Thursday, August 10, 2006
Red Cross and the Hezbollah
The New York Times is running the following picture on its front page today, over the caption "Red Cross workers helped wounded Hezbollah fighters on a makeshift bridge at the Litani River in Lebanon on Wednesday."
Charles Johnson posted the same picture from a wire service feed yesterday under the title "Red Cross Openly Helping Hezbollah." The implication was that the Red Cross should not be helping wounded Hezbollah fighters; LGF commenters certainly took it that way.
Now, I almost always agree with Charles when he identifies the enemy or moral confusion in the representation of same, but not this time. The very first Geneva Convention, signed in 1864, affords protection to wounded soldiers on the battlefield. Once wounded, the soldier is entitled to medical attention, and he and the medical personnel (including particularly the Red Cross, which was established for this purpose) are entitled to the protection of the treaty. I cannot stand Hezbollah and want as many of them to be dead as possible, but if this picture and the caption are an accurate representation (never a given in this war) the Red Cross is merely doing its job in accordance with its mission.
16 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Aug 10, 11:25:00 AM:
TigerHawk--
After seeing the Times article online last night, I posted that picture on my blog too, without comment, with parts of the caption bolded.
I don't see any uniforms on those Hezbollah fighters, or anything else to distinguish them from civilians. Who is their commander that the Israelis might negotiate with (unlikely as it is they would ever want to do so)? Is he in Lebanon? Syria? Iran? What makes these "fighters" soldiers deserving of Geneva Conventions protections and the mercy of the Red Cross?
When you grant those fighters "soldier" status does it not grant them exactly the legitimacy they seek and do not deserve?
Isn't this exactly the issue?--that terrorist guerrillas like Hezbollah are non-state actors, not signatories to international law? Indeed, that because of this they are attacking us, very effectively, at our Achilles heel (i.e., our bleeding hearts)?
I would think that when we afford them the protections of the Geneva Conventions and the Red Cross, it is out of the goodness of our hearts, not because we have to.
And if I were a policy maker or a spokesman for the Western world, I would be underscoring that point--trumpeting how merciful we are, by choice, even to those who wish to destroy us, and I'd be pounding away at that message day and night.
By 
ScurvyOaks, at
Thu Aug 10, 11:30:00 AM:
One hopes that the Red Cross wouldn't be helping these men if they were not wounded, but from the photo, their injuries do not appear very serious. (Serious enough to get John Kerry a purple heart? Sure. But probably not worse.)
By El Jefe Maximo, at
Thu Aug 10, 12:41:00 PM:
I think Hepzeeba is spot on point. These people have no status whatever, and should not, in any way, be treated as lawful combattants.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Aug 10, 01:07:00 PM:
I have to agreee with Hepzeeba and El Jefe Maximo on this one.
By , at
Thu Aug 10, 01:16:00 PM:
Looks to me like the Red Cross is providing an avenue for escape--not medical attention. Is that required under Geneva?
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Aug 10, 02:50:00 PM:
I'm not an expert on this by any means, but my sense is that one's status as a "combatant" for this purpose is not relevant. If they are non-combatants, then there is certainly no problem with the Red Cross helping them.
So the question is whether there is something about the status of these combatants that deprives them of the right to be treated for wounds or removed from the battlefield once wounded. I believe that the legal answer is that there is not. Better legal scholars than I are, of course, welcome to make the contrary case, and if it looks solid I'll post it as an update (or even a new post).
By , at
Thu Aug 10, 03:24:00 PM:
The question of legal status per the Geneva Convetion, there are actually three, combatants, non-combatants and illegal combatants. The illegal combatants are defined by the Conventions as 1) Not a solider of a recognized state, 2)Not wearing identifiable uniforms (can be as simple as an armband), 3) Have a responsible (proscibed by law) command structure and 4) obeys the laws of war. Hizbollah members are obviously an illegal combatant (since they fail the four part test)therefore by the Geneva Conventiosn should be denied all protections of the Convention including medical care by the Red Cross. If you want to make an arguement that they should be given treatment you can but they are not entitled to it and the Red Cross should be wary of aiding illegal combatants that are outside international law.
A retired Marine Lt. Col.
By , at
Thu Aug 10, 04:32:00 PM:
Wait..... wouldn't that be the Red Crescent society? Because I doubt these guys would want any kind of 'cross' near them, considering that the 'cross' represents everything they hate...
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Aug 10, 05:17:00 PM:
The "cross" in the Red Cross logo is the Swiss cross, not the Christian cross. FWIW.
By geoffgo, at
Thu Aug 10, 06:04:00 PM:
Another Anon @4:32,
See picture. They're wearing the red cross, not a cresent.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Aug 10, 08:21:00 PM:
The "inverse of the Swiss flag" or however it's defined (I forget the precise wording) doesn't mention any religious overtones, but it's widely understood to have such. Else why would others faiths insist on Crescents and Stars?
By , at
Thu Aug 10, 09:45:00 PM:
Thanks for the clarification, Colonel. That confirms my suspicions and makes sense.
By , at
Thu Aug 10, 10:23:00 PM:
You've gone and pulled a "scriptural rail-split" by referencing the Geneva convention to support your assertions, but ignoring the Convention's definitions of what constitutes legal combatants.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Aug 11, 12:15:00 AM:
I believe it is the case that the "unlawful combatant" distinction determines whether a prisoner gains the benefits of the Geneva Convention. I do not believe that a fighter's status as an "unlawful combatant" deprives him of the protections of the First Geneva Convention, which relate to soldiers wounded on the battlefield. If they did, then it would be lawful to summarily execute injured guerrillas found on the battlefield, and I do not believe that even the United States military takes that position. Israel certainly does not.
Now, I agree that the fighters in the picture do not look very injured to me, but as I said my post was based on the assumption that the caption was accurate.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Aug 11, 08:24:00 PM:
"I do not believe that a fighter's status as an "unlawful combatant" deprives him of the protections of the First Geneva Convention, which relate to soldiers wounded on the battlefield. If they did, then it would be lawful to summarily execute injured guerrillas found on the battlefield, and I do not believe that even the United States military takes that position."
On the contrary. The standard practice of dealing with spies and criminals in a warzone (which nonuniformed or otherwise illegal personnel engaged in hostile operations are considered) is execution. Consider Nathan Hale, numerous examples from the American Civil War, and that famous photograph of a SVA trooper shooting a guy in the head; he was identified as a spy and received a battlefield execution.
Giving terrorist guerillas medical treatment and detaining them has 2 benefits; exploitation for information, and avoiding an outcry by some third party.
By , at
Wed Aug 16, 04:00:00 AM:
TigerHawk
Your are a dirty jew! Plain & simple.
Pls. go take a dachow shower.
6 millon dead? What an outrage!!
That's below quota.
Sincerely
The Elders of Zion
