You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Caribbean-Latin America
Colombian military committed "War Crimes"
2008-07-16
Posted by:tipper

#14  Not around here, bj. They won't permanently support you, but people burned out of their homes (who want the help - those with insurance usually refuse, & some people move in with relatives) get vouchers for several nights in a motel and help replacing basic clothing, medicines, glasses, and the like.

I support the Sallies, too, since they provide disaster relief and also work with the homeless, but in this area it's the Red Cross who handles the burned-out homes.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-07-16 18:38  

#13  Oh, and Barbara, the American Red Cross has a bad habit of sending you a bill for services when they show up at your burnt out house to "help".
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-07-16 17:25  

#12  Goddamned Lawyers and CNN.
The thing to remember here is that they used the Red Cross symbols to AVOID killing people. The paleostains use the red crescent trucks to run guns, smuggle murderers, launch attacks.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-07-16 17:22  

#11  The Geneva Conventions do not tie the hands of civilized forces to anything like the degree the terrorists and their media whores would like you to believe.

The Colombians were not in violation of the Convention even if did apply to the terrorists.

Anyone who has ever been in the military, or has even seen a reasonable amount of authentic combat video, will know that military medical personnel are permitted to wear the Red Cross as part of their uniforms.
Similarly, the Geneva Conventions specify that unarmed aircraft used for the evacuation of casualties (and the hostages were clearly in need of medical attention) may be marked with the Red Cross. The use of threats, force, or tactical deception to prevent interference with a lawful attempt to evacuate sick or wounded is, itself, perfectly lawful.

12 August 1949.
Chapter III : Medical units and establishments
ARTICLE 22
The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:

(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.

(2) That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort.


There is another relevant section CNN did not bother to look up:

(Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section I -- Methods and means of warfare
Article 37 -- Prohibition of perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;

(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;

(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

The medics in the rescue force were not feigning their Red Cross status, the evacuation helicopter was not feigning its right to show the Red Cross. The other ruses are not prohibited.

The rough disguise of the helicopter as a civilian aircraft does not violate section 1(a) because the objective of the ruse was clearly not to gain the "protection of international law" (ie, keep the terrorists from shooting at it) but to mislead the terrorists into believing that it was part of a friendly force; that is, a lawful ruse de guerre.


CNN needs a serious beat-down for this one. .





Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2008-07-16 17:05  

#10  Read my link first, Mitch.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-07-16 16:02  

#9  Barbara: Of course I don't give money to the ICRC. I'm just paranoid today that the American Red Cross isn't paying dues to Geneva or something like that. Do you have a link guaranteeing that there's a chinese wall between the entities?
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-07-16 15:58  

#8  And if they get a chance to pull this off again, using the same tactic, I'd be willing to bet they'd do it again.
Fuck CNN.
Posted by: tu3031   2008-07-16 15:58  

#7  Everyone knows the ICRC symbols are only for use to transport terrorists and weapons. You can look look it up in the ICRC charter.
Posted by: ed   2008-07-16 15:51  

#6  Or the Salvation Army.

Gotta like any NGO with a magazine named War Cry
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-07-16 15:51  

#5  "Why again do I donate money to the Red Cross again?"

You don't (I hope), Mitch - not to the International Red Cross.

The American Red Cross isn't involved in their shenanigans. The American Red Cross responds to American disasters, and - at least in our area - helps people burned out of their homes.

American Red Cross: Good, gets my donations.

International Red Cross: *Spit*
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-07-16 15:42  

#4  I saw the Communist News Network trying to make a big deal out of this story this morning. We got our guys back. So who cares what the hell CNN thinks. FARC is not guided by the Geneva Convention.
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-07-16 14:58  

#3  So a bunch of helicopters arrive, full of apparent NGO folk along with a guy apparently from this Red Cross-affiliated NGO, to pick up hostages from remote and scattered prison camps & move them to another, centralized prison location.

This is not a violation of any of the Geneva Convention - because the Red Cross *exists* to be jailers and transporters of prisoners-of-war and hostages.

Ah! But the man pretending to be a Red Cross prison transporter, acting as a logistical support for a band of terrorists, is actually an agent of the legitimate government of the host country, a soldier out of uniform & acting under a ruse of war. No shots fired, not even any punches thrown.

But this! This! This is a war crime.

So basically, the Red Cross definition of "war crime" is any action which might correct an injustice while acting under a false flag, so long as that false flag has the Red Cross.

Freeing the captives of low-grade narco-terrorists is a *crime*, while habitually supporting and enabling the on-going unlawful imprisonment of said captives is just business as usual.

Why again do I donate money to the Red Cross again?
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-07-16 14:38  

#2  Is the FARC a signator to the Geneva Convention? Well then, there you have it.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-07-16 14:32  

#1  Hey, the Paleos do it regularly and no one cared. It's a little late to try to play that card. Although we're familiar with the game, trying to hold one group responsible and another not.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-07-16 14:28  

00:00