Colombia Shows Us How It's Done

[CDarwin]

Well, that goes back to the point I made in post #3 about constitutionality. He'd have a point, but he would also be incorrect, by way of the caveat I brought up and Aardvark supported, which is that there's no objective measurement of what (if you'll forgive the pun) constitutes a constitution.

 

It's set of law that governs how a country is run. That seems objective enough.

[Pangloss]

Sure, but the question was actually when it's okay to change your country's constitution in order to run for another term in office.

[ecoli]

Here's an interesting development: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7545519.stm

 

As it turns out, the impersonation of the Red Cross could have been in violation of the Geneva Convention. Meanwhile, the Colombian gov't. is accusing of whoever leaked the tape of treason.

[Pangloss]

I read something about this right after it happened. Humanitarian organizations are concerned that terrorists won't accept their aid workers in the future because the Colombian military posed as aid workers in this case.

 

They may be right, but there's no expectation of honesty here, and plenty of other reasons a terrorist might shoot an aid worker. FARC can file a complaint with the central office on The Planet of the People Who Care, and if the aid workers think it's dangerous they shouldn't go there. I LIKE the fact that terrorists need aid workers. I WANT them scared and nervous and constantly checking their backs for betrayal. Means we're putting the screws to 'em.

[ecoli]

from a legal standpoint though, what can Columbia expect if they're convicted of violating the Geneva convention? Are there serious sanctions or just a ceremonial slap on the wrists?

[Sisyphus]

I read something about this right after it happened. Humanitarian organizations are concerned that terrorists won't accept their aid workers in the future because the Colombian military posed as aid workers in this case.

 

They may be right, but there's no expectation of honesty here, and plenty of other reasons a terrorist might shoot an aid worker. FARC can file a complaint with the central office on The Planet of the People Who Care, and if the aid workers think it's dangerous they shouldn't go there. I LIKE the fact that terrorists need aid workers. I WANT them scared and nervous and constantly checking their backs for betrayal. Means we're putting the screws to 'em.

 

So, what? You think we should get rid of the Geneva Conventions? That the mission of the Red Cross is foolish and not worth preserving? You're probably going to accuse me of strawmanning, but I don't see how that isn't implicit in your position. Am I misunderstanding you?

[Pangloss]

They apologized for using the symbol, and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. It's a minor transgression, and nobody is likely to be hurt over it. Like I said, the terrorists already have sufficient reason to mistrust and be cautious about inviting aid workers into their midst. What are we supposed to do, provide some sort of international organization to monitor and ensure the sanctity of international aid workers? Well-funded out of my wallet, no doubt. I'd rather just get rid of the terrorists.

[iNow]

They apologized for using the symbol, and that's good enough for me.

 

Hey Pangloss, I just finished having sex with your wife. She screamed how it was about time that someone could please her.

 

I'm sorry though. Glad we're cool again.

 

 

Come on... Really?

[Mr Skeptic]

They apologized for using the symbol, and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. It's a minor transgression, and nobody is likely to be hurt over it.

 

Actually, odds are, somebody is going to die over it. If someone has enemies dressed as aid workers, don't be surprised if they start shooting at people dressed as aid workers when they otherwise wouldn't.

 

Like I said, the terrorists already have sufficient reason to mistrust and be cautious about inviting aid workers into their midst. What are we supposed to do, provide some sort of international organization to monitor and ensure the sanctity of international aid workers? Well-funded out of my wallet, no doubt. I'd rather just get rid of the terrorists.

 

That's all true.

 

I think this would have been better if it were a police rather than military operation. The police aren't obligated to be in uniform by international law.

[Sisyphus]

They apologized for using the symbol, and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. It's a minor transgression, and nobody is likely to be hurt over it. Like I said, the terrorists already have sufficient reason to mistrust and be cautious about inviting aid workers into their midst. What are we supposed to do, provide some sort of international organization to monitor and ensure the sanctity of international aid workers? Well-funded out of my wallet, no doubt. I'd rather just get rid of the terrorists.

 

Ok, first of all, "terrorists" is a disputed term here. It's a civil war, and there have been some pretty repugnant actions on both sides over the years. The Geneva Conventions are not about "taking sides" in conflicts and deciding the rules don't apply to the side you agree with more.

 

Yes, compared with many things going on around the world, it is a "minor transgression," but it's still an obvious transgression, and people almost certainly are going to be hurt over it.

 

And no, we're not obligated to protect aid workers in foreign conflicts. But if we believe in the Geneva Conventions, and I think we should, we can at a minimum publicize and unambiguously condemn blatant violations. Unless we're willing to formally renounce the conventions and stop accepting help from the International Red Cross (which we could do), then we'd be hypocrites not to condemn this kind of thing.

[Pangloss]

Hey Pangloss, I just finished having sex with your wife. She screamed how it was about time that someone could please her.

 

I'm sorry though. Glad we're cool again.

 

Come on... Really?

 

Really. It's an inaccurate example, IMO. More like, you just looked at her with lust in your heart. Others will look at her with lust in their hearts again in the future. Facts of life.

 

(Loved the example! Alas I had no witty rejoinder today. Probably just tired, I pulled an all-nighter last night, heh.)

 

 

Actually, odds are, somebody is going to die over it. If someone has enemies dressed as aid workers, don't be surprised if they start shooting at people dressed as aid workers when they otherwise wouldn't.

 

I'm not entirely unswayed by the argument, and it could play out that way, I admit. If it does I will eat the appropriate crow.

 

 

Ok, first of all, "terrorists" is a disputed term here. It's a civil war, and there have been some pretty repugnant actions on both sides over the years.

 

I think that horse left the barn long before this event. Even Hugo Chavez has had his fill of FARC and sides with the Colombian government now.

 

 

And no, we're not obligated to protect aid workers in foreign conflicts. But if we believe in the Geneva Conventions, and I think we should, we can at a minimum publicize and unambiguously condemn blatant violations. Unless we're willing to formally renounce the conventions and stop accepting help from the International Red Cross (which we could do), then we'd be hypocrites not to condemn this kind of thing.

 

You make a reasonable argument.

 

But setting aside my other objections and just looking at it from a diplomatic point of view, the problem with condemning the action is that it's such a rare sign of progress in the region that you need to support that, not condemn it. It was a PEACEFUL resolution -- nobody got hurt -- so you have to support that as well, especially with the way things have gone in Iraq and Afghanistan -- everyone wants to see peaceful resolutions.

 

So while I don't entirely disagree with your point, I don't think it's very easy to condemn Colombia for this action, and condemning just the technique is a really fine line to walk -- it won't play in Venezuela, for example, Chavez would have a field day with that -- just one more sign of Bush hypocrisy.

 

Realpolitiks can be ugly that way.