Libyan death sentence: a litmus test?

There are occasionally hyperventilating warnings against a supposedly emerging "isolationism" on the left. Now, the fact is the true isolationists are on the right (see: Buchanan, Pat), and also, as Jim Henley astutely observes, when used as an accusation, it's often true that "'isolationism' means a reluctance to travel a long distance to kill foreigners at great expense. I say, let's have some of that."

The vast majority of Americans, of both parties, support(ed) our military effort in Afghanistan, which means the vast majority of Americans are internationalist and, at least at times, interventionist. Taking an extraordinarily foolish war and making it a litmus test for general foreign policy orientation is stoopid.

Which brings me to an example that is both interesting and provocative.

This week, a Libyan court again sentenced five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor to be shot by firing squad for deliberately infecting 400 children with HIV. Quick background: in 1998, children began testing positive for HIV in a major hospital in Libya's second-largest city, sparking a health crisis. An investigation found the infections occurred in an area where many Bulgarian nurses were assigned, and Libyan dictator Qaddafi accused health care workers of acting on the orders of the CIA and Israel's Mossad. So far, so ridiculous.

A Libyan court eventually convicted the six health professionals of intentionally infecting the children, despite extensive testimony that that the virus predated the nurses' arrival and was likely spread through the use of contaminated needles. Several appeals and retrials later, and after seven years (seven years! having done no wrong!) of imprisonment, they are still sentenced to death, with four-way negotiations between Libya, Bulgaria, the EU, and the U.S. having stalled. Two of the five nurses have said they were tortured into confessing. More detailed information on the case is here.

So, what can/should the U.S. do? This is clearly an example of one country, which is not an ally in any sense of the word, abusing people from another nation (as opposed to internal civil conflict or abuses, which tends to complicate things). Bulgaria is a NATO ally, and the egregious mistreatment of humanitarian workers offends American and Western ideals of due process, presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and sovereignty. When we talk about legitimate and beneficial interventions, with limited scope and clear goals, isn't this the kind of thing many of us mean?

I would not at all be opposed to a rescue operation to extract these workers from Libya. A NATO special military operation to rescue six wrongfully imprisoned workers, condemned to death by a reactionary population fueled by a dictatorial leader, would, to me, be an appropriate use of force. If agreed to by NATO-member nations (and I should note that UN disapproval would not be a deal-breaker for me) and planned and executed in a way that effected minimal civilian casualties, I think I would support such an action.

I'm not saying NATO (or the U.S.) should go traipsing around the world in search of wrongs to right, or that something like this would be a binding precedent for future action. Nor do I take lightly the effect of violating sovereignty in such a manner, or of antagonizing a nation over humanitarian concerns. But it seems like taking action in this case, at this time, would be judicious. Am I wrong?