In this thread there was much discussion around specific allegations in the Amnesty International report released today. However, even more important than the specific allegations are the conclusions AI has drawn.
I have always believed that aggressive and invasive foreign policy breeds hostility and resentment. What do you all think? Has the war on terror made the world a safer place or are things more explosive now than ever? Also, keep in mind, that security for the State does not equal security for its citizens.
The war on terror did not kill 3000 american citizens and knock down the WTC. Terrorists did. Since then, about 4 million people died of malnutrition or murder in the DR Congo. The war on terror had nothing to do with that. These scare tactics by the left make me sick. Too bad Amnesty Intn’l has to play the political card to make headlines.
Spite, likely those 4 million people would have died either way. Try looking at the question like this: has the war on terror made it more likely that American’s will die in a future attack?
I beleive the war on terror has saved American lives. Can I prove it? nope. There is evidence out there that suggests so. Americans have died in the past without the “war on terror”. If anything, it is our support for Israel and our hegemony and mere presense in the Mideast is what is making it more likely Americans will die in the future. That is what the terrorists have said from their very mouths. So why would you want to change the blame to the war on terror?
This might be splitting hairs, but I don’t feel it’s the war on terror that is responsible for that but rather the way it is being handled. The elimination of terrorists and their means to conduct attacks can only be a good thing, but a lack of clearly defined goals and parameters plus a failure to address concerns, both domestic and abroad, of excessiveness is what leads to abuses. Further, by not taking steps to make amends for the occasional abuse and/or to condemn others from doing so, (as hypocritical as that may be), it does encourage less scrupulous groups into twisting it for their own ends. Overall, the WoT is a needed plan with good intentions but sloppy execution.
That being said, ::shakes fist:: KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!
(Ah, now I feel better, if slightly geekier.)
I’d be interested in hearing what AI thinks are the 3 biggest problems facing the world today and who is causing those problems. I think that would spell out very clearly whether or not that organization has a grip on reality or not.
FIghting terror is the only way to beat terror. You can’t appease the people who believe that they are fighting infidels for Allah’s sake. Well, I guess you could if you converted, but that’s out of the question for most of us.
That being said, the methods used might not always be wise. And we also have geopolitical interests which often prevent us from fighting terrorism in the best ways possible. One such handicap is our dependence on foreign oil. So even though Saudi Arabia is a big sponsor of terrorism, we can’t afford to come down to hard on them because we depend on them so much.
Of course, the AI tends to be myopic even when its not blindly anti-American. I.e, they can truthfully say we’ve made the world worse because it hasn’t healed yet. In other words, by the AI standards, a surgeon operating on a appendix is at fault because his incisions were worse that the pain. Of course, they simply don’t care about what happens when the appendix explodes.
The USA could have fought the terrorists without breaking international law and raising international tensions. The invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot be justified as fighting terrorism to any degree. The only lesson to be learnt by other countries is that the USA is a bully with no regard for international law and will beat the crap out of any country it pleases and the only way to be secure is to be strongly armed, preferably with nuclear weapons.
Brilliant. So you hate an organisation which is “working to protect human rights worldwide”.
I assume the source of your hatred is your perception that they’re biased against the US? I don’t understand why you think this. They list 151 countries and territories in which human rights abuses occured in 2002 in their report . The US is one of those 151 countries. So is the UK, and virtually every other major democracy. All that appearing in their report means is that some human rights violations have occured. Do you honestly think the US is the only major country in the world which hasn’t had any human rights violations at all?
OTOH, it would seem the War on Terror has already killed considerably more than that number of non-combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no end in sight yet. From a strict numbers standpoint, looks like we’ve already exceeded our revenge quota.
In the thread you listed i showed an article written by the head of freedom house saying the war on terror did not stop the promotion of human rights or representative government. The leader of the UN committee against torture chairman said torture rates were decreasing.
As far as aggressive & invasive foreign policy creating resentment, i disagree, partly because i disagree with the mentality that US involvement blanketly causes more harm than good. As long as its not the middle east, i don’t think people dislike us meddling. Read the report what the world thinks in 2002, countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Vietnam or Phillipines have a very favorable view of the US. These are teh countries the US has had the most invovlement in in the 80’s.
Washington dismissed the AI report as ‘without merit’. I’d like to hear the official argument as to why the AI argument was groundless (aside from the paragraph in the article)
As far as the US trying to obtain independence from the ICC, that is necessary so the US doesn’t get railroaded. Thats not a human rights abuse. AI has very little pragmatism.
The UN is supposedly going to pass a resolution on the Congo this week and French, Nigerian, Pakistani & South African peacekeepers will go in. Thats not ignoring the issue.
Amnesty International is an organisation concerned with Human Rights and the abuse of them. They are not there to define and rank any other problems you might see in the world.
Nope you’re wrong. AI is a NGO which is considered a valid point of authority on issues of Human rights abuses and what issues need to be dealt with. If someone asks AI and they say their biggest concerns are trivial and petty then that would speak alot about their credibility.
I think the problem is that Amnesty International used a loaded term like “more dangerous”- to who? I think your average person on the street currently feels more at risk from terrorists than from anti-terrorist measures. Note that I say “currently”- this could change depending on future measures and actions of governments. And there are people in the US in the US, UK, and elsewhere who are truly scared (and justifiably so) of getting a knock on their door from FBI/INS/et al. But if AI had just said that the fight against terrorism is causing people to focus less on human rights abuses in Congo, Nepal, Colombia, etc… I don’t think that there would be a debate- I’d agree. Or that some new anti-terrorist laws have a potential to be abused, I’d concur. But to claim that the world would somehow be safer if the prisoners at Camp X-Ray were freed makes me seriously question their argument. Also, from the article:
My response to this is a heartfelt “meh”. I hope that they don’t consider someone getting the boot from their new country for breaking the law and supporting killers making the world more dangerous.
>> But to claim that the world would somehow be safer if the prisoners at Camp X-Ray were freed makes me seriously question their argument.
The world would be safer for me if every black male between the ages of 16 and 36 were locked up. And yet it is still wrong and makes the world a worse place in the long run. And obviously, a place where you can be locked up without due process is not a place i would call “safe”.
>> Also, from the article: “In Canada, fears increased that people accused of supporting armed Islamist groups were at risk of being deported to countries where they faced a serious risk of torture,” Amnesty said in a news release announcing the report Wednesday.
>> My response to this is a heartfelt “meh”. I hope that they don’t consider someone getting the boot from their new country for breaking the law and supporting killers making the world more dangerous.
Allowing, condoning or encouraging torture makes the world a worse place for all of us and is the sign of a depraved society. You have a very short view of history.
