Amnesty International Map (francais) - USA worst human rights offender.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Dominic Mulligan

Doesn’t really affect the bias though, does it? Why choose to put all six on the USA and four on Israel, yet only put one on Zimbabwe?

You’ll have to ask the owner of the website that. My guess is that the websiet has a political bias.

Now what does that have to do with the credibility of Amnesty International?

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

Nothing

[kellner]

Btw. the actual annual report by Amnesty International includes many complaints not found in the chart.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

@Diogenes the Cynic

However, since it apparently has nothing to do with Amnesty International it’s all a moot point, isn’t? What we may have a established is that there is an anti-American idealogue in France.

It’s the opposite. The blogger is complaining about the map, which was apparently published by a Swiss website Matin Bleu, and derived from information from Reuters and AI. Look at what the blogger says:

Or, à y regarder de plus près, il n’y a aucune logique dans cette image - sauf la volonté délibérée de salir les Etats-Unis. “Now, when you look more closely, there is no logic in this image – except the deliberate desire to smear the United States.”

So who’s at fault here? AI? Reuters? Matin Bleu? Good luck to those with time on their hands to sort it out.

[kellner]

Despite my unimpressive French I subscribed to the online archive of Matin Bleu. The graphic appears in the 6/5/07 edition. Similar graphics on different topics form a regular column. The interesting thing is that all that all the headlines share the same visual style even when different sources are credited but the actual graphics don’t. The impression that I get is that they slap their own headline (light blue background) on existing graphics but of course it’s hard to tell what exactly they got from reuters.

[gonzomax]

We’re number one. We’re number one. Wooo wooo
Actually who can do reprehensible acts on the scale we can.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

Geez, whatever happened to the Amnesty International that I grew up with? The one that was a hard, but fair arbiter of injustice throughout the world during the cold war. Its like that element as replaced with a Wobbly crowd seeking to attack the USA at every turn, whilst forgiving the most atrocious actions of tinpot dictators. Its like the old ‘we’ll just ignore the Soviet client states atrocitites’ crowd went and got jobs at AI during the 90’s or something.

[jjimm]

@Mr. Miskatonic

Geez, whatever happened to the Amnesty International that I grew up with? The one that was a hard, but fair arbiter of injustice throughout the world during the cold war. Its like that element as replaced with a Wobbly crowd seeking to attack the USA at every turn, whilst forgiving the most atrocious actions of tinpot dictators. Its like the old ‘we’ll just ignore the Soviet client states atrocitites’ crowd went and got jobs at AI during the 90’s or something.

a) You haven’t read the thread, have you, and b) Amnesty only started highlighting US abuses in the past fer years when the US started fucking up big-time. If you actually look at the output of Amnesty, it in no way seeks “to attack the USA at every turn”. It is pretty even-handed.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@jjimm

a) You haven’t read the thread, have you, and b) Amnesty only started highlighting US abuses in the past fer years when the US started fucking up big-time. If you actually look at the output of Amnesty, it in no way seeks “to attack the USA at every turn”. It is pretty even-handed.

Yah, right. The same Amnesty International that decided to ‘even-handedly’ declare for a new Mumia trial when he was a leftist cause celebre? Their article, though claiming to be ‘fully researched’ was nothing more than the debunked claims by the defense lawyers. Yah, reeeeal even handed there. I know they don’t like the death penalty, but don’t go telling me zebras have polka dots to support that position.

[jjimm]

Whether or not Amnesty had a hard-on for Mumia or not, I fail to see a single cause (one out of many, many thousands of individual cases highlighted, mostly from places like Burma, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, etc. but also including the UK, Ireland, France et al) indicates an organisation “seeking to attack the USA at every turn”. You need more evidence to support your hypothesis.

Do be sure to make it in the context of everything else Amnesty publicizes.

[Baron_Greenback]

C’mon folks, forget this nonsense about Amnesty International. We’re the good guys aren’t we? It’s only those darkies who ever really do anything wrong. Pffft, fuck 'em. Everything we do is in support of freedom and democracy! And we are sure as shit telling them that, oh yes…

How many centuries of human rights evolution are our current elected masters, and their dribbling supporters, burning up?

[GIGObuster]

@Mr. Miskatonic

Yah, right. The same Amnesty International that decided to ‘even-handedly’ declare for a new Mumia trial when he was a leftist cause celebre? Their article, though claiming to be ‘fully researched’ was nothing more than the debunked claims by the defense lawyers. Yah, reeeeal even handed there. I know they don’t like the death penalty, but don’t go telling me zebras have polka dots to support that position.

However:

David Wilson: Crime lab investigation

It’s hard to escape forensic science. Hardly a day goes by without news of some offender being caught by yet another new DNA profiling technique that allows a “cold case” to be solved from years ago. Offenders like John Lloyd, the rapist and shoe fetishist who preyed on women between 1983 and 1986, and who was convicted this month on DNA evidence. Even so, on the day Lloyd was sent down, a juror in the case of Barry George - who was given a life sentence in 2001 for the murder of Jill Dando - broke her silence to say she had felt “tricked” into convicting George. She would find support in her ambivalence from a number of forensic scientists who now claim that the forensic evidence his conviction rested on - which related to gunpowder residue - should be dismissed as “unreliable”.

One of the big items that convicted Mumia was the evidence on gunpowder residue. I was on the camp that Mumia was guilty, but I have to admit the moment I heard that nowadays gunpowder residue evidence is not the slam dunk that it was, that then that pesky "shadow of a doubt’ thing comes forth.

[gonzomax]

@Mr. Miskatonic

Yah, right. The same Amnesty International that decided to ‘even-handedly’ declare for a new Mumia trial when he was a leftist cause celebre? Their article, though claiming to be ‘fully researched’ was nothing more than the debunked claims by the defense lawyers. Yah, reeeeal even handed there. I know they don’t like the death penalty, but don’t go telling me zebras have polka dots to support that position.

Not the message. It is the messenger. When they pointed at other countries like Russia and China ,they were so good. Whats gone wrong with them.
Could be ,whats gone wrong with us?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@GIGObuster

However:
Crime lab investigation | David Wilson | The Guardian
One of the big items that convicted Mumia was the evidence on gunpowder residue. I was on the camp that Mumia was guilty, but I have to admit the moment I heard that nowadays gunpowder residue evidence is not the slam dunk that it was, that then that pesky "shadow of a doubt’ thing comes forth.

I don’t want to hijack anymore, but:

You are completely wrong, gunpowder residue had nothing to do with Mumia’s conviciton. Absolutely, nothing. He was never tested for it, and his scuffle with cops after the shooting made any such test useless. I would say you are talking about a completely different trial.

Mumia was convicted by witnesses, ballistic evidence, his revolver with empty shells that matched those found in Faulkner, the fact that Faulkner shot him, and the fact that there was absolutely no one else in the area who could have shot Faulkner exept Mumia’s own brother.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@gonzomax

Not the message. It is the messenger. When they pointed at other countries like Russia and China ,they were so good. Whats gone wrong with them.
Could be ,whats gone wrong with us?

They used to point at Russia and China, but they also pointed at our own little tinpots with deathsquads such as El Salvador. They were right to do so. Now they seem to pass over the tinpots in order to attack the US. Its as if the lack of a big opressive target such as the USSR means they have to almost invent one. That seems to be the USA more and more often.

[GIGObuster]

@Mr. Miskatonic

I don’t want to hijack anymore, but:

You are completely wrong, gunpowder residue had nothing to do with Mumia’s conviciton. Absolutely, nothing. He was never tested for it, and his scuffle with cops after the shooting made any such test useless. I would say you are talking about a completely different trial.

Mumia was convicted by witnesses, ballistic evidence, his revolver with empty shells that matched those found in Faulkner, the fact that Faulkner shot him, and the fact that there was absolutely no one else in the area who could have shot Faulkner exept Mumia’s own brother.

:smack:
Ok, this time I did remember wrong, you are correct. (I think I did remember wrong because articles had make a big deal about it, the big deal was indeed that the test was not performed, even more useless now)

[GIGObuster]

@Mr. Miskatonic

They used to point at Russia and China, but they also pointed at our own little tinpots with deathsquads such as El Salvador. They were right to do so. Now they seem to pass over the tinpots in order to attack the US. Its as if the lack of a big opressive target such as the USSR means they have to almost invent one. That seems to be the USA more and more often.

On the other hand, my memory did not betray me when I did a :dubious: take on you saying that “they used to point at Russia and China” implying that they are not doing that nowadays.

http://www.nysun.com/article/54099
Amnesty International: Russia, China Break Arms Embargo on Sudan

Sudan has carried out numerous air strikes against civilian targets in Darfur, in breach of a no-fly agreement signed in 2004. Four years of civil war between the Arab-dominated regime and black African rebels have forced at least two million people to flee their homes and claimed about 300,000 lives, either from violence, starvation, or disease. Russia and China “cannot have been unaware of reports of serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law by the Sudanese security forces,” says the report. “But they have nevertheless continued to allow military equipment to be sent to Sudan.”

Amnesty adds that both countries “have been or should have been aware” that “several types of military equipment, including aircraft, have been deployed by the Sudanese armed forces for direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks in Darfur.”

Well, they do too and now.

[jjimm]

@Mr. Miskatonic

They used to point at Russia and China, but they also pointed at our own little tinpots with deathsquads such as El Salvador. They were right to do so. Now they seem to pass over the tinpots in order to attack the US. Its as if the lack of a big opressive target such as the USSR means they have to almost invent one. That seems to be the USA more and more often.

No. They still point at Russia and China. They also point at the US, which is the point at which American people who are insular notice them. Just look at their bleedin’ website will you!?

Or since you’re apparently too lazy, here’s a precis of just the Amnesty website front page as it stands right now:

US (illegal CIA detentions)
Horn of africa (rendition of women and children between Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya)
Iraq (honor killings)
Women at risk (abortion rights in general)
Sri Lanka (human rights inspection being denied)
Greece (traffickers and victims being treated the same)
Palestine (civilians under siege in West Bank)
G8 (African human rights)
EU (ensure protection of human rights defenders)

Are they passing “over the tinpots in order to attack the US”?

No.

Are they “seeking to attack the USA at every turn”?

No.

Are they mentioning the US?

Yes.

Oh noes! Sheesh.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

I stand corrected on the targets of Amnesty International. But feel free to call me lazy some more if it makes you feel better.

In fairness, my exposure to the AI of my younger years seemed to have much more ‘spread’ by the time the info reached the mainstream media. Perhaps it is a product of our outraged blog culture that only the complaints about the USA get any press.

Also, I would say that the ‘message’ seems to be much more written for salaciousness. My experience of AI in the 80’s was that they were very methodical, factual, and even handed. The authors would never have produced an article like the one about the 39 missing people ( or that abomination Mumia article). I’m not saying that they are wrong (far from it!), but the presentation seems to almost be determined to push buttons, and not always the right buttons.

[BrainGlutton]

Earlier thread on alleged “political bias” of AI.