Damn straight Mark. We should haul those dastardly hostage rescuers before the ICC. After all, in a world of moral equivalence, they are no better than the Pres. of Sudan, responsible for killing over 200,000 Black Africans.

Oh, Shminternational Shmlaw ... If Hamas can transport suicide bombers in Red Cross ambulances, I don't really see any problem with some anti-terrorist operatives pulling a ruse to rescue hostages.

(Yes yes, we trick them now, they don't trust us later. Whatever.)

Ever notice how terms like "human rights, " "international law," and so forth, have been comprehensively usurped to support causes on some inexplicable leftist extreme?

what does international law have to do with the behavior of the Colombian government towards internal terrorists? Or has CNN taken up President Chavez's demand that FARC should be recognized as a legitimate combatant??

10:04: Great point.

makes you wonder why anyone watches cnn

Look, obviously if this is true it endangers aid workers everywhere now and especially in Colombia. If you think that on balance that's a reasonable result, then ok.

Also, Art. 44 of the 1st Geneva Convention appears to ban misuse of the Red Cross symbol in every instance, so the fact that FARC may not technically be covered by the war-time provisions of the Convention isn't relevant:

"Art. 44. With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words " Red Cross" or " Geneva Cross " may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters. "

I dont see how this endangers workers.
First, in the eyes of FARC the Colombian government = puppet of American-yanquie-pig-dog-scum and therefor would use any trick. Any trick like launching a military raid into Ecuador to kill a member of their inner council or whatever.
Second, the 1st Geneva Convention, written in the 19th century and last edited prior to the Korean War clearly clearly is talking about international conflict and not the suppression of internal rebellions. Look at the title "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts"

The point is that the display of the Red Cross is supposed to be an assurance that the bearer is a non-combatant. By using it in a ruse like this, people in the future will be less likely to trust it. When split second decisions need to be made to evaluate the threat something poses, being able to trust that someone bearing the red cross wont attack you means its alot less likely you will shoot them.

The Samsung thing is outrageous. He evaded over $100 million in taxes and gets no prison time.

A few points:

1. FARC is what makes Colombia dangerous for current and potential future hostages.

2. 10:04 is balls on- unless you credit Venezuela as much as I do for backing up FARC, in which case they are an international force.

3. Tricking terrorists by pretending to be a terrorist is a hell of a lot different than tricking an army that's trying to follow the rules by pretending to be the Red Cross. In the Red Cross trick you cowardly endanger innocent people on both sides of conflicts the world over. In the terrorist trick you just endanger yourself- if you get caught you're dead.

4. What's CNN / 10:40's opinion of the rescue at Entebbe?

Massachusetts: putting Republicans in the White House since 1968.

The Samsung thing shouldn't surprise you, 12:13PM. The Korean legal system is notoriously corrupt. A Samsung whistleblower (who is himself an attorney) reported that the company paid bribes to judges and prosecutors all over the country.

10:56--

Your argument would be a lot more compelling if FARC hadn't, you know, actualy fallen for the trick and turned its hostages over to what it believed to be Red Cross workers.

Uh oh, the Columbian Government better watch out. Or the "International police" will take them to "international prison" and prosecute them in "international court" for violating "international law." - Or not.

Too bad liberals never figured out you actually have to enforce the laws you pass.

The concern is that anything that makes anyone less likely to let the Red Cross into their prisons is bad. Allowing soldiers to dress up like Red Cross personnel might lead a future terrorist group to shoot legit Red Cross doctors instead of letting them treat prisoners. You might help out this one group of prisoners, but you're then screwing future prisoners out of medical care and treatment.

12:13--The lawyers and bankers who do deals in Korea regularly often refer to the country as the "Republic of Samsung." 12:24 is right.

As a liberal, I have to admit that I find a lot of what comes out of the international law crowd inherently discrediting.