in the wake of the Columbian government's brilliant operation to free the hostages from the FARC, the international lawyers at opinionjuris.org (7/3/08) wonder if the Columbian government hasn't violated international law.
Now given that FARC has violated every international law and tenant of morality imaginable this would not seem to be a particularly burning question. But we are not lawyers. The violation is the rule against perfidy. The government of course claimed to be rebels, and apparently that is against one of the rules (though as far as I knew, it only meant that you were a spy and not entitled to the protections of prisoner of war status if caught. Since those caught by the FARC are either murdered on the spot or used as bargaining chips as their value dictates such protections would be worthless anyway)
The other issue raised is the story the government fed the rebels that they were picking the hostages up to take them to a meeting with some sort of international officials, either the red cross or un people. This, in the lawyers delicate mind, may constitute a violate of the perfidy rule as well. He does raise the important question of whether the Rebels will be willing to deal with the International Organizations in the future as they have in the past.
This consideration, though, should not be a legal question but a policy question. If the FARC cooperates enough with the UN to make its continued cooperation worth it then the ruse might be unacceptably costly to the government. But this is a question of prudence. The UN is not going to enforce these rules against the FARC. Its pronouncements are only ever going to apply to one side, the side trying to protect its citizens from predatory scum. I recall stories of the FARC posing as police. Is the UN going to go after them? If not, isn't the sole effect of the UN to make it ok for the bad guys to use tools to harm the innocent that the good guys cannot use to protect the innocent? The FARC is so far beyond the the law, being nothing anymore but a terror, kidnapping and extortion operation, that they are entitled to no rights from the international community.
The question is does using the ruse involving NGO's or the Red Cross or any other organization going to result in more or fewer hostages being freed with this organization? Whatever level of cooperation has been achieved the author nowhere suggests that it has resulted in any hostages being freed. If not, isn't refusing to use such a ruse to free hostages in order to free hostages tantamount to sentencing them to continued imprisonment without trial? "Without trial"? Look how the language of courts infects my own thinking. With or without trial is besides the point. They are innocent and would remain innocent, guiltless, even if some revolutionary "court" did convict them.
Information contained in Anastasia O'Grady's article in today's WJS suggests another reason that international law types may be worried about the precedent set by using "borrowed" NGO helicopters in the rescue operation: it makes the habitual cooperation between all too obvious to the outside world. She chronicles the cooperation that left-leaning NGO's practice with the FARC, particularly in their reporting of human rights abuses on either side.
The possibility that the NGOs are tacitly aiding the FARC, as would seem to be the case from the way the rebels readily accepted that an NGO would give them the free use of a helicopter, calls into question the neutrality of the NGOs in the first place. If they can effectively be considered as being on the side of the FARC then their use in the scheme becomes an entirely legitimate ruse de guerre.
One striking thing is that the MSM in the US have paid no attention to the international law aspects of the story. A good story with visuals trumps international law without breaking a sweat.
Now given that FARC has violated every international law and tenant of morality imaginable this would not seem to be a particularly burning question. But we are not lawyers. The violation is the rule against perfidy. The government of course claimed to be rebels, and apparently that is against one of the rules (though as far as I knew, it only meant that you were a spy and not entitled to the protections of prisoner of war status if caught. Since those caught by the FARC are either murdered on the spot or used as bargaining chips as their value dictates such protections would be worthless anyway)
The other issue raised is the story the government fed the rebels that they were picking the hostages up to take them to a meeting with some sort of international officials, either the red cross or un people. This, in the lawyers delicate mind, may constitute a violate of the perfidy rule as well. He does raise the important question of whether the Rebels will be willing to deal with the International Organizations in the future as they have in the past.
This consideration, though, should not be a legal question but a policy question. If the FARC cooperates enough with the UN to make its continued cooperation worth it then the ruse might be unacceptably costly to the government. But this is a question of prudence. The UN is not going to enforce these rules against the FARC. Its pronouncements are only ever going to apply to one side, the side trying to protect its citizens from predatory scum. I recall stories of the FARC posing as police. Is the UN going to go after them? If not, isn't the sole effect of the UN to make it ok for the bad guys to use tools to harm the innocent that the good guys cannot use to protect the innocent? The FARC is so far beyond the the law, being nothing anymore but a terror, kidnapping and extortion operation, that they are entitled to no rights from the international community.
The question is does using the ruse involving NGO's or the Red Cross or any other organization going to result in more or fewer hostages being freed with this organization? Whatever level of cooperation has been achieved the author nowhere suggests that it has resulted in any hostages being freed. If not, isn't refusing to use such a ruse to free hostages in order to free hostages tantamount to sentencing them to continued imprisonment without trial? "Without trial"? Look how the language of courts infects my own thinking. With or without trial is besides the point. They are innocent and would remain innocent, guiltless, even if some revolutionary "court" did convict them.
Information contained in Anastasia O'Grady's article in today's WJS suggests another reason that international law types may be worried about the precedent set by using "borrowed" NGO helicopters in the rescue operation: it makes the habitual cooperation between all too obvious to the outside world. She chronicles the cooperation that left-leaning NGO's practice with the FARC, particularly in their reporting of human rights abuses on either side.
The possibility that the NGOs are tacitly aiding the FARC, as would seem to be the case from the way the rebels readily accepted that an NGO would give them the free use of a helicopter, calls into question the neutrality of the NGOs in the first place. If they can effectively be considered as being on the side of the FARC then their use in the scheme becomes an entirely legitimate ruse de guerre.
One striking thing is that the MSM in the US have paid no attention to the international law aspects of the story. A good story with visuals trumps international law without breaking a sweat.
No comments:
Post a Comment