Update at bottom of post.
Leave it to CNN to worry that the Colombian government committed a war crime in its recent rescue of FARC hostages, including former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt.
This morning in the Latest News menu on CNN.com, I found this teaser headline (shown in screen capture at right): "Did Colombia skirt law in hostage rescue?"
My curiosity piqued, I followed the link to an article by CNN correspondent Karl Penhaul entitled "Colombia military used Red Cross emblem in rescue."
That clever ploy could constitute a big no-no under the Geneva Conventions, Penhaul insisted, citing an international law expert:
BOGOTA, Colombia (CNN) -- Colombian military intelligence used the Red Cross emblem in a rescue operation in which leftist guerrillas were duped into handing over 15 hostages, according to unpublished photographs and video viewed by CNN.
Photographs of the Colombian military intelligence-led team that spearheaded the rescue, shown to CNN by a confidential military source, show one man wearing a bib with the Red Cross symbol. The military source said the three photos were taken moments before the mission took off to persuade the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia rebels to release the hostages to a supposed international aid group for transport to another rebel area.
Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a "war crime" under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law and could endanger humanitarian workers in the future, according to international legal expert Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association.
"It is clear that the conventions are very strict regarding use of the symbol because of what it represents: impartiality, neutrality. The fear is that any misuse of the symbol would weaken that neutrality and would weaken the [Red Cross]," Ellis said.
"If you use the emblem in a deceitful way, generally the conventions say it would be a breach. [Based on the information as explained to me,] the way that the images show the Red Cross emblem being used could be distinguished as a war crime, " he added.
Penhaul then noted that CNN did not buy the material their confidential source wished to sell, and hence was unable to independently verify the allegation.
Yet even if the allegation is true, so what? The hostages rescued were, well, civilian hostages, held for years by FARC, a narco-terrorist outfit that has plagued Colombia for years. Even if the letter of Geneva was violated, how does it violate the spirit of the international conventions?
Hostages were rescued without a shot being fired. Turning a successful, bloodless rescue operation into an occasion to criticize the Colombian government of a "war crime" is sensationalistic at best and encouraging to terrorist sympathizers at worst.
Update (17:05 EDT): Colombia President Alvaro Uribe conceded that one soldier involved in the hostage rescue slapped on a Red Cross insignia during the operation out of fear for his life. Bloomberg has the story:
July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Colombian President Alvaro Uribe apologized to the Red Cross after a soldier used the agency's emblem when he was pretending to be an aid worker earlier this month during the rescue of 15 hostages held by guerrillas.
Uribe said the soldier attached the insignia to his jacket because he feared for his life. The soldier saw a great number of Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia fighters as he climbed down from the unmarked helicopter, Uribe said.
Government troops on July 2 rescued Ingrid Betancourt, three U.S. Defense Department contractors and 11 military personnel by tricking two commanders of the FARC, as the drug-funded group is known, into believing an international aid mission had been sent by the guerrillas' leadership to retrieve the captives.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Comments Policy
Hmmm, putting on my
July 16, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Dan The Man 2Hmmm, putting on my asbesteos suit here. Use of the Red Cross is a problem because they are protected under the GC. It is not a war crime but if captured they may be spies and sabotuers under the GC. Of course the FARC are also spies and sabotuers so therin the delima.
I am glad teh FARC no longer has those hostages and from what I understand there were no blood spilt. So the legalities aside is it ethical to use a recognized emblem for a cover backstory for teh rescurers? Since they are not Americans it doesnt matter to me.
But, if we get all hot and bothered at Palestinains and Hezbollah using those types of covers should we not get such at any time? Just an ethical question and thank God I dont have to skirt such issues in my work.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
It'd clearly be a violation
July 16, 2008 - 11:34 ET by Ken ShepherdIt'd clearly be a violation if Colombia sent in commandos dressed as Red Cross volunteers and they up and opened fire and gunned the whole damn FARC nest. That's not what happened.
These guys, as I understand, were unarmed. It's unlikely that Intl. Red Cross assented to or cooperated in the ruse, if in fact the Colombia govt. deployed this ruse as the CNN source is suggesting.
Plus even if the letter of Geneva were violated, the spirit was not. Rescuing hostages from a terrorist outfit using nonviolent subterfuge does not a war crime make.
Holding civilians hostage for four years, that's more like a war crime in my estimation.
Thje Red Cross used was England national flag
July 16, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Jack BauerKS -- besides, the Red Cross organization does NOT have a monopoly on the symbol of a red cross on white.
It is the national flag on England and has been for a quite a few hundred years before the Red Cross stole it for itself.
As a free born Englishman, I hereby grant RETROACTIVE permission to the Columbian government to use the official symbol of the English nation for the power of good.
easy to say when you AREN'T a full-time red cross worker...
July 16, 2008 - 18:29 ET by abeautifulperson...working in various war zones or places of conflict.
the whole point of NOT impersonating a red cross worker is to ensure that in the future when they are in a hot zone, they don't get shot. if it becomes known that militants, mercenaries, military or whoever are using this international symbol as a shield, it makes all red cross workers, targets.
early in iraq in a safe area, a couple unembedded canadian media came upon 2 other men with dark sunglasses, "press" on their flak jackets and on their vehicle. when the canadian media introduced themselves to their fellow media personnel, they were abruptly told to get lost and then realized they had stumbled upon a military reconnaissance.
impersonation of these types end up hurting innocents and diminish trust of non-military organizations. how many innocent press or other civilians have been killed because this underhanded tactic is used on both sides of the iraq conflict?
ABP as usual your grasp of
July 16, 2008 - 18:53 ET by Dan The Man 2ABP as usual your grasp of real world is at best limp. Anytime a country sends spies into a hostile area they are camouflaged, either military type or as locals or as reporters. If caught they are spies and that is the thrust of the GC. I have no problem with this type of subterfuge and expect the outcome either way.
Personally I believe media is not protected as the Red Cross is. In addition the Red Cross is not used by normal US military. Also the bias of the reporter assumed he stumbled onto military recon. We should possibly shoot all media anyways.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
dan boy
July 17, 2008 - 06:18 ET by abeautifulpersonyou are as predictable as the rising sun. shoot all media. now we know how you really feel with freedom of the press. don't report what you like to hear, shoot 'em.
You're the predictable one.
July 17, 2008 - 08:01 ET by dvdaughtryYou're the predictable one. We know we will hear news we don't like. However, most of us want the truth and a little common sense--something our media doesn't do while hiding behind "freedom of the press."
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Abeautifulperson. What i
July 16, 2008 - 19:02 ET by BDAbeautifulperson.
What i take exception to is that the press is getting worked up about a guy placing a red cross pin on his jacket as a possible method of subterfuge, for which the Columbian Government has already apologized and admitted that the soldier in question did not have any authroization to do so.
Our enemies regularly butcher thousands of innocents, beheads civilians and captive military people as they kneel before them, and shelters in mosques, churches, and civilian homes and the press presents it as a ho-hum story if they notice at all.
What kind of therapy does it take to get to this position? I really need to know....
i hear ya. it was a faux pas to be mentioned at all.
July 17, 2008 - 06:27 ET by abeautifulpersonsometimes, the media needs to keep their yaps shut. it was wrong to have been done (using the patch). but once done, reporting it puts all legit in all red cross workers under suspicion and in danger.
the only point reporting it would make is to begin illustrating the possibility that pretending to be red cross workers is done all the time. in that case it IS news.
too bad dan the boy doesn't know the difference between impersonating civilians or military personnel and impersonating an officially neutral organization.
btw. your enemies chop the heads of innocents. their enemies drop missiles from miles away and have hair triggers when passing through intersections. to someone standing back, doesn't look much different either way. people are dying needlessly.
btw. your enemies chop the
July 17, 2008 - 07:46 ET by Karmabtw. your enemies chop the heads of innocents. their enemies drop
missiles from miles away and have hair triggers when passing through
intersections. to someone standing back, doesn't look much different
either way. people are dying needlessly. (abeautifulperson)
I would suggest that they (you) stop standing back so far and take a closer look. Then the difference is stark. You even used the keyword in your first sentence.
btw. your enemies chop the
July 17, 2008 - 10:30 ET by BDbtw. your enemies chop the heads of innocents. their enemies drop missiles from miles away and have hair triggers when passing through intersections.
abeautifulthief
July 16, 2008 - 22:23 ET by UnsaneYet NOT ONE PEEP from you about the FARC taking hostages.
The FARC can do whatever the hell it wants, but heaven help us if the armed forces of a representative democracy does something to defend itself or to protect/defend its citizens. At which point, you pitch a b!#$h. (Freedom is 100% FREE and EASY to attain in the world in which abeautifulthief lives...)
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." - from the Bhagavad Gita, quoted by J. Robert Oppenheimer at 0530 MST on 16 July 1945
Unsane, perhaps ABP would feel better if the hostages...
July 16, 2008 - 23:55 ET by R D Helm...were returned to their captors.
It is APB, and people of similar ilk, that are dragging us all toward the abyss, due solely to their utter stupidity.
-Sorry, but I can think of no other word here. The word "ignorance" just doesn't cut it. This is nothing less than rampant stupidity.
The left, whose collective (God I hate that word) hatred for true freedom is so evident for all to see, has brainwashed so many into mindless subservency.
Of course, what can you expect from lefties like ABP, who literally stood up and cheered when Janet Reno, with the full blessings of B.J. Clinton, executed a kidnapping for Fidel Castro when they returned Elian Gonzales to that hell-hole known as Cuba.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
→ ergo?
July 17, 2008 - 00:30 ET by Cool ArrowDoes it necessarily follow that a favorable result is proof the means were justifiable?
Would a policeman be justified in wiretapping a confessional if he reasonably believed a serial rapist frequentd that church?
People perceive varying degrees of what is sacred.
And maybe Janet Reno's behavior somehow excuses the tactics in this incident, though I don't see it.
From a Geneva Convention standpoint I don't see a connection, though I do think there are legitimate questions as to the ethical use of a proclaimed neutral organization and its symbol.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
pffft
July 17, 2008 - 06:31 ET by abeautifulpersondon't change the subject. a common tactic when someone makes a point: assume, because an action from side is disapproved of that all actions from the other side are approved. lame lame lame.
(why do i respond to such unworthy comments?)
Because you have a
July 17, 2008 - 06:44 ET by Jack BauerBecause you have a pathological need to have the last word. It's a well-documented lieberal condition.
Just like you will be unable to resist answering this post with some boring, irrelevant comment.
For abeautifulthief
July 17, 2008 - 07:42 ET by UnsaneUnworthy comments? abeautifulthief, your Socialist agitprop and your lame attempts to bark orders at me are indeed quite unworthy.
And do you actually think you are somehow smarter and better than the rest of us here? Just to remind you of what you are up against, remember your chirping about how perfect Canada was, and how you got slapped around for it, AND how fast you ran away. Your silence on that subject still deafens.
Finally: changing the subject? Hardly. Here you are bitching about how the hostages got rescued by the terrorists, and I merely made the point that the last thing on your mind are the hostages and their rights; which you have once again illustrated.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
whoosh - (the sound of a point blowing over your head).
July 17, 2008 - 10:46 ET by abeautifulpersonran away? >chuckle< my life doesn't revolve around newsbusters.
you think far too much of yourself. my 'silence' is me doing other things.
up against? umm... i do picture a blurred face which is foaming at the mouth, when i read your text.
hostages rescued by terrorists? old man, you're confusing me with someone else. smarter? perhaps. more on the ball? definitely.
more stupidity
July 17, 2008 - 23:58 ET by Unsaneran away? >chuckle< my life doesn't revolve around newsbusters Coulda fooled me. Dying to have the last word on this post is proof positive that your life indeed DOES revolve around NB. (The only reason I know about your post is my "track" feature.)
you think far too much of yourself. Speak for yourself and ONLY for yourself. my 'silence' is me doing other things. Like evading points and questions after getting smacked around because you have nothing with which to argue but agitprop and Socialist talking points..
up against? umm... i do picture a blurred face which is foaming at the mouth, when i read your text. Well, my mouth better be foaming. On occasion I do answer posts when brushing my teeth. :-) In your case I picture someone who will violently, savagely beat anyone who dares disagree with your Socialist view of the world in the slightest.
hostages rescued by terrorists? Huh? Put the drugs away... old man damn, what did a thirtysomething do to deserve "old man"?, you're confusing me with someone else. Nah. Dealing directly with YOUR posts. smarter? perhaps. hardly. more on the ball? definitely not.
.Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
i've been to colombia
July 17, 2008 - 10:20 ET by abeautifulpersoni've hiked the colombian jungles and connected with colombian people. have you?
again with the lame absolutes. because i disapprove of the red cross patch being used, i must approve of the FARC. you guys are like a broken record with the absolutes.
abeaut
July 17, 2008 - 10:55 ET by bassndudeIn a word...yes. I have even gone with Colombian soldiers on patrols, looking for FARC. I have seen the results of FARC raids on a small jungle village. Have you?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
yes. i've seen what FARC can do. that's 2 of us.
July 17, 2008 - 11:15 ET by abeautifulpersonbut this thread isn't about how bad FARC is. EVERYONE is in agreement at how the so-called rebel group has denegrated into a criminal organization. why does it keep coming up?
this thread is about how impersonating a neutral organization that helps millions of people in the worst situations, can cause more harm than good. reasonable people see how wrong it is. uribe does.
anyhow. i'm going to run away now. i do this when threads slide into a muddle of hurling insults, which i am also responsible for. i don't like doing it and i actually apologize for it. its not the reason i offer views which many don't agree with. believe it or not, sometimes i do learn from these threads. its not all about just jabbing you guys. it is ssad when the sharp sticks come out. but hey, i expect it. comes with the territory.
oh and next time i travel and am not sitting at my computer, i will be silent. while it might be some people's wet dreams picturing me in a fetal position, sobbing under my computer in defeat, its not the case.
catch you on another thread.
nuff said.
this thread is about how
July 17, 2008 - 11:19 ET by BDthis thread is about how impersonating a neutral organization that helps millions of people in the worst situations, can cause more harm than good. reasonable people see how wrong it is. uribe does.
You are the one that
July 17, 2008 - 11:23 ET by bassndudeYou are the one that brought it up. With you smug little way, "I have..." assuming that we have never traveled, nor have the vast worldly experiences you have had. Boy, I was traveling the world while your mama was still thinking about her next class.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
FARC & RED CROSS in cahoots for years?
July 17, 2008 - 05:36 ET by Jack BauerYou are arse about face.
It was the terrorists who automatically accepted the Red Cross as a trusted NGO there to assist them in moving innocent people they had kidnapped, tortured, and imprisoned for years.
Why would they trust the Red Cross? Why did the commie terrorists fall for that ruse?
Easy! FARC and the RED CROSS had clearly been in cahoots in the past to transport these poor people from one cage to another. That's why.
So, what did the Colunbian government owe the Red Cross in this case where the RC had obviously assisted the terrorists in the past? Absolutely NOTHING. Say it again.
The Red Cross has VIOLATED its own reputation.
i wonder if you asked Ingrid Betancourt...
July 17, 2008 - 10:24 ET by abeautifulperson... what she would say? would she have wanted the red cross checking up on her health throughout those years of captivity or prefer no neutral organization checking at all.
do you think she feels they were in cahoots?
Amazing. You REFUSE to
July 17, 2008 - 13:30 ET by Jack BauerAmazing. You REFUSE to consider the obvious, then ask a question about what Betancourt "might" say.
I have no freakin' idea. But I'll guess: she'll say thank god you did it. There, I answered your rhetorical question. Happy?
Ken, I agree if they were
July 16, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Dan The Man 2Ken, I agree if they were commandos, which they likely were and armed. However the problem lies in teh accepted use of such a symbol and the nuetrality it implies. In the world today we cant trust anyone at anytime, which is sad, but the Red Cross is able to get into areas of conflict and not molested because they are not part of the combat. Like I pointed out the Islam facists ar using these very types of symbols and that makes them terroists. A modern ethics problem, how low do we go. Limbo now.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Im sorry Ken, but the only
July 16, 2008 - 13:23 ET by bassndudeIm sorry Ken, but the only way to make this right is to go back in and do it again, but this time kill FARC and torture any that suvrive the initial attack. After all, the real red cross needs something to do.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Morality
July 16, 2008 - 13:00 ET by KC MulvilleThese are standard philosophical ethics questions.
Should you save lives now, even if it will increase the risk to other lives? As a rule, we don’t compare the value of lives. Two people who die today are as important as two later on.
There is the issue of numbers. Maybe saving these ten will put a hundred at greater risk next time. Problem: how can you compare the actual freedom of ten to the increase of risk for a hundred?
Apparently, we’re taking for granted that the future terrorists will retaliate against future Red Cross workers. But think about that. How would they retaliate? Would they murder workers in revenge? Highly unlikely, since one terrorist group doesn’t care about what happens to other terrorist groups. It’s not like terrorists feel they need to uphold the honor of their fellow kidnappers. More likely, they will simply refuse any RC workers from coming into their defense area. That means the Red Cross workers will have to guarantee their identity. (Am I to understand that these terrorists saw the emblem and that alone convinced them? Not very bright.) That means that you have to compare the probability of freedom now against the probability of loss of Red Cross care.
By the way, have any terrorists ever used deceptive means to infiltrate a secure area? If you don't play by the rules yourself, you lose the right to expect others to play by them.
From the Red Cross’ point of view, it’s curious. They want to help the hostages, but they don’t want to help free them.
Then there is the issue of information. The risk to future hostages may be increased, but only if the future terrorists know about this little trick. If you use the trick and don’t tell anyone, maybe the next group won’t know about it. Let’s just hope no one is stupid or selfish enough to broadcast this trick to future terrorists … oh yeah, right … the media’s already done that.
So, if the “public’s right to know” will endanger them by the sheer fact of their knowing it, is it moral to publish or broadcast it? And does the media’s right to free speech trump the safety of future hostages? (It seems clear that the media’s public questions about the morality of a Red Cross deception are at least as dangerous as the deception itself.)
Especially since the Red Cross workers weren’t trying to kill anyone, I’d have certainly chosen to allow it. No question.
Use of Red Cross Symbol
July 16, 2008 - 13:00 ET by merlin61Instead of this needless commentary caused by CNN, lets ask those who were rescued if they
cared if the Red Cross symbol was used. Seems
to me five years of captivity and loss of family
and all other indignities they were caused outweighs
any of this conversation.
Answers
July 16, 2008 - 13:16 ET by cassrat1. Use of the Red Cross is a problem.
WRONG! the real answer is: The Red Cross is a problem period.
2. I understand there were no blood spilt.
Answer: There should have been blood. All of the FARC goons should have been killed.
3. But, if we get all hot and bothered at Palestinains and Hezbollah using those types of covers should we not get such at any time?
Answer: NO!!! The Palestinians and Hezbollah use the cover of the red cross and crescent to KILL people. There is a difference between Killing and Rescueing.
reasonable point imo
July 16, 2008 - 13:27 ET by DaMavCalling this a "war crime" is a little overblown, regardless of the technical classification, and the Big Liberal Media is no doubt up to its usual tricks in trying to discredit a valiant and brilliant hostage rescue that made some far left dirtbags look like idiots.
Nevertheless if the Red Cross symbol was used it was a mistake to use it imo, because it places Red Cross workers lives in danger if it becomes commonly viewed as subterfuge. The emphasis should be on why CNN makes a big deal out of this only when it can be used to sully a victory against terrorists, and rarely if ever when it is used by Palestinians etc etc.
I'd call it a minor error which should not be repeated; hardly a big deal but certainly not justifiable when they could have just used an Opossum presidential seal and gotten the same results.
reasonable point imo
July 16, 2008 - 13:27 ET by DaMavCalling this a "war crime" is a little overblown, regardless of the technical classification, and the Big Liberal Media is no doubt up to its usual tricks in trying to discredit a valiant and brilliant hostage rescue that made some far left dirtbags look like idiots.
Nevertheless if the Red Cross symbol was used it was a mistake to use it imo, because it places Red Cross workers lives in danger if it becomes commonly viewed as subterfuge. The emphasis should be on why CNN makes a big deal out of this only when it can be used to sully a victory against terrorists, and rarely if ever when it is used by Palestinians etc etc.
I'd call it a minor error which should not be repeated; hardly a big deal but certainly not justifiable when they could have just used an Opossum presidential seal and gotten the same results.
Seriously...
July 16, 2008 - 11:31 ET by blogonatorYet even if the allegation is true, so what?
Ask the people working for the Red Cross in war zones. This should not be condemned because it's a sneaky tactic. Far worse is done in the name of war. This should be condemned because it destroys the integrity of the Red Cross emblem and encourages warring factions to distrust and/or attack people working for the Red Cross.
Unwise perhaps, but not a
July 16, 2008 - 11:54 ET by Ken ShepherdUnwise perhaps, but not a war crime, at least not in the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, which was never designed to extend safety to terrorist entities that take hostages.
Remember, this wasn't FARC capturing Colombian troops after a battle in the jungles of Colombia, this is the terrorist outfit holding for years on end civilians.
Insofar as a violation of the Geneva Conventions
July 16, 2008 - 12:04 ET by blogonatoris a war crime, this was evidently a war crime.
I've seen some posts here already insinuating holding the Columbians responsible for this alleged misuse amounts to protecting the FARC. No. It protects the people working for the Red Cross. When the Red Cross is no longer trusted to act impartially in the interest of the wounded on both sides, it will cease to be able to function. Misusing the red cross for purposes such as these will destroy that trust.
And if the Intl. Red Cross
July 16, 2008 - 12:16 ET by Ken ShepherdAnd if the Intl. Red Cross wants to sue the Colombian govt. in Colombia's courts, it should feel free to do so.
But regardless, it's notable that CNN would fixate on this being an alleged war crime when it's pretty obvious that FARC has committed far worse violations of Colombian and international law.
Now that's a different subject
July 16, 2008 - 12:58 ET by blogonatorAnd that gets to the stated reason for this website to exist.
What is news and how should it be packaged?
Is it news that the FARC likes to take hostages and hold them captive indefinitely in the jungle for ransom or just for the heck of it? Maybe the first couple times it happens. After a while though, not so much. Certainly not to the average American I would argue.
Now is it news that the Columbian government may have committed a war crime in it's daring hostage rescue operation? I think you could make a strong case that it is. I don't have the impression that Columbia is in the habit of violating the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, this piggybacks nicely on the broader story of this rescue operation and draws that story out over a longer time frame. Milk it for all it's worth.
So I'd argue this is newsworthy from the standpoint of an editor. Is it newsworthy for a conservative media watchdog website? Eh, I'm not so sure. This story wasn't being trumpeted as the "story of the day." It's so subdued in actual context that you had to circle it lest it be missed entirely. The article wasn't painting el FARC in a particularly sympathetic light either.
That doesn't make me want to take the FARC's side.
But it does have the red meat your audience craves: war crimes! Somebody violating the Geneva Conventions in their battle with terrorism! And you don't have to look too far here to see the knee-jerk reactions to that subject matter.
News
July 16, 2008 - 13:59 ET by KC MulvilleBlogonator, I'll argue that you have it exactly backward. It wasn't that Ken was trying to throw out red meat to the NewsBuster audience, to prompt knee-jerk reactions. Ken's report is exactly the opposite. He was pointing out that CNN was sensationalizing a nonviolent infraction by calling it a possible "war crime." If there's any sensationalizing going on here, it isn't by Ken.
The liberal bias in the media doesn't only come in big, whopping, Dan Rather-ego-size bombshells. Those come along every so often, sure enough. But it's the drip-drip-drip erosion of all these "little" zingers and comments that, over time, do far worse damage. Of course this was a comparatively little item, but it's just as dangerous. It adds up. The liberal media constantly diminishes respect for anything conservative or Republican, not in big chunks, but in the sheer volume of small slashes.
I disagree
July 16, 2008 - 15:10 ET by blogonatorIf CNN wanted to sensationalize this story, they could have done a better job such that Ken wouldn't have had to circle the link, don't you think? A link which, by the way, doesn't even mention "war crimes." Imagine the headline for this story if it was linked from the Drudge Report. That ought to give you a good idea as to how subdued the CNN presentation in context actually is. In fact, compare the link from NewsBusters:
CNN: Did Colombia Commit War Crime in FARC Hostage Rescue?
to what you saw at CNN:
Did Columbia skirt law in hostage rescue?
Who's really doing the sensationalizing here? I don't think I need to answer that question.
I recognize my analysis doesn't jibe with the conventional wisdom and biases around here, i.e., CNN is a shamelessly liberal media outlet that "constantly diminishes respect for anything conservative or Republican." So be it.
As for your bullet points, they're irrelvant to what I wrote at the outset. The hostages and what they must be feeling is not the story here. The story is the alleged misuse of the red cross emblem within this broader hostage rescue story. What constitutes misuse and why is misuse unadvisable / illegal? The article does a fairly good job answering those questions if you actually bother to read it. As for Guantanamo news, when the story changes, when a new revelation comes up about this or that, it becomes news again. You'll probably not find a reporter from any news organization on assignment at Guantanamo. They have pretty much have forgotten it. Look, there goes Madonna and A Rod!
I disagree.....Now there's
July 16, 2008 - 15:25 ET by bassndudeI disagree.....Now there's a shocker. Only you could get Madonna and A Rod into a rescue mission from terrorists.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You can't get much better than this
July 16, 2008 - 15:34 ET by CobraMan"If CNN wanted to sensationalize this story, they could have done a better job."
The CNN headline says: “Colombian military used Red Cross emblem in rescue.” You can’t get much better than that.
Maybe we have different definitions of "better job"
July 16, 2008 - 15:47 ET by blogonatorHere's sensational:
War Criminal Columbian Military Utilizes Illegal Tactics Against Honorable Freedom Fighters
Sensational and clearly biased, everything that CNN headline and linking text is not. The CNN headline didn't even use an adjective for goodness sake.
Reply
July 16, 2008 - 15:34 ET by KC MulvilleThe text of the link may not have said "war crimes," but the article it links to did (which I read, by the way). "Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a "war crime" under the Geneva Conventions ..." First sentence, third paragraph.
As for my point about how the captives feel, it was simply to appreciate that the hostages were returned to freedom. To magnify, therefore, a nonviolent infraction is the definition of sensationalizing the issue. As for Guantanamo, if freshness justifies reporting, then there should never have been any stories about Guantanamo after 2003. But the liberal media, including CNN, has filed dozens of reports. That means it isn't about news judgment, but political bias, that's driving the reporting -- which is what this site complains about.
It's disingenuous to claim that the reason anyone disagrees with you is that you're not part of the NewsBuster herd mentality. If that's how you perceive this audience, why bother posting anything? The fact is, most people here enjoy debating different points of view, but only if you can defend it. If you're just going to toss off smart ass insults, yeah, you get a bunch of smart ass posts in return. But my experience is that if you give people here a reasonable argument, you get respect in return, even if they disagree with you.
Is 'war crime' on the NB list of banned terms for the MSM?
July 16, 2008 - 16:29 ET by blogonatorI see no problem with calling a spade a spade. It's usually the adherents of the "politically correct" philosophy that want to shift away from uncomfortably honest terms like this one.
I think I've done a pretty good job explaining my position. The text of the links is not my focus, but it is a very convenient supporting point.
Allow me to take it one step further. Posts like this are not constructive. If you see evidence of unvarnished media bias, go ahead and point it out. This CNN article is clearly not an example of that. And for the people who don't take the time to actually read the article, you can see how the presentation here has enhanced their ignorance. The article wasn't about how the FARC is being protected by the Geneva Conventions. It wasn't about how CNN wants to defend the FARC. It wasn't about how the Red Cross is in bed with the FARC. Yet a few twirls of the scroll wheel will show you those take-away opinions being voiced right here.
And I don't think your claim that CNN is magnifying this story holds any water. Ken himself inadvertly demonstrated how obscure CNN's placement of the link to the story was. Now here's the link to CNN's stories about FARC. Now check this out, a simple Google search for CNN and FARC. The CNN story does not appear on the first page, except as a link from RIGHT HERE on NewsBusters! No sign of it on page 2 either, execpt as a link from Digg by someone else with an ax to grind. Here's the Google News search results. Again, nada. Now who really is 'magnifying' this story? I would argue it isn't CNN.
CNN is reporting an auxiliary story to the main story of the rescue of these hostages which they obviously have gotten a lot of hits out of. They are not promoting this story as anything other than that. Looks to me that the people who are promoting it are, oddly enough, NewsBusters and their ideologically similar crowd.
Which is why I've never made that claim. I post here because I find it an educational experience, as I've already told my friend BD. I've got some family members that would probably buy what NewsBusters is selling, but I don't see them often. My friends and associates are frequently more liberal than me. Even though internet debate is a pale, pale comparison to face-to-face conversation, I find it useful to at least be aware of the ideas being peddled here and elsewhere. So ignore me if you like. But if you engage me, I'll probably not back down in the face of name-calling and dismissive labeling. You better be ready to grapple with my ideas.
Aaron Brown, is that you?
July 16, 2008 - 17:02 ET by Ken ShepherdAaron Brown, is that you?
I say have a do-over. The
July 16, 2008 - 17:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberI say have a do-over. The poor freedom fighters did not have a fighting chance. I say we return the hostages and start over.
Happy to oblige
July 16, 2008 - 20:30 ET by KC MulvilleBut if you engage me, I'll probably not back down in the face of name-calling and dismissive labeling. Excuse me for pointing out that you were the one who described the NewsBusters audience as a herd, when you wrote: “I recognize my analysis doesn't jibe with the conventional wisdom and biases around here.”
You better be ready to grapple with my ideas. Unfortunately, you don’t present anything to grapple with. Here’s an example: “If you see evidence of unvarnished media bias, go ahead and point it out. This CNN article is clearly not an example of that.” That isn’t an argument. That’s a conclusion.
Your actual argument was that the taking of hostages isn’t a fresh item, so it isn’t newsworthy. But it’s newsworthy to include the sensational accusation that the rescuers were guilty of a war crime? Because they committed a nonviolent infraction to deceive kidnappers? What kind of news judgment is it to include that accusation if it isn’t newsworthy to mention the kidnapping?
That, by the way, was Ken’s whole point. Why was it included at all? It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t a major part of the story. Why was it any part of the story? Your argument was that it was a small, "subdued" item that was somehow newsworthy because of the seriousness of the accusation. Your argument tries to have it both ways. It was a serious charge and therefore important enough to mention, but you want to deflect any objections by claiming it was a minor item.
I hope you won’t leap to any conclusions if I mention one of Rush Limbaugh’s signature lines: With liberals, what matters is the seriousness of the accusation, not the credibility of the evidence. CNN proved that here, and you defended it.
In your first post, you write that Ken posted this story because it had red meat for the NewsBusters herd. But it does have the red meat your audience craves: war crimes! Somebody violating the Geneva Conventions in their battle with terrorism! Surely you understand that Ken didn’t write that. CNN did. The idea that someone would violate the Geneva conventions to fight the war on terror, making themselves war criminals in the process, is what the nutcase liberals have been howling about for quite some time. If anyone was guilty of playing to the crowd, it was clearly CNN. This isn’t Ken tossing out red meat for conservatives. This was CNN tossing out red meat for liberals.
And for the people who don't take the time to actually read the article, you can see how the presentation here has enhanced their ignorance. Sure, if they only read one article out of context. But that’s exactly what you did to Ken. You made a fuss out of the fact that he gave a headline that included the inflammatory phrase “war crime” that wasn’t in the text of the link. But Ken wasn’t pointing to the link, he was referring to the actual article. You took him out of context.
I find it useful to at least be aware of the ideas being peddled here and elsewhere. I’m so glad you could grace us with your presence.
I think I've done a pretty good job explaining my position. But of course you do.
Please follow the thread
July 17, 2008 - 08:53 ET by blogonatorAnd don't put words in my mouth. You are the one using the word 'herd.' Conventional wisdom, biases and prejudices are everywhere. To deny their presense here is silly.
That isn’t an argument. That’s a conclusion.
When you grab my conclusion and berate me because it isn't my argument, well... I just don't know how that serves to prove your point.
What kind of news judgment is it to include that accusation if it isn’t newsworthy to mention the kidnapping?
I am beginning to question whether you really did read the article. You try to write that story without mentioning the whole thing is predicated upon rescuing people who have been kidnapped. Seriously, what do you want from CNN? Should they spend 90% of the article outlining the evil activities of the FARC? They're a news operation. They're not writing a book on the FARC. Furthermore, they've told that story already.
I think Ken did a fine job speaking for himself. Go back and read my first post and our little back and forth.
It was a serious charge and therefore important enough to mention, but you want to deflect any objections by claiming it was a minor item.
Have you ever picked up a newspaper and noticed how it doesn't end at page A1? Not everything that is news belongs on the front page, but not everything that isn't worthy of page one isn't worthy of mention. That's what all the pages behind A1 are for. The claim being made here that CNN is somehow "fixating on" or "sensationalizing" this story is absurd for the reasons I gave in my previous posts.
With liberals, what matters is the seriousness of the accusation, not the credibility of the evidence. CNN proved that here, and you defended it.
Please scroll up and read the update Ken added to his original post.
This isn’t Ken tossing out red meat for conservatives. This was CNN tossing out red meat for liberals.
That claim would carry a lot more weight if you ignored this paragraph in my previous post:
Conservatives, like most people, like to believe they're right. But, like most people, sometimes they're wrong.
You made a fuss out of the fact that he gave a headline that included the inflammatory phrase “war crime” that wasn’t in the text of the link. But Ken wasn’t pointing to the link, he was referring to the actual article. You took him out of context.
He was pointing to the link. What else was this? Then he gets into the article proper and makes the mistake of assuming the only actors with any stake in what happened were the FARC and the hostages. Then I pointed out, no, the Red Cross has every right to be furious about this, and that there are very good reasons to not have the red cross emblem abused in this manner. Then, blah, blah, blah... Scroll up and read the thread.
I’m so glad you could grace us with your presence.
My sarcasm meter is redlining at that statement.
Reading
July 17, 2008 - 11:28 ET by KC MulvilleAsking to "read the thread" is not an argument. It's a rhetorical maneuver in which you say the equivalent of: "You're disagreeing with me, therefore you must have misunderstood me."
I understood your argument. I just disagree with it.
You conveniently skip over the core of my last post, which is the question: Why was this included at all? You claim that it's a sidebar to the main story, a minor issue to be mentioned but not focused on. And if CNN had constrained themselves to simply saying, by the way, the rescuers exploited the Red Cross emblem and the Red Cross is upset about it ... you'd have a fair point. But Ken's point, and now mine, is that CNN didn't limit themselves to that simple story. Instead, they called it "war crime." Ken's point, very clearly, is that using the phrase "war crime" is sensationalizing. "War crime" is an inflammatory and loaded phrase. For your argument to make sense, you have to hold that a "war crime" can be just a minor sidebar issue.
It must be obvious that there are two trails to this discussion. The first trail focuses on the details of the issue. But the second trail is concerned with your perception of the NewsBusters audience, and your own belief about what you're contributing to it. You insinuate that everyone here is unable to think for themselves, and that's why I use the term "herd." I know you didn't use that word, but it precisely captures the idea that you think the audience here cannot think for themselves.
You see your contribution, then, as a breath of fresh truth. It isn't. It's insulting instead of informing this audience. That's just hubris.
Why this was included at all...
July 17, 2008 - 12:53 ET by blogonatorIt's news. They're calling a spade a spade. What terms would you prefer to "war crime?" "Violation of the Geneva Conventions?" Really, this sounds all very politically correct to me.
More to your point, it is a sidebar issue here. Now if the FARC downs the next Red Cross chopper it sees flying overhead, then we've moving this particular sidebar issue into the main story category. This is why you need to read past the headlines on NB. If all you read was the NB headline, you'd think that's all the article had to say, but this was an 1,800 word article where the term "war crime" was included exactly three times. Not in the headline. Not in the link. Not in the tags. Again I say the only people sensationalizing and fixating on this story are NB and ideologically similar people. Not CNN. Lots and lots of smoke here... no fire.
As to your bullets, if I thought you were right, if I thought your claims were valid, I'd tell you. If I think bad ideas are being peddled, I'll say that. If I think someone is unable to think for himself, I'll say that too. If I don't say that, then it's you just insinuating and generalizing. In the end this isn't about me. If you want to move onto personal attacks, you'll be going there alone. It would be better if you stuck to the content of my arguments.
Blog, after a careful
July 17, 2008 - 13:01 ET by bassndudeBlog, after a careful review of the Geneva Convention, including Protocol II, I find no violation of the Geneva Convention in this act. Had the Columbians initiated a raid, and killed members of FARC, attempted to capture or otherwise hurt or harm FARC members, that would have constituted a violation. However, in their actions, they did not violate the the conventions, nor the Protocols and in reality, fulfilled a function of the Red Cross mission.
I failed to find where Geneva was violated.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Not buying it
July 17, 2008 - 14:19 ET by KC MulvilleThe infraction itself was a sidebar. "War crime" is sensationalizing it. Again, the phrase "war crime" is inflammatory, not merely descriptive, whether it's used once, twice, or many times. And besides, no one is fixating on it. Ken gave it a post, that's all. You didn't see him bewailing the end of world -- it was a single post. You objected to Ken mentioning it. I disagreed with your objection. Big deal. I'm sure you and I are the only ones caring about it at this point, and I care only barely.
The only reason I'm continuing is that you inserted a number of condescending and insulting comments into your discussion.
When I objected to those comments, you treated my objections as "personal attacks," and warned that I should stick to the arguments. You insulted the people here, but then warned that no one should personally attack you. I can only assume that you're unaware of the condescension in your comments.
Ah well. I forgive you.
I direct your attention
July 16, 2008 - 13:50 ET by BDI direct your attention once again to the principle of justifiable repriasal.
Impeach the Columbian President
July 16, 2008 - 11:39 ET by garyganuI is a good thing that George W. Bush and the US marines didn't recue those hostages, other wise they would be blamed for violating international law. The liberals would have called for the Marines to be arrested and prosecuted and also called for the impeachment of Bush. After all, using a Red Cross insignia to fool the enemy puts all of our legitimately wounded troops in danger.
Doesn't that argument sound silly? Well, that is the exact same argument that the left uses against water-boarding terrorists with critical information. I don't know how people can take them seriously.
I wonder how McCain feels about this issue?
Well now
July 16, 2008 - 11:39 ET by americaneagleIf the Red Cross wants to complain about the "misuse" of their logo in this operation, then I can understand that, but where does it violate the Geneva Conventions? As I understand it, the GC is in place to set up "rules of war" between warring nation/states, not to put constraints on the hands of governments fighting terrorist insurgencies bent on overthrowing lawfully elected governments. Since FARC wasn't a nation/state the last time I looked, I kinda don't think the GC was meant to protect them. Besides, isn't holding prisoners for ransom outside of the spirit if the GC?