Wink and Zissou have very good points, the International Committee of the Red Cross is justifiably a bit concerned that their specific symbol was used inappropriately, which is not just the red cross though it incorporates it:
As Wink has already pointed out, the ICRC is often the
only organization that is able to act as an intermediary when we need to recover some of our hostages and prisoners. This is true even today in the the conflicts that we are now involved in. Not everyone we fight is a fanatical terrorist that wants to behead their prisoners, and the ICRC has facilitated the exchange/release of some recent captives/hostages. They were also the organization that facilitated the exchange of prisoners and remains between Israel and Hezbollah recently, so there is a need for them. And I have not seen them playing favorites to the FARC, don't confuse them with other NGO's or 'peace organizations' that are nothing more than leftist fronts. While indivdual members might be bad, as an organization the ICRC has steadfastly remained neutral.
Taht does not mean that I don't agree with their policy of seeing no evil, where they
always take a neutral stance and
never take sides. This policy even led to the creation of Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), which was founded by a disaffected group of French Red Cross doctors who did not agree with their policy of
complete neutrality in the Biafran War. Those docs have serious cojones by the way, serving people where no else dare go.
But they are a necessary organization that is protected by international law and should be be respected by us and our allies. They have proved very useful to us in the past and will continue to do so in the future. To use their symbol as a prop is inappropriate and probably not worth the cost.
.