Amnesty International
- Thread starter Baker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- international
I started a thread on this six months ago when Amnesty Int. protested a U.S. missile attack on a car carrying several high-ranking AlQueda operatives in Yemen. I found it interesting that A.I. devoted more lines of type to that incident than then they did for the 9/11 attacks.
They recently raised my ire again when a spokesperson critized the American operation in Iraq on the grounds that there were still other totalitarian regimes in the world.
I don't follow this sort of logic. Did the Iraq invasion somehow cause human rights abuses in other countries? Were we expected to invade the other countries as well?
For that matter, what has A.I. done to prevent abuses in Iraq prior to the war? Do they realize they protested the one act that had any chance of actually improving conditions in that part of the world?
They recently raised my ire again when a spokesperson critized the American operation in Iraq on the grounds that there were still other totalitarian regimes in the world.
I don't follow this sort of logic. Did the Iraq invasion somehow cause human rights abuses in other countries? Were we expected to invade the other countries as well?
For that matter, what has A.I. done to prevent abuses in Iraq prior to the war? Do they realize they protested the one act that had any chance of actually improving conditions in that part of the world?
Baker said:
I tried to read that article, but it didn't sound like the AI I know. Maybe that's because I generally just read the AI web page with appeals for action. This lists the top things they are actually asking people to help with (not agendas or manifestos).
http://www.amnesty.org/actnow/appeals.html
A quick glance today shows only 1 of 17 is related to the USA, and none to Israel. That contradicts one point in the article. I don't see many war related issues, which contradicts another point. One appeal is even against Cuba, which is a contradiction of the premise of the article. I think the appeals listed today are the norm. I don't see a political agenda there.
Unless these appeals for action are all just a cover up for the secret AI agenda! Sure, they luring me with a touchy feeling web page about not wanting women tortured, then suck me into their leftist army!
That scenario would fit right in with the article's shrill "agenda" tone.I prefer to judge people by their actions, not their "agendas".
uneasy said:
Ok so you only read the appeals for action page I agree it doesn’t prove an agenda from that page alone however I’m not sure how this page disproves the original article.
There are many more countries I would be asking appeals for that have far worse situations then listed on the page.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Please tell us what they are, and how you figured out they have far worse human rights situations.
Earthborn said:
Sudan is on that comes to mine and the rights of women in many Islamic countrys
And Iran
The War on Women
http://hrw.org/editorials/2002/women0822.htm
Slavery and Slave Redemption in the Sudan
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/sudanupdate.htm
Iran
http://hrw.org/wr2k2/mena3.html
bjornart
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,568
AI is undoubtedly not a perfect organization, such do not exist. But this critisism is so obviously biased it's almost funny.
So what would you have them do? Ignore the reports of human rights abuse from countries with free speech, and go after the ones that _must_ be hiding evidence?
This is silly hyperbole. Amnesty's concern is human rights abuse, not protection of soldiers. If you take a look at the material on the latest war in Iraq every issue deals with the protection of civilians, or prisoners of war.
This isn't a political agenda, it's a philosophical difference of opinon. I agree with AI that "the obvious conclusion that those battling against terror must use means that sometimes have unpleasant side affects" isn't obvious.
This is just silly. The only example is, as always, Palestine/Israel, and if I'm not mistaken, even the US now sees a Palestinian state as a goal.
AI's own website heads the page of these links with the following:
The accusations of participating in anti-Israel rallies is probably ture, but it merely illustrates the problems with the situation.
The examples I've left out of the quote are obviously the views of individuals, not the organisation. Obviously there are some with extreme views in AI as in other organisations.
AI may very well be too anti-Israel. It's a common mistake.
I think recognition of gay marriage should be a human right. I think the terrorists should be entitled to human rights. And playing the same piece of music over and over for 24 hours _is_ torture.
AI however doesn't say it is:
What has the greater potential for improving the world? Shouting at the deaf ears of despots, or pointing out the flaws in systems that actually have it in them to change. AI isn't anti-American, it's simply got a different opinion than many Americans on what constitutes human rights.
When AI points out (or 'claims' if you will) that Norwegian practices of keeping acusees in custody for ... a long time (can't remember the exact violation) violates international agreements on human rights, or that imprisoning pasifists is against human rights, I don't start whining about political agendas and 'why don't they go after Sudan', even though I might not agree with them on every issue.
They'll still be getting my money.
So what would you have them do? Ignore the reports of human rights abuse from countries with free speech, and go after the ones that _must_ be hiding evidence?
This is silly hyperbole. Amnesty's concern is human rights abuse, not protection of soldiers. If you take a look at the material on the latest war in Iraq every issue deals with the protection of civilians, or prisoners of war.
_
This isn't a political agenda, it's a philosophical difference of opinon. I agree with AI that "the obvious conclusion that those battling against terror must use means that sometimes have unpleasant side affects" isn't obvious.
This is just silly. The only example is, as always, Palestine/Israel, and if I'm not mistaken, even the US now sees a Palestinian state as a goal.
_
AI's own website heads the page of these links with the following:
The accusations of participating in anti-Israel rallies is probably ture, but it merely illustrates the problems with the situation.
The examples I've left out of the quote are obviously the views of individuals, not the organisation. Obviously there are some with extreme views in AI as in other organisations.
AI may very well be too anti-Israel. It's a common mistake.
_
I think recognition of gay marriage should be a human right. I think the terrorists should be entitled to human rights. And playing the same piece of music over and over for 24 hours _is_ torture.
AI however doesn't say it is:
What has the greater potential for improving the world? Shouting at the deaf ears of despots, or pointing out the flaws in systems that actually have it in them to change. AI isn't anti-American, it's simply got a different opinion than many Americans on what constitutes human rights.
When AI points out (or 'claims' if you will) that Norwegian practices of keeping acusees in custody for ... a long time (can't remember the exact violation) violates international agreements on human rights, or that imprisoning pasifists is against human rights, I don't start whining about political agendas and 'why don't they go after Sudan', even though I might not agree with them on every issue.
They'll still be getting my money.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Genghis Pwn said:
In other words,
IF Amnesty International wrote nasty reports about countries that the USA had problems with,
THEN Amnesty International would be supported by more Americans.
I am sure he is right.
However, doing so would destroy the international credibility that AI has built up over so many years by consistently reporting the facts without regard to the agenda of any one nation. While President Bush does not worry too much about such things as international credibility, some people do value it quite highly.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Thanks. Did you notice this pattern from the Human Rights Watch website?
- Human Rights in the U.S.: 18 pages
- U.S Foreign Policy and Human Rights: 33 pages
- Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinian Authority Territories: 11 pages
- Iran: 6 pages
- Sudan: 4 pages
[/list=1]
Same pattern as Amnesty: much more articles on the US and Israel. Oh, my God, it must be a conspiracy!
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Baker i do see what your talking about , but reall I am not sure why there are more reports on America and Israel except to say that maybe people don't put thier lives at as great a risk reporting those violations.
But again AI is a grrass roots organization, if you read thier reports you will realize that they do criticize the US but the quality of derision they hold for the more abusive members is much higher. If you read thier action reports ot becomes obvious that there are a news network. i am sorry that they have an easier time getting reports on our country.
I don't always approve of them but they condemn oppression where it is reported.
But again AI is a grrass roots organization, if you read thier reports you will realize that they do criticize the US but the quality of derision they hold for the more abusive members is much higher. If you read thier action reports ot becomes obvious that there are a news network. i am sorry that they have an easier time getting reports on our country.
I don't always approve of them but they condemn oppression where it is reported.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Amnesty has to raise money in order to operate. Who will give them money for 'exposing' the obvious truth that Iran and Sudan are horrible places to live?
MattJ
MattJ
Earthborn said:
Human Rights have nothing to do with political parties, you know.
In Europe ,humans rights were mostly violated in the communist countries and for years the left was denying this fact. Back to those days, the parties of the left claiming that whoever was accusing the communist totalitarian countries for violations of the human rights, was financed by CIA... give me a break please.
Human Rights is a very serious thing to be involved in political parties, especially those that have a very guilty past...
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I think AI is a sort of grass roots organization, they equally condem governments regardless of which way they lean.
AI is undoubtedly not a perfect organization, such do not exist. But this critisism is so obviously biased it's almost funny.
So what would you have them do? Ignore the reports of human rights abuse from countries with free speech, and go after the ones that _must_ be hiding evidence?
You left out the rest of the comment.
The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country. The reason is obvious. Those countries in which human rights are the most severely violated are also those where no freedom of speech nor press is permitted. This explains the AI reticence and almost total absence of denunciation of human rights abuses in places like North Korea and Cambodia. It also explains why AI apparently had no knowledge of the killing fields in southern Iraq until US and British troops uncovered them in the recent war.
I don't see where they said to ignore the reports of human rights abuse from countries with free speech.
Its saying they are just simply ignoring some countries that have no free press because they don't get as many reports it gives the impression that democratic countries have more human rights violations which of course is false.
This is silly hyperbole. Amnesty's concern is human rights abuse, not protection of soldiers. If you take a look at the material on the latest war in Iraq every issue deals with the protection of civilians, or prisoners of war.
They also pointed out that AI has generally NOT condemned terrorists for causing these innocent bystanders getting hurt by hiding amongst them and for opening fire from behind human shields.
If they have a safer method for fighting terrorist where no bystander gets hurt then they should provided it.
_
This isn't a political agenda, it's a philosophical difference of opinon. I agree with AI that "the obvious conclusion that those battling against terror must use means that sometimes have unpleasant side affects" isn't obvious.
No they made very good points they are either wrong or right on them I see no way to just brush it off as just an opinion.
This is just silly. The only example is, as always, Palestine/Israel, and if I'm not mistaken, even the US now sees a Palestinian state as a goal.
There biggest complaint was the right of return of Palestinians who never lived there and those that did left on their own.
Also to migrate to and reclaim any property inside Israel they may wish to claim. Of the countless hundreds of millions of people who became refugees after World War II, the only ones with such an AI-recognized “right” are the Palestinians.
AI doesn't say what the rights of the Israelis already living those area's will do once their currant land is taken.
AI's own website heads the page of these links with the following:
The accusations of participating in anti-Israel rallies is probably ture, but it merely illustrates the problems with the situation.
The examples I've left out of the quote are obviously the views of individuals, not the organisation. Obviously there are some with extreme views in AI as in other organisations.
Showing their extreme views isn't their job even if it's a minority in AI doing this it still has to stop.
AI may very well be too anti-Israel. It's a common mistake.
I see so its wrong but so many other groups do it that is shouldn't matter?
I think recognition of gay marriage should be a human right. I think the terrorists should be entitled to human rights. And playing the same piece of music over and over for 24 hours _is_ torture.
AI however doesn't say it is:
They also pointed out-
AI considers the forced transfer of people involved in terrorism from one town to another town in the "occupied territories" to be a human rights abuse (AI Index: MDE 15/133/2002 (Public) News Service No: 154 3 September 2002), and I suspect a teacher transferring a roudy pupil from one row to the next might also be at risk of arousing AI ire.
What has the greater potential for improving the world? Shouting at the deaf ears of despots, or pointing out the flaws in systems that actually have it in them to change. AI isn't anti-American, it's simply got a different opinion than many Americans on what constitutes human rights.
I added a little more of the comments made on 8 if this isn't anti-Americanism I'm not sure what is.
So what would you have them do? Ignore the reports of human rights abuse from countries with free speech, and go after the ones that _must_ be hiding evidence?
You left out the rest of the comment.
The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country. The reason is obvious. Those countries in which human rights are the most severely violated are also those where no freedom of speech nor press is permitted. This explains the AI reticence and almost total absence of denunciation of human rights abuses in places like North Korea and Cambodia. It also explains why AI apparently had no knowledge of the killing fields in southern Iraq until US and British troops uncovered them in the recent war.
I don't see where they said to ignore the reports of human rights abuse from countries with free speech.
Its saying they are just simply ignoring some countries that have no free press because they don't get as many reports it gives the impression that democratic countries have more human rights violations which of course is false.
This is silly hyperbole. Amnesty's concern is human rights abuse, not protection of soldiers. If you take a look at the material on the latest war in Iraq every issue deals with the protection of civilians, or prisoners of war.
They also pointed out that AI has generally NOT condemned terrorists for causing these innocent bystanders getting hurt by hiding amongst them and for opening fire from behind human shields.
If they have a safer method for fighting terrorist where no bystander gets hurt then they should provided it.
_
This isn't a political agenda, it's a philosophical difference of opinon. I agree with AI that "the obvious conclusion that those battling against terror must use means that sometimes have unpleasant side affects" isn't obvious.
No they made very good points they are either wrong or right on them I see no way to just brush it off as just an opinion.
This is just silly. The only example is, as always, Palestine/Israel, and if I'm not mistaken, even the US now sees a Palestinian state as a goal.
There biggest complaint was the right of return of Palestinians who never lived there and those that did left on their own.
Also to migrate to and reclaim any property inside Israel they may wish to claim. Of the countless hundreds of millions of people who became refugees after World War II, the only ones with such an AI-recognized “right” are the Palestinians.
AI doesn't say what the rights of the Israelis already living those area's will do once their currant land is taken.
AI's own website heads the page of these links with the following:
The accusations of participating in anti-Israel rallies is probably ture, but it merely illustrates the problems with the situation.
The examples I've left out of the quote are obviously the views of individuals, not the organisation. Obviously there are some with extreme views in AI as in other organisations.
Showing their extreme views isn't their job even if it's a minority in AI doing this it still has to stop.
AI may very well be too anti-Israel. It's a common mistake.
I see so its wrong but so many other groups do it that is shouldn't matter?
I think recognition of gay marriage should be a human right. I think the terrorists should be entitled to human rights. And playing the same piece of music over and over for 24 hours _is_ torture.
AI however doesn't say it is:
They also pointed out-
AI considers the forced transfer of people involved in terrorism from one town to another town in the "occupied territories" to be a human rights abuse (AI Index: MDE 15/133/2002 (Public) News Service No: 154 3 September 2002), and I suspect a teacher transferring a roudy pupil from one row to the next might also be at risk of arousing AI ire.
What has the greater potential for improving the world? Shouting at the deaf ears of despots, or pointing out the flaws in systems that actually have it in them to change. AI isn't anti-American, it's simply got a different opinion than many Americans on what constitutes human rights.
I added a little more of the comments made on 8 if this isn't anti-Americanism I'm not sure what is.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
So basicaly the problem is that AI doesn't get reports from countries that repress free speech.
I think that they do not target the US the way they target some other countries. The US is listed but has very few action alerts, compared to say Latin America or Pakistan.
Peace
I think that they do not target the US the way they target some other countries. The US is listed but has very few action alerts, compared to say Latin America or Pakistan.
Peace
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
In fact a perusal of thier home page (Amnesty's) shows that while the US is mentioned in two articles, there is no Action Appeal on the US. So we are watched and our intentions questioned but they don't fell that we are gross perpetrators.
For example there is an action appeal on Russia and domestic violence right now.
For example there is an action appeal on Russia and domestic violence right now.