I heard the same thing, FWIW. I can’t seem to get to npr.org from work, but I believe a story on NPR claimed that the US was involved. My wife had the same impression.
Wait what? I thought I heard the US planned this, I believed the US might have stooped to this level as I have no faith at all in the Bush/Cheney administration doing the right thing. I did not say what you just said.
Telemark: I get most of my news from NPR, that is where I heard the report about it. I might have my details wrong, but that is what I based my condemnation on. As to why I doubt it was one individual, I guess I have learn to distrust both my own and the Columbian government.
Jim
My understanding is that the official story is that we provided them with satelite imagery and equipment, but the operation was planned and carried out by the Columbians. John McCain was briefed on the operation before it was carried out. So it wasn’t like this was a secret from the US government, at what point you call us “involved” is a judgment call.
And we also have to recognize that the Columbian military doesn’t have the same level of professionalism that the US military does. Not that this proves that the Columbians are telling the truth that this was one guy acting on his own in defiance of orders. At some point someone decided it was a good idea to wear Red Cross insignia. It might have been this one guy. It might have been his boss. It might have been some mid-level Columbian guy. It might have been some Columbian big shot. It might have been proposed by some CIA advisor. But even so, Americans didn’t carry out the rescue, Columbians did.
No war is civilized. But it’s important for decent people to demand that it not descend into sheer barbarism, and to demand action when it does. Don’t you think the US was right to punish the perpetrators of My Lai, for example?
I agree, but this is awfully one-sided in practice. The US, even with our recent sins, has always been much more observant of the laws of war than our enemies.
Secondly, aside from Nuremburg and recently Iraq, have we ever punished war criminals of the other side? What good are the rules of war if only Americans are held accountable for them?
A bunch of Croatian and Serbians that I know off hand, but they may have been crimes against humanity rather than war crimes. Charles Taylor from some african country, im guessing Liberia. I think also the Israelis got a couple of nazis that never did Nurnemburg.
Declan
I agree that the rules of war are more aspirational than real, but they are good in that if we (generally) observe them, then at least one side is trying not to commit atrocities. Ergo, fewer atrocities are committed.
Depends on whether you win or lose the war.
I think it’s a good thing that somebody blew the whistle on the torturing. I think it’s a good thing we had the Nuremburg trials. You won’t hear me come down on the side of torture or inhumanity.
All I’m saying is that the rules of war are a self-imposed luxury that we can afford to give ourselves. We impose those rules on ourselves to assuage our consciences, and because we figure we can win without them. In so-called civilized wars throughout history, most surrenders have been conditional — the leaders are left in power and treaties are drawn up. Tens or hundreds of thousands killed, but the leaders drink wine and sign papers and it’s all better. So the leaders say, “Don’t worry, next time it’ll all be civilized and the bad things won’t happen again,” and the populace is happy. More or less.
Terrorists and rebels don’t have the luxury of following any “rules of war.” They aren’t answerable to any citizens. They are facing extinction. They abandon the pretense of civilized war because they have no choice.
All I’m saying is, when push comes to shove, we’d abandon those rules too if we felt we would be destroyed by following them. Problem is, there are some among us in power who already have abandoned those rules, well before we faced any actual danger of extinction.
I’ll go watch The Battle of Algiers, and I’ll get back to you.