Amnesty International: US has made the world a more dangerous place

[Rashak_Mani]

@furt

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.

The funny thing is that Amnesty International was a typical NGO that helped criticize commie countries and other less savoury dictators. The US govt. probably loved them in the past. Now its AI and the Red Cross criticizing the US instead of nasty 3rd world countries... and many 3rd world countries feeling they are a "bit off the hook" and wrongly so. Talk about setting a bad example...

 As for the WOT being a long-term job... I actually agree with Bush. Pity his policies don't reflect that. If it were long term he would be valuing diplomacy and cooperation over invading Iraq and hunting down terrorists so rabidly. Arab opinion would also be essential in a long term struggle with Terrorism.

[Zagadka]

@Rashak Mani

The funny thing is that Amnesty International was a typical NGO that helped criticize commie countries and other less savoury dictators. The US govt. probably loved them in the past. Now its AI and the Red Cross criticizing the US instead of nasty 3rd world countries… and many 3rd world countries feeling they are a “bit off the hook” and wrongly so. Talk about setting a bad example…

As a member of AI and a former employee of the Red Cross…

AI has always criticized the United States, especially over the death penalty and other incarcerations. Their Annual Report has listed the US as a major human rights violator for decades. The difference is that before, the commies were worse. Now, America is in the spotlight (well, technically, China is, but we’re right behind them). AI never bent to favor any country or ideology over any other. The thing is, we just never hear of the AI reports about other countries, so we think they are attacking us.

As for the Red Cross… well, they don’t have much beef with anyone, since they are a neutral medical service. But they have been getting increasingly upset with America, after we started bombing their compounds and kicking them out of places. They don’t take kindly to stuff like that, because their entire premise is to take care of the people, not get involved in the conflict.

As for the WOT being a long-term job… I actually agree with Bush. Pity his policies don’t reflect that. If it were long term he would be valuing diplomacy and cooperation over invading Iraq and hunting down terrorists so rabidly. Arab opinion would also be essential in a long term struggle with Terrorism.

Bush wouldn’t know diplomacy if it bit him in the ass. The best thing to do would have been to unite a great number of countries together and fight terrorism using international networks, influencing nations that harbored terrorists to turn them over or tip us off, etc. Give them nowhere to hide. Make a neighborhood watch, if you will.

Now, we just basically pissed off everyone in the neighborhood and ensured that none of them will lift a finger the next time someone breaks into our house.

[Rashak_Mani]

Zagadka I don’t doubt AI has been pestering the US… my point was more that the US has used the “human rights” card to push their diplomatic agenda quite a few times in the past… and now ironically they are smack in the spotlight for abuses. Actually reminds me that old attempt at portraying Brazil and 3rd world countries as destroying the environment… that backfired nicely too.

Do notice that the bad part is that all sorts of countries, including Brazil, kind of feel a bit off the hook as regards their own human rights abuses since self rightoeous US is getting bashed. Human rights overall loses with this bad sample of US rights abuses… example: Brazil is rightly being criticized for police brutality… and all we see our comments saying we’re just as bad as the US, instead of facing that we have a terrible police problem.

[hildea]

@pervert

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?

Sure. Let’s see, from Europe and Central Asia Regional Overview - Covering events from January to December 2003:

@Amnesty International

Governments across Europe and Central Asia continued to use the so-called “war on terror” to undermine human rights in the name of security. Among the steps taken by governments were regressive moves on “anti-terrorist” legislation, attacks on refugee protection, and restrictions on freedom of association and expression. Simplistic rhetoric about security, immigration and asylum, together with an upsurge in populism, bolstered racism and discriminatory practices towards minorities across the region. The lack of political will shown by the European Union (EU) to confront human rights violations within its own borders was increasingly disturbing, particularly in light of the planned accession of 10 new member states in 2004. Those responsible for violations, including torture or ill-treatment, continued to enjoy impunity.

Addressing specific countries, for instance:

@Amnesty International

’War on terror’

Under the auspices of combating “terrorism” governments continued to undermine human rights in law and practice. By the end of the year, 14 foreign nationals who could not be deported remained interned in the United Kingdom (UK) under legislation that allowed for indefinite detention without charge or trial, principally on the basis of secret evidence. Those detained in the UK under “anti-terrorism” legislation were held in high-security facilities under severely restricted regimes.

Spain continued to ignore long-standing recommendations by various international bodies to introduce greater safeguards for suspects held under “anti-terrorist” legislation, and indeed planned to more than double the time which certain people could be held incommunicado. The authorities also closed the only entirely Basque-language newspaper and 10 people associated with it were held under “anti-terrorist” legislation in moves that appeared to be injurious to the right to freedom of expression.

The authorities in Uzbekistan used the “war on terror” to justify a continuing clampdown on religious and political dissent. At least 6,000 political prisoners remained in jail there and members of independent Islamic congregations were among those who faced detention and intimidation. In Turkmenistan, a wave of repression continued, following an alleged assassination attempt in November 2002 on the President, with scores of 198 people convicted after blatantly unfair trials amid credible allegations of torture and ill-treatment.

Government efforts to limit asylum provisions and immigration benefited from the new language of “national security” and “counter-terrorism”, with an emphasis on control rather than protection. In Italy, for example, there were fears that some asylumseekers were forced to return to countries where they risked grave human rights violations and that some individuals, expelled on grounds that they posed a danger to national security and public order, had no opportunity to challenge the decision in fair proceedings. The human rights perspective remained lacking from the thinking of the EU on asylum, which continued to promote a further sealing off of the EU at the expense of international protection obligations.

US is not alone at this party, it’s just one of the more prominent guests.

[blowero]

C’mon, everyone knows the rules only apply to other countries.

[casdave]

The point about AI seeming to let other HR abusers off the hook because it is criticising US policy and behaviour is a strange tack to take.

AI is not about determining who is worse than who, it is not about trying to set a p[riority whereby the cpotlight gets put on one nation above others, this is not AI’s role.

If you feel this is distracting from abuses in other nations, perhaps the US should now realise that it is well on the way to joining the club of HR abusers, both in scope and severity.

Tha might seem like a strong statement, but invading an nation which posed no threat, killing thousands of its citizens, even if not deliberate is still a matter of fact, the destruction of infrastructure and the occupation of its territory, along with torture, unlisted detentions etc, all from a nation that protrays itself as an international freedom fighter, these things do not sit well together.

Whan AI criticised the UK over HR abuses in Northern Ireland, I felt at the time it was just propaganda and that AI was biased, perhaps even giving some moral comfort to the terrorist groups there, but I was wrong.
It is not easy to accept that your own government and systems that you have always trusted and believed in are behaving unacceptably, but that report on Ireland showed things as they were and not as I naiively thought they were.
Maybe some of you need to just look at the information and reports by AI in a differant light.

AI has no political agenda here, it has nothing to gain politically in terms of election and is making its report based on the same standards of evidence as it used when reporting on Saudi Arabia, UK, Spain or anywhere else for that matter.

The US administration does have a dog in the fight, it is seeking releection soon, it can be held directly responsible for its actions and is therefore the one to blame if there is misbehaviour.The US administration has every incentive to try cover up, or to deny wrongdoing and little to gain in the short term by admitting these things.

[chula]

QUOTE=Jackmannii]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.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see where AI mentions anything about opposing the war because it was not authorized by the UN (in this case, meaning that the war violated international law). Most human rights organizations like AI chose not to oppose the war because of its illegality but rather because of the negative impact it would have on human rights. Now that these human rights violations are real and not just presumptive, it’s easier for them to take a stronger stance against the war. Anyway, I don’t understand why you find it strange that a human rights organization might denounce the war for violating international law. The promotion of international human rights law is part of AI’s mission, and the war against Iraq blatantly violated international law.

[chula]

Dammit, must preview…

@Jackmannii

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.

I don’t see where AI mentions anything about opposing the war because it was not authorized by the UN (in this case, meaning that the war violated international law). Most human rights organizations like AI chose not to oppose the war because of its illegality but rather because of the negative impact it would have on human rights. Now that these human rights violations are real and not just presumptive, it’s easier for them to take a stronger stance against the war. Anyway, I don’t understand why you find it strange that a human rights organization might denounce the war for violating international law. The promotion of international human rights law is part of AI’s mission, and the war against Iraq blatantly violated international law.