Oh, if only obfusciatrist had gotten laid by a hot AI hardbody when s/he was in high school! Then we would have had another valuable long-time member. 
I like the way he started on this rant the very post after I said
Not only is he an idiot, he’s a predictable idiot.
xenophon41, your post says that due process is in general a vital aspect of a stable society. Of course, I agree.
However, you have not made a case that the sort of due process that we both favor could be effectively used by Israel in the current situation. Can you offer comparable examples where it has worked?
Don’t forget, you’re living safely in beautiful somewhere up country, while people living in Israel face the daily risk of being blown up.
Arnold Winkelried, you’ve had your rolleyes fun. Now, here are some serious questions:
– How do we contributors know what we’re getting for our money?
– How can we evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of AI?
– How can we tell if AI is getting better or worse at making effective use of financial resources?
– How can we compare AI’s efficiency against other organizations?
“Effectively used” to do what? -To prevent all future sucide bombings? Oh, it absolutely can’t. -To reduce the number of suicide bombings? Probably not. -To reduce tension in the occupied territories? Depends on how visible the process is, and how believable Palestinians find it in general. But due process by itself cannot be relied upon to change the conditions which spawn the Palestinian terror tactics.
[heavy sarcasm = “ON”]
As opposed to the wonderfully effective policies of assassination and military pacification.
[heavy sarcasm = “OFF”]
Fod ghods sake, don’t you people get it??!!??
AI is not fully supportive of Israel in all things, therefore they’re dishonest liberal fuckhead idiots.
Ain’t that right, december? Cos that damn sure sounds like what you’re saying. Over and over and over again.
Should we assume that December is actually a subtle closet palestinian supporter, trying to elicit as much post criticizing Israel as possible by his inflamatory OPs in order to convince the fence sitters that the Palestinians are the good guys? 
It seems to me the definition 1 perfectly fits the situation. Did the guys who killed the palestinians leaders call them two days ago and told them "we’re going to execute you on Thursday, around 3 p.m.? If not, if they waited for the guys’ car and opened fire, for instance, it seems to me there’s treachery involved.
You can agree with the executions/assassinations, but it doesn’t make them more acceptable from an human rights point of view…Killing someone without trial is seldom considered as a due process of law. Actually, I’ve less moral issues with the assassinations of political leaders than with the killing of 18 yo who have been handed a kalashnikov and who are consider fair game under war law because they wear an uniform. The former are more likely to have an actual responsability than the latter (and at least they choose to be in an exposed position). Nevertheless, trying to change the definitions according to what suits your agenda won’t help your cause.
Actually, I won’t agree. It seems to me that it’s your understanding of what is a “political prisonner” which is at fault, probably because you’re accustomed to hear this term in relation with oppresive countries. There are some political prisonners here, for instance extreme-left activists who assasinated public figures. There are political prisonners in Spain (ETA), in the UK (North-Ireland issue), in Italy, etc…
Now, I don’t have an english dictionnary including a definition of “political prisonner”. But if you can give us such a dictionnary definition, go ahead…
Actually I was hesitating between :rolleyes: and :p. If you don’t want that smiley used, you shouldn’t post such ridiculous comparisons.
How do you know what you’re getting for your money? Join an AI local group and see how much information the international organization sends to each local group every month. Go to an AIUSA (I assume you’re in the USA) regional or national conference to hear about AI’s work. Look at the list of reports/press releases on their website. Count how many times you see their name in articles dealing about Human Rights issues.
AI employs full-time staff members to support the local members. AI members write letters to their state and federal representatives (in the USA) to encourage them to make foreign aid contingent on stopping human rights violations. We lobby the state department to promote human rights in other countries. The organization funds investigators to verify the facts behind their reports.
Have you ever heard a former Prisoner of Conscience speak? I have heard many of them over the past 15 years. Many of them have mentioned how they knew when they had been adopted as an Amnesty International case because their treatment in prison improved dramatically. Wei Jingsheng, whom I have heard speak in the past month, has said that Amnesty International letters helped his release and he could tell when Amnesty International had published a new call for letters on his behalf by the ups and downs of the prison conditions to which he was subjected.
When George Bush (Sr.) was looking for justifications for the Gulf War, he mentioned on US national television a report by a Human Rights organization that showed how the Iraqi government was committing human rights violations and the USA needed to do something about it. The organization that produced the report used by George Bush in his press conference? Amnesty International. (I have to add that I was surprised to see him use that report since our government was sending financial aid to the Iraqi government in years just previous to the Gulf War, and the couple of letters I wrote to the State Department asking them to link financial aid to Iraq with an encouragement to improve Human Rights in that country went unanswered. But I digress.)
Has Amnesty International improved over time? Where was their website 10 years ago? (A: didn’t have one) Did they have the Fast Action to Stop Torture five years ago? (A: no) How many members did they have five years ago? How many reports were they publishing five years ago as compared to now?
I don’t know the answers to all those questions, so if you want to know you will have to research it yourself.
How do you compare them to other organizations? Try the following:
How many reports a year does the other organization produce? How many local groups does the other organization have? How many permanent staff members / legislative aids lobbying representatives in Washington does the other organization have? How many researchers do they have in other countries? Has that organization received the Nobel Peace Prize (awarded to AI in 1977)? What kind of longevity does the other organization have? (AI is 41 years old)
I have never seen such a comparison, but you can research those questions to see if you find another group that you think is doing better work than Amnesty International.
Yes. Focusing on problems is exactly their point. They’re not here to give out prizes.
It’s only a problem if you don’t understand their goal. It’s not to tell which country is better, but to point at what is wrong anywhere. They consider fact, and don’t interpret them. If they were to give their opinion (necessarily partisan, in one way or another) about the political situation in which abuses are commited, they would discredited, and rightly so.
There’s always room for improvments. Everywhere. don’t think they have a ranking system, or award points to countries based on their respect (or lack thereof) of human rights. They tell what’s wrong in every country. That’s fine with me.
Hijack, here, but since it seems you’ve a particular issue with France (not the first time you’re criticizing it), I’m going to refer you once again to this link, from the french embassy in the US which sum up the french military involvment in Afghanistan from the 9/11 to the 3/22 :
http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2002/sfia/fight.asp
It doesn’t include the intelligence or financial investigations, but I guess you can find infos on that by yourself…
Besides, last time I read the AI report about france, it was as long as the reports on other countries…
The correct link would be :
This one
Yes, assuming is the important word, here. And AI isn’t supposed to assume that Israel’s always right…
Since when it’s the job of this kind of organization to find solutions to political or military issues?
Definition #1 has two elements: unexpected and treachery. I agree that the first element applies. However, “Treachery” means:
*1. Willful betrayal of fidelity, confidence, or trust; perfidy.
2. The act or an instance of such betrayal. *
The Palestinian terrorists never had reason to trust Israel to be faithful to them. Just the reverse. So, there cannot have been any betrayal of trust or confidence. So, the second element of Definition #1 doesn’t apply.
Yes, I feel exactly the same. That’s why I think “assassination” may be the best of bad alternatives.
In fact, I did provide such a definition in an earlier post.
As you can see, these two definitions differ somewhat from yours and AI’s.
I think it’s likely that most Americans who are charged with murder are guilty, so should we just assasinate (or whichever term for governmentally sponsored murder you’d prefer today) them all and save the costs associated with a trial?
That is actually what AI attempts to do, influence policy through public pressure, founded in criticism of perceived wrongs. From their statute:
“Amnesty International seeks to disclose human rights abuses accurately, quickly and persistently. It systematically and impartially researches the facts of individual cases and patterns of human rights abuses. These findings are publicized, and members, supporters and staff mobilize public pressure on governments and others to stop the abuses.”
So while it may not “feel quite right”, it certainly seems like they are doing exactly what they set out to do.
Here are some facts and figures, which give a broad overview of some of their accomplishments.
Considering that a truly free press is little more than a pipe-dream in a large number of countries, I think it’s safe to assume that research is a bit more expensive in many locales. Besides, when researching U.S news magazines, should they cull info from the Ann Coulters (and her fanatical liberal counterparts) of the world, or maybe do a little bit of independent research?
Well, let’s take a hypothetical situation.
A large group of people living in America are committed to bombing American citizens – partiularly focusing on children. Just yesterday, they exploded a bomb that killed 18 people – a routine occurrence. This group receives money and materiel from other governments, who encourage their terrorism. And, let’s say we can identify some of these people, but, for some reason, it’s not practical to arrest them and provide a criminal trial. What would you have the US do?
OK, and I was arguing that their approach may deter the party who was more likely to bring peace, and thus have the unintended consequence of increasing human suffering.
E.g., I seem to recall that AI was arguing against the US invasion of Afghanistan last year and for a cessation of war during Ramadan. Anyhow, some well-intentioned groups were making that case. As it turned out, the rapid US victory allowed food relief into all parts of the country and prevented the starvation of thousands of people.
Here was a case where Bush seemed less cautious about human suffering, but he took the action that did the most to avert human suffering.
I agree.
Actually, AI is pretty far out in their POV on the US – even farther from reality than Ann Coulter (and not as good-looking.) Their stories about Gitmo were proven false, as were ICRC’s. Once ICRC had proof they corrected their story, but AI stuck to their anti-American myths even then. 
How is it not practical? Israel has consistently demonstrated that it can move around at will throughout Palestinian areas. If they know where a suspect is (and I hope they do before they start firing missiles) and have the necessary force to enter that area, why can’t they just move in and arrest them? It might be easier to just fire the missile, but I agree with AI that it’s certainly not the best answer. If Timothy McVeigh had bunkered up next door to me, and had armed himself so as to make it difficult to apprehend him without a fight, I’d still be mighty pissed off if the government sent planes to shoot missiles at or drop bombs on his house.
It’s certainly possible that human rights violations have some positive benefits. Cigarette smoking does, too.
I’m guessing that the dead civilians would rather that their neighbors be a bit short on food and supplies.
Accidents do happen (and some of them were good, others were bad, in this case). Or were you inferring that Bush actually launched the attacks with the objective of enabling quick relief efforts?
I read their 2002 report on the US and didn’t see anything that led me to believe that they were biased against us. While they did find fault with the US in several areas (as do I and many others), they hardly painted us as the enemy of all things fair.
This is a good question, one I have wondered about for some time. I will take a guess at the answer. My guess is that under the Oslo Accords, Israel is not allowed to make arrests in the territories, since that responsibility was, unfortunately, ceded to the Palestinian Authority. I would welcome more information from any poster who knows more than I do.
The point is, applying peacetime standards to wartime conditions can result in unhelpful definitions of “human rights violations.”
The were hundreds of dead civilians as a result of the war. There would have been thousands of dead civilians without the war – or so the relief agencies said.
Many observers said it would be a long war. They pointed to the Russian defeat. They pointed to Vietnam and used the word “quagmire.” Bush was right and they were wrong. He deserves all the credit in the world, in this case. Whether he was smart or lucky or had good advisors, I do not know. Maybe most of his kibitzers were military ignoramuses, so it was easy for Bush to out-think them. There are plenty of pundits who are bright, and who write and speak very well, but who know little about military strategy. Their statements are apt to sound a lot better than Bush’s, even thought they may not know what they’re talking about.
At a quick glance, I didn’t find a smoking gun, either. But, their Gitmo statements were humiliating. The statements were bad enough when fairly unlikely suspicions of US atrocities were discussed as if there were evidence. AI’s continuation of these statements after they had been shown to be false was just bizarre.
Anymore, reading a december thread is like reading Ayn Rand.
It feels better when you stop.
To Collounsbury and whoever else may be interested:
I wasn’t going to do this in this thread, as it seems to be wildly off-kilter anyway, but perhaps this is better after all.
As I said to Arnold Winkelried, I think yesterday was my day for talking out of my ass about things I’m largely ignorant of. I spoke inadvisably and hastily about Sharia law and Amnesty International, and I didn’t have a firm grasp on my subject matter. The reproof I received yesterday has made me research both subjects more carefully, and while there are things about each that still do not sit well with me, I won’t be ignorantly spouting blanket condemnations henceforth.
Thanks for the correction, guys.
Ogre you’re cool!
Live and learn, however it is not really all that off-base to critique Sharia law as it is usually found. The problem is one of framing. AI is taking a clever approach to an ugly problem – the ugly problem being that on a superficial level the political banner of Sharia law appeals broadly to Muslims in the Arab world at least. Now, this is one of those things where folks like the name – makes em feel all warm and fuzzy to be good and true to the religion, but don’t like the specifics. AI, rather than sounding like another western organization with a tin-ear to the cultural has taken the clever tack of not bashing the symbol, but attacking the substance, which is to say the retrograde reading of Islamic jurisprudence that the Islamists promote as ‘Sharia law.’
Now, one has to note that (a) any legal body with 1000 years of accumulated and regionally variated jurisprudence is going to have a lot of contradictory crap in it (b) and a lot of it is medieval in form (although the legal spirit, as I noted is not incompatible with modern ideas, much of the fact is). It strikes me AI is taking the clever angle of being pro-‘Sharia’ as a cultural issue, anti-Sharia as a matter of opposing the obscurantist forms which are what is actually promoted.
Your response was understandable.