...let me jump in to point out a few things that go against your deductions or assumptions.
The main one would be that what you think is in FARC's best interest might, in all honesty, not coincide with their own opinion. Why? I'll get into that, sooner or later, but let me backtrack for a it.
The late governor was kidnapped four separate times by FARC during his life. Leaving aside your inability to afford him even the formal benefit of being considered innocent until proven guilty, it would not be surprising if his unfriendly experiences with the guerrillas had a role in leading to his supposed paramilitary involvement. I've noticed you've been quick to argue in favor of the opposite in other cases (government and paramilitary violence leading to guerrilla involvement) so, theoretically speaking, there's at least a fair chance this wouldn't be any different. The same logic, just going the other way around.
While it may not necessarily be their most common reaction or their original objective, FARC has in fact killed people who they've kidnapped, even without the convenient excuse of being under external military pressure (such a grossly criminal and brutal act, really, to try and rescue someone just hours after their kidnapping...no other government in the world would do so), particularly if these happen to be civilians they consider to be paramilitaries or their suspected collaborators. Not always on the spot, mind you, it can also occur after these individuals have been found guilty in a "popular trial" where their guilt has been taken for granted from the beginning. Once again, it sounds to me like that logic isn't exactly too far removed from what FARC's enemies have been known to do, or is it?
What, you want a source for that? I'll gladly provide. To save some time, you can scroll down to the section on FARC available through the following link, for a number of past examples that would take up too much space to list here.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,COL,,3ae6a7e30,0.html#P1377_325495You might automatically dismiss some of the references, I assume, but others should be well documented even by your standards (including, for instance, local and international human rights NGOs that are not known to be pro-government in any way, shape or form).
But I believe I've done myself a slight disservice by not mentioning something very important, which is what FARC themselves have said about the matter of the late governor and why they felt the need to detain this foul criminal and punish him under the banner of popular justice. Let's look at the communique released by ANNCOL, which has not been rejected or considered apocryphal to date.
Al gobernador del Caqueta le iban a hacer juicio político por corrupto
El Bloque Sur de las FARC-EP informa a la opinión nacional e internacional:
1.- Que a pesar de los evidentes vínculos del gobernador del Caquetá Luis Francisco Cuellar con el paramilitarismo, el objetivo de la retención no era ajusticiarlo, ni hacerle exigencias económicas, sino realizarle un juicio político por corrupto, al haber convertido el dolo y el prevaricato en piedra angular de su Administración, hasta tal punto, que a cada uno de los empleados le descontaba $ 100.000 pesos del sueldo, como condición para preservar el puesto" The rest of the communique is also available at:
http://anncol.euQuick translation:
The Caquetá governor was going to be put on political trial for corruption
From FARC's Southern Block to national and international public opinion:
1.-Despite the evident links of the Caquetá governor Luis Francisco Cuellar with paramilitaries, the objective of his detention wasn't to kill him, nor to make economic demands, but to put him on political trial because of his corruption, after having made malice and the breach of duty a fundamental part of his administration, to such a degree that he took 100.000 pesos from each of his employees in order to let them keep their jobs.In other words, at least on the surface the purpose of his kidnapping wasn't to try him for paramilitarism, not at all, but merely to do so for alleged corruption and employee abuse. But even though they didn't want to kill him outright, considering their wording and the explicit assumption of the governor's guilt it wouldn't be surprising if they nevertheless executed him after the fact, considering past precedent and the incredibly "fair" conditions of such trials (please refer to the above link), but it's also entirely possible that the guy might have just gotten a "slap in the wrist" for the time being. Who knows? I'd say chances would be 50/50.
Either way, I would say this brings down at least a significant part of your house of cards, provided that you don't need to see a video of Iván Márquez or whoever else reading this communique in order to confirm its authenticity. You'd think, however, that if this were a false communique FARC would jump all over the place and try to present the "real" position of the organization within days. It's not like their hands are tied or there's a sudden lack of outlets they could use. Assuming nothing to the contrary is ever said, just as it hasn't to date, it is entirely reasonable to give this communique just as much worth as any other.
In any event, the conclusion would be that regardless of their original intentions the guy was killed by FARC because, heaven forbid, they must not allow any of their victims to be rescued if they can help it. Better to kill the enemies of the proletariat if they cannot be successfully imprisoned than to abort an operation and let someone live another day, I guess.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
