Posted on 07/15/2008 6:40:11 PM PDT by tobyhill
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Cross emblem in a rescue operation in which leftist guerrillas were duped into handing over 15 hostages, according to unpublished photographs and video viewed by CNN.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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
For those who are unfamiliar with the details on this unusual situation, the rules say: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/rules_warfare-1934.pdf
45. Improper use of distinctive emblem of Geneva convention.-The use of the emblem of the Red Cross must be limited to the protection and designation of sanitary formations and establishments and the personnel and material which the Geneva convention provides shall be respected. As examples of the improper use of the emblem may be cited the following: Using a hospital or other building accorded such protection as an observatory or military office or store; firing from a building or tent displaying the emblem of the Red Cross; using a hospital train to facilitate the escape of combatants; displaying the emblem on wagons containing ammunition or nonmedical stores; and in general, using it for cloaking acts of hostility. (See pars. 197, 199.)
199. Red Cross emblem authorized in peace or war to designate materiel and personnel protected by the convention. - The emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground and the words "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross" may only be used, whether in time of peace or war, to protect or designate sanitary formations and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the convention.
It looks to me like the Red Cross gave itself special protection, with the prohibition on the use of their symbol applying at all times and not just in a declared war between signatories. If the rescuers used the symbol to deceive terrorists during the rescue, their ruse seems comparable to an example that was forbidden. This doesn't make a violation of the rules a "war crime" as far as I know, but this level of detail is beyond my range of experience, and I'd want an expert legal opinion [not just some CNN terrorist sympathizer upset that the "good guys" were tricked by Americans or their allies] before taking a position.
Now, if the helicopters and some of the personnel flew a Red Cross mission prior to the rescue, I'm not sure they would be violating the rules if they failed to remove the insignia until after leaving the area where they might be observed by FARC-loving CNN journalists. Any timeliness requirement for removing insignia after completing one mission would no doubt not take effect until they approached the area where they intended to conduct a rescue. It looks like we have at least one (sympathetic to FARC and thus reliable for this topic) witness statement verifying that they no longer displayed the insignia once the rescue commenced. That's good enough for me.
Odd how there is no concern about the terrorists breaking laws when they kidnapped the people.
If Venezuela is supporting FARC, as is alleged, or the FARC controls territory, which they do; then the conflict in Colombia is not just an internal affair and is covered by the Geneva Conventions.
To me it doesn’t really matter whether the Red Cross symbol was actually used being it was a rescue of hostages held by terrorist that had no regard for innocent people.
It doesn't. But that's not the point of this piece.
The point is to give the left-wing blogs something to point to when they call Uribe a "war criminal."
If we can rescue innocent people from FARC thugs while following the rules, that's the best of both worlds to me (especially if as many FARCs as possible are permanently removed from action). Unfortunately, our soldiers and our allies have to be very careful what they might appear to have done, especially with Murtha looking over their shoulders. If they have a line of reasoning that can deflect his attacks, that's almost as important as a vest to deflect bullets during the rescue operation itself.
But only if both sides are signatories of the convention, which I don't think FARC was. Venezuela may be "alleged" to be supporting FARC but unless it is done overtly then that doesn't apply .
Now to get to the important part, do you not think the US, who was involved in this operation didn't think of all these angles before doing this operation and do you really give a crap if it was a violation of the Geneva Convention if it freed Americans?
I certainly don't. Like I first said, this was not a violation of the Geneva Convention and CNN and other communist news organizations will use whatever they can to smear the US and her allies.
War crime my a**!
Using the Red Cross symbol is so well recognized that it is “Customary Law” and applicable whether FARC is a signatory or not. The real question is enforcement, Colombia recognizes the ICC but just because something is technically a violation does not mean that the court’s prosecutor is going to want to file charges. Now if Colombia had painted their helicopter with the Red Cross and then attacked FARC that would be a violation worth prosecuting.
Whatever, like I said war crime my a**. Where were these a**hats when the frickin’ terrorist(aka muslims)used red cross symbols and smuggled weapons with them? I guess that wasn’t a war crime. I really don’t care how we got these guys out, as long as we got them. If we could have nuked this site after releasing the prisoners I would have been just as happy, and I still wouldn’t have considered it a war crime. I am against killing, murdering terrorists SOBs regardless of the name they use at the time. One more time and this is my last word on the subject: WAR CRIME MY A**!
International Humanitarian Law and the Law of War are rather fascinating and they don’t really place the limits on our ability to effectively fight that Amnesty International and others would like to make us think. You will find that members of the military tend to be the biggest supporters such laws. The laws that are generally applicable have exceptions that allow almost anything that can be considered militarily necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.