First the UN, Then The ICRC

[Annie]

It's strange that two of the historically well thought of institutions are no longer even shells of what they used to be. Many of us have written about the mess known as the UN, finally the world is beginning to notice.

Less well known is how badly the International Red Cross has behaved, I suppose that is a function of a 'charitable' organization, but to me I see that it may also have to do with the very fact that it is 'international.' The bias is now hard to keep under wraps. I've written on this before:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1517&highlight=ICRC

Now the WSJ has a featured editorial:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006725

As Bad as the Nazis?
What the Red Cross thinks about the U.S. military.

Monday, May 23, 2005 12:01 a.m.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is granted a privileged status to inspect the conditions of prisoners of war and other detainees in return for confidentiality. But in recent years it has demonstrated a habit of selective media leaks damaging to American purposes. This is the backdrop for two recent incidents that make us think the U.S. should reconsider the ICRC's role.

The first concerns a story we heard first from a U.S. source that an ICRC representative visiting America's largest detention facility in Iraq last month had compared the U.S. to Nazi Germany. According to a Defense Department source citing internal Pentagon documents, the ICRC team leader told U.S. authorities at Camp Bucca: "You people are no better than and no different than the Nazi concentration camp guards." She was upset about not being granted immediate access shortly after a prison riot, when U.S. commanders may have been thinking of her own safety, among other considerations.

A second, senior Defense Department source we asked about the episode confirmed that the quote above is accurate. And a third, very well-placed American source we contacted separately told us that some kind of reference was made by the Red Cross representative "to either Nazis or the Third Reich"--which understandably offended the American soldiers present.

We called the ICRC last Wednesday for its side of the story, and a spokesman in Geneva confirmed that "there was a serious misunderstanding between the ICRC's team leader and [Coalition] authorities during our last visit to Camp Bucca." The ICRC also confirmed that "the team leader subsequently decided to leave the Iraq assignment."

The spokesman added, however, that he "can categorically say that the team leader did not in any sense compare the detention regime in Iraq to what happened in the Third Reich." Pressed as to whether he could rule out those terms having been used, the spokesman declined, citing the ICRC's practice of confidentiality when it comes to relations with the governments with which it works.

However, a second episode later last week shows that the ICRC is only too happy to throw that same confidentiality rule out the window when it suits its ideological purposes. It did so in the wake of the false Newsweek report about the treatment of the Quran at Guantanamo Bay. The ICRC's Washington office volunteered to the world's media that it had given the Pentagon "multiple" reports from Guantanamo detainees about mishandling of the Quran, after which the detainee complaints had ceased. Pentagon officials confirmed the news, adding that the incidents had been both "minor" and "inadvertent."

In other words, the ICRC hides behind the confidentiality rule when being candid might embarrass its own officials. But it drops the same rule when it is in a position to embarrass the United States, however unfairly. News of the ICRC Quran reports last week came just as the U.S. was scrambling to undo the damage in the Muslim world from the discredited Newsweek story.

This behavior has unfortunately become an ICRC pattern. A pair of earlier ICRC reports on U.S. detention policies in Iraq and at Guantanamo were leaked to the press, and readily confirmed by ICRC officials in Geneva. The Guantanamo report, moreover, called the practice of indefinite detention at that prison "tantamount to torture," a phrase that has since been repeated everywhere by people wanting to damage the U.S.

As we pointed out at the time, that statement was absurd, given that the ICRC's main complaint about the Gitmo detainees is that they were not granted prisoner of war status. POWs are explicitly allowed by the Geneva Conventions to be held indefinitely--that is, for the duration of a conflict. Another problem has been the ICRC's pretense that its policy document called Protocol 1--once dubbed "a shield for terrorists" by the New York Times--is settled international law and applies to the U.S.

Which brings us back to the "Nazi" reference by that ICRC official at Camp Bucca. We wouldn't normally report the remarks, however offensive, of a single official. But after we started asking about the incident, we began to hear from other sources that someone was attempting damage control by alerting the ICRC's friends in the media and State Department about what we might report. One media proponent of the "torture" allegation against the U.S. warned on the Internet that we were out to smear the ICRC (which, we should add, is not the same as the American Red Cross).

No. We are trying to understand how a representative of an organization pledged to neutrality and the honest investigation of detainee practices could compare American soldiers to the Nazi SS. And considering the timing and content of several ICRC confidentiality breaches concerning the U.S. war on terror, it's fair to ask if similar views aren't held by a substantial number in the organization.

The world needs a truly neutral humanitarian body of the sort the ICRC is supposed to be. But the Camp Bucca incident--in addition to the leaked Gitmo and Abu Ghraib reports--is evidence it isn't currently up to the task.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Sounds just like the Bush administration...Hide behind the veil of "national security" when embarassing events come to light.

But if the ICRC inspector did cross the line, she was wrong. She was wrong to blame the soldiers in charge of security at Camp Bucca for anything she may, or may not, have found there. The real seat of blame lies squarely with the Bush Administration...That is what the chain of command is about. Responsibility lies at the top of the chain, not the bottom.

 

[CSM]

And just when does this fine organization get to examine the conditions of detainees of the terrorists? just another good idea gone bad.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And just when does this fine organization get to examine the conditions of detainees of the terrorists? just another good idea gone bad.

We must adhere to a higher standard otherwise we become no better than the monsters our leaders claim we are trying to defeat.

 

[CSM]

We must adhere to a higher standard otherwise we become no better than the monsters our leaders claim we are trying to defeat.

Something to put on America's headstone:

"We were better than they were"

No thanks

 

[Bullypulpit]

Something to put on America's headstone:

"We were better than they were"

No thanks

Adherence to one's principles and the principles this nation was founded upon requires a measure of courage which, clearly, you lack.

 

[CSM]

Adherence to one's principles and the principles this nation was founded upon requires a measure of courage which, clearly, you lack.

wanna bet?

What the heck would you know about courage?

As for your judgement about how much courage I possess...it is as flawed as your thinking.

 

[Annie]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006839

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Red Cross and Congress
The ICRC's propaganda campaign against America.

Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

The International Committee of the Red Cross gets special access to prisons around the world as the neutral observer body designated by the Geneva Conventions. But for more than three years now the ICRC has abused that position of trust to wage an unprecedented propaganda war against the United States.

Leaked ICRC reports have described conditions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as "tantamount to torture" because indefinite detention is stressful. And just last month the ICRC's Washington office broke its confidentiality agreement with the U.S. government to fan the flames created by Newsweek's false Quran-abuse story.

Fortunately, Capitol Hill is starting to notice. A study released Monday by the Senate Republican Policy Committee says the ICRC has "lost its way," and suggests annual reviews be conducted by the State, Defense, and Justice Departments to certify that the organization truly adheres to its stated principles of "neutrality, impartiality and humanity."

In particular, the study raps the ICRC for its efforts to "afford terrorists and insurgents the same rights and privileges as [uniformed] military personnel" by misleadingly pretending that a radical document called Protocol 1 is settled international law. This causes the ICRC to "inaccurately and unfairly accuse the U.S. of not adhering to the Geneva Conventions."

U.S. taxpayers are the largest contributors to the ICRC's budget ($233 million, or 26%, in 2003). They have a right to expect an honest interpretation of the Geneva Conventions for that money, not more leaked reports that will be spun to give aid and comfort to al Qaeda.