The Colombians are perfectly just in their rescue of FARC prisoners
MorgMcA said 07/16, 01:54 PM
Recently, people are claiming that the Colombian forces who rescued FARC prisoners, including Ingrid Betancourt, have committed war crimes by using a Red Cross armband on their sleeves.
One what is a war crime, would someone please define the term for me. Since the origin of the phrase it has simply meant; a justified means by which the victors punish the losers (Germany and Japan) or a means by which the West forces it's morals upon other countries (Yugoslavia). What it actually takes to commit a war crime, as far as I am aware, has never been clearly defined
two, Even if you call having combat soldiers wear the red cross emblem (an act that all countries are guilty of) a war crime, we're talking about the FARC here, an unrecognized political paramilitary trying to takeover Colombia, rebels. We're not talking about any nation that has actual sovreignty anywhere. Is it possible to commit a war crime against a non-sovreign
Three, this may be a violation of the Geneva Convention, but I think it's a stretch to call every violation of the Geneva Convention a war crime. (sidenote, I'm sure most of FARC is dressed in Colombian camo, which is also against the Geneva Conventio
Mark said 07/17, 06:11 PM
well i think you misunderstood what they meant by war crimes. The Geneva Convention basically set up standards for all countries to follow.violating the Convention rules or laws is be considered war crimes cuz it was created to govern fighting
War Crime is defined as: "Crimes committed against an enemy, prisoners of war, or subjects in wartime that violate international agreements". Another thing you need to understand is in those agreements the international community agreed not to use or copy NGO(Non-governmental organizations)signs in this case, they copied the Red Cross sign. Now that they did, it endangers the only NGO in history never to be attacked by anyone because of the Conventions who protected it. So a violation is a serious thing.
Your second arguement doesn't make sense cuz the Conventions applies to everyone without except for country or situation. It would have been legal if the conventions were changed.(remember columbia agreed to the conventions too) finally the Columbia military didn't even get permission to use the sign which now endangers the Red Cross because The FARC could attack it thinking it is working with the Columbian military endagering more ppl
MorgMcA said 07/17, 11:58 PM
So any violation of international agreements during a time of fighting is a war crime. Hmmmm, so many crimes committed by so many people, it's a wonder half the world isn't on trial, or at least half of all people in uniform
So a government is forbidden to use the Red Cross symbol, if that is true then every medic in service is violating the Geneva Convention. It is also true that it was typical practice in both World Wars for both sides to put Red Cross armbands on non-medic soldiers and also to specifically shoot and kill those who wore the symbol, not only killing the medic but also keeping those already wounded from recieving treatment. The Red Cross has been attacked before and soldiers who hide behind it aren't really any safer for it
If every violation of the Geneva Convention were a war crime, then we should also be accusing the FARC of these crimes, after all dressing your soldiers in the uniform of your opponent is also a violation of the Convention
Now you could make the statement that FARC hasn't signed the agreement and therefore can't be held liable, and my counter would be that FARC isn't a recognized authority and therefore can't sign the agreement
Mark said 07/18, 02:51 PM
first the geneva conventions were created AFTER the two World Wars! so your second paragraph makes no sense. Also! the Red Cross HAS NEVER BEEN ATTACKED! show me once in history when it has been attacked! the fact is all oponents of war recognize the Red Cross as a neutral NGO when there is a conflict the Red Cross helps both sides so both sides need it that is why it is never attacked.
Your 3rd paragraph is conpletly false. have you ever read the convention treaties? cuz it looks like you haven't there is no rule against wearing what the Farc is wearing. the statement is completly made up. Your last paragraph doesnt make sense because i responded to your 3rd paragraph differently.
Finally the COlumbian military isnt on trial. It's just that one lawyer happened to recognize that they did something that was against the international law making it a war crime. And yes! there are many people and regimes who break the Geneva conventions and they should probably be put on trial. If any country misstreats a POW then they broke the conventions rules also. I sould suggest reviewing the treaties because talking in this debate.
MorgMcA said 07/18, 06:59 PM
I might suggest that you, yourself read up on the geneva conventions, the first one was in 1864, which was followed by several other treaties regarding the rules of war. All of these treaties were finally grouped together and ratified as a whole in 1949
One such treaty was first ratified on Sept 9 1880
Art. 8. It is forbidden:
(d) To make improper use of the national flag, military insignia or uniform of the enemy, of the flag of truce and of the protective signs prescribed by the ' Geneva Convention ' (Articles 17 and 40). (the first one in 1863)
It was common practice in WWII for Allied and Axis soldiers to target the red cross on white arm band. Once again you migbt want to look up when the first geneva convention took place (1864).
Fine the Red Cross Organization hasn't been attacked, niether has the Red Crescent nor the Red Star of David, however people who wear the symbol of the Red Cross on a white armband have been targeted
Your response to my original 3rd para was Colombia signed it. OK, but their in conflict w/ those who can't sign it, shouldn't that have some bearing
Don't accuse me of not reading the convention when you haven't read it yourself
Mark said 07/18, 07:34 PM
U sight Art. 8, but the fact is it doesn't support your claim. Read what it says. The camouflage uniforms that the FARC wear are NOT the uniform of ONLY Columbia! almost every nation and militia wears it. So they aren't "making improper use of... military insignia or the uniform of the enemy". Also that same article says "and of the protective signs prescribed by the ' Geneva Convention" the Red Cross sign is recognized as a PROTECTIVE SIGN which is y it's never been attacked!
The military in WW 1&2 wore the red cross on their arm because they were medical personnel! The Colombian military knowingly used the sign for their operation against the conventions endangering the Red Cross's neutral stance in the world today.
U fail to give me historical examples where Red Cross members have been attacked. Your last paragraph you admit Columbia signed it. END OF DISCUSSION! THEY SIGNED IT SO THEY ABIDE BY THEIR SIGNATURE AND WHAT IT MEANS! even if the FARC never did. They should be taking the high road and be above the FARC in their procedures.
I'm actually glad they did the rescue but they should have gotten direct permission to use the sign so as to not violate the convention treaties
Comments
Add Your Comment
Post A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Wow, so glad to see that something as plain as day doesn't exist, whatever. This is basically nothing more than "it is so" "nuh-uh" "yes it is" "no it's not".
MorgMcA | 07/19/08
Report Offensive Comment