Talk:Operation Jaque

Operation section citations

Any citations for the Operation section? How do we know they were sad (though I believe they were)? Is that considered POV? Also, where are the references for this humanitarian mission they thought they were going to be a part of? Psychophant (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Subdued in the air?

Were the FARC men actually subdued in the air or were they subdued on land by Colombian guerillas in disguise once the FARC had landed? Psychophant (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25499926 states that they were subdued in the air. This reference should be added as I think the CNN reference is a bit confusing. Psychophant (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, CNN seemed to imply they took off before being subdued, but never stated that outright. Joshdboz (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the MSNBC ref. Joshdboz (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sections merger

How about we merge the Operation and Hostage's View of the Rescue sections as the their info overlaps? Psychophant (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation help

According to El Tiempo, Javier Ponce said

"Voy a hablar por mi persona: a mí me emociona que eso haya ocurrido (la liberación de los secuestrados) y me produce un enorme alivio. Es algo que el mundo estaba esperando (...) "Lástima que no se haya dado en el marco de un proceso de paz, sino por un rescate violento por parte de las Fuerzas Armadas colombianas. Pero de todas maneras, la liberación de un ser humano de esas características, evidentemente que emociona".

I summed it up as

Ecuadorian defense minister Javier Ponce stated that the liberation of the 15 hostages was something the world was waiting for, but also lamented the way it happened, saying "It is a pity it happened not as part of a peace process, but as a violent rescue by the Colombian Armed Forces." He claimed it diminishes the chances of a political resolution.

Any corrections welcome. By the way, Folha de São Paulo (Brazilian) calls him Xavier Ponce, while El Tiempo (Colombian) calls him Javier Ponce.

-- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Minority POV, is this notable enough for inclusion. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems it is the publically expressed view of the Equadorian government, and indeed the expected reaction given their promotion of FARC political goals. John Nevard (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Colombian copyright?

The Colombian Defense Ministry released this great slide show about the operation here with good maps/photos. Does anyone know what Colombian gov policy is with regard to copyright? Joshdboz (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fake???

There are a few things suspicious about the official story:

• use of helicopter (especially when visiting secret base)
• acceptance by rebels of unknown visitors
• no shots being fired.

Are we being told the full story? Is it possible that, for example, there was a clandestine deal to hand over the hostages? Or was it an inside job?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

1. What is the problem with the helicopter?
2. Who said they were unknown?
3. Why is this hard to believe?

-- Jorge Peixoto (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If new details come out we will certainly add them, but it's not up to us to question the thousands of news reports. Joshdboz (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On July 4, during the press conference in Paris, Íngrid Betancourt was asked about the allegations of ramson payment and fake military operation. She answered that the handover/takeover was a very tense moment for everybody present, so it was a real rescue and not just acting. She further elaborated that her thankfulness to the French government has to do with the type of rescue operation eventually decided upon: the Colombian government wanted a commando-type rescue, but France pressured for a much more uncertain, non-violent, mole-type operation. Aldo L (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an atmosphere of "tension" proves much. The details of the ransom allegations needed to be added in.

The ransom allegations should be removed. It is just an absurd especulation. The government was offering 100 million. Why would they deny a payment of 20 million?. Treason of their own ranks guarding their most precious possesion would have probably been even more demoralizing for the rest of FARC than a military rescue.

To explain my original points: this was supposed to be a top secret jungle camp and I would think that the arrival of a helicopter would be a security breach. Presumably the Colombian jungle is under surveillance by spyplanes, satellites etc as well as being monitored on the ground. Use of a helicopter is obviously convenient in a rescue/ransom operation, but for the transport of highly prized hostages it's very visible and therefore undesirable

This had the same modus operandi as the missionn carried out by the Venezuelan government during previous unilateral releases. You canbelieve what you want, but this kind of speculation has no place in a Wikipedia article.

FARC supporters oevr the world have each given their own absurd version simply because they refuse to accept that FARC were defeated in this one. For example: Venezuelan congressmen said publicly that this was an voluntary release by the FARC, thanked them for their "humanitarian" gesture, and said the Colombian government is lying about this. The site rebelion.org said that the movement of prisoners was planned, but the Colombian army arrived first and "kidnapped" the "retenidos" from the FARC. You believe a swiss radio station that says alias "Cesar" betrayed the FARC for 20 million, while the Colombian government was offering 100 million according to Colombian Defense Minister Santos. Moreover, the swiss radio theory used the fact that no video footage of the operation had been shown as evidence. Hours later, the Colombian government showed the video, which is very eloquent. Furthermore, alias "Cesar" will be probably sent to the USA and face a long sentence for drug trafficking and torturing three American citizens. Speculation has no place on this article.

Since I wrote my first comment I have now heard that the operation is supposed to have been an "inside job" with infilitration of FARC at the highest level. However, it is still puzzling why rebels in a top secret base would readily accept contact with people, none of whom they knew and who presumably would not be familiar with passwords, procedures, jargon etc. Wearing "Che Guevara" T-shirts seems to me suspicious rather than reassuring. Apparently they were supposed to be part of an "NGO". Which one???

Only two of them were wearing "Che" T-shirts. The others simulated to be of different nationalities. This was not supposed to be final release, but a previous step. It seems natural that a FARC friendly mission would be in charge of this, just like when they released hostages to the FARC-friendly Venezuelan government. Again, speculation without any kind of evidence has no place.

As to the thousands of media reports, obviously they are all copy-and-paste jobs. So what? I was only asking if Wikipedia could establish the truth.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not do this kind of thing. No original research is allowed in Wikipedia articles. Original "speculation" is even worse.

I wasn't asserting original research or speculation in the article. I was asking if anyone could "fill in the blanks". Since I first wrote, the Swiss report has been added. There should be more. Wikipedia should not just uncritically repeat the official Colombian version.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaking concluding and dismissing some views as "propaganda" or not would fall under POV. Thus the idea that the operation was a fake should most certainly be published. Whether true or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.23.41 (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Israeli involvement

There have been numerous reports in all main media channels in Israel, france and the US about the involvement of Israeli army officers in training and guiding the Colombian commando unit before and during the operation. miss Betancourt, in her first public address after released, also referred to Israel's successful history in hostages cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.35.230 (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that too. The Betancourt quote isn't that relevant, though it could of course be added if we wanted to summarize her remarks after the event. As for the rest, I haven't been able to tell whether this is just informed speculation about former Israeli intel-types (ie they train Colombian forces, so they must be involved) or if it's based on hard reporting of events. We'd need the second kind to add it to the article, unless the speculation was reported in some very well respected places (NYT, Haaretz, etc). Joshdboz (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

here is is - [1] from haaretz.com

Thanks, I've added it, though I'd be happy for other people's input on this. Joshdboz (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Same helicopters?

Several aspects of the mission were apparently designed to mimic previous Venezuelan hostage transfers, including the actual composition of the group and the helicopters used.

I could not find mention of the "actual composition of the helicopters used" in the New York Times page. Is it on another page? Could the precise URL and a short extract be included to help verify this please? The article Operation Emmanuel is also unclear what helicopters were used as it mentions flying two Russian-made Mil Mi-17s on December 27 and then "flew in two Venezuelan helicopters" on 2008-01-10 some fourteen days later. -84user (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)fixed typo-84user (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that the choppers were the same, but that they resembled the Venezuelan ones. Here's the quote, which can be found on the third page of the NYT article:

The composition of this team closely resembled those sent by Venezuela to pick up hostages in the Colombia earlier this year. And the connection to Venezuela was exploited in other ways, too. Colombian intelligence officials led the guerrillas to believe that they were transporting the captives in two Mi-17 helicopters used by an unnamed international aid group. These aircraft, painted white and black, were intended to resemble helicopters used by Venezuela’s government in two previous hostage negotiations this year.

Joshdboz (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They're apparently the same type, but had slightly different colors. The Venezuelans were white with orange accents (probably rescue helicopters from the navy or such), while the ones used in Jaque where white with a red part at the bottom (not white/black). That was shown last night on Venezuelan satellite TV - I should look up the photos online. They might not have been perfect copies, but good enough to resemble either a civilian helicopter (rental helicopters are *never* painted green like in the movies - they would be shot down immediately), or the Venezuelan rescue helicopters. A Mil-Mi 17 is a very common type (cheap Russian surplus) that can be found in lots of places (I've flown one in Peru, and I've seen them in Colombia too). --Bluezy (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote, Joshdboz. I have replaced my clarifyme tag with a "page 3" note inside the ref tag. I also moved the New York Times citation down to References inside a "cite" wrapper because it is used three times: twice for page 1 and once for page 3. I hope I've done all this correctly. -84user (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC) typofix-84user (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

About the colours, I looked at the helicopters shown in pages 11 and 12 of this PDF document that Joshdboz linked above in "Columbian Copyright?", and they look freshly painted - one is white with orange-red side pods, the other white with a pair of what look like open rear clamshell doors in black. I then looked at this BBC worldnews video and I can just about catch one white helicopter with reddish dust shields in front of the engine intakes, but it is so YouTube-blurry I could not see any more. -84user (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)using specific terms-84user (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Enough with the fox-news type militarism

Excessive patriotism and nationalism leads to fascism. Nobody cares about military code names of operations. This trend has to stop from Wikipedia. People that go on their normal lives don't want to know what some military general code-names an operation, they want to read about EVENTS. "Operation Jaque", what a joke. Go join an army, writing is not for you. --Leladax (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please suggest an alternative title then?Borisblue (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article is about the military operation known as Jaque, then why not call it Operation Jaque??? Do you have any idea how many pages would have to be renamed to avoid this so-called "fox-news type militarism"? How is presenting the facts and using the actual name of an incident militaristic? It would be dishonest to rename the article.SpudHawg948 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ingrid's comments on CNN and their presentation / interpretation

I believe the following qualifies as original research and personal interpretation by Cpforest (not to mention that it ignores elements present in official accounts, about the personnel being trained to act out their roles as foreigners, which could be cited in turn, but that's a secondary concern):

"Ingrid Betancourt on CNN's Larry King live, forty three minutes into the interview, describes her rescuers in the following way "Like five guys and a woman went out of the helicopter, we were surprised they didn't match to what we were expecting perhaps French guy, Swiss guy. Those guys would speak Spanish with a strange accent we didn't know if they were Cuban or Venezuelan". This description appears to contradict official accounts, she describes her rescuers as other than Colombian."

That's why I removed this and reverted the previous edit. The source is mentioned, not cited, which could be corrected for Betancourt's statement...but the problem is that the rest of the paragraph (and its placement under "foreign involvement") corresponds solely to the editor's own thoughts. This shouldn't be about editors trying to make points based on personally interpreting what they see on TV, or should it?

If there's a specific source that is making this specific point, then so be it. But that's not the case right now. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To back up my secondary point, here's an excerpt (plus a quick translation of the same) from an article describing that the military intelligence personnel were pretending to be foreigners during the operation:

"Las imágenes fueron editadas para proteger la identidad de los militares de inteligencia, que simularon ser un italiano, un australiano, un árabe y un antillano, además de dos enfermeras y un médico."

"The images were edited to protect the identities of the military intelligence personnel, who pretended to be an Italian, an Australian, an Arab and an Antillian, as well as two nurses and a doctor."

I am not going to explain how to interpret the above, as I would probably also go into original research and what not, but I do think it's relevant. Regardless, my main point stands independently of this. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On a possible intentional omission of the illegal use of the teleSUR logo during the operation...

I find very interesting the fact that the illegal use of the pan-Latin American television network teleSUR's logo as part of the various irresponsibilities committed by the Colombian Army during Operation Jaque is completely ignored in this article. This fact was widely known and condemned by various organizations for the defense of press and freedom of expression. I'll research and add data and references about the topic to correct this serious omission. Thanks... -- Enigmaticland (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fake

Rumors have been circulating about operation jaque being a deal between FARC operatives and both the Colombian and US goverments. French envoy Noël Saez (appointed by former Foreign Affairs Minister Dominique de Villepin) in an interview in "Le Figaro", dated 10/03/2009, talks about negotiation (http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2009/03/09/01003-20090309ARTFIG00478-noel-saez-les-geoliers-de-betancourt-ont-ete-achetes-.php). "The general public does not know how it was done. In Colombia, people have convinced themselves that this is the result of an excellent work of the army. I want to prove the contrary. Ingrid Betancourt's captors were purchased, they would never have released their hostages. But what I consider important is that the hostages were released. Moreover, none was injured. This also reminds me that everything was prepared in advance. The helicopter landed, there was no shot fired is too good to be true. In February 2008, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe told us, Bernard Kouchner and I of having arrested the wife of Cesar, the jailer of Betancourt. She had significant responsibilities within the guerrillas. Cesar was a turncoat at this time. Then, in late April-early May, a Colombian lawyer received a Cesar sent. The latter's commitment to free its hostages on condition of not being extradited. Finally, the Colombian president made a statement in which he said he was approached by a commander holding hostages and ready to release them if he were not extradited. He said he had agreed. This was presented as a real Hollywood movie. Knowing the FARC, it is unthinkable that it happened just like that..."

A new report in the Colombian weekly El Espectador (http://www.elespectador.com/impreso/judicial/articulo-281569-un-expresidente-me-entrego-el-libreto-de-operacion-jaque), indicates the existence of a "script" that was developed and followed by the parties involved in the exchange.The same report mentions an investigative TV documentary in which details of the deal are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.180.250 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rescuers masquerading as representatives of the Red Cross

I uploaded a nonfree image in 2008 or 2009: Image:Colombian security official appearing to wear Red Cross ID as a ruse.jpg. It had all the required templates for a fair use image. Recently another contributor removed the image, using the edit summary "rem unnecessary non-free image. Verbal description is quite sufficient here." I strongly disagree that a verbal description is sufficient.

Whether the rescuers masqueraded as civilians is a highly controversial topic. Arguably, masquerading as a Red Cross representative, wearing the Red Cross symbol that marks a non-combatant, is a war crime. It could be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

It seems to me, in the years since I last worked on this article, the wording in the paragraphs that followed the image is strongly biased to cast doubt that the rescuers masquerade included masquerading as non-combatants. This makes me strongly doubt that a mutually acceptable wording could be agreed upon of the CNN screenshot that is said to show a rescuer wearing a Red Cross badge in order to masquerade as a Red Cross non-combatant.

It seems to me that this is precisely the kind of situation we envisioned where including a fair use image was essential.

So, I am restoring the fair use image, and informing the contributor who removed it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We never, ever, use non-free images in order for our reader to judge the correctness of a fact. For that purpose, we rely on reliable sources. If there is a reliable source that says that he wore a Red Cross badge, we go by that. Cite that reliable source and be done with it. And we are already doing so: we are quoting the President himself admitting the fact. Do with that whatever you will, but at this point there is no sense playing detective with images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)