NationStates Jolt Archive

Senators ask Bush to reconsider financial support for the agency after its criticism of how U.S. forces treat their detainees abroad.
By Sonni Efron
Times Staff Writer

June 15, 2005

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are calling on the Bush administration to reassess U.S. financial support for the International Committee of the Red Cross, charging that the group is using American funds to lobby against U.S. interests.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee, which advances the views of the GOP Senate majority, said in a report that the international humanitarian organization had "lost its way" and veered from the impartiality on which its reputation was based. The Republican policy group titled its report: "Are American Interests Being Disserved by the International Committee of the Red Cross?"

The congressional criticism follows reports by the Swiss-based group that have faulted U.S. treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A spokeswoman at its Geneva headquarters said the organization was reviewing the report and would not comment, in accordance with its policy of keeping its dealings with governments confidential.

Two Bush administration officials declined in interviews to endorse the findings of the report but said the administration had had "concerns" about some positions taken by the ICRC since the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic protocol and their relations with Congress.

"We need the ICRC. They do a lot of really good things," one of the U.S. officials said. "They've got people in conflict zones all over the world doing heroic things on a daily basis. Are we concerned about some of the comments? Yes. Do we deal with those in our confidential relationship? Yes. But we think the relationship works best when these things are kept confidential."

Twits.
I think it's about time for me to donate to the Red Cross.

Just tell me right off the bat if its from the 'new' (old) York Times, and that will say a lot about the (1) credibility (2) fairness (3) correctness of the article.

Just tell me right off the bat if its from the 'new' (old) York Times, and that will say a lot about the (1) credibility (2) fairness (3) correctness of the article.lets assume for a second that it is from AlJazeera...would that make it automaticaly a lie?

and what do you mean "corretness" ?

lets assume for a second that it is from AlJazeera...would that make it automaticaly a lie?

No, but the overall credibility and fairness of the article is pretty much thrown out the window. Im not saying its a lie, but its, wholeness if you will, is gone.

No, but the overall credibility and fairness of the article is pretty much thrown out the window. Im not saying its a lie, but its, wholeness if you will, is gone.

May you view all things with such a critical eye.

The Republican policy group titled its report: "Are American Interests Being Disserved by the International Committee of the Red Cross?"
The Red Cross are not there to do a service for any nation or political, ethnic, religious, etc group. If uncomfortable things emerge from conflict zones, blame the conditions, not the charity workers caught up in them. :rolleyes:

It's only natural that the Republicans on the committee would be a little whizz-oled over the Red Cross's criticism. However, cutting funding to the organization is downright ludicrous, especially when considering that the group's only offense has been verbal criticism. Despite the Red Cross's expressed disapproval of the United States' conduct, be it justified or without true charge, the organization is still vital and extremely helpful to American and foreign soldiers wounded in battle; a cutting funding of would show apathy to the people fighting the current war in Iraq and those involved in other conflicts elsewhere in the world (lest we forget about them...).

The Red Cross are not there to do a service for any nation or political, ethnic, religious, etc group. If uncomfortable things emerge from conflict zones, blame the conditions, not the charity workers caught up in them. :rolleyes:

It of course goes beyond that. The very concept that the US government would consider backing away from the humanitarian efforts of the Red cross to serve some political end is backwards in the extreme.

This policy shift would literally adopt a stance perferring war and suffering to aid and comfort. I can see no way whatsoever that withdrawing support from the red cross would do anything other than hurt and shame the US both at home and abroad.

*sings*

I see your true colors
shining through

Gee, I'll get on the pahone with my ##repub sanater and tell him noot to cut red+ funndin.

Hooked on phonics, it can work for you too.

Gee, I'll get on the pahone with my ##repub sanater and tell him noot to cut red+ funndin.

Hooked on phonics, it can work for you too.spelling errors...Is that best you can do?

Twits.

Talk about minor insults!

Just tell me right off the bat if its from the 'new' (old) York Times, and that will say a lot about the (1) credibility (2) fairness (3) correctness of the article.no its not from the NYTimes.

Why are the last few organisations to criticise the US goverment suddenly all labelled biased?

Looks like the Republican Party is dissevered from American interests.

Hmm, firstly, the headline is misleading. It's not the Red Cross, a US-based organization, rather it is the International Commitee of the Red Cross. Not really connected except in their purported purposes. Secondly, they are supposed to be a completely apolitical organization that report actual and not suspected abuses, especially when the evidence of those abuses is tenuous at best, which in the case of Guantanamo Bay it is. The real irony of the situation is that the ICRC continually ignores the political prisoner camps that good old Fidel keeps. Much worse than the shit going on at GB.

Hmm, firstly, the headline is misleading. It's not the Red Cross, a US-based organization..."The Red Cross" in not a US-based organization.
and the RedSox are not the World Champs.

"The Red Cross" in not a US-based organization.
and the RedSox are not the World Champs.

The AMERICAN Red Cross is.

Why are the last few organisations to criticise the US goverment suddenly all labelled biased?

thou shalt not question Republican authority lest ye be damned

The AMERICAN Red Cross is.of course...

but we are talking about "The Red Cross"

of course...

but we are talking about "The Red Cross"

Specify which Red Cross. Are we talking about the American Red Cross or the International Red Cross?

Specify which Red Cross. Are we talking about the American Red Cross or the International Red Cross?THE red cross

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruz_Roja

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix-Rouge

THE red cross

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruz_Roja

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix-Rouge

In other words, the International Red Cross. You could've just said INTERNATIONAL to prevent any misunderstanding.

When Americans refer to "The Red Cross", we generally mean The American Red Cross, but when the rest of the world says "The Red Cross" they mean the ICRC.

In other words, the International Red Cross. You could've just said INTERNATIONAL to prevent any misunderstanding. normal people will say British Red Cross, or Canadian red Cross, or Australian Red Cross or American Red Cross...

not everyone thinks that they are the only part of the World that matters...or the center of the Universe.

look at these two differnet BBC articles about "the red cross" and the "British red cross"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/4541739.stm

Hmm, firstly, the headline is misleading. It's not the Red Cross, a US-based organization, rather it is the International Commitee of the Red Cross.so i guess this headline is misleading for you...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm

Red Cross blasts Guantanamo
Friday, 10 October, 2003, 15:16 GMT 16:16 UK
A top Red Cross official has broken with tradition by publicly attacking conditions at the US military base on Cuba where al-Qaeda suspects are being held.
Christophe Girod - the senior Red Cross official in Washington - said it was unacceptable that the 600 detainees should be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without legal safeguards.

so i guess this headline is misleading for you...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm

Red Cross blasts Guantanamo
Friday, 10 October, 2003, 15:16 GMT 16:16 UK
A top Red Cross official has broken with tradition by publicly attacking conditions at the US military base on Cuba where al-Qaeda suspects are being held.
Christophe Girod - the senior Red Cross official in Washington - said it was unacceptable that the 600 detainees should be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without legal safeguards.

Actually I do since there ARE legal safeguards at Gitmo. :rolleyes:

Actually I do since there ARE legal safeguards at Gitmo. :rolleyes:
I give up.

I give up.

I win :D

Actually I do since there ARE legal safeguards at Gitmo. :rolleyes:

Yes. There are legal safeguards at Gitmo. Any abuses that the guards commit are kept hush-hush and an aura of plausible deniability is maintained to safeguard the administration from legal action against it.

Actually I do since there ARE legal safeguards at Gitmo. :rolleyes:

I am reminded of the US judge asking the lawyers for the administration, "Sir, if you were to boil [the detainee] in oil, would you be obliged to tell me?"

The answer was no.

Nice safegaurds. Mind you, that was 2 years ago; I'm sure things have gotten...better...since then.

Yes, they did get better. For the guards, not the prisoners that is. =p

And yet, how many of the guards are punished? We don't here much regarding Military Punishment. However, I'm pretty sure that some have been punished and we just don't hear about it.

And yet, how many of the guards are punished? We don't here much regarding Military Punishment. However, I'm pretty sure that some have been punished and we just don't hear about it.
its a secret :D [/sarcasm]

Say it is from the same nation which wants to spread democracy and freedom?

Any abuses that the guards commit are kept hush-hush and an aura of plausible deniability is maintained to safeguard the administration from legal action against it.so far the only think that has ever broken the deniability is nothing short than "unofficial video"...like we ve seen a few time from Iraq...but no "unofficial video" has ever scaped from Gitmo...

its a secret :D [/sarcasm]

We don't hear about it because its the military. They have their own system of justice. Believe me. Some of the minor offensives for a civilian carries a bigger sentence in the military.

Not that we will ever hear of it. I think that if it was publicised that these kinds of punishments were being meted out in equal amounts to the offences, the public might be a bit more lenient. At the moment, its not really balanced.

I wish you'd just go back to being xenophobic isolationists and re-discover your navels. This ruling the world routine doesn't suit you, and probably never will.