. No TV No care. Sad to say, but we live in a media age. If atrocities are happening w/o TV coverage, they're SOL(sh*t out of Luck). The trick is of course is GETTING the media to cover and event, like atrocities. Which is very difficult because media(TV media IS THE BEST) WILL not sit around if there's NO story. What civil groups in US did was stage protest that they KNEW would cause a confrontation with the Police or local people. Sitin and all white restaurants or marching down mainstreet, etc., So it was a simple thing to get the media to coverage it, the media KNEW something will happen and they will be able to film good "exciting" footage.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 15:52:

from a steady diet of "Hogan's Heroes" in their formative years Thanks, Tinto, guess I missed that great TV education on civilian POWs.

I was surprised to learn the guerrillas had seen the Rambo movies and were inspired by them. The cult of violence has members on both sides.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Avispa says on Jun 28, 2005, 16:27:

Value These guys are in all likelihood still alive because dead hostages have no value to Farc.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Jun 28, 2005, 16:47:

I jsut finished reading a ver I just finished reading a very interesting book written by a man who was held captive by the FARC for over two years. His experience in every way echoes Platano's experience. He was treated fairly but firmly by his captors. Of course he was forced to march long hours, but his feet were in a bad way so the FARC used a horse whenever possible to transport him. When he complained he wanted a little more privacy the FARC built him a better accomodation with more privacy, in fact it was better than where the FARC themselves slept. He too mentioned that the rank and file and the field commanders were very commited to their cause and not simply narcos as they are portrayed.
Occasionally he would have personal problems with one of his guards, if he went to the commanding officer and made a complaint that guard was rotated out to another group.

I sent the book on to Miamimike.

Oh as for being freed by the military forget about it, the prisoners are dressed in the same garb pretty much as the FARC. They would more than likely be killed in a rescue attempt.

Personally and I say this with all sincerity, I would rather be held by the FARC than by the US military.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

caslug says on Jun 28, 2005, 16:59:

are you sure the guy.. was platano? LOL!

NO one is equating being a prisoner of FARC as the same as Bataan Death March or Hanoi Hilton. If you are an insurgent it sucks to be US POW, NOT because you'll be mistreated(which happens inside EVERY POW camp in history), BUT because you may NEVER get out, you're not fighting on behalf of gov't that US recognize. US treat Iraqi ARMY POW very humanely and release them at the end of the conflict. But the insurgent POW are stuck in limbo.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

carter says on Jun 28, 2005, 17:36:

I have met people who have been kidnapped and said they were treated well.

I also disagree with the violence used by both sides which I suppose according to some on this site makes me a FARC supporter.

Although i don't know how

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Jun 28, 2005, 17:38:

I am sure many of the US prisoners are treated humanely, but it is in the FARC's best interest to keep their prisoner healthy and alive. If they are dead there will be no ransom paid. There is a difference between hardships and lack of luxury whilst being a prisoner and outright torture and abuse.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Jun 28, 2005, 17:40:

Caslug, it could have been Platano I suppose. I offered the book to him and he didn't offer to autograph it for me. :-(

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 28, 2005, 17:52:

Video I once saw a video that I believe was shot by either a swiss or French journalist who the FARC allowed to travel to the site of their kidnapping camps. Among those interviewed was Ingrid B. The prisoners with her were being kept in a camp that looked a lot like what I imagine the improvised jungle prisons where a lot of US POWs spent their time in N. Vietnam, pig wire cages and plastic sheeting.

They weren't being tortured or anything, but I find it difficult to call being locked in a cage in the jungle after being kidnapped and separated from one's family and friends "humane treatment."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

carter says on Jun 28, 2005, 18:06:

By not admitting to the fact that the government and paramilitaries are also commiting violent atrocities. You to are supporting a violent inhumane organisation.

Atleast Platano disagrees with both sides and there use of violence. as far as I can see you are the unethical one supporting violence while Platano is against it. GIB you have made it clear you are a AUC supporter which I think is absolutly disgusting I put it down to the fact that you haven't been here long enough or spent enough time out of Zona Rosa to learn the truth. Surely no person with a heart would support the violence that these groups use.

Hollywood, Im not saying it was a holiday camp. Far from it and no one should be taken from there home and families but unfortunatly its a tactic of both sides.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 28, 2005, 19:01:

Please define Carter, please define what you mean by "both sides"?

Last I checked there were a LOT more than 2 sides in this thing.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 19:32:

Yo, GIB, Comandante Plátano, Frente PBH, ¡Presente! GIB said: "I will never have the same experience as you because it will be me killing them and being as absolute ruthless as I possibly can or them killing me. THere will be no buddy buddy bullshit."

Thanks for sharing, GIB. I appreciate hearing a different point of view. Now I have something else to pray about. I pray you never have the experience of being kidnapped.

But if you are kidnapped, you might try seeing the humanity in the enemy. The enemy consists of poor kids, university kids, farm kids, good Colombians all of them once you get to know them. Jesus saw the humanity in thieves, prostitutes, and his own kidnappers. I don't expect you would go so far as to follow Jesus' advice that we "love our enemies," but you might try talking to those kids to learn about their lives, their hopes, their dreams.

Because, as you know... we are all children of God... and... well... that buddy buddy bullshit works.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 28, 2005, 19:47:

caslug and GIB caslug- yes, I see what you mean about media. There are documentaries out there that do show atrocities commited by both paras and guerrillas, but it can be difficult to get a lot of public attention. check out a clip from this documentary at www.lasierrafilm.com

GIB- I was reading your posts and felt I had to reply to some things you said. You are unbelievable by admitting you favor the paras. You clearly have not seen or talked to people who have had INNOCENT family members cut up into pieces (including children), poured gasoline on and set on fire, gang-raped, cut out a baby of a pregnant girl's stomach while she is alive, sent pieces of a child to his father in a box, wrongly interrogated at knifepoint, decapitated and then played soccer with that person's head in front of his family and neighbors. These are all acts commited by "your guys". According to human rights organizations, paras commit 70-80% of human rights atrociites and the guerrillas about 20-30% - and don't respond with "you're a guerrilla supporter", that's just plain ignorant to say, as the most human thing to do is NOT SUPPORT EITHER SIDE. Both groups are horrible and commit inhumane acts, both groups are involved in the cocaine production and trade, and both are ILLEGAL. And, some sectors of the army work hand in hand with the paras.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Chavo del 8 says on Jun 28, 2005, 19:58:

I dont care whether t

I dont care whether there are US hostages somewhere in the Colombian Jungle. Its probably their own fault that they got into that situation, just like the Hostages which have been taken one or two years back by Algerian rebels. The people have been warned and still....they went to have a littl adventure. There are just some parts where you cant go in Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 28, 2005, 20:13:

i don't know... it doesn't really matter, because they are both committing them, BUT these reports from human rights orgs. are recent, current in fact. i also know that different groups will have different statistics, so quoting statistics can be tricky. and of course it all depends on whose perception it is.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Jun 28, 2005, 20:15:

What? Mr. Farcano, you call people that hold people captive against their will humanitarians?

What you are doing is called "propaganda". You are working for the FARC. How do you figure that an organization that teaches kids how to hack their enemy is humanitarian? The reason why colombia is plagued with violence. No guerrilla, no need for paras. No need for the army to be out in the jungle shooting at these guys. Without the guerrillas there would be no need for paramilitares and Colombia would only have to worry about common crime like any other latin american nation.

In your flawed logic and your urgency to propagate the "plight" of these terrorists, you forget the main point: THE PARAS CAME TO BE AS A RESULT OF THE GUERRILLAS!!!

I feel like laughing my head off anytime I see a bunch of non-colombians who think they are these great humanitarians defending the guerrillas or talking about fixing Colombia's problems as though Colombia were Switzerland or something.

I am so apalled that in this day and age there are people supporting the guerrilla and encouraging other people to do so. You are not even Colombian and I really do not believe that you were kidnapped.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jun 28, 2005, 20:17:

Exploding necklaces (again!) and POWs "(...) not blowing up little kids on their bikes or blowing the heads off old ladies with explosive necklaces."

Colombiche: I'll assume that you missed my reply to the explosive necklace incident. Here it is: http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/10697. To put it short: it was a lie.

"Según versiones entregadas por el coronel Carlos Hugo Ramírez, comandante de la Brigada Móvil Número 12, el acto terrorista fue perpetrado por el frente 27 de las Farc."

I'm not saying that the FARC definitely didn't do it, but I'm quite surprised by how quick the military conduct their investigations. Less than 1 day. I wish they were that quick when investigating their own human rights abuses, like the bombing of Santo Domingo (http://www.laborrights.org/press/oxy_052604.htm): 4.5 years. Or is this another "collar bomba"-like incident?

Now, Santo Domingo, that's something to feel proud of: bombing 18 civilians, including 7 minors, to death. Oh, by the way, when that happened, guess who was accused first?

Regular Colombians, like me and many here, are getting killed from BOTH sides (Side 1: The armed clientelists of the FARC, Side 2: Military and paramilitary, jointly or separately, with the help of the US or without it). That's why I side with folks like Plátano, who has seen the shades of gray in this conflict, and who understands that the ultimate Golden Rule for us is "Colombiano no mata Colombiano".

If your enemy is the FARC, follow a simple dictum: "Know thy fucking enemy!". Know him. Understand how he thinks, his motivations, his subtleties, and his errors. Or keep seeing monsters and witches, and such black-and-white view will keep feeding the idealist warmongerism that sustains the real monster, our 50-year old civil war (wait no, I forgot, there's no such thing, it never happened).

As for the US guys held by the FARC, as sorry as I feel for them, they are POWs and not hostages: they are not innocent civilians, but were actively and openly collaborating with the Colombian police and military. To say that they were "kidnapped" banalizes the situation of civilians who are actually held hostage against international humanitarian law.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Jun 28, 2005, 20:17:

If you had a drop of colombian blood And it was your country that was bleeding to death, you wouldn't be sitting at your desk typing all this nonsense away.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Jun 28, 2005, 20:19:

It is not about seeing black and white But tell me one, just ONE positive thing that the FARC have done for our Colombia and I will shut the hell up.

I challenge you to tell me one positive thing that they have accomplished. ONE positive thing that they have done to better the situation of Colombia.

Please humour me and answer my question.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

caslug says on Jun 28, 2005, 20:34:

It's funny watching 007/Platano.. debating morality w/ GIB. GIB is a military vet of over 10 years, most long time veterns i know have a very black/white view of "enemies". In this case FARC is the enemy, because they WILL/HAVE capture americans, you can sugar coat it anyway you want(it's not bad, it's a free nature tour with spanish lesson! LOL!) but ALL americans(and most foreigners) ARE MORE afraid of FARC than AUC. Say what you want about his views, but GIB said very clearly AUC is the lesser of two evils. Do both groups(including gov't) commit horrible atrocities? YES! Have ALL the groups committed them against Americans(foreigners) NO! Only FARC.

Civies(like most of us, incl me) are afford the opportunity to look at different views and try to understand and "humanize" the "enemy". BUT most vet i've talk to don't bother to understand the enemy beyond figuring out how to kill or avoid them. I vet i've talked with he recently got out of the ARMY, But he just came back from a one year tour of Iraq in 2004. He's seen it all, from getting mortar, shot at or IEDed. I asked him about dehumanizing the enemy(insurgent).

Here's a very telling story of that line of thinking.. One day, on guard duty they spot a iraqi man and his two little kids way outside their base setting up a rocket attack ON the base. Before they could do anything about it, the iraqi mishandle the rocket and it blew up, blowing off his arm and killing his two kids. The soldiers laughed and told that story to the other soldier on base and they just laugh too. But DONT blame them for feeling that way, it's the nature of the beast.

War is hell(as an US general once said) it makes normal human beings do horrible things to their fellow man. You can try to denied it, but COL does have a WAR on it's hand. No sugaring coat there. So unless the majority of the COL civilian population is willing to do something about it, either vote to end the war BY ANY MEANS or destory FARC/AUC BY ANY MEANS. atrocities will continue to be committed from ALL sides.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jun 28, 2005, 20:39:

Colombiche 1. I'll assume you were not referring to me two messages above. But, in general, I'd suggest you to avoid the ad hominem attacks (in fact, it is a rule here in PBH). You are more persuasive when you attack the argument, not the person. And talking about the argument...

2. One positive thing that the FARC have done. One I will give you: the popular election of mayors and governors was actually pushed in the legislative agenda by the FARC during the negotiations with the Betancur government. Now, don't start labeling me as a FARC supporter just because I am able to see one positive thing in them (there are some more, btw, but probably not at a national level). I also see some positive aspects in the Uribe government, but I'd spit on someone calling me a Uribe supporter/cheerleader/fan to my face.

3. Please, DON'T shut up. I honestly appreciate dissenting voices that engage in dialogue. But try not to spread inaccuracies like the collar-bomba incident.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 21:44:

Colombiche, I beg to differ with you... Colombiche said: "In your flawed logic and your urgency to propagate the "plight" of these terrorists, you forget the main point: THE PARAS CAME TO BE AS A RESULT OF THE GUERRILLAS!!!"

From my reading of Colombian history you got it exactly backwards. Do you remember "La Violencia" or have you read about it?

Paramilitary groups were in existence long before the famous incident at Marquetalia (May 27, 1964); paramilitary groups existed back in the days when Jorge Eliecer Gaitan was killed that provoked the confrontation between Liberals and Conservatives. In those sixteen years (1948-1964) of "La Violencia" more than 200,000 people died in Colombia. After the Bogotazo, the Ospina government became more repressive. Ospina banned public meetings in March 1949 and fired all Liberal governors in May. In November of that year, Ospina ordered the army to forcibly close Congress. Rural police forces heightened the effort against belligerents and Liberals, and eventually all Liberals, from the ministerial to the local level, resigned their posts in protest. The army and the police created their paramilitary groups. These gangs of thugs (working overtime) followed the orders of the Conservatives and would kill Liberals-- but they would never carry out these actions while in uniform. Colombia's state policy of using paramilitaries to assassinate the unarmed political opposition is why the guerrilla movement has grown in Colombia. First, the paramilitaries, then the guerrillas, not the other way round.

Oh, and just to make the story more interesting the USA was "metido" back then, too. To obtain US aid, Colombia redefined the "bandoleros" as communists, although their political agendas were far from clear. In the eyes of the Colombian military, they had always been considered to be bandits without any political agenda.

In February of 1962, a Survey Team led by US General William Yarborough visited Colombia to assess the situation and make recommendations. Although the team was informed by the intelligence group that the "some 8,000 communists" in Colombia were "inept bumblers and posed no real threat to the government," Yarborough returned to Washington recommending the assignment of five twelve-man Special Forces detachments to lead the Colombian counterguerrilla brigades, as well as psychological warfare specialists.

A new security plan was developed called Plan Lazo (the first Plan Colombia). It relied primarily on the use of hunter-killer teams to assassinate the bandoleros/communists. Plan Lazo followed a newly-developed low intensity warfare model, most notoriously implemented in Vietnam as the Phoenix Program, in which an estimated 20-40,000 civilians were assassinated by US-led hunter killer teams.

War on Communists, War on Drugs, War on Terrorists... it's always something to get gullible people riled up, fighting, killing, and dying. And it will continue until folks take Nancy Reagan's advice and "Just say, NO!" No más violencia. ¡Basta ya!

How am I doing, UTC? Entertaining enough?

Comandante Plátano, Frente Bananero Verde PBH
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Jun 28, 2005, 22:12:

Damn, never argue with a man who can read.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Jun 28, 2005, 22:56:

And the 64000 pesos question? What the hell is it going to take to straighten out this f~cked up mess in Colombia?
I enjoyed reading all the comments in this post especially from the colombianos. I think Platano gets a "A" in Colombian history as far as who came first, the para/vigilante or guerilla.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 23:17:

Get the USA "advisors" and USA money out of Colombia... Sending more weapons to Colombia is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Let Colombia solve its own problems.

Comandante Plátano, Frente Bananero Verde PBH
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 28, 2005, 23:25:

Tinto, the answer is obvious in the history you give... "After the 40 years of relative peace and prosperity" in Colombia came the BOGOTAZO and the start of the paras. Sixteen years of right-wing violence, then FARC starts in 1964. It is amazing Colombians "aguantaron" 16 years of paramilitary abuse before starting to fight back. FARC in 2005 still intends to become the government of Colombia.

By the way, I have said this before URIBE WAS THE FARC'S PREFERENCE and I don't say that because I used to be a baker. I remember reading an interview with Raul Reyes and he explained why FARC wanted Uribe to win. It's all part of the FARC master plan. If the man with balls, the toughest hombre, hasn't been able to defeat the FARC (even with billions of USA aid.... well... stay tuned.

How am I doing UTC, entertaining enough for ya' cowboy?

Comandante Plátano, Frente Bananero Verde PBH
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 29, 2005, 00:00:

And don't forget that FARC sends other people's kids to fight.. instead of their own kids. At least all the Colombian leaders send their own children into battle instead of conscripting other people's children by force.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 29, 2005, 05:41:

I hope you're using "children" in the figurative sense Platano, I hope you're using children in the the sense of "adult children" because while your sarcasm is funny and appreciated, the FARC, AUC and ELN are the ones sending LITERAL children into the battlefields.

Methinks, also, that all this "debate" about Paras vs. FARC is a bit ridiculous. They're both criminal organizations. They both do horrible things. They're both enemies of peace in Colombia. It's also not fair at this point to keep painting a picture of the paras as allies of the Colombian Government. I know that was true at one point, and not so long ago, but the military sure has killed a lot of paras in the last couple years. No doubt there's still some cooperation and complicity between, as 007ca puts it "segments of the military" but those are now rogue elements, not state-sanctioned policy.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 29, 2005, 06:41:

GIB, Otra vez gracias por compartir tus sentimientos. Oro por Ud. y pido que Dios te proteja siempre. ¡Qué Dios te bendiga!

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 29, 2005, 07:47:

GIB You said,

"As far as the PARA's go I know they are not the favorites of the human rights organizations but then what have those people ever done for anybody?"

I'll tell you what the human rights people have done and do for others. THEY SAVE LIVES.
Do some research on Peace Brigdes Int'l, Fellowhip of Reconciliation, Witness for Peace, Chicagoans for a Peaceful Colombia, Colombia Support Network, etc. Some of these organizations provide "accompaniment programs" to Colombian communities and people under threat of paras/military AND NOT because they are guerrillas or guerrilla supporters but rather because they are NON-VIOLENTLY fighting for justice and peace and revelaing the TRUTH about what is happening in their communities. You are wrong by saying that the paras ONLY objective is to fight guerrillas and that they do not have a political one. Many young paras are brainwashed into thinking that Colombian human rights workers are guerrilla supporters so they will kill them. I have given specific examples on PBH where SECTORS of the Army work together with the paras to kill or "disappear" those communities of either Colombian human rights workers, or communities that have very rich land that is very desirable for economic interests. and Don't say human rights workers are guerrilla members/supporters. That is simply not true. Human rights workers are for PEACE AND FOR PROTECTING ONE'S RIGHTS TO LIFE. They do not support any armed group.

I accompanied an afro-colombian village in Choco who were violently displaced in 1997 by a joint paramilitary/military operation called "operacion genesis" in which 87 members of the communitry were killed and the other 2,000 people were forced to live in a gymnasium of the nearest town for 4 years. With the help of international human rights lawyers, they miracously got their land back in 2001. (I say miraculously because most of the 3 million + displaced in CO never see their land again and end up in urban shantytowns.) They are now back on their land, trying to be the farming community they once were, but the army (17th brigade) and paras are still right across the river from them. Why don' t they kill them? Because there are international human rights workers living with them. The state knows they're there and cannot afford to have internaional scandal caused by the army/paras so they back off. This saves those in the community's lives.

Why is their land so desirable? Because it is a money maker. There are two Colombian companies, UNIPALMA and MADERAS DEL DARIEN, that are ILLEGALLY planting african palm which produces a cooking oil, and M.Del.D is logging by clear-cutting the forest.
Problems 1) this land belongs to the community (by law, under Law 70) and it is illegal to be there 2) the planting of African Palm - which is not a native plant to the area - soaks up too much water, creating not enough h2o for their food crops. and the clear-cutting method of logging does not leave room for other trees to grow, devastating the forest.

This community has asked the GOV'T for help MANY TIMES with these companies and has tried legally to get them to leave. They have been ignored by the gov't.

So, the h.r workers are too weak to stand up for themselves? I'd say they are f-ing ballsy to be putting their lives at stake for others!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 29, 2005, 08:23:

GIB, once again we find ourselves in agreement... GIB said: "...you do not solve problems by blowing up buildings and killing innocent people. "

Rezo que no te pase nada malo, que nunca te secuestren... en tu corazón eres pacifista.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Jun 29, 2005, 08:57:

No, Platano, it's not entertaining at all. Violence has plagued Colombia throughout its entire history and violence will continue to plague it for my lifetime and those of many generations to come. It's one of those places that is locked in a cycle like Northern Ireland or the Middle East. Like my wife I am deeply pessimistic about the violence ever ending.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 29, 2005, 09:05:

GIB, one thing I think you're pretty clear that I'm not a FARC supporter. But I will tell you that the father of a friend of mine was kidnapped by the AUC for failing to make "protection" payments for his business. This is an upper-class, conservative Bogota businessman. They held him for 4 months and he was eventually rescued. I know other people, not FARC, who have had their properties expropriated by AUC. Basically, it was "sign this transfer of ownership or we cut off your fingers one-by-one."

Maybe at one time the Paras had decent motivations, but that was long ago.

This is clearly a case where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not apply.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Jun 29, 2005, 10:27:

GIB Thanks for the posts/venting. As we say in the USA, "opinions are like assholes...everybody has one" (which is incorrect in the rules of The King's English)...en todo caso tu sabes que quiero decir. Your perspective is appreciated.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

carter says on Jun 29, 2005, 10:42:

GIB Don't write bullshit about being a peace lover while openly supporting one of the most violent organisations in the world.

I am man enough to take sides. I am man enough to take sides against violence and say to Uribe get your finger out of your arse. Get rid of your little Paraboys who have done nothing for this country and organise a professional and humane military to bring an end to this.

I hate the Auc, I hate the Frc, I hate the ELN. (Hwood I know there is many other sides to the story, sorry about the both sides comment before)

With the AUC around the violence will never stop, The majority of Colombian people do not want them here, the Colombian government have finally woken up and realised the people don't want them here.

With every murder the AUC commit 4 young boys in town are taking up arms against them. (and I know this works the other way) Get ride of one of these sides (preferably the government funded one) and use the money to help the people in small towns. Its a lot easier to sign up a boy who has had his family killed than one who has a healthy family, education and job prospect.

Although I hate these organisations I would like to say that I sympathise with all members in lower levels. They have come from a background of violence and many have very little choice in joining any of the groups. While many of you pray for the victims of kidnappings Im thinking of those who had little choice in life than to become a kidnapper. I feel sorry for them both (so I guess again that labels me FARC or am I ELN????, I get confused)

I know very few Colombians who want the AUC here and most educated people whether they are Pro Uribe or not say they are no longer wanted here. If you live here you should want whats best for the country and the less organisations like the AUC, ELN and FARC the better

GIB It makes me sick that you want this organisation here because it makes you feel safer in Colombia. If you want to be safe go home. But don't come over here and support a group guilty of so many attrocities so you and your wealthy buddies can feel safe while so many suffer.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Jun 29, 2005, 10:48:

Platano, I beg to differ with you as well You may have done your reading and you might impress a lot of people here with your communist rhetoric but....

You were right about the assasination of Gaitan bringing about a bout of violence, which was actually not a 'bout' but rather, the peak of a bout that had been occurring long before as a consequence of the liberal reforms of the 1930's.

As a response to this violence many liberal and comunist rural groups created guerrillas of peasant "autodefensa". These guerrillas were counterattacked by the conservative leaders who created "contraguerrilla" groups and bandas.

In 1953 Rojas Pinilla (a military regime) came to power. His goverment tried to find peace through amnesty with these liberal and communist guerrillas, BUT HIS ANTICOMUNIST AND ANTIMARXIST ideals caused a new bout of violence by the counter attack of these guerrillas. The confrontations between the liberal and communist guerrillas only served to further fragment the peasant population of colombia .

Sounds to me like the liberals and communist guerrillas came to be first as a result of "la violencia" and then the conservative counterguerrillas spawned as a result. It also sounds to me like these communist insurgencies were not mitigated with amnistia even back during the Rojas Pinilla days, but rather, expected the government to align with their communist ideals. Gee, any resemblance to the present day FARC is purely coicidential.

Anyhow..my statement was aimed at the AUC (a union of all autodefensa groups)as we know them today. No FARC, no need for these fragmented autodefensa groups to consolidate into one huge group.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

carter says on Jun 29, 2005, 10:48:

as for this rubbish about people in small communities covering for FARC what option do you really have. Thats even if they really are FARC. Do you go running to the military to tell them? Your family wouldn't live out the end of the week. Ohh thats right people in small towns have enough money to relocate whenever they want. Colombians in small communities love relocating its like a holiday, brand new house, new job waiting all that.

or they could take option 2

Don't tell the military and when they find out from another source watch the PARAs come in slaughter the baddie FARC boys and then turn on your family and murder them anyway for being affiliated with them.

How dare the Peace brigade try and stop both these sides.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

carter says on Jun 29, 2005, 10:57:

you may not believe this but a Spanish guy and a yankee were hiking about 2 months ago. They came accross the Farc. Spent the night drinking coffee, talking politics. In the morning they shook hands and left.

As Platano has often mentioned many of these Farc members are real people. GIB believes that all Gringos have a pricetag, but according to there story this is not true. They were not a target.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

carter says on Jun 29, 2005, 11:01:

GIb I just read you last post and am happy to see that your argument was based more on the fact that the thread started to seem more pro FARC than anything else.

I agree its hard to control the people on the fringes but if an organisation aimed at helping Colombia can't control its fringes and these fringes are doing more harm than good. Maybe its time to shut down for the good of the people you are trying to help.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

carter says on Jun 29, 2005, 12:24:

Todays news (old news) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4633955.stm

Colombia war crimes probe urged

The AUC has been laying down its arms under a disarmament deal
A human rights coalition has called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate alleged war crimes by Colombia's main paramilitary group.
The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), said the right-wing AUC militia had committed 2,000 atrocities since December 2002.

The FIDH also condemned laws setting out incentives for the AUC to disarm, saying they amount to an amnesty.

The government insists the legislation is vital to the peace process.

Bogota has been holding talks with the AUC aimed at getting the group to renounce violence.

Justice

A report submitted by the FIDH said the AUC had been guilty of assassinations, kidnappings and mass killings since it entered the peace process more than two years ago.

QUICK GUIDE


The Colombian conflict


"Tens of thousands of crimes are being committed on a monthly basis," Alirio Uribe Munoz, the FIDH's vice president said on Wednesday.

"An ICC investigation is the only hope that there will be justice against those who commit crimes against humanity," he said.

The ICC, based in the Hague in the Netherlands, is allowed to launch prosecutions against suspected war criminals where other means for trying them have failed.

Colombia is one of nearly 100 nations that have ratified the ICC's charter.

'Government complicity'

The FIDH attacked Colombia for approving legislation that, it says, effectively grants the AUC immunity from prosecution.

According to its critics, the law promises AUC members - several of whom are wanted in the US on cocaine trafficking and terrorism charges - immunity from prosecution and extradition.

The FIDH report named several paramilitary soldiers as war crimes suspects.

It also calls for Colombian officials - including President Alvaro Uribe - to be prosecuted for their alleged failure to prevent and punish the crimes.

Colombia's paramilitaries have their origin in private armies formed by wealthy landowners to combat Marxist rebels

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 29, 2005, 12:34:

GIB How dare you call me and, like you said, "my people" names when YOU HAVE NO IDEA who I am. You are king of making assumptions. So, just because I haven't come down hard on the FARC makes me a sympathizer? And the people that the human rights orgs. accompany are the FARC themselves? That is BULLSHIT. Again, YOU HAVE NO IDEA AND ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. I invite you to go to a peace community and talk to the people and see for yourself. We all speak from our experiences and I speak from mine. Yes, more people I have spent time with and have interviewed, talked to/met have had para horror stories, so that is what I talk about. A human rights worker friend of mine WAS KIDNAPPED BY THE FARC as I said in another thread so there blows your stupid-ass theory that they are a bunch of FARCs.
Again, BOTH the Farc and the AUC recruit young boys with glim futures, both commit atocities, both work as mafiosos, both are involved in the cocaine trade, both are illegal, and both suck.
I hope you have a swell day, GIB. PEACE AND LOVE.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Elbigie says on Jun 29, 2005, 20:31:

Colombiche,
When you say:

"You were right about the assasination of Gaitan bringing about a bout of violence, which was actually not a 'bout' but rather, the peak of a bout that had been occurring long before as a consequence of the liberal reforms of the 1930's"

Are you refering to the reforms introduced by Alfonso Lopez Pumarejo (i.e "La Revolucion in Marcha")? Can you elaborate a bit more?. Sorry I'm a bit confused. Because if that's what you're saying then Platano Verde is 100% right.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Hunter says on Jul 5, 2005, 05:31:

carter One thing that I notice from nearly EVERY article I read regarding atrocities in Colombia, all these articles seem to be written by left leaning groups, normally 95% of the article is commenting on the AUC groups, they tend to throw a one line mention of the left wing groups in the article most of the time, sometimes not at all.

Much like the article above.

Hunter

0 funny, 0 helpful.

carter says on Jul 5, 2005, 11:34:

Hunter recently yes. Nearly every article I read written on the BBC website in the past ended in the same comments about the country being in war due to the guerillas. Even if it was about Montoya winning a race.

Currently the AUC are getting more of a mention due to the reason they are meant to be in peace talks and the presidents making a big deal of how he is going to bring an end to the PARAs

They also get more of a mention in International press because the Government is responsible for this group and international pressure can bring about an end to the AUC.

This is one group that can be brought down by international pressure and the Colombian government.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jul 5, 2005, 13:00:

Just curious How can the AUC be brought down by the Colombian Government? You say the government is "responsible for this group"? Please explain.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 5, 2005, 16:32:

1. Military & Police rescues have failed in certain circumstances, but they have also been successful, plenty of times, in others. There's no way to know what will happen unless we (or those in charge, rather) carefully analyze the situation and all the risks involved in an specific operation. Rescuing a politician, someone like Ingrid, is probably nigh-impossible for now, but rescuing "less important" (from a political or military point of view) people, such as "economic" hostages, is probably more feasable.

2. The FARC are not monsters, they have certainly their own political and rational motivations (they DID propose, as it's been pointed out, the popular election of mayors back in the 80's...but let's just say that their sense of what "popular" implies has its own slant), however, it's very true that they currently have an attitude towards human rights and international law that is significantly more "flexible" and "relative" than the one that the Colombian government has even in its worst days (and believe me, I agree that the Colombian state and its Army have a bad record in this area, but the FARC's worse, proportionally).

Plainly, they may not torture hostages/POWs outright (most of the time, I suppose they do interrogate/torture certain individuals with valuable information), but they sure as heck are committing plenty of other violations to applicable humanitarian laws that, whether they like it or not, *do* affect them (reminds me of when Hitler & co. said that the Geneva Convention, because it wasn't signed by the USSR, didn't have to apply during the Invasion of Russia...). Trinidad himself, who now is enjoying the "hospitality" of the U.S., once said that international humanitarian law is a "burgueoise (sp) concept"...I guess that doesn't speak too highly of his organization, I believe.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 5, 2005, 16:50:

Paramilitarism, post-La Violencia 3. The history of the paramilitaries, as part of a phenomenon, is very complex and even ironic, because it is tied to the complex and ironic history of nearly everything else in Colombia.

In general terms, after La Violencia, in the 1960s and 1970s there were small groups of self-defense militias, some of them with limited military training and equipment (which was in line with U.S. doctrine for the entire continent, not just Colombia), mostly of an improvised nature in their day-to-day activities and not widespread nationwide. There was no active government oversight over these people and they mostly saw the central state as an irresponsible party, which didn't do much to help them against the guerrillas, with only the occasional aid and sympathy of local Army or Police, whom they helped with intelligence work sometimes (but not enough to be an integral part of their operations).

These groups mostly came and went on their own, and the next generation of such militias only really grew and became highly aggressive in the 1980's because of three new factors:

A) The drug business began to thrive, providing "new" landowners with the opportunity to buy extensive rural lands and to arm their own private hitmen corps. They were a "new" force to be reckoned with, with the power to hurt or corrupt all sectors of Colombian society if they so wished, but the guerrillas initially underestimated them (and paid dearly for it at the time).

B)Even just as the Betancur peace process was beginning, the FARC, M-19, EPL and ELN subsequently increased their recruitment rates, executed massive extortion, kidnappings and military force against "old" landowners, "new" drug lords and both of their associates/family. The FARC had extremely ambitious growth plans laid out in 1982, the ELN was recovering its strength at a steady rate and stayed out of the entire talks, and the M-19 sought to capitalize on its best 15 minutes of political popularity as much as possible (if that wasn't possible, then they'd go right back into the mountains...and for a few years they did, in fact).

C)All this happened while the small Colombian military and police were in no position to adequately protect anyone for certain, in part due to their own limitations but also due to the contradictions inherent in the current political climate.

The Army and Police felt that they were being held back, while many in society and in the government thought that they had gone too far under Turbay (though they did achieve important operational achievements, even at the cost of human rights)...both sides had partially valid reasons to distrust each other, in hindsight, and in the end both lost due to their failure to impose their point of view on the other (Betancur didn't get his desired peace process to work and neither did the military get the free hand it wanted...perhaps either of both scenarios would have been better than what actually happened, in retrospect).

As a result, you can imagine that members of both the "old" and "new" landowning groups decided to take matters into their own hands to respond to guerrilla provocation, recruiting the jobless and those with vendettas against the guerrillas, admittedly with the sympathy and helping hand of many a dissatisfied military and police operative (even including some high ranking people at the very top, obviously) that distrusted the intentions of the FARC & co. during a difficult peace process carried forth by a Betancur (and later Barco) administration that they didn't see in a positive light (coups were even up in the air at one point, but nothing of the sort happened).

Everything else in the development of the paramilitary groups was pretty much a logical consequence of the above...the AUC became the new shape of paramilitarism after the end of the big drug lords, the failure (lack of ANY real state support behind it) of a partial paramilitary demobilization in the 1989-1991 era, and the failure of the Convivir as a slightly more institutionalized alternative. Likewise, the guerrillas that did not demobilize continued to grow at an even more accelerated rate due to extortion and drug profits, after the bloody end of the UP, the other frustrations of the peace process (some of them self-imposed), and the lack of any concentrated military response against them.

In other words, only when all these factors came together did the situation truly change for the worse, creating the pathway that eventually led to the horrors that happened in the rest of the 1980's, the 1990's and those that continue to plague us today. The many contradictions of the time were a recipe for disaster.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Jul 5, 2005, 17:07:

Speaking of Palmira What happened to his family? Did the AUC go after them?



Also, did he have real money before he joined the FARC? I remember reading that he used to work for a bank. Big bank, little bank, worked his way up, or was the bank owned by his family?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

terco panzone says on Jul 11, 2005, 01:25:

still learning what exactly is the FARCs end goal, I mean what type and shape of govt. are they advocating?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Aug 1, 2005, 15:01:

The US army did not follow the Geneva convention on the so called war on terror, you expect the FARC to do so?

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Aug 1, 2005, 15:12:

COLOMBICHE "THE PARAS CAME TO BE AS A RESULT OF THE GUERRILLAS!!!" but the Guerillas came to be as the result of oppresive actions by the ruling Oligarchs, which in either conservative or liberal parties ruled the central government when the guerilla movement started. The guerillas are very much vicious but so was the government very much before the FARC civil conflict started. The paramilitaries were by far a mistake of astronomical proportions as a solution to this problem. I have first hand seen the terror they instill on innocent Colombians in area's that are far from FARC territory and area's that provide no support at all to the FARC.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Aug 1, 2005, 15:31:

"Platano, I beg to differ with you as well" Submitted by COLOMBICHE.
Actually COLOMBICHE, according to history "paras" type of squads were used by the ruling elite since the late 1800's in Colombia.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Aug 1, 2005, 15:44:

Cali373 said, "you expect the FARC to uphold the Geneva Conventions?"

No, not in the least, but the FARC CLAIMs to do so on their very own website, so it's fair to call bullshit on that. They claim to respect the Geneva conventions while doing everything in their power to involve non-combatants in the conflict, such as their shutdown of Putumayo that's currently got most of a state without electricity, transport or supplies because they threatened to kill anyone on the roads.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Aug 1, 2005, 17:23:

On the other hand, "Simon Tri On the other hand, even as "Raul Reyes" claimed that the FARC followed "much" of the Protocol II, Simon Trinidad" claimed that international humanitarian law was nothing more than a "bourgeois concept", implying that it doesn't affect the FARC (because, like, they aren't bourgeois, of course):

In an interview with Human Rights Watch in Los Pozos, Caquetá, FARC commander Simón Trinidad dismissed international humanitarian law as "a bourgeois concept."




http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/americas/colombia.html

Btw, it's interesting to point out that such a position will definitely come back to haunt the FARC if they ever "win"...if people think that the Colombian government currently faces a lot of heat, internationally, imagine what a FARC-based "dictatorship of the proletariat" (they still define themselves as Marxist-Leninist, last I checked)would have to deal with...

And the U.S. doesn't completely ignore the Geneva Convention, though it certainly (and intentionally) tries to be "creative" in its interpretation (far from completely dismissing it, even with all the "enemy combatant" crap).

0 funny, 0 helpful.