07-08-2008, 02:49 AM
|
 |
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: small town in the Northwest- population 400 (+2)
Posts: 4,415
Thanks: 2,086
Thanked 1,157 Times in 823 Posts
|
|
Re: FARC hostages
I don't know how reliable it is, but I found this article:
John McQuaid: How Three Americans Ended Up Hostages in Colombia - Politics on The Huffington Post
Quote:
The three were contractors for a small surveillance program -- two single-engine planes and a handful of pilots and technical people, most of them ex-military. (I researched and wrote a Times-Picayune series about this.) The lines of bureaucratic authority around this program were hopelessly complex: it operated under the authority of the U.S. Southern Command, but also did work for the CIA, DEA, and State Department. Several more Defense Department agencies oversaw aspects of the program including maintenance, surveillance equipment, and the data it generated. And there were something like a dozen corporations that had a hand in outfitting the spyplanes, keeping them up, and running the program.
You might think of this as a "too many cooks" problem. Quite the opposite. There were hardly any cooks. The surveillance program was embedded in a net of institutions, but operated on its own, without much oversight, just a handful of guys and a lot of cash. As a result, it wasn't equipped to deal with problems that inevitably arose -- mysterious engine failures, increasingly dangerous missions -- when the institutions demanded too much. Two pilots objected to the use of single-engine planes with unreliable engines and were effectively booted from the program for their trouble.
Then, disaster. One plane crashed in the jungle when its engine failed. The American pilot, Tom Janis, was shot dead, as was Colombian officer Luis Alcides Cruz. Gonsalves, Howes and Stansell were marched off to five years of captivity. Six weeks later, the second plane crashed as it was taking off on a search sweep for the missing. This was likely due to a combination of preventable factors, including an inexperienced pilot taking off in unfamiliar terrain, and extreme fatigue. The end result: four men dead, and three prisoners, and our surveillance capabilities undercut.
Then the institutional net broke altogether. Since no one organization was responsible for the program, all fled the scene, metaphorically speaking, when disaster struck. Northrop Grumman transferred the program to a hastily-created shell corporation (the ridiculously-named CIAO, thus publicly linking the hostages to the CIA), and Southcom swept all the bureaucratic errors and oversights under the rug.
|
__________________
 Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied
|
Linear Mode
