Amnesty International vs. America

[Total Warrior X]

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=6268

Pretty good article, bashes both Republicans and Dems.

[DimeBagHo]

Amnesty International is doing pretty good job of discrediting itself.

A number of prominent American publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, have joined in the attack, calling Amnesty International a "highly politicized pressure group" whose allegations regarding human rights abuses by U.S. forces "amount to pro-al-Qaeda propaganda."

The problem is that this acusation is justified. Yes, AI has produced real evidence of some serious problems at places like Guantanamo. But at the same time they have done things like calling Guantanamo "the gulag of our times" which is, to put it bluntly, "pro-al-Qaeda propaganda."

The author of the article you linked to thinks that the US government is engaged in some nefarious plot to discredit AI, but the fact is that AI is doing this to itself for short-sighted political reasons.

*Edit* Here is another example. AI is asking other countries to arrest various American politicians and officials if they travel overseas. Have they ever made similar demands about politicians and officials from countries where human rights abuses occur on a massive scale - like China, Iran, North Korea, the Sudan, Syria? No. According to AI the use of torture is wide-spread and persistent in more than 70 countries around the world, but for some reason they are only demanding the arrest of US politicians and officials.

[JP226]

bah, this is just another political group. There money comes from the far left, so they have to satisfy the far left. Just like any other political group, don't look too deep into this, there's nothing there.

[Bovril]

Of course there's a lot of rhetoric spouted by Amnesty, but any intellegent person can look beyond that and try and see if they've got something useful to say. In my experience they do. Remember, these are people who devote their lives to human rights. They are not your average media hacks or opportunist politicians. Cut them some slack when they get pissed of about the world's only super power brazenly dismantling international law and abusing human rights.

[internationalist]

*Edit* Here is another example. AI is asking other countries to arrest various American politicians and officials if they travel overseas. Have they ever made similar demands about politicians and officials from countries where human rights abuses occur on a massive scale - like China, Iran, North Korea, the Sudan, Syria? No. According to AI the use of torture is wide-spread and persistent in more than 70 countries around the world, but for some reason they are only demanding the arrest of US politicians and officials.

Theres a big reason for this: the U.S is the most powerful nation in the world right now, commanding more economic and military might than any other. The U.S is (or was) looked upon as the pinnacle of justice and is supposed to be the example "the role model" for fledgling countries to follow, and when the U.S taints this image, its a big deal. It shows other countries that this is ok, if the U.S is doing it, if the paragon of human rights is doing it, then it MUST be ok.

[DimeBagHo]

Bovril - I might be more inclined to cut AI some slack if they were not trying to dismantle international law as well. One of the oldest and most widely respected principles of international law is that people traveling under diplomatic credentials are inviolate, but here AI is proposing toss that principle out the window.

The U.S is (or was) looked upon as the pinnacle of justice and is supposed to be the example "the role model" for fledgling countries to follow, and when the U.S taints this image, its a big deal.

And meanwhile the way it looks to a lot of people in the US that international law is nothing more than an excuse for anti-Americanism. When their enemies are busy sawing the heads of innocent civillians and posting videos on the net, the international community just whistles and looks in the other direction. When the US roughs up some of the people responsible for such attrocities, suddenly its "the gulag of our time".

No wonder Americans are starting to view international law as a crock.

[Sargon Of Akkad]

I agree to a great extent with the previous two comments, the US is being criticised by AI primarily because it has opened itself to such criticism through multiple actions which appear (in some instances) to show a dismissive disregard by the administration for anything approaching human rights. However, apparent double standards, the 'gulag' comment (which comparing dispassionately seems inappropriate) and anything similar can only weaken its standing or credibility even if they do it to raise awareness etc.

Amnesty International should ideally not simply preach to the converted but cause people who are not generally interested in such matters to question what their governments are doing in their name. So anything by way of exaggeration is of concern to me. Its crucial to the maintanance of liberty to raise the issues yet i think some of their current methods are questionable or ill advised.

[DimeBagHo]

Amnesty International should ideally not simply preach to the converted but cause people who are not generally interested in such matters to question what their governments are doing in their name. So anything by way of exaggeration is of concern to me. Its crucial to the maintanance of liberty to raise the issues yet i think some of their current methods are questionable or ill advised.

This I agree with completely. They need to stick to hard facts, and apply the same standards to everyone. Otherwise no one is going to take them seriously.

[Bovril]

This I agree with completely. They need to stick to hard facts, and apply the same standards to everyone. Otherwise no one is going to take them seriously.

If I'm not mistaken the comments that have riled you were made by representatives from the U.S. branch of amnesty. That means that the person responsible really has no obligation to apply the same standards to all nations, since only one nation comes under their remit. The official comments of teh organisation as a whole sound alot more like this: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510952005
I also think your ideas about international law and who is detained at Guantanamo are suspect. You say Americans are angered by the fact no one is trying to apply international law to terrorists. Well, terrorists are not nation states, and consequently have nothing to do with international law. Instead they come under national law, which the authorities in Iraq are doing a singularly awful job of maintaining. Those are the people you want to be complaining to.
Quite where the idea that everyone at Guatanomo is a terrorist or picked up off the 'battle fields of Afganistan' came from I don't. Since the U.S. government wont tell us about how most of the detainees found there way there, no one really knows what their circumstances were, but judging from the Britons released last year I'd guess that a very significant proportion have never fired a round in anger.

[Marshal Qin]

If I'm not mistaken the comments that have riled you were made by representatives from the U.S. branch of amnesty. That means that the person responsible really has no obligation to apply the same standards to all nations, since only one nation comes under their remit. The official comments of teh organisation as a whole sound alot more like this: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510952005

lol, looks like I've found another internet site that I can't visit because I live in China. Oddly enough I can't view the BBC either for some reason. Can you post the article here?

[DimeBagHo]

If I'm not mistaken the comments that have riled you were made by representatives from the U.S. branch of amnesty.

Some were and some weren't. The gulag comment was made by the Secretary General (*edit* the very same person you linked to in fact). And in any case I simply don't buy the "well it was the American branch so they can be as anti-American as they like" line. You could just as easily argue that they have a double obligation to treat America fairly because they are the face of AI that Americans are going to see.

I also think your ideas about international law and who is detained at Guantanamo are suspect. You say Americans are angered by the fact no one is trying to apply international law to terrorists. Well, terrorists are not nation states, and consequently have nothing to do with international law.

And yet for some strange reason people seem to think that terrorists have rights under international law. How odd.

[danzig]

Of course there's a lot of rhetoric spouted by Amnesty, but any intellegent person can look beyond that and try and see if they've got something useful to say. In my experience they do. Remember, these are people who devote their lives to human rights. They are not your average media hacks or opportunist politicians. Cut them some slack when they get pissed of about the world's only super power brazenly dismantling international law and abusing human rights.

When they step beyond their stated goal (which is noble) into the area of playing political games and making accusations with no evidence at all and then admitting they have no evidence that Gitmo is a gulag then they have no credibilty. Human rights is not some political card you play when it suits your agenda. The comments from both Amnesty International the and US segment of it are completely irreasonable. Where was the calls to arrest Janet Reno for Waco? What about President Clinton for reckless bombing in Bosnia (as most groups accused the US of doing back then)? Any intelligent person should be capable of looking beyond the bs and seeing when a political game is being played. You are right they arent media hacks or politicans or rather they arent very good ones as the backlash from their gulag report has shown since it backfired in their face.

[Total Warrior X]

When they step beyond their stated goal (which is noble) into the area of playing political games and making accusations with no evidence at all and then admitting they have no evidence that Gitmo is a gulag then they have no credibilty. Human rights is not some political card you play when it suits your agenda. The comments from both Amnesty International the and US segment of it are completely irreasonable. Where was the calls to arrest Janet Reno for Waco? What about President Clinton for reckless bombing in Bosnia (as most groups accused the US of doing back then)? Any intelligent person should be capable of looking beyond the bs and seeing when a political game is being played. You are right they arent media hacks or politicans or rather they arent very good ones as the backlash from their gulag report has shown since it backfired in their face.

Clinton's administration was criticized by Amnesty International also and tried to discredit Amnesty, read the article. Amnesty does not care what you political ideology is, if you committ human rights abuses, you will be criticized. The problem is with America, not with Amnesty. Its funny how Rumsfeld used Amnesty to criticize Saddam in the run up to war but discredits Amnesty when the US is criticized. The Bush Administration's problem is it doesn't see that it is doing things wrong and spews out this America is the defender of freedom and human rights :wub: just like Reagan. I really think Amnesty is being soft on the Bush administration's alliances with states that abuse human rights (for example, Uzbekistan) while Bush is spewing out his freedom and democracy rhetoric. They need to criticize more.

[Total Warrior X]

And meanwhile the way it looks to a lot of people in the US that international law is nothing more than an excuse for anti-Americanism. When their enemies are busy sawing the heads of innocent civillians and posting videos on the net, the international community just whistles and looks in the other direction. When the US roughs up some of the people responsible for such attrocities, suddenly its "the gulag of our time".

No wonder Americans are starting to view international law as a crock.

The difference between Abu Terrorist and Joe American is that Joe American is supposed to uphold human rights and is to be looked up to in the eyes of the international community, while Abu Terrorist does the behavior that is "expected" of him. Criticize America and they just may change, criticizing terrorists won't do any good.

[PacSubCom]

It is not necessary to "cut AI some slack". To do so is almost an insult.

America is supposed to be the "good guys". That's what they like to say about themselves. They are democratic, upholding human rights and furthering the cause of freedom. Problem is they are not like that, and people are starting to figure it out.

Here comes Amnesty International, an ultra respected organization itself dedicated to human rights. Now they say something about the US, that there are lots of human rigt violations going on and so on. AI's record as a "biased political pressure group" is non existent. The US's record of a human rights violator on the other hand is quite staggering. There were many instances where the US was in fact condemned by the UN , for example for their support of the Nicaraguan Contras, whose abject terror regime killed many thousands. The US was and is in bed with horrible dictators and terrorist groups, like Saddam, Osama ibn Ladin, the terror state Indonesia, the terror state Saudi Arabia. If you look at the record, "democracy" is the last thing the US stands for.

Now people begin to understand that this is not for the "noble fight against Communism and Terrorism", but it's the fight for the business interests of their sponsors. And terrorism always was the US's premier weapon. Why do you think 20 Million people took to the streets all over the world to protest against the War? Why do you think the majority of the world's polulation is against the US policies? Do they all like Saddam?

The US is and always was a grave danger to international law. These laws were instituted to protect the weak against the strong. It comes to no surprise that the strong are squeamish about that.

Anti-Americanism is a moral obligation these days. If America has lost their principles (as if they ever had them), the rest of the world has to stand tall. I do not say that because I'm left. I'm left because I see what happens, because I see what the people considering themselves as "the right" do.

It is curious to see that the American people are following all this so willingly. To say they have been duped does not suffice. I guess it is a culture of "my country right or wrong" that is very strong in the US. But lots of people are doing something against all this over there and that's refreshing to see that there is hope.

Over here in Europe, things are looking a little better, but just barely. The crimes our corporations and governments commit in Africa are almost as horrific, but not that well covered. And their silence about the US crimes is telling enough.

[Bovril]

lol, looks like I've found another internet site that I can't visit because I live in China. Oddly enough I can't view the BBC either for some reason. Can you post the article here?

Sure:

USA: Statement by Irene Khan, Amnesty International Secretary General
I note with interest President Bush’s statement that he is exploring all alternatives on Guantanamo and urge him to close the prison and charge the detainees under US law in US courts or release them, as this prison is a disgrace to American values and international law. He should order full disclosure of US policies and practices on detention and interrogation of prisoners and support a independent investigation into abuses. This would reassert the basic principles of justice, truth and freedom in which Americans take so much pride.

However President Bush's claim that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay "are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention" is belied by his own Executive Order of February 7, 2002 in which he ordered such treatment "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity." The enormous loophole he authorized gave a green light for abuse, from the use of stress positions for up to twenty-hour hours to prolonged isolation, the use of dogs and sexual humiliation. To cite just one example, in December 2002 Donald Rumsfeld personally approved those unlawful techniques for use during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. The President also denied prisoners a hearing on their status in front of a "competent tribunal" as required under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.

The fact that China bans the amnesty web site is quite telling, and should not be ignorred by those who rail against amnesty's 'double standards'.

[DimeBagHo]

The difference between Abu Terrorist and Joe American is that Joe American is supposed to uphold human rights and is to be looked up to in the eyes of the international community, while Abu Terrorist does the behavior that is "expected" of him. Criticize America and they just may change, criticizing terrorists won't do any good.

This attitude is exactly what is destroying international law. Why should Americans give a hoot about international law, or the opinion of the international community for that matter, when it protects terrorists without restraining them in any way, but restrains Americans without protecting them in any way?

Your position seems to be that there is no point in criticising the terrorists because they won't pay any attention. Well here is the point - if you don't criticise the terrorists, and hold them to exactly the same standard, then Americans will pay attention to that, and conclude that international law is just a fig-leaf for anti-Americanism.

Let me try to illustrate the problem. Imagine you are playing a game of football. The other team keeps fouling players on your side, handling the ball, and generally disregarding the rules. Meanwhile the ref totally ignores everything they do, but penalizes your team everyt time you make the slightest mistake. So then you ask why, and the ref responds "Those guys never listen to me anyway, so there is no point in applying the rules to them."

In other words the ref is unable to enforce the rules against the other team, and unwilling to even try. How long would it be before you said "screw the rules" and started to ignore the ref as well? I mean really, why even care what the ref has to say once he admits that he is unable and unwilling to apply the rules to both teams?

[Bovril]

@DimeBagHo

Your analogy is way off. A better one would be if some kids (terrorists) start acting up in school (a state) then they get punished by school authorities (national law). If a school starts abusing pupils, it gets dealt with by, say the school board (international law).

I'm all for the prosecuting of terrorists under national law. But international law simply does not apply to them. They are not nations or members of governments, or even related to governments in most cases. To argue double standards on this one is simply rediculous. In fact, its a fig-leaf for irrational pro-Americanism.

[DimeBagHo]

Your analogy is way off. A better one would be if some kids (terrorists) start acting up in school (a state) then they get punished by school authorities (national law). If a school starts abusing pupils, it gets dealt with by, say the school board (international law).

Your anaolgy is ridiculously slanted. Sawing the heads of innocent civillians off is like acting up in school but torturing these terrorists is child abuse? Seriously.

But more importantly it just fails to get at the salient facts of the situation. The school (the US) is not acused of abusing its own pupils (US citizens) it is acused of abusing non-pupils (what, the pupils of another school perhaps?). In your anaolgy who is supposed to deal with the problem when the pupils from one school jump the fence and start raping, murdering, and torturing, the pupils of the school next door?

If they are pupils of another school (supported by another government) then why isn't the school board steping in to deal with the other school? If they are not pupils of any school ("not nations or members of governments") then what business has the school board in getting involved?

I'm all for the prosecuting of terrorists under national law. But international law simply does not apply to them. They are not nations or members of governments, or even related to governments in most cases. To argue double standards on this one is simply rediculous. In fact, its a fig-leaf for irrational pro-Americanism.

Your view of the facts is wrong. Actually there are very few terrorist organizations that opperate without the support of some government. Your view of international law is also wrong. It applies to non-state actors in all sorts of circumstances. But, and this is really the most important point, if your view were right then the US would be free to do anything they like with terrorists. If international law does not apply to non-state actors then it does not protect non-state actors.

Your view boils down to the idea that international law does not constrain terrorists, but it does protect them. This idea is what is destroying international law.

[JP226]

You guys need to quit being so idealistic about AI. They are a political group on a power trip and as soon as they say something that george soros doesn't like or any other major extreme lefty, out goes the cash. Just follow the money

it's the same thing as howard dean, a conservative deomcrat govenor for the most part... and now look at him, he's nuts. He's just playing towards the cash. Micheal moore, same thing. The guy preaches it's impossible to get rich, don't even try. Yet he lives in manhatten, the whole baseball cap and dirty clothes is just an act.I'm sure over in england galloway is not as crazy as he looks, but does that to make money off his base and supporters. As soon as any of these people stop, these politcal groups stop their rhetoric, the money stops and they go away.

It's like that for any political group right or left. The problem with the right wing groups is that they are nowhere near as prominent as the left. A few of them popped up during the elections and they were just pandering to make cash and try to get their names out.