Red Cross criticises allies over captives

The Daily Telegraph ^ | March 25, 2003 | Sandra Laville

[weegee]

Our captured prisoners were not interogated by the press.

Our soliders did not pose with their prisoner/trophies.

We did not put forth footage of prisoners with their pants undone.

We did not put forth footage of dead prisoners.

I saw photos of Red Cross - Red Crescent garbed people protesting the death of the American who fell under a bulldozer.

[sam_paine]

Is Goodwill OK?

[arasina]

The lovely sea hag Helen Thomas inquired of Press Secretary Ari Fleischer today whether we (Allied Forces) were treating the Iraqi POWs according to the Geneva Accord. I couldn't believe she asked that question! (My answer to her would have been, "No, Helen, we are skinning them alive and lighting matches between their legs. That doesn't bother them, but when we make them look at your picture, they beg for mercy.")

She had the same take as the Red Cross and tried to equate Guantanamo detainees with POWs. She's a journalist and she didn't see the pictures of the KIND treatment of Iraqi men by our troops? Yes, the one guy had a gun pointed at him while he was being given water, but our soldiers have to be cautious.

As for the Red Cross, I gave up on them first after their mishandling of the 9/11 Fund and then a year ago when they didn't want "God Bless America" sung at some function. They need to change their symbol and name to the Red Crescent to accurately reflect their views.

[Amerigomag]

We're all adults here so I'll spare both you and I the fruitless waste of our mutual time.

[weegee]

The same American media that does not want to show images of WTC casualties had no problem showing the dead American protestor in Israel; has no problems showing the POW American soliders (including the dead ones); has no problems showing other dead "innocents".

Big Media plays a propaganda game and it isn't for "our side".

[not_apathetic_anymore]

I just went to the International Red Cross site. It seems they're very proud of helping draw up the statute for the international court. From page 442 of the 2001 annual report it looks like the US supplies about 1/3 of their fundingMostly from the Government and lesser amounts from the society. (I just love finding stuff on the internet)

[AgThorn]

Some additional email addresses, more focused on the International Red Cross organization:

webmaster.gva@icrc.org for questions on the site or other available information

press.gva@icrc.org for more press or operational information

cid.gva@icrc.org for information on the Library & Research Service

review.gva@icrc.org to write to the International Review of the Red Cross

helpicrc.gva@icrc.org for personal donation information, including bequest

corporate.support.gva@icrc.org for corporation's support information

[geedee]

The Telegraph takes Mr. Westphal to task in tomorrow's edition. Titled "Neutered Red Cross" I think they got it just about right. The article . . .

Florian Westphal, of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), is right to insist that his organisation must remain strictly neutral in any conflict.

The job of the Red Cross is to bring humanitarian relief to the victims and prisoners of war on both sides. Its neutrality has always been the key to its effectiveness, and it must be preserved at all costs.

There is a world of difference, however, between the duty to remain neutral and a fancied obligation to pretend that, in all conflicts, both sides always behave equally badly. Mr Westphal seemed not to understand this distinction when he appeared on yesterday's Today programme on BBC Radio 4.

In his interview, he said that both sides had broken the clause in the Geneva Convention which requires that prisoners of war should be protected against "violence or intimidation, insults and public curiosity".

His suggestion seemed to be that by allowing close-up photographs to be published of an American GI giving water to a captured Iraqi, the coalition was no less in breach of the convention than the Iraqis, when they paraded and sought to humiliate five battered American prisoners on television.

It is by no means clear that the ICRC is right when it says that the convention forbids close-up photographs of prisoners. But even if the committee's interpretation were true, the suggestion that both sides have been equally culpable is so preposterous that it should never have been floated.

Mr Westphal should study the convention, get it right - and confine himself to reminding both sides of their obligations under it.

[JoeSixPack1]

Obviously when this war is in the waining stages, international agreements, organizations, and humanitarian care brokers like the Red Cross will all be in for a reality check.

Hopefully it will be the last check most of them will ever receive.

[Righty1]

Exactly!

[RAT Patrol]

So the Geneva convention is against a soldier giving his own water to a dehydrated POW?

[AlaskaErik]

I have always considered the Red Cross to be a vile and despicable organization. From charging front line troops for coffee and doughnuts, the seeking of reimbursement for aid rendered to disaster victims, the WTC fund-raising fiasco to the criticizing the US over the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan the Red Cross and its international sponsor have been disgusting in their callousness towards the people they claim to represent. They have never gotten one red cent from me and they never will.

[lawdude]

"un-freakin-believable and sickening"

I can't give less to the RC than I do now since I quit supporting them in the 50's when they charged my mother in advance for life saving transfusions for my dad. My sister had to go to her former high school (East) in Sioux City, Iowa and BEG her teachers to donate so he could live.

F'em.

That said, the US should immediately stop any money flow to any country or group not ACTIVELY supporting us in our efforts.

damn them all to hell!

[BibChr]

Pillocks.

Dan

[Calpernia]

Should I assume you miss read something? Why are you referring to me as a fruitless waste?

[Dr.Deth]

Yeah, I saw the picture they're talking about... Basically it has a cuffed Iraqi kneeling, and two allied soldiers: one with a rifle to his temple, the other giving him water. I titled it "compassionate conservatism" ;)

But, yeah, that was one of the things I thought of when they started talking about Geneva convention... why one and not the other? I suppose the point that it is independent media and not state propaganda is the salient one, but it's a touchy little area.

[Dr.Deth]

Yeah, that's the ticket...

"Compassionate Conservatism"

:)

[Delta 21]

Thanks Ivan,

Just sent this out:

A United States soldier showing compassion to a surrendering Iraqi soldier by giving him a drink of water is not, NOT, a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Your organization needs to retract this statement or clarify what you really mean. There is no relativism or remote comparison to a soldier on the battle field giving water to a thirsty man who up until seconds before was very possibly trying to kill him, and a political machine intimidating captured soldiers on their government owned television station befor notification of their capture. Not to mention executing said prisoners and showing people laughing and posing with the lifeless bodies.

This kind of stupidity will not be tollerated. My volontary donations of the past are just that. A thing of the past.

If your organization continues to skew its perverted view of reality in this careless manner, it has become just as relavent to world events as the United Nations.

This is a historic time in humanity. There are obviously important choices to be made. Dont make the wrong choice!

[k2blader]

This would be laughable if it weren't so utterly repulsive.

[IronJack]

Did they have anything to say to Saddam about his treatment of OUR prisoners??? IF not, one could be persuaded to ignore their bleating and tell them to go peddle donuts.