Colombian President (and Hugo Chavez's new bff), Alvaro Uribe, apologized earlier today for his soldiers using the Red Cross emblem on their uniforms during the rescue mission that liberated former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and 14 others. The misuse of the international organization's symbol violates the Geneva Convention and can be considered a war crime."We regret that this occurred," President Alvaro Uribe said in a speech following reports that the Red Cross emblem was displayed on a vest or T-shirt worn by a Colombian intelligence officer who took part in the rescue mission.The Red Cross, said through it's Colombian spokesperson that their symbol must be respected, especially as they continue to work inside Colombia.
Falsely portraying military personnel as Red Cross members is against the Geneva Conventions as it could put humanitarian workers at risk when they are in war zones.
Sources : Yahoo!, The Latin Americanist
7 comments:
So do they hand back the people, including the three americans who were rescued from FARC because it was cheating?
The people who were rescued had spent years in the jungle, some up to 10 years, while they were humilliated, raped, tortured, and killed.
Not a single shot was fired, no one threated by those forces and no military damaged was inflicted on Farc. you want more? FARC is not a belligerent group, it is a terrorist group and CIRC rules only apply to legitimate armies and enemies. You want even more?
FARC kidnapped people while they were inside a United Nations Vehicle with white flags. If you don't belive me search a person named Alan Jara.
Or what about when FARC killed injured soldiers while being transported in an ambulance with the CIRC emblems, does that not count?
Or what about when FARC killed 117 people; all of them women and children inside a Church in 2002?
I'm sorry to say this but FARC has never respected a single so-called neutral international organizations, so what's the big deal anyway? besides, it is known that it wasn't the whole rescued group, but one person who was scared to hell, and wanted to protect his own life(which is ironic because that's what the red cross emblem should be for) because there were around 60 armed rebels around where they landed.
Why doesn't CNN says that?
Colombia did not appropriate the Red Cross Symbol. One person did, and that should be said.
FWIW, this symbol can mean both- Palestinians have been using red crescent ambulances to transport bombs- and bombers- for years.
Obviously any rational human being (not to mention any “humane” being) will scoff at this attorney’s position. And even if justified by ink now dry, written in a time immediately following direct conflict between superpowers, the articles of the Geneva Convention do not protect terrorist groups any more than they protect rapists, murderers, or white-collar criminals.
Terrorists are criminals, not valid soldiers of war. To categorize them as equal in any manner demeans true soldiers while emboldening monsters.
So on that note, maybe it’s good that this came up. Our own Supreme Court seems bent upon extending Constitutional rights to foreign terrorists. Maybe it’s time someone actually went through the international process of “splitting hairs” in excluding terrorists from the dictates of the Geneva Conventions.
The quote of note here is
“Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a “war crime” under the Geneva Conventions”
That is a true statement in a COMBAT operation. This was not a combat operation. This was rescue operation not a combat operation. Perhaps we can even go a bit further and call it a law enforcement operation. The Geneva Convention only applies to a state of war or actions between belligerent powers. Over the years, there have been attempts to give “revolutionary groups” equal protection in “wars of liberation.” No rational person could argue that FARC is a revolutionary army. FARC is a drug running operation - in short, they are criminals. Whether or not their origin was noble (if you think that communism is noble, ask the Poles) they are now nothing more than banditos. Using a ruse in a law enforcement operation or in a humanitarian hostage rescue operation is perfectly acceptable for many reasons. But if you can think of no other reason, then it is legal because the laws of war do not apply in this situation.
To all that say this act was acceptable - are you kidding? Once one person or one government flaunts the neutrality and good name of the Red Cross, its missions in ANY war zone may be compromised. The Red Cross is an organization that protects and supports the innocent victims of wartime violence, nurses wounded soldiers, and attempts to preserve the rights of POWs. They cannot do this if military groups treat them with suspicion or hostility. Any action defacing the peaceful name of the Red Cross or Crescent must be taken very seriously. Condoning its use in this raid because "it got the job done" is unwise and short-sighted.
To Christy:
I think your view is the one short-sighted. So it is okay for instance, when Hezzbolla or Hamas uses ambulances to shoot at people, that's fine right? In what kind world do you live? ever since WWII the geneve convention has never been respected or look what happened in Rwanda, or how about Congo? or middle east for example. What did the big powers or even better the red Cross tried to do? In WWII, the red cross went to a consentration camp where they saw the jews "supposely" well. Once they left the camp, all of those jews were shot to death. .
Those guys of FARC aren't even a regular army, like the person from above says. Those guys are criminals and they're exempted from these combat international Laws. Or would you say Al-qaeda is a legitimate army? give me a break!
Those Colombian Commandos were not armed at all. They had no weapons or knives whatsoever!!! They were alone against 60 fully armed rebels.
That's why I'm saying you are the one short-sighted because there are no legal grounds for that action. Even if it was not used propertly the emblem, you still have to consider that there was no hostility or aggression while representing the Red Cross.
Were the rebels shot while in front of the red cross? Were they attacked? the asnwer is no. So why would you even question if the neutrality of the red cross was endangered? Medic Soldiers wear cross, because they are not intended to attack anyone, but they are still soldiers right?
anyway: Check 4th Geneve Conv
Chapter I
art 3
art 6
and the whole Chapter VII
This is a rhtorical tactic commonly called "Hey! Look over there."
Too much truth about FARC is escaping into the world. That had to be stopped so, we get this crap and outrageous claims of war crimes from the FARC public relations department at CNN.
Sure, FARC was enslaving and murdering people and would enslave all of Columbia if they could, but look over there: The Columbians are WAR CRIMINALS!
Post a Comment