Freed US hostage denounces Colombian rebels

Source: AP

Among the smiles and hugs shared by three American hostages freed last week from rebels in Colombia and their families, one of the men on Monday angrily denounced their captors as "terrorists with a capital 'T.'"

Marc Gonsalves said the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, which held him and two other U.S. military contractors in captivity for more than five years, refuses to acknowledge human rights and rejects democracy. They use revolution as a justification for criminal activity, he said.

"I want to send a message to the FARC," Gonsalves said. "FARC, you guys are terrorists. You deny that you are, you say with words that you're not terrorists, but your words don't have any value. Don't tell us that you're not terrorists, show us that you're not terrorists."

Gonsalves made the remarks at a ceremony welcoming him and two other U.S. military contractors — Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell — home after their time in captivity. The military said the hostages would take no questions from reporters.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_us/colombia_us_hostages

For as POWs they time with the FARC appears to have meet Geneva Conventions requirements. The Geneva Convention only requires people to be held in the same way the troops of the force holding the POWs are in. Thus if the troops sleep on the ground in the mud, so does the POW. If the Troops live in Barracks, so must the POWs. FARC seems to have followed this policy, providing the POWs similar quarters as they own troops. If this had come out in any questioning, then how is FARC terrorist? FARC appears to be meeting the requirements of the Geneva Convention if the prisoners were held in the same conditions they themselves were in. Think about it, FARC treats they prisoners better then some countries.

Now, the requirements of same condition has the exception that reasonable restriction on movement is permitted given that the POWs are prisoners. Thus the allegation that they were held by a long chain while on the march is not unreasonable given the ease in which troops on the march can escape (US police forces routinely hold prisoners in chains when they are on the move).

One comment, the men look very fit when "freed". Thus they have been well feed by FARC and other taken care of. About 15 years ago I read that FARC had massive support in Columbia and had a steady source of Income from its supporters, enough income to pay its soldiers better then Columbia was paying its Soldiers (Things may have changed, All I am reporting is a report I read about in the early 1990s). The Columbia Government wants to treat FARC as a terrorist group for then none of the rule of war apply, the problem has been FARC seems NOT to have fallen into the trap of retaliating in kind when attacked. FARC waits for the right opportunity and then strikes. One may disagree with them, but I have NOT seen any activity that would indicate FARC is not fighting a conventional Peasant/Guerrilla war. To Bogota that is terrorism" but that is how wide the term "Terrorism" has come to mean in the last 40 years.

is somewhere around 1% in Colombia.

It's much higher than that in these forums.

Thus Mao famous statements that the Guerrilla is a fish the swims in the sea of the people. Given the FARC has survived over 30 years, controls up to 1/3 of Columbia indict they have at least majority support in the areas it controls. That may be a clear minority within the country, but it I still a good bit of support, way more then the 1% you are claiming.

One has to watch one's own prejudices, for example during the Vietnam conflict right wingers would point to the elections being held as proof of support of the Government of South Vietnam, even through any independent study had indicated that over 50% of the population of South Vietnam would vote for Ho Chi Mind for President if he was on the Ballot (He never was permitted on the ballot for that reason). The elections were compared to an hypothetical American Election of a large inner city with overwhelming black population where the election choice was between two right wing republicans, democrats being forbidden to be on the ballot. One or the other candidate would get a Majority of the votes cast, even if voting is mandatory, even if the Majority hates both candidates and wanted a Democrat.

Just a word of warning on elections. They can be manipulated to show majority support or lack of support based on who can get on the ballot (and who can not). FARC presently can not get on the ballot so the support for FARC is hard to Judge. They would be more successful if they had Majority Support throughout the country (as the Viet Cong did in Vietnam when they took over the country in 1975, through it was by armor thrust not a popular uprising, but the support for the Viet Cong was clear).

Thus my point, FARC has support while over 1% of the country as a whole, probably over 50% in the areas FARC controls. That is NOT the whole Country, but it is clearly more then 1% of the population. Do they have 50% support? It does NOT look like, if that was the case FARC would be demanding elections that they could participate in (as the Viet Cong did during the 1950s and 1960s, but were denied that right given that the ruling elite new who would win such an election). On the other hand FARC appears to have 50% support from the population of the areas they control. Some sort of deal will have to be made between FARC and Bogota, like it was done in San Salvador and Guatemala where the Guerrillas had majority support in large parts of each country. The issue can such a deal be made? Or will this fight last another 30 years.

I do not believe there is any municipality or town where the FARC actually "controls". certainly no major city or town. the FARC is currently on the run and the areas under their "control" are jungle areas and sparesly inhabited areas. although they do extort, threaten towns people, and murder. Much of their "support" is through coercion. They do not need popular support because they are well financed through drug running, extortion, ransom and the like. tactics of intimidation and fear, and money, keep them afloat, not popular support.

I agree with Zorro that their overall support on DU is greater than in Colombia.

My point was the 1% support for FARC reported appears to be to low. I admitted it appears that FARC does NOT have 50% support throughout the whole country of Columbia, but that does NOT mean FARC has less then 1% of the population. Given what I have rad, FARC probably ha support of around 10-20% of the population, no more then 25% but clearly at least 10% (This is more a reflection of where they are most active then any other indication). Even if they represent only 10% of the population, 10% is still a large group of people that the rest of the country has to deal with (For example if a Military unit loses just 10% of it members, it has to be completely re-trained, the lost is enough to make the unit no longer work as a team, and they must be re-trained to work like a team once again, the same for most other activities, a 10% lost is often fatal to the team as a whole).

Don't leave what you would like Columbia to be, color what it is. Many pro-FARC people on this board does that on a regular basis (The same with the pro and anti-Chavez groups). Many on the board are to close to one side or another to get a clear picture (the classic example being the old saying "Could not see the Forest do to the trees"). Given that both Bogota, the Drug runners and FARC all try to hide themselves from most people make it even harder to "see the forest do to the trees". My comments reflect the condition of the hostages when they were "freed" (They appear to be in good shape, which implies a good system of supplies), the various maps showing up to 1/3 of Columbia subject to attacks by FARC, the areas where most drugs are made NOT the same as the areas under FARC Control (Through those area where FARC operates borders all four of Columbia's neighbors, permitting FARC to use any and all of them for outside support) and the fact the area FARC controls are the hardest to get into and out of (Do to the isolation caused by the Andes and the Amazon River Basin) all indicate FARC has sufficient support to last for a few more decades and the best solution is some sort of compromise with the FARC leadership to end the Fighting. FARC has sufficient support to be a factor in Columbia, but not enough support to overthrow the Government. Some sort of compromise will have to be made between Bogota and FARC, to get FARC to put don their arms. What that will be is unknown to me, it may NEVER be written down (For Example FARC disbands and Bogota never arrest anyone for being a member, a pardon for all members of FARC and a grant of land to all members of FARC, without using the name FARC and the land reform FARC wants in slowly implemented by Bogota). A deal will have to be made, it may be written down, it may not be, but some sort of resolution of what FARC is fighting for must be made do to the support FARC has. The resolution may be good, bad or indifferent but some sort of resolution must be made.

Check out page 80.

http://ciponline.org/colombia/0801encuesta.pdf

but how the prisoners arrived there, via kidnapping (of non-combatants) makes them victims and not POW's. Kidnappings are pretty standard terrorist group MO, great intimidation/propaganda value. Also FARC uses propane cylinder mortars (probably learned from the IRA) which are homemade, unreliable and impossible to aim and frequently go off course, thusly killing civilians. Even if its "just collateral damage", its still dead civilians.

FARC does control some parts of Colombia, mostly the dense jungles and mountains.

Nothing we do in Colombia is ethical or a good use of American tax money.

If anyone disagrees please chime in.

Contractors don't carry weapons.

Would it be more ethical to leave the cocaine manufacturers alone?

Addiction is a bio-chemical response in the human body. Everyday more and more of the human genome is unraveled. Effectively binding those receptors is quite within the realm of science and public policy.

Unfortunately such reasonable approaches are not sexy enough to win elected office. We live in a very bloodthirsty and arrogant country which apparently has no problem with the bottomless money hole which is Plan Colombia.

:rofl:

Do you know what that means?

Do please explain.

They can be authorized to carry weapons in dangerous theaters of operation, but are legally restricted to use them only to defend their lives -- not for combat operations.

Apparently the new clause allowing this was inserted March 2008.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Thought the same immediately upon their 'release'. But, would prefer knowing more before going out on a limb.

"The military said the hostages would take no questions from reporters." Why? Need to be schooled on what to say first?

Keep Colombia fertile. We need the white stuff to make green stuff. :sarcasm:

Those guys were contractors.

The Pentagon is not an organization of peace. You think American stooges are less culpable because they don't directly drop the bombs or kick in the door?

Yes I do think there's a difference between a defense contractor and a soldier/sailor/airman.

Are you implying that anyone who works for a defense contractor is guilty of committing acts of war?

no?

From what I heard, one of them was supposedly mapping coca fields in Colombia when he was kidnapped. Regardless of the veracity of this, in no way should it excuse anyone - including FARC - to kidnap this person (and the fellow hostages, including the many who have yet to be freed).

Kidnapping a person to make a point is, IMHO, a vile action and we should not excuse it, even if the group has admirable aims and even if the profession chosen by some of the kidnapees is deplorable to us.

which is exactly what one could expect from the Bushites and their Colombian lapdogs.

The right-wing and fascist elements of Colombian society are responsible for as much as 80% of the political murders, by the way (just like everywhere else, no doubt).