Drugs & US Law Enforcement (2006-2017)

[Tom Odom]

Hi Tom, again I understand what you are saying, but I think the most important perception is the people see the Government of Columbia as in charge, to show the people they are the government and can protect them from FARC. Placing ICRC interests above that is not a good idea.

And by pretending to be the ICRC, they undercut their ability to show they are in charge. I am glad the hostages were saved, Slap but the use of the ICRC logo as a ploy was a mistake.

[slapout9]

And by pretending to be the ICRC, they undercut their ability to show they are in charge. I am glad the hostages were saved, Slap but the use of the ICRC logo as a ploy was a mistake.

I think is was good use of urban camoflouge(cain't speell). By doing this they pulled off the operation without a shot being fired or an injury or death to anybody. That's getting all Sun Zu and stuff on the enemy. All warfare is based on deception.

[Tom Odom]

I think is was good use of urban camoflouge(cain't speell). By doing this they pulled off the operation without a shot being fired or an injury or death to anybody. That's getting all Sun Zu and stuff on the enemy. All warfare is based on deception.

Committing a war crime is not good for long term interests.

It remains to be seen what the after effects will be regarding ICRC and other IO/NGOs.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Tom

[Rex Brynen]

Just on a side note, I'll mention how important that Red Cross bib is to ICRC personnel. They frequently go into combat zones, into insurgent areas, and negotiate checkpoints, with just that as protection--no body armour, no PSD, no side arms... just a white piece of cloth.

In many war zones--coupled with good field-level intelligence and good local staff--it is enough, in large part because how ICRC has protected the symbol and its own reputation.

In some areas (Iraq and Afghanistan among them), obviously, it is not.

[slapout9]

If the use of the red cross emblem was a mistake or not is open to debate, but it is not a war crime. The Legal concept of Exigent Circumstances was created just for cases like this.(sometimes lawyers do good stuff) Exigent Circumstances will allow Law Enforcement to violate other laws,rules,and procedures in situations where there is an extreme risk of loss of life. Freeing hostages would qualify.

Further if it was a mistake,that does not require the Columbian Government to discuss it in public. (Having a no comment policy is the same as pleading the 5th in this country) They could have seen the Red Cross in private.

[Rex Brynen]

If the use of the red cross emblem was a mistake or not is open to debate, but it is not a war crime. The Legal concept of Exigent Circumstances was created just for cases like this.(sometimes lawyers do good stuff) Exigent Circumstances will allow Law Enforcement to violate other laws,rules,and procedures in situations where there is an extreme risk of loss of life. Freeing hostages would qualify.

It doesn't apply in this case--while international humanitarian law often allows a degree or exigency (or military necessity) to be balanced against harm to civilians, there is no such exemption for use of the red cross symbol (for the obvious reasons that people would constantly be using ambulances to gain tactical surprise). Misuse of the ICRC is an absolute war crime, against which IHL would allow no such defence.

Hence the Columbians 'fessing up and apologizing so fast--and blaming it on a nervous soldier.

[slapout9]

Since nobody was hurt or killed I don't see how use of the Red Cross is a war crime. So we go with copyright violation and a $50.00 fine.

[Ken White]

It doesn't apply in this case--while international humanitarian law often allows a degree or exigency (or military necessity) to be balanced against harm to civilians, there is no such exemption for use of the red cross symbol (for the obvious reasons that people would constantly be using ambulances to gain tactical surprise). Misuse of the ICRC is an absolute war crime, against which IHL would allow no such defence.

Without getting into the semantic and legal argument about whether there is such a thing as International Humanitarian Law (as opposed to the existence of international norms, which I fully acknowledge and further acknowledge cover the use of such symbols), use of the Red Cross -- or it's allied symbols including the Red Crescent and Red Star of David (or red Crystal ) -- in an operation may be acknowledged by treaty to be misuse but I don't see how it rises to 'war crime' status. No such misuse is generally likely to produce massive or repulsive damage equating to a war crime.

As to its use of symbols on ambulances to achieve tactical advantage; I've been the recipient of three attempts to do that on two continents -- all were unsuccessful. My favorite was the US Peace Corps Nurse in the Dominican Republic in mid-1965 who attempted to smuggle two 'wounded' Rebels and about 500 pounds of miscellaneous ammo and weapons past us to the Rebels. When we insisted on searching her ambulance, driver and patients (though not initially her) she proved she was not a lady...

Nor did the Indian Major general who was the UN Military rep there at the time prove he was a neutral observer with his attempt to defend her and accuse us of a 'war crime.' I'm no lawyer but some of them came to our defense and it was pretty well acknowledged that no crime had been committed by us or her.