To the Editors:

I am stunned that the editors of one of the nation's leading newspapers would print a piece attacking the Red Cross which is premised almost entirely on falsehoods.

(1) Your core thesis is that the Red Cross has betrayed its undertaking of confidentiality by leaking or publishing its conclusions in US media. That is simply not true. The leaks concerning the Red Cross reports have never come from the Red Cross; to the contrary, they have come from within the United States Government. The Red Cross has been scrupulous throughout this process in observing its confidentiality commitments. Indeed, you refer to a "similar leak in May" which appeared in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. But you know very well that this leak did not come from Red Cross and implying otherwise in an editorial is simply dishonest.

(2) You state that "officials at [Red Cross] headquarters were only too happy to confirm the document's authenticity." This statement is also false. In fact the essential confirmations secured by the media following the Tuesday publication in the Times came, directly and indirectly, from the Department of Defense, most notably including a statement made by General Meyers in Indianapolis. The Red Cross statement did not confirm the Times report; indeed, it was pointed in refusing to do so.

(3) Your statement that the Red Cross has "become an ideological organization unable to distinguish between good guys and bad" is correct but betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Geneva system by the author. The Red Cross stands tenaciously behind the humanitarian ideology reflected in the Geneva Conventions, and one of the core values of that system is to intervene and protect individuals quite apart of the opprobrium and demonization that are necessarily shoveled out by combatants in times of war. That is the ideology that gave rise to the Red Cross movement--an ideology shared by the likes of George Washington (whose Dec. 25, 1776 order to the continental army reflects the essence of the Third Geneva Convention), Abraham Lincoln (whose Lieber Code rules provide the most significant system of rules underlying the entire Geneva system) and Dwight David Eisenhower (who correctly and aggressively advocated US adherence to the Geneva system). It would not serve the Geneva system for the Red Cross to become involved in portraying one side in any conflict as black and another as white. Rather it is their role to refrain from any such characterizations. And the Red Cross has consistently done so.

(4) Your characterizations of the Red Cross report, and particularly its conclusion that the conditions are "tantamount to torture" are grossly misinformed. The report's conclusions as to torture are appropriately equivocal. The core of the report lies not on this point, but rather in the conclusion that the treatment standards constitute "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." On this point, a substantial body of opinion within the Department of Defense and Department of State is in accord with the Red Cross, which is the reason for the "leaks."

I have worked with Red Cross delegations for over 30 years in nations around the world. The Red Cross workers I know exhibit a selfless dedication to the principles of the Geneva Conventions, including the requirement of confidentiality, and routinely place their lives on the line in the interest of mitigating the tragedy of war faced by their fellow human beings. Your wholly unjustified attack on this institution is unworthy of the Journal.

The United States has had a nearly exemplary record of compliance with the Geneva Conventions for over fifty years. The solution to the current dilemma can be quickly found by returning to the interrogation standards which existed at the outset of the current conflict, which reflect the law and the best traditions of this country.

Sincerely,

Scott Horton

President International League for Human Rights

New York, NY Dec. 4, 2004

Back