Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a "war crime" under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law... To which I can only say, "So what?"
To: Non-Sequitur
2 posted on
07/15/2008 7:00:20 PM PDT by
TheZMan
(Bitter backwoods east Texan Christian gun clinger with the AC at 72 degrees.)
To: Non-Sequitur
“What seems to be”—prove and then publish it, a$$wipes.
3 posted on
07/15/2008 7:02:48 PM PDT by
richardtavor
(Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
To: Non-Sequitur
Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a "war crime" under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law... There is no declared war between Columbia and a sovereign nation. There is only a legitimate government trying to enforce the law against criminals, in other words a criminal matter.
The Geneva Conventions do not apply.
4 posted on
07/15/2008 7:06:30 PM PDT by
seowulf
To: Non-Sequitur
So what is right. It’s not like terrorist have never used an ambulance or posed as medical personnel.
5 posted on
07/15/2008 7:06:42 PM PDT by
edpc
(Tagline Currently Under Construction)
To: Non-Sequitur
“It is clear that the conventions are very strict regarding use of the symbol because of what it represents: impartiality, neutrality. The fear is that any misuse of the symbol would weaken that neutrality and would weaken the [Red Cross],” Ellis said.
8 posted on
07/15/2008 7:12:25 PM PDT by
~Peter
To: Non-Sequitur
I thought they were sporting Due-Che t-shirts. The red cross wears che t-shirts? I call bullchit on cnn!!!
9 posted on
07/15/2008 7:16:08 PM PDT by
davetex
(My tagline has been placed on the disabled list.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson