With the story that came out last week that the Italian chapter of the Red Cross treated wounded terrorists in Iraq, hid them from US forces, and then released them (presumably to terrorize anew), I think the time has come to give a long, hard look at the Red Cross.

So we have the Red Cross giving aid and support to terrorist in Iraq. But they were trading them for their own people -- was this an aberration, or part of a long-standing trend?

I think the evidence points to the latter. The Red Cross is quietly abandoning its long-touted neutrality, and actively supporting terrorism.

I know that's a hell of a harsh charge, but there's plenty of evidence to back it up.

* The Israeli army stopped and searched a Red Crescent ambulance in 2002. The ambulance was being driven by two known and wanted terrorists, and an explosive belt (the suicide bomber's weapon of choice) was found.

* Palestinian terrorists have been videotaped using ambulances emblazoned with red crosses and UN markings for getaways after attacks.

* The Red Cross has given its sanction to the Red Crescent, but repeatedly allowed the Red Crescent to blackball the Magen David Adom (Red Star of David) from membership. The Red Star Of David has, through bitter experience, developed some of the best terrorist-attack response teams and techniques, and has a great deal to teach the rest of the world about responding to disaster. The official reason is their chosen symbol, but have no issues with the Islamic crescent.

The American Red Cross has, in protest, withheld millions in funding to the International Committee of the Red Cross. And that's a good start.

The International Red Cross has long prided itself on its reputation for strict neutrality and impartiality, devoted only to humanitarian concerns. But there's more and more proof that they're qauietly setting that aside, and are actively taking a role in conflicts. And that can not be tolerated.