Amnesty International 2002: Even more dishonest than......Amnesty International 2001

The BBQ Pit
21

clair: As for the palestinians bombings not being mentionned, AFAIK, Amnesty is only concerned with the actions of governmental bodies, not of individuals, or so is my understanding…

Well, it doesn’t deal with individual murder for personal motives, but apparently it does consider human rights violations by quasigovernmental or other organized groups to come under its purview. So yes, the suicide bombings by groups like Hamas and IJ should be mentioned in the Annual Report—and, as I pointed out above, they are.

22

I’ve already alluded to the Report’s failure to consider that Israel’s actions have been responses to terrorist attacks by organized groups of Palestinians and other Arabs. (I can just imagine an AI-type report on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, merely listing body counts on both sides :frowning: )

Anyhow, the report specifically mentions “32 individuals targeted for assassination.” I have a couple of problems with this description.

These “assassinations” are actually excutions of terrorist leaders. I consider them to be a much more humane response to terrorist attacks than making war on the general run of Palestinians, most of whom are innocent, and are merely unlucky to be caught up in this horror.

Also, the word “assassination” is only partially correct. It means;

1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons

Definition #1 doesn’t fit, because there’s no treachery. Definition #2 doesn’t quite fit, either. These people aren’t targeted for impersonal reasons; they’re targeted because they’re murderers. A more precise description might be *“extra-judicial execution of terrorist murderers.” *

clairobscur, your understanding of the term “political prisoner” seems to agree with AI’s, but you must aqree that it’s different from the dictionary definition.

Kimstu, there is no illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. This point has been discussed on other threads.

Regarding the killing of “collaborators”: Yes, we saw a dramatic example on TV just recently. However, this practice has been going on for years. Years. The Wall Street Journal routinely addresses these events.

These killings are particularly important, because what’s meant by collaborator is generally a Palestinian who sincerely wants to pursue a peaceful settlement. (Presumably that’s what AI meant by putting “collaborators” in quotes. It would have been nice if they had made that clear.)

One reason that the Oslo Accords weren’t honored was that peace-loving Palestinian leaders have been systematically killed. I see no way to ever make peace as long as this practice continues.

Anyhow, your attempted excuse for AI not reporting those killings doesn’t hold.

23

The spin is yours, december.

Kudos to others for having the strength to keep addressing this man.

24

december: Anyhow, your attempted excuse for AI not reporting those killings doesn’t hold.

Um, yes, if you can’t provide evidence of such incidents occurring in calendar year 2001 of comparable importance to the other violations therein addressed, then there is no reason to discuss other such killings in AI’s 2002 Annual Report. Frothing about how this has “been going on for years, years” doesn’t cut it.

*Also, the word “assassination” is only partially correct. It means;

1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons

Definition #1 doesn’t fit, because there’s no treachery. Definition #2 doesn’t quite fit, either. These people aren’t targeted for impersonal reasons; they’re targeted because they’re murderers.*

More vocabulary confusion, december. “Impersonal reasons” simply means that the target was not killed for reasons arising from a personal relation to the murderer, as when somebody kills their spouse to marry someone else or kills their spouse’s lover out of jealousy. Political reasons, such as believing the target to be a terrorist, are in the category called “impersonal reasons”, so definition #2 fits to a T.

*A more precise description might be “extra-judicial execution of terrorist murderers.” *

“Precise”?! You mean AI has to call an accused or suspected terrorist who’s killed without trial a “murderer”, and his killing an “execution”, for you to consider that they’re being unbiased?? Sorry december, but according to basic principles of human rights, even suspected terrorists are not officially designated “murderers” unless and until they’re convicted in a fair trial.

Kimstu, there is no illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

Your asserting that doesn’t make it true. As it happens, the Palestinians in general disagree with you, and so do very many Israelis, as well as many other people all over the world.

Nobody’s likely to change your mind about supporting Israel in whatever it does, right or wrong. But your complete lack of balance and logic in addressing the issue are just convincing more and more people that you’re absolutely wrong.

(Wait a minute—since I think he’s absolutely wrong, I should be happy that he’s turning people against his views.) Um, that is, keep right on talking, december.

25

If you’ll forgive my answering your rhetorical question, elucidator…

Doctors Without Borders goes into the most difficult areas and provides medical care. They actually heal sick people.

AI doesn’t politically reform governments or militarily overthrow tyranies. Their product is reports describing human rights abuses. If AI’s reports are unreliable, what else are they good for?

26

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Prior to reading the GD threads regarding the Israel/Palestine issue, I was fairly ignorant of the facts. Like many of my fellow Americans, I assumed Israel was the “good guys” and that the Palestinians were hell-bent on destroying them.

After conducting my own research, I came to the conclusion that neither side represented the “good guys”, and that both Arafat and Sharon deserve a good bitch-slapping.

Without december and his “Israel can do no wrong” cohorts, I never would have taken enough interest to research the topic.

27

Egotist te absolvo Go forth and sin no more.

Thier important product is not so much information, or even reliability. It is attention. Having no real power of thier own, they can only affect things by calling attention to them.

I would much prefer that they err on the side of exposure rather on caution. Your mindset may vary.

28

No no. Sorry, that wasn’t the quote I was referring to. Another mistake.

I was referring to the AI quote on our blog page:

“We are not for or against sharia law, but we are campaigning for a process based on fair trial where a suspect is allowed basic rights such as access to a lawyer and the ability to speak out in his or her own defense.”

As it turns out, I took that quote out of context, and I apologize for the condemnation of AI I based upon it. There was, in fact, a statement immediately above the preceding quote which condemned the use of the death penalty.

That said, I still do not agree with Amnesty International either about Zacarias Moussaoui or Sharia law. Forgive me for being culturally insensitive, but I can’t understand why someone, especially a human rights organization, could not be against Sharia law. It is an unfair, easily corruptible, badly implemented system of laws based upon religious dogma, and it specifically treats women worse than men.

As for Zac Moussaoui, he is being tried by due process of law, and if he is found guilty, I see no reason why the highest legal punishment under US law should not be imposed. Please note that I’m not saying that I think AI shouldn’t raise hell about. I just think they’re wrong.

29

I’ll forgive you for simply being ignorant. Sharia law is a catch all term for laws inspired by a very large body of Islamic jurisprudence, al-fiqh. Much of Islamic legal tradition, in terms of book theory, is by no means ipso facto unreconcilable with modern ideas of justice and legal procedure. AI is rather taking an intelligent and constructive position, rather than an ignorant and misinformed one, in recognizing that encouraging reform rather than a ignorant blanket condemnation is the best route. Of course, most Sharia law courts are found in rather retrograde conditions, e.g. in Saudi Arabia or as reactionary political tools (e.g. Nothern Nigeria). However, Islamic jusiprudence historically valued, as a general point, logic and evidence. Bernard Lewis has some interesting historical points on this in one of his works.

As for treating women worse than men, look you to the body of Common Law or state Codes prevalent until the last 2 decades in the west. Reformed they were, eh non?

Well, it is being asked for in regards to a crime which is rarely subject to the death penalty. Frankly it strikes me as counter-productive and a gesture of self-indulgent vengeance seeking.

30

We fully agree on this point.

I would prefer that they not err at all, or at least, not too much. And, I would like AI to be reasonable.

There are all kinds of organizations – right-wing, left-wing, and just plain wingey – which call attention to 10 out of every 5 atrocities. However, nobody, escept a few partisans, pays any attention. Unfortunately, AI seems to be moving in that direction.

I see three structural weaknesses in AI’s approach

  1. AI focuses only on probems; they ignore the good. E.g, it’s not AI’s job (as they have defined it) to notice the medical support that Israel provided to the Palestinians, even during the Jenin incursion. Focusing only on the bad can be awfully unbalanced, when one side is doing a lot more good, than the other. In particular, it makes a Western democracy (e.g., Israel) appear no better than a vicious, brutal dictatorship, (e.g., the Palestinian Anthority.)

  2. AI’s standards give a preference to inaction. Their judgements of countries at war or under attack seem to routinely ignore the fight and the provocation. E.g., they found fault with specifics of the US war against al Qaida, but ignored the more serious fault of, say, France, who deserve criticism for standing aside while others sacrificed money and casualties tp actually deal with the problems of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

  3. By putting too great a weight on the death penalty, AI can find serious fault with the US, in just the same way as they’re faulting, say, Sudan and Iraq – countries that have slaughtered thousands or millions of their own citizens.

A cynic might note that AI seems to like countries that don’t have a death penalty and which let others take care of military problems. In other words, their ‘scoring system’ gives the highest marks to countries that operate like much of Europe. It follows principles dear to many European leftists. That’s AI’s prerogative. However, that approach is likely to lead to a loss of support and prestige in some areas, e.g., the United States.

31

Marry me.

32

Marry me.

33

I can’t support Amnesty International’s mission if only because one of the biggest pricks in high school was a vocal member. For that reason alone, I would see the entire population of Mozambique executed by firing squad for supporting the popular election of national dog catcher before I would give $1 to Amnesty International.

Irrational, perhaps, but sufficient reason for me.

34

Lemme see, another thread where December picks on some group for supposedly showing bias against Israel.

Now that this claim has been systematically debunked, going on his standard modus operandi he should now clutch at another straw, claiming that was his point all along.

You know, I’d be completely depressed about this if it weren’t for DMC’s little explanation on why December’s continued bullshit can actually have a positive effect.

35

I used to like donating money to AI. It felt good to be taking a stand against torture and other human rights abuses. Their budget for 3/2002 - 3/2002 was over GBP 20 million. http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/ORG100032002!Open

Look that their Annual Report page on the US. Setting aside the bias, it could have been written in a few minutes by most posters on this board. It merely repeats reported information, which available in any news magazine. Didn’t cost 20 million pounds. It could have been done for 20 pounds.

Point #2 – What are their successes? elucidator brought up the useful comparison of Doctors without Borders. If one asked what they had accomplished, they could (in principle) provide a list of human beings who had recieved important medical care under difficut circumstances.

Suppose we ask what AI has accomplished with their GBP 20 million a year. One cannot point to a single torture victim who was released due to AI or a single atorcity they prevented. We can only take their value on faith. It is certainly possible that they may be doing some good, but there’s no way to prove it.

My underlines were added to point out that this comment is both ad hominem and admittedly uncited. You’re not the only one making this sort of post. Your allegation that no Palestinian peace-lovers were killed by the PA in 2001 is also uncited.

Your point that AI also criticizes suicide bombings seems to adopt a moral equivalence between provocative terrorism vs. defensive military actions – actions which were conducted in such a way as to avoid civilian deaths. This seems to be AI’s POV as well. I find that POV unreasonable and biased against Israel. Seldom if ever have I seen intermational observaters take a POV that countries other than Israel have no right to defend themselves.

36

Would it be more acceptable if this was “extra judicial terminations with extreme predjudice combined with some regrettable but acceptable collateral damage including but not limited to loss of life of bystanders/companions and severe property damage?” I seem to remember other posts where you’re pretty down on PC terms, so wouldn’t “targeted for assassination” be a reasonable wording? Rather than argue semantics, how would you suggest that AI and/or wire services report such an event? Remember, it is commonly accepted that Israel does in fact conduct such operations.

It is likely that some of these 32 individuals were in fact guilty of brutal crimes. However, this was not proven under due process in a court of law. What about the collateral loss of life and property? Don’t let me put words in your mouth, but care to comment on the importance of due process?

To point this out does not an anti-semite make.

37

It’s certainly fair for you and for AI to point out the lack of due process. Given the reputed skill of Mossad, I think it’s likely that most or all of these individuals were guilty of brutal crimes, not just “some” of them.

I agree with your implicit point that the use of this word wasn’t a big deal. AI isn’t the only one who calls these “assassinations.” That word usage is common.

I’m more upset by the report’s uncritical inclusion of these “assassinations” as human rights abuses. Assuming that most or all of these individuals were guilty of brutal crimes, and that they would continue to commit additional brutal crimes if not stopped, Israel has no attractive options. I cannot take seriously someone who criticizes what they did, but who can’t come up with anything better,* which would work in the real world*.

Unbalanced Impact of AI Criticism

I’ve been thinking about elucidator’s comment, “I would much prefer that they err on the side of exposure rather on caution.” This sounds so reasonable, and yet it doesn’t feel quite right. One reason may be that Israel is impacted by AI. As a part of the Western world, their people are affected by such criticism.

OTOH Arab terrorist groups are not affected. I cannot imagine that fear of AI criticsm will deter a Hamas suidice bombing or Saddam Hussein killing Iraqi Kurds. So, AI has the impact of discouraging Israeli defence, but not Arab attacks. Today, when another horrible bombing has just taken place, we can wonder whether AI’s “erring on the side of exposure” played a role in permitting such attacks to continue.

38

Well, Collounsbury has already discussed the issue of Sharia law, but I wil add that Amnesty International will oppose Sharia law where it violates Human Rights (AI’s mandate is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and remain neutral on it where it doesn’t, since that’s AI’s mandate.
Zacarias Moussaoui - AI opposes the death penalty in all cases. You obviously do not. You would not be the first to disagree on this issue.

39

So, you’re saying due process of law doesn’t work in the real world? Well, I guess that would depend on what you want the effect to be.

You’re right that due process doesn’t work to suppress opposing ideologies. You’re right that due process is an impediment to the efficient elimination of the enemies of a state. You’re right that it just gets in the way if you’re not a stickler for accuracy in the administration of justice (hey, “most” of 'em are probably guilty of something, eh?).

But there are those of us who are convinced that due process is quite effective as one of the assurances within a stable society that respects the individual and limits the power of the state. I guess we’re just hopeless idealists to believe so…

40

Of course, because their whole budget went towards producing that one page, and the organization did nothing else all year. :rolleyes: