Sunday, April 17, 2005

ICRC made up Protocol I Additional to Geneva Conventions

OpinionJournal - Extra - International Committee of the Red Cross

Do you know what this says? I didn't.

Among other things, this document granted privileged, Geneva POW status to guerilla fighters--requiring them simply to "distinguish" themselves from the civilian population at the time of attack or shortly before. Of course, regular armed forces--like those of the United States--must distinguish themselves by wearing uniforms at all times during hostilities.

Protocol I would create a substantial advantage for guerilla fighters, permitting them effectively to hide among the civilian population up to, or shortly before, the point of attack, while at the same time guaranteeing them POW status if captured. It was primarily on this basis that the United States rejected the protocol in 1987.

Predictably, the ICRC's Customary Law Study now claims that this rule--which the ICRC effectively invented--has become so widely accepted that it is a universally binding customary international law norm, binding on the United States even without its consent. Indeed, through the peculiar alchemy of language, the ICRC claims the same status for much of the rest of Protocol I based on the wide acceptance of its "basic principles"--even by the U.S.


<......>In this respect, the group has been particularly active in efforts to ban the types of landmines that remain critical to U.S. defense needs, particularly in Korea, and the cluster munitions that have proven their worth against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. More generally, it has pushed for legal rules mandating a zero-level approach to collateral damage, thus encouraging rogue states and guerrilla forces to fight from civilian areas so as to inhibit the operations of their law-abiding adversaries.

On the ledger's other side, and contrary to widespread public beliefs, the ICRC has done precious little for the United States--at least since World War II. Captured Americans were treated barbarically in Korea, Vietnam, and by Saddam's forces in the first Gulf War. Yet the ICRC neither provided effective assistance to individual American POWs, nor did it undertake the kind of determined, public campaign against those governments that it has launched against the U.S. over Guantanamo Bay.

<....>In particular, of course, this question should be asked by Congress. The ICRC is an advocacy organization that has all but abandoned its primary mission as an impartial humanitarian body under the Geneva Conventions. Unless it mends its ways soon, the ICRC should no longer receive American tax dollars to fund so many activities that are against America's national interest and the U.S. should seriously consider transferring its Geneva Convention functions to a truly impartial entity.

Written by: Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush
.

Then I learned even more --- we, the taxpayers of the U.S.A. , give tax dollars to the ICRC to support terrorists (which the ICRC calls guerillas) who kill our troops and innocents.

For the life of me I do not understand how politicians can be advocates for corrupt and bankrupt NGO's such as the ICRC and the UN. I don't care what stripe of party the politicians wear, if these NGO's are anti-American then they don't get our money. That's it. I don't care if potentially the NGO does other good, politicians are too lax in the governance of American Tax Dollars.


WWW MyView