Ann Coulter, good looking? I’m reminded of the comment by the narrator of Fight Club about a woman in his cancer support group: “Chloe looked how Meryl Streep’s skeleton would look if you made it smile and walk around the party being extra nice to everyone.”
This thread definitely deserves an award.
Ogre, congratulations on your honesty. The Amnesty International mandate is sometimes confusing even to long-time members. But at least you have taken the trouble to admit your misstatements and research the issue. I know of a poster in this thread that could benefit from your example.
I know of two who could benefit from Ogre’s example. I’m one. I hereby acknowledge all the good that AI does. I hereby admit that:[ul][]I had no basis to suggest that AI might not be using their funds wisely and efficiently.[]AI has done agreat deal of good. []AI brings together people of good will, who fight against human rights violations around the world. [/ul]The other poster might want to acknowledge an appearance of prejudice against Israel and the US. In particular, he could acknowledge that [ul][]AI’s 2002 Annual Report critized Israel for holding “Political Prisoners,” using their own definition of the term, but failed to warn readers about their special usage.[]The 2002 Report left an incorrect impression that Israel had arrested a large number of Palestinians without a valid reason. []AI incorrectly suggested that US treatment of Gitmo prisoners was improper. AI continued to make such suggestions even after an ICRC visit had shown no such problem.[/ul]
Is Ann Coulter better looking than AI? Here are two photos of Annie http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/coulter/2002/ac06-06-02.htm
Now if someone can link to photos of AI bigwigs, then posters can decide for themselves…
“Say, Oedipus, could I borrow that brooch when yer done with it?”
Even better, if we have a resident Freudian on the boards, perhaps we can discuss the “ours are bigger than theirs” aspect of the linked column. Perhaps Ms. Coulter would like to visit Kuala Lampur 
I could be mistaken, but I always thought that Kimstu was a she.
special usage? It seems like several other people in this thread agree with their usage. It seems like a common usage to me. Do you know of another human rights organization that defines “political prisoner” differently? In any case, if you had bothered to read the explanatory text in the report you would have seen the difference in the actions AI takes on behalf of a prisoner of conscience vs. a political prisoner. Of course that would have deprived you of the pleasure of an unjustified rant.
Maybe to someone reading it with your bias perhaps. But any reasonable reader will not get that impression. Here’s what the report says:
Of course, december reads “several” and immediately thinks “large number”.
Your past history of erroneous/uninformed statements impels me to ask you: cite?
a) What does the AI report say?
b) What statements are inaccurate?
c) What proof do you have that the statements are inaccurate?
Arnold Winkelried, I will answer your points as best I can. Your quotes are bold-faced.
<<I could be mistaken, but I always thought that Kimstu was a she. >>
I know that she is.
<<special usage [defintion of political prisoner]? It seems like several other people in this thread agree with their usage. It seems like a common usage to me.>>
True, but it differs from the dictionary definition, which I’ve posted twice. You accused me of making “erroneous/uninformed statements”, but you ignored the correct/informed definitions, which I copied from the dictionary. Third and last time:
- A person who has been imprisoned for holding or advocating dissenting political views.
- Someone who is imprisoned because of their political views
**<<Do you know of another human rights organization that defines “political prisoner” differently?>> **
I checked only the dictionary. That ought to be enough.
<< In any case, if you had bothered to read the explanatory text in the report you would have seen the difference in the actions AI takes on behalf of a prisoner of conscience vs. a political prisoner. >>
BINGO! That’s my point. AI has chosen their own definitions for “political prisoner” and “prisoner of conscience” – definitions that correspond to certain AI actions.
So what? one might ask. Lots of organizations have specialized, precise meanings for certain terms. I answer that there are two problems:
-
“Political prisoner” is a charged phrase. Many reader would incorrectly assume that Israel had 2000 political prisoners, as definded by the dictionary. AI ought to have bent over backwards to tell the reader that they were using a term of art.
-
The specialized definition used by AI was omitted from their 2002 Annual Report. ( though it was included in 2001.) Even a careful reader of the 2002 report would have a tough time understading that AI was NOT accusing Israel of holding a large number of people because of their political views.
Let me digress here to explore this distinction further. I can recall when thieves and murderers who belonged to the Black Panthers called themselves “political prisoners” and some of my Berkeley friends bought into that definition. There was some justification, because the BP’s presumably had a political motive for their crimes. (David Horowitz says that was always BS, but that’s another debate.)
According to AI 2001 Report, a Palestinian who attacked Israelis was classified as a “political prisoner,” presumably because the attacks had a political motive. By that token, Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, and all the Watergate conspirators were “political prisoners,” but AI would not use the term for them. The willingness to favor some criminals with the title political prisoner may depend on how sympathetic one is to their cause.
**<<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by december
The 2002 Report left an incorrect impression that Israel had arrested a large number of Palestinians without a valid reason.
Maybe to someone reading it with your bias perhaps. But any reasonable reader will not get that impression. Here’s what the report says:
quote:
(from AI 20002 report)
At least 2,000 Palestinians, including about 100 from Israel and more than 1,900 from the Occupied Territories, were arrested during 2001. Several of those arrested were prisoners of conscience. More than 90 Palestinians were arrested during raids into Area A. Palestinians arrested were frequently held in prolonged incommunicado detention without access to lawyers or family. (bolding mine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>**
The point is, the report gives no reason for these people being arrested, except that “several” were prisoners of conscience.
Suppose the Report had said, “At least 2000 Palestinians were arrested…for murder, attempted murder, assault, and conspiracy to commit murder.” A reader would think, “Why is AI mentioning this? Two thousand suspected criminals, who happened to be Palestinians were arrested. BFD. No doubt lots of Isreaeli criminal suspects were arrested, too.”
For AI to mention the arrests and omit mention of the criminal accusations left the reader to infer that the arrests were improper and might be human rights violations. :
**<<
Originally posted by december
AI incorrectly suggested that US treatment of Gitmo prisoners was improper. AI continued to make such suggestions even after an ICRC visit had shown no such problem.
Your past history of erroneous/uninformed statements impels me to ask you: cite?
a) What does the AI report say?
b) What statements are inaccurate?
c) What proof do you have that the statements are inaccurate?>>**
I discussed these statements at length in SDMB at the time Gitmo was being set up. Just using Google, here’s AI raising the possibility that the US might be mistreating Gitmo prisoners.
This is from April, 2002.
For AI to call for a certain standard of treatment is to imply that they may not be receiving that treatment. I object to that statment, because numerous visits from reporters as well as an audit by theICRC have comfirmed the actual treatment of prisoners. This example answers your a,b,c.
BTW, regarding (b), AI’s statement isn’t false, but it leads to a false impression. E.g., suppose an official AI Report said, “AI has repetedly called for Arnold Winkelried to follow internationally accepted standards of goat-felching.” That would leave an unfair impression.
december, there are no errors of fact. But you choose to extract out of sentences a meaning which the original sentence does not have.
I hereby withdraw from the debate and leave you master of the battlefield.
AW: *I could be mistaken, but I always thought that Kimstu was a she. *
I am, and have been from my birth. I’m a little confused about this reference, is somebody expecting me to say something here?
december: *The willingness to favor some criminals with the title political prisoner may depend on how sympathetic one is to their cause. *
As I already noted in a post on the previous page, the AI report uses that exact same term “political prisoner” in an exactly parallel manner to refer to certain prisoners held by the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. I don’t believe that most reasonable people would conclude that the usage was coined specifically to produce a negative impression of Israel.
Arnold - ??? You’re giving up so soon? after resurectting a thread (see the **Collounsbury ** thread) I realized that I’ve been butting heads w/our friend here for a year.
and, ya know, after a period of adjustment, banging your head against your monitor starts to feel good. 
Well wring I’ve been kind of a butthead in this thread myself. december isn’t so bad. We disagree mostly on matters of interpretation, and I don’t have the time to argue about it - I limit myself to so many hours per day for SDMB duties. Which is why I don’t go into Great Debates that much.
just to be clear butting heads =/ butthead.
Twisted afactual analysis driven largely by pre-conceived conclusion is not “interpretation” it’s bloody deliberate ignorance. December is not a bad fellow, he entertains me from time to time, but his bizarro world view, driven as purely as one can get by ideology, is tedious and unfortunate. You should not allow his inexplicable misreadings of fact and text to be compared with your own – and I say this given our own disagreements in re HR and policy as you may recall.
It is bloody time consuming.
HAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahaha!
Boy, that’s funny. Coming from an actuary, no less.
If a human rights supporter hates
Israel and the United States.
Working for Amnesty International
Is totally rational.
Was it John John who started spouting little snippets of doggerel at one point in his career? Or were those simply totally off-topic aphorisms?
I’m bringing this thread back to life to share a remarkable demand by AI.
AI’s position makes a kind of formal, Kafka-esque sense. This guy wasn’t charged by the Palestinians, so he should be released.
OTOH releasing him would violate the recent agreement beteen Arafat and Sharon.
More importantly, this man is an admitted terrorist and assassin. If he’s released, he’s likely to kill more civilians.
It’s hard to understand AI’s position. It seems surprising to see an international organization supporting a Palestinian terrorist even more than the PA does.
One possibility is that they have chosen to simply ignore the context of the Middle East situation. They might be stupidly making a demand based on purely formalistic, bureaucratic reasoning.
Another possible explanation would be that they don’t care if Israelis get murdered.
A third possibility is that they expect Arafat to release this terrorist leader, regardless. This seems likely to me. In the past, Arafat has had a revovling door for arrested terrorists. By now demanding Ahmed Sa’adat’s release on human rights grounds :eek:, they’re giving Arafat an excuse to renege on his agreement.
I cannot think an explanation less unflattering to AI than these three.