Glad to see that my montly donation is being used to cite the obvious.
Depends on where you live and which side you’re on, now doesn’t it? “Safe” is a subjective term. Millions of people are currently “safe” from one danger, but suddenly “not safe” from other dangers - prime examples of this are the virtual anarchy are warlord-ruled areas of Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, by “safe” do you mean “better off?” Certainly, a radical Muslim extremist in Iraq is “safer” and arguably “better off” now. That also means that a secularist Iraqi is “less safe” and arguably “worse off” now.
As an American, I don’t feel any more safe. In fact, I feel less safe, because now there are a lot more pissed off people out there, with a lot more justification to their cause. If some radical Iraqi group launches a retaliation attack on an American city, who the hell are we to complain about it?
Short-term, yes. Long-term, ask us in 2010. Bush has always said the WOT is a long-term job.
The news here is that AI is willing to damage their credibility as an impartial source. Which, for those of us think there are no impartial sources, is a good thing.
I disagree. There seems to be two ways of dealing with things like this these days. One, smear campaign. Two, pretend like it doesn’t exist, and change the subject as quickly and vehemently as possible (or just outright ignore it).
I’m sure Bush’s puppet handlers would love for there to be a perpetual war from now into eternity, it’s good for business after all. Destabilizing things in Iraq while we already had our fingers in a dozen other pots only helps to ensure this.
I fail to see how AI denouncing what happened in Iraq makes them a partial source. They are here to denounce all violations of human dignity on this planet, not ignore those that are not politicaly expedient for the US. They are merely stating the facts, that the current situation in Iraq does alot of harm.
Until you show me that AI does not denounce human rights violations done by other countries, I’ll assume you are talking out of your arse.
This is true. But there would be no way to run an operation that included urban fighting and occupation that would pass their muster. Such things will always entail some violations of human dignity. Thus the justifiable conclusion that these violations are beyond the pale and that the end result is a more dangerous place for all for a long time to come, gets discounted by the fact that you knew AI would say that no matter what.
This is not defense of this whole debacle, just a critique of the effectiveness of AI as an advocacy group when their bar is set so very very high.
“The global security agenda promulgated by the US Administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle. Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses have neither increased security nor ensured liberty.”
From the AI mission statement on its website:
“AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.”
AI’s statement as noted in the OP makes sweeping conclusions about the failure of U.S. policy, going well beyond condemnation of human rights violations, and does so in what will be viewed as an election-year attempt to influence U.S. politics. In doing so it has arguably violated its stated mission and compromised its image of nonpartisanship.
I am not in major disagreement with its conclusions (for instance, I think the U.S. security picture has worsened beyond the immediate term thanks to Administration policies (or lack of them).
I have to agree with tagos.
And that this is an election year should neither persuade nor dissuade AI from saying its piece. Protecting the US’ feelings is not the same as being impartial.
Well, you did acknowledge it’s “arguable”. Note, though, that for them to stay *silent * one year out of four would *also * “be viewed as an election-year attempt to influence U.S. politics”, although it would be different people doing the viewing. Wouldn’t a non-partisan organization say what they think needs to be said in *disregard * of electoral schedules? And isn’t that what they’re doing?
I still see nothing in AI’s stated mission that relates to opposing military operations that do not have official U.N. sanction, or to making conclusions about the success or failure of a nation’s policies - whether or not it’s an election year. If the organization is intent on broadening its focus to that extent, it also risks diffusing its impact and creating perceptions that it engages in politics.
This news release potentially will be more harmful to AI than it will to GWB.
I’m sure the report has nothing to do with the upcoming election, actually I think that would turn out counter-productive. As stated by other posters, AI doesn’t differentiate between Country A abusing 1000 people or Country B abusing 5 people. They call abuse when they see it, period. Hell, even Scandinavian countries gets criticized for some of the things they do, and they don’t get around much. What’s new is Bush’s doctrine about pre-emptive use of military force, which I suspect has factored in this time around.
FWIW, AI repeatedly condemned Saddam’s regime and they did so long before the press or the West paid him any attention. It’s not like they say that the US is as worse - of course they aren’t.
btw, Bill Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, was online with the Post a couple of days ago taking questions from readers about this years report, including several questions similar to those in this thread: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58376-2004May26.html
Oh, come on. Anyone who is going to listen to AI will see this as normal, anyone who isn’t going to listen to AI doesn’t matter anyway. It is hard NOT to politicize when you’re talking about human rights abuses. I’m sure you especially wouldn’t have given a damn if AI had released a report on Saddam Hussein during an Iraqi election year. Do you expect the world to stop spinning because it is an American election year?
I have to admit that I have not read a lot of AI press releases. Can you guys give me one example of a political paragraph like the one Jackmannii quoted? Do they often make sweeping statements about an administration? I thought they mostly concentrated on specific human rights abuses. Was I wrong?