(d) Unit has weapons taker from the wounded on hand. This does not
violate the law of war or lose the hospital's protected status. The hospital must not,
however, transform itself into a stockpile of offensive weaponry, and should get rid of
this material ASAP.
(5) Medical transports. Like a hospital or other medical establishment, a
medical transport may not be attacked so long as it is performing its medical function. It
must, however, submit to an inspection by opposing force. If it is performing medical
duties, it must be allowed to continue with mission. If not, then it may be seized. At that
point, the transport itself (aircraft or ambulance) may be used by the enemy for any
purpose, although it will have to remove any distinctive medical insignia, such as a red
cross. (Note, however, that captured medical material must be used to treat the
wounded and sick).
(6) Distinctive emblems of the Convention. The most common is the red
cross on a white background. The Red Star of David hasn't been officially authorized by
the Convention, but it is recognized in practice. Suppose you recognize a medical
transport, but it does not bear a red cross or other emblem; can it be attacked? The
answer is no. The distinctive emblem is simply to facilitate its recognition as such, so
the enemy will be able to clearly identify it and, accordingly, not inadvertently target it. If
you recognize it without that emblem, then you know what it is, and you may not attack
it. Besides, once you recognize a structure as being a medical facility, why would you
want to attack it in the first place?
(7) Remove Red Cross marking from vehicle. What if the commander
orders the red cross removed from all military vehicles; does this violate the law of war?
The answer is no, but this may prevent the enemy from recognizing it as a medical
transport, thereby resulting in it being targeted. What if the commander wants to not
only remove the Red Cross, but also use the ambulance to transport military weaponry?
The answer is that so long as you don't misuse the protected symbol, you may use the
vehicle for a non-military purpose. Again, without the red cross, though, it may be
targeted. In this case, such targeting would be wholly appropriate, in view of the
intended use of the vehicle.
(8) Add Red Cross marking to vehicle. How about the opposite situation--
can I take a tactical vehicle and mark it with a red cross to avoid it being attacked while
it is performing non-medical functions? The answer is no, since the misuse of the
medical emblem is a war crime. Also, it's stupid, since you would cause the enemy not
to protect your medical facilities. Why invite the enemy to attack your medical
personnel?
(9) Priority of treatment of the wounded and sick. The priority of treatment is
based on the severity of the wound/injury; we may not discriminate in the allocation of
medical care based on one s nationality. The first priority is immediate; the second is
delayed; the third is minimal (can be returned to duty with minimal care) and the last
category expectant. Does this mean we may have to treat an enemy soldier before we
MD0033
2-12