I cna’t see any legal arguments in the ink you cited:
calling them enemies of humanity is hardly a legal argument. It is clear that the US IS acting illegally under the Geneva Convention, unlawful combatant is a made up term, as which laws did they break by fighting for the Taleban?
Failure to wear uniforms, for one.
I’m not really familiar with how AI works, just seen snippets of their articles from time to time. I would give them credence if they routinely published something like a 10 Most Wanted List, which outlines the countries with the most severe human rights abuses. Just seems like they’re spreading themselves too thin if they’re focusing on “reports of police brutality” instead of seeking our actually instances of major human rights abuses, of which there are helaciously many in this world.
Every country has some area that could be improved. I’d probably create a few categories along the lines of:
1, Human Rights basket cases (eg: the former Iraq)
2. Much improvement needed (eg: Cuba)
3. Above average, but still lacking in some key areas (eg: Turkey)
4. Overall a good a record (eg: Canada)
Trying to determine if, for example, France or the US have more or fewer human rights abuses is a pretty meaningless endeavor. The world should be so lucky that every person on earth lived under a gov’t like one in either of those countries. That’s the message AI should be getting out there.
I guess you are judging by numbers and you have a point but I am concerned with the fact that some things are even done and even acceptable. When a woman in some third world country is condemned to be stoned to death because she had a child out of wedlock, the entire world is outraged, and rightly so. The fact that it is only one woman does not detract from the fact that the practice is wrong. But, of course, it is better if “only” one woman suffers this than if many suffer it. But the mere fact that a country allows one single person to suffer a wrong means the country is condoning or even perpretrating that wrong and that is also wrong.
I am glad to hear that. Things must be getting better in some other places.
I guess my point is that just saying there are worse places is not a good excuse in my eyes. I do believe human rights are rights above any government and every country and government should strive to that ideal. The fact that the situation in the USA has deteriorated is not good and should be corrected.
>> Failure to wear uniforms, for one.
december, you realize American soldiers have been doing the same thing in Afghanistan and in Iraq?
Note: nothing about uniforms
That paragraph is about the apprehension of an individual known al-Qaida operative.
You are quite wrong, december. The piece you site - it’s an opinion piece, not a legal opinion - goes to the issue of whether a competent tribunal would find these prisoners to be POWs. As I said, that’s debatable. But, as I said, what’s not debatable is that the Conventions say that until found not to be a POW by a competent tribunal, persons held must be afforded POW status. You will note that that is exactly the point made in the Amnesty International report.
I should of added these other catergories:
As you can see they fall into several of these catergories.
This is circular logic. We can’t declare war on non-military personel and then call them “unlawful combatants” on the other hand. WE attacked THEM, after all.
And how do you know this? Ever heard of Denmark? Does this sound “better” than any group in “history”? Or is that statement merely uneducated hyperbole?
This is a semantic quibble. I think you think they mean “criminal arrest”. They were detained, nonetheless. This falls under the term “arrest”.
If they’re POWs, maybe not. If they’re criminals, then they do. But they’re neither, are they? They’re some fabricated definition that, while it may just about scrape through US law, is pretty damned unjust.
Please show me where this is agreed. Since the ICRC itself doesn’t release this information, please tell me how you found this out.
Well, the use of the passive voice here is presumably for brevity, but I can give you the subjects of the sentence: the international media, AI themselves, other Human Rights Watch, me, and others. And you know what the concerns are: handing over of prisoners to countries that have repressive and torturous means of extracting information that the US prefers not to use, and turning a blind eye to those methods.
The clue’s in the question - “incommunicado” for a start. Nobody knows they’re there. Nobody knows what’s happening to them. That sounds like deprivation to me.
That’s a matter of opinion. I find it barbaric, and that is also AI’s stance.
The statement I’ve highlighted is utter, utter bullshit, december. If every country in the world were fucking up thus, it would still be Amnesty’s duty to point it out. That’s why the group exists. To assist human rights across the board.
I still don’t get this - do you read AI’s reports on other countries? Read the one on Irish jails, that yojimbo mentioned. On other Western countries? They’re critical of everywhere that’s got low standards of human rights. I just don’t get why you think this. Could you or smiling bandit give us examples of AI turning a blind eye to abuses that don’t “fit their political agenda”. Or is it, simplistically, because it’s your country that’s being criticised that you perceive bias?
I’d say that cutting off all contact with their families is pretty damned deprivative and cruel. Even death row inmates are allowed to see their families.
December, Amnesty International has a well-earned reputation for giving solid evidence of their findings. I don’t know of an organization that is more respected world wide.
Your links are very vague. But do let us know when these organizations have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
If you aren’t aware of widespread use of police brutality, then you have been living in an ivory tower far away from inner city streets. I could tell you horror stories.
Got a citation to support that assertion? No, of course you don’t. That never stopped you before, right? AI, as its very purpose, has a hard-on for human-rights abuses.
This argument makes no sense. Amnesty International’s mission is to highlight human rights abuses, not serve as as PR flack for the Greatest Country on Earth™.
Many things make no sense when taken out of context. You picked one sentence out of my post and missed the main thrust. Pointing out human rights abuses is nice. If that’s all AI wants to do, then I guess they have accomplished that goal. Doing something about improving the situation in the world re: human rights is another thing entirely. In order to do that, it would make sense to focus ones efforts where they are needed most. Once a country reaches a high level of human rights standard (you can define that however you want), you become more of a gadfly by nitpicking. Go ahead and do a human rights audit for all countries, but use the 80/20 rule if you want to make an impact.
Oh, yeah, forgot this.
It only took a a couple seconds to locate AI’s facts and figures summary for 2002.
Look toward the bottom of the page. Note that the USA appears in four categories of the eight listed: “tortured or ill-treated”, “arbitrarily arrested and detained”, “sentenced to death” and “executions carried out”. No one can plausibly deny that there were events in the USA in 2002 that fit those categories, and the US is only one of dozens of nations listed.
So where’s that ‘hard-on for the United States’, exactly?
My aplogies; mistyped the url. Heres the correct one:
Since Amnesty International is worldwide, it can focus on many countries at one time – and it does. Dopers will have a difficult time finding much support for an anti-AI stance by any reputable organization.
Why did the Pentagon distribute manuals obout torture techniques to the U.S. Army? Why were soldiers in Central and South America trained in torture techniques at Fort Benning, Georgia? Such horrors did not begin with the current President, but I wonder if they continue. (They stopped issuing the manuals but did not confiscate the ones already out there.)
Kabong:
Let’s take one example from your cite: “Torture”:
Having a few instances of torture* by a few rogue law enforcment officers is quite different than when it is a state sanctioned activity. If you don’t distinguish this, then you end up with somehting like that summary, which lumps coutries like Switzerland , the US and Australia in with countries like Sudan, N. Korea, and Myanmar. Meaningless.
*for the sake of argument, let’s assume that torture does happen in the US from time to time.
Here’s the summary I’m talking about:
What, is the US suddenly excempt from the rules of the Geneva?