Amnesty International whines again...

[Riptide]

And yes, we're at fault for everything. As usual. :D

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/25/amnesty.report.reut/index.html

LONDON, May 25 (Reuters) -- Four years after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, human rights are in retreat worldwide and the United States bears most responsibility, rights watchdog Amnesty International said on Wednesday.

From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe the picture is bleak. Governments are increasingly rolling back the rule of law, taking their cue from the U.S.-led war on terror, it said.

[saturnotaku]

(whine)

[DiscipleDOC]

That group is full of hypocrites. They whine about the US, but they let countries like Sudan mass murder people that will not convert to islam. How typical.

[vampireuk]

(whine)
.

[UDawg]

As a US citizen, I feel like going out and oppressing some one today. I might even flush a Koran just for kicks.

BTW While I am off topic, does anyone remember when the Taliban (MUSLIMS) blew up those ancient Buhdist satues? Didn't hear any of the liberals cry out about that. How about when Palistinians (MUSLIMS) distoryed the tomb of Joseph. No one said boo about that. I also remember that the bible is banned in most Islamic countries. If you are caught whith one they burn the book, no out cries here either.

I and sick and tired of the world covering for this wretched religion that is Islam. Yet we are told these are just extremists but it happens time and time again. Mean while American is still blasted for having slavery. Nice levity here.

[Riptide]

BTW While I am off topic, does anyone remember when the Taliban (MUSLIMS) blew up those ancient Buhdist satues? Didn't hear any of the liberals cry out about that.Actually I do remember hearing about it. There were a couple organizations that were upset about it. Now was the noise anywhere near Amnesty's whine capacity? Probably not.

[DaveW]

BTW While I am off topic, does anyone remember when the Taliban (MUSLIMS) blew up those ancient Buhdist satues? Didn't hear any of the liberals cry out about that.


Good point


From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe the picture is bleak. Governments are increasingly rolling back the rule of law, taking their cue from the U.S.-led war on terror, it said.

WTF? Afghanistan has women voting now for heavens sake. The people of Afghanistan are a damn lot better off now than they were before.

[CybrSage]

Good point

WTF? Afghanistan has women voting now for heavens sake. The people of Afghanistan are a damn lot better off now than they were before.

NOW you did it! I am telling on you! You just upset the delicate balance of lies and purposeful ignorance. SHAME on you!!

When the Amnesty Internation Nazi Stormtroopers burst in your door, you will have been warned!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Phyre]

...rights watchdog Amnesty International said on Wednesday.

Is that the female variety?

Phyre

[Drumphil]

That group is full of hypocrites. They whine about the US, but they let countries like Sudan mass murder people that will not convert to islam. How typical.

yeah, if only amnesty hadn't "let" saddam do that.

WTF? Afghanistan has women voting now for heavens sake. The people of Afghanistan are a damn lot better off now than they were before.

since when was things being better than they were under the taliban proof that there weren't serious problems. I think amnesty targets the US more heavily, because they are the most powerfull nation, and they they claim to be fighting for "right" and "good". If you do that you can be expected to be held to a higher standard that some random dictator/religious group.

Its not like amnesty international has been silent for years and only just opened their mouth now that the US is involved in a major conflict, just people are paying attention now because they said something bad about the US.

BTW While I am off topic, does anyone remember when the Taliban (MUSLIMS) blew up those ancient Buhdist satues?

yes

Didn't hear any of the liberals cry out about that.

yeah, conservatives were the only people who cared about that. they were protesting in the streets i heard.

How about when Palistinians (MUSLIMS) distoryed the tomb of Joseph. No one said boo about that.

really?

I also remember that the bible is banned in most Islamic countries. If you are caught whith one they burn the book, no out cries here either.

So you say, but what would you proove even if you were right?

What the hell do any of these things have to do with wether or not there are issues with what the US is doing? Why do people keep giving examples of terrible things other have done in response to critisizm of the US. Right and wrong are right and wrong no matter whats been done by someone else. Are the standards of justice and law in the US too good for these other countries. If things are being done that would be illegal in the US with a US citizen, what message does it send when we allow these things in countries we are claiming help.

Also, are people paying attention to whats happening in asian/ex ussr countries in the name of fighting terrorism?? The US sure is restrained on these issues, but amnestys position hasn't changed.

[CybrSage]

Drumphill,

Your arguments would go further if you did a little more than type one word. Usuing "really" as an argument makes it fall flat. You should type "Really" and then post a link showing your intent...in this instance you could post a link to Amnesty International's formal condemnation of the desicration.

Also, you can keep in mind that many things said are actually figures of speech. When he said "let them" he meant "let them get away with their actions without raising a ruckus". Of course, you knew that, but just wanted to be difficult, right?

My personal opinion is that AI gets extended coverage whenever they say the US is evil, which is why we hear of it more. When they talk about other places, the US media does not care, so we do not hear about it.

I think what bothers most people about AI is they do not make any distinction between the illegal actions of a few and the state mandated laws and policies of some countries. The Bible being banned by law or state enforced police, and people being mutilated for owning one, is placed at the same level as someone torturing another person illegally. The two are NOT equal, and should not be treated as such, even a child could understand the difference.

[sytaylor]

Amnesty International condems something every week, its just people only notice when it's against them. The media won't get hold of Amnesty International condeming China because its normal, but a large group condeming the behaviour of the USA sticks in the throat and sense of justice of many citizens it would seem. The are very hairy fairy and don't take into account the political realities of a given situation but then, thats not what they are for. That said, if they did give more accurate balanced criticism they would probably be listened to...

[Sazar]

They do a decent job in getting information out. As you say, they have a report out pretty much every day/week condemning violations across the globe of human rights. Only when it is a westernized nation being mentioned is there much media reaction.

Their criticism is often odd BUT they usually make accurate assesments which are borne out once the smoke-screens surrounding many matters subsides.

[CybrSage]

I think my biggest problem with AI is that they are just a bunch of compainers. They do not offer fixes to the problems they mention. Oh sure, they say "Stop that action" but they do not even bother to address the how or what shoudl replace it.

For instance, they condemn the US for having the death penalty. They just say "Stop it" but do not offer any correction, such as "Life in Prison without parole". I am sure they would find that abusive as well.

Same issue with the Bible being banned by governments. What is the solution? Saying "Let the people have Bibles" is stupid. There has to be more than that.

Compliants without potentials fixes is the mark of immaturity.

[KerrAvon]

What the heck does Amnesty International actually do, anyway? The only time I've ever seen any of their members do anything was on Star Trek: The Next Generation, where Patrick Stewart did that whole torture thing on "Chain of Command" to raise awareness for them.

Any excuse for a little publicity, I guess.

[Drumphil]

think my biggest problem with AI is that they are just a bunch of compainers. They do not offer fixes to the problems they mention. Oh sure, they say "Stop that action" but they do not even bother to address the how or what shoudl replace it.

I don't think there are replacements for the things they want stopped. Should they come up with a replacement for torture before they are allowed to "complan" about it?

For instance, they condemn the US for having the death penalty. They just say "Stop it" but do not offer any correction, such as "Life in Prison without parole".

They don't just say 'stop it'. They explain why they believe the death penalty shouldn't be used. I disagree that your example prooves they are complainers because they didn't make a specific suggestion in this case. They aren't trying to take control of us sentencing policy, just making sure that people rights aren't forgotten.

I am sure they would find that abusive as well.

If you say so.

Same issue with the Bible being banned by governments. What is the solution? Saying "Let the people have Bibles" is stupid. There has to be more than that.

How about publicising the issues as much as they can and shaming the governments of the countries involved and governments of other free countries in to exercising whatever influence they have so that these issues don't get forgotten.

Compliants without potentials fixes is the mark of immaturity.

I don't think that complaints best term for what amnesty does. most of what they talk about aren't problems that need fixes invented for them.

[vampireuk]

Amnesty international bitch about the US because they know that if they bitched about any other country they would be in a ditch somewhere, but yet America is evil.

[Son Goku]

Actually, AI's human rights reports aren't just about any one country. Albeit only in the US are citizens of that country allowed to handle human rights abuses that transpire there, as they know people won't be put to death for critisizing the gov (think Saddam gassing his citizens for instance). But there are plenty of members from around the world to cover more then one gov...

And not to mention that one wouldn't want a replacement to beheading to include giving someone concrete shoes and send them to of the river; with both corporations and governments, sometimes the most effective "fix" is a healthy dose of negative PR that obliges them to be responsible and accountable... When knowing "the public is watching" sometimes people are more careful, or don't get the idea "we can get away with anything"... The idea of people writting to Congress and giving their disapproval (or approval) of this or that bill that's going through Congress provides a corollary...

[CybrSage]

I don't think there are replacements for the things they want stopped. Should they come up with a replacement for torture before they are allowed to "complan" about it?

They don't just say 'stop it'. They explain why they believe the death penalty shouldn't be used. I disagree that your example prooves they are complainers because they didn't make a specific suggestion in this case. They aren't trying to take control of us sentencing policy, just making sure that people rights aren't forgotten.

They demand the stop of all executions, yet offer no alternative to them. Thus, they are staying Stop It without offering a viable alternative...or ANY alternative.

Remember, Charles Manson cannot be executed...and comes up for parole every few years. It is possible he will be set free and move next door to you or your family. Do you want that?

How about publicising the issues as much as they can and shaming the governments of the countries involved and governments of other free countries in to exercising whatever influence they have so that these issues don't get forgotten.

Yes, that is called complaining in public.


I don't think that complaints best term for what amnesty does. most of what they talk about aren't problems that need fixes invented for them.

No, they talk about everything they do not like, and many of them might be changed if a viable alternative is given.

Take the death penalty for example. A man rapes and kills 5 children. I say, execute him. AI says do not execute him. What is the alternative? I know, put him in jail for 5 years then give him a house next to a grade school. Nothing less then execution will prevent a pedophile from doing it again. So, what is the alternative to executing him? So far, it is letting him do it again. Not good.

[zakelwe]

Amnesty International are morally right

They might not do much but they are morally right

You might not like what they say because it is about your country but they are morally right

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/zwe-summary-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/cub-summary-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/prk-summary-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/blr-summary-eng

There's some from each continent ..

Now who's going to argue Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea or Belarus's case against Amnesty ?

Udawg, how about you have North Korea, Cybersage Cuba, who would like Belarus ?

As systaylor pointed out, it only hits the news when your own country is pointed out and then there is uproar.

Regards

Andy

[vampireuk]

Translation: I have no balls

[Subtestube]

Frankly, I'm don't want to get drawn into a full scale argument here, but I do generally support Amnesty. I DO want to say a few quick things before I get back to work though.

1. The US is one among MANY MANY countries that have been criticised by Amnesty - Even New Zealand's government has had a few things raised against it. That said, the Western world is VERY LOW DOWN in the ranks of human rights abuses.
2. Complaining IS an action. The very act of whining in a MASSIVELY mediated society constitutes a move in one direction. Whether it's the right one or not is largely open to question, but raising public awareness even WITHOUT providing alternatives at least allows people to put their critical skills to use, and decide what they think about issues. Surely this is the point of Democratic rule? I should say though, that I generally think you're right - analytic (descriptive/explanatory) criticism is only half useful. Prescriptive criticism followed by action is a necessary step that must occur where large scale problems are identified.

I'm not going to comment on the actual case you're talking about, and I have no intention of being drawn into an argument over the correctness or wrongness of any of Amnesty's individual stands at this stage.

In any case, that's all I have to say for the moment on this.

[oldsk00l]

Amnesty sucks balls, and serves as pretty much the town crier.

It wouldn't be normal if they weren't sucking balls and crying over every country on the planet.

[sytaylor]

Take the death penalty for example. A man rapes and kills 5 children. I say, execute him. AI says do not execute him. What is the alternative? I know, put him in jail for 5 years then give him a house next to a grade school. Nothing less then execution will prevent a pedophile from doing it again. So, what is the alternative to executing him? So far, it is letting him do it again. Not good.

Life inprisonment should mean life, it is possible and does happen. Stick them in a dampened hell hole for all I care just don't kill them. You can punish someone far more whilst alive than dead. The UK has no dealth penalty, and yet we do not live in fear of being murdered (although violent crime is on the rise thanks to Mr Blair's weakness on crime).

[Smokey]

International Criminal Court

The US government intensified its efforts to curtail the power of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In December, Congress approved a provision in a government spending bill mandating the withholding of certain economic assistance to governments that refuse to grant immunity for US nationals before the ICC.


..