Amnesty International slams US

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

LONDON In coordinated broadsides from London and Washington, Amnesty International accused the Bush administration of condoning "atrocious" human rights violations, thereby diminishing its moral authority and setting a global example encouraging abuse by other nations.

In a string of accusations introducing the organization's annual report in London on Wednesday, Amnesty cited the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the so-called rendition of prisoners to countries known to practice torture. It said that all this constituted evidence that the United States "thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights."

Defending its human rights record as "leading the way," the White House dismissed the accusations as ridiculous and unfounded.

Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary general, labeled the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, where more than 500 prisoners from about 40 countries are being held, as "the gulag of our times."

In Washington, William Schulz, Amnesty's executive director, urged President George W. Bush to press for a full investigation of what he called the "atrocious human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers."

Schulz continued:

"When the U.S. government calls upon foreign leaders to bring to justice those who commit or authorize human rights violations in their own countries, why should those foreign leaders listen?

"And if the U.S. government does not abide by the same standards of justice, what shred of moral authority will we retain to pressure other governments to diminish abuses?"

Schulz called for Congress to appoint "a truly impartial and independent commission to investigate the masterminds of the atrocious human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers."

In response, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said:

"I think the allegations are ridiculous and unsupported by the facts. The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity.

"We have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have worked to advance freedom and democracy in the world so that people are governed under a rule of law; that there are protections in place for minority rights; that women's rights are advanced so that women can fully participate in societies where now they cannot.

"So I just think it's ridiculous," McClellan added, "not supported by the facts, when you look at all that we do to promote human rights and promote human dignity in the world."

The State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said, "We promote human rights as part of achieving stability and fighting terrorism."

Amnesty's language was among the strongest it has used and represented a broader sense within human rights advocacy groups that the U.S. treatment of prisoners had diminished its standing.

"It's not because the United States is the worst human rights abuser in the world," said Kenneth Roth, the head of Human Rights Watch, in a telephone interview from New York, "but because it's the most influential."[/i]

I was leaning toward disagreement...until the last paragraph.

Source

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 10,923 • Replies: 164

No top replies

Yes - I was gonna say "steady on" - but I agree that a lot should be expected of countries like the US (and UK and canada and Oz and western Europe etc. too) - especially when so much rhetoric about moral superiority abounds, and when the US is taking upon itself the right to invade other countries etc trumpeting about freedom and human rights etc.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Yes - I was gonna say "steady on" - but I agree that a lot should be expected of countries like the US (and UK and canada and Oz and western Europe etc. too) - especially when so much rhetoric about moral superiority abounds, and when the US is taking upon itself the right to invade other countries etc trumpeting about freedom and human rights etc.

"Moral superiority" seems to be just a smokescreen for the Bush administration.

0 Replies

There is a huge difference between umbrage towards a smug national entity and outrage against an entity that engages in consistent and blatant human rights violations.

The notion that Gitmo is the Gulag of the 21st Century is absurd beyond belief, and indicative of the lack of credibility of Amnesty International.

Even if we assume the worse about Gitmo, it cannot compare to the hell holes existing in numerous nations around the world.

I can appreciate that human rights organizations feel compelled (independent of political bias) to criticize the US, disproportionatly, for so-called human right violation. After all, what possible chance might they have in influencing the really bad guys if they don't ever criticize the US?

Unfortunately, it seems to me, that these "officials" are far too gleeful in criticizing the US. And why might that be?

The jackals will always be snapping at the feet of the lion. Who really cares?

Where I find myself unable to keep the issue in perspective is when US citizens join Amnesty International in condemning the US.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

There is a huge difference between umbrage towards a smug national entity and outrage against an entity that engages in consistent and blatant human rights violations.

The notion that Gitmo is the Gulag of the 21st Century is absurd beyond belief, and indicative of the lack of credibility of Amnesty International.

Even if we assume the worse about Gitmo, it cannot compare to the hell holes existing in numerous nations around the world.

Pull up your socks, Buzz, your bias is showing. In this post, where might I look for the facts supporting your position. You seem the bright fellow; can you not discern that this meaning has some veracity?

Do you think that the people of AI, at least as intelligence as you, would say these things without a shred of proof?

I can appreciate that human rights organizations feel compelled (independent of political bias) to criticize the US, disproportionatly, for so-called human right violation. After all, what possible chance might they have in influencing the really bad guys if they don't ever criticize the US?

Unfortunately, it seems to me, that these "officials" are far too gleeful in criticizing the US. And why might that be?

The jackals will always be snapping at the feet of the lion. Who really cares?

Where I find myself unable to keep the issue in perspective is when US citizens join Amnesty International in condemning the US.

You need to look up 'bias' and 'hypocrisy' in a dictionary, then have a peek in the mirror. While you've got it down off the bookshelf, try the word 'perspective' too.

0 Replies

Quote:

Veteran of Iraq war describes its horrors

Soldier now conscientious objector

By Brandon Mackey / Ventura County Star

Behind eyes resembling pools of serenity, and a demeanor of calm and peace, Aidan Delgado keeps graphic memories of human suffering from the Iraqi war close.

The 23-year-old Army Reserve veteran from Florida shared the memories and just as graphic photographs with about 100 people Friday night in the Topping Room at the E.P. Foster Library in Ventura.

"If you support the war, you should know what you support. If you don't, you should know what you don't support," said Delgado flipping through pictures during the slide show.

The room filled with gasps when a new image of an Iraqi civilian mangled from the war would appear every few minutes on the screen behind him. He said he and other soldiers took the horrific images to show Americans the reality of the war in Iraq.

"The American media's coverage of the war does not reflect the real terror of it," Delgado said.

Delgado, a Buddhist, became a conscientious objector after his tour in Iraq had finished in late 2004, although he applied for the status in April 2003.

"I was armed and trained to kill, but I couldn't submit myself to the violence," Delgado said.

With his new status, Delgado did not carry a gun but served as a mechanic specialist and Arabic translator.

Delgado explained how he had volunteered for the Reserves after a year in college and was looking for a change. He finished signing the paperwork the morning of Sept. 11.

"Living the war, I realized it was unethical, and although I never shot anyone, I felt responsible just by being there," he said.

In January 2004, his unit, the 320th Military Police, was sent to Abu Ghraib prison.

"I never saw any abuse, but our officers told us to keep any damning rumors or photos at the camp," said Delgado.

Delgado added that the squalid prison was not meant for human occupation.

Delgado said he witnessed the worst side of soldiers and showed photographs of U.S. soldiers posing with the corpses of Abu Ghraib prisoners killed in a gun fight.

Delgado has made more than 30 appearances and plans to make more.

"I'm doing what I know is right," he said. "I'm helping people make their own decisions from actual evidence."

Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions, Alternatives to the Military: Options and Resources and the Ventura County Veterans for Peace sponsored the forum.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Where I find myself unable to keep the issue in perspective is when US citizens join Amnesty International in condemning the US.

You can't understand why an American citizen would condemn the Bush adminsitration...or American treatment of suspected (read: innocent until proven guilty) criminals?
<shocked>

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
There is a huge difference between umbrage towards a smug national entity and outrage against an entity that engages in consistent and blatant human rights violations.

The notion that Gitmo is the Gulag of the 21st Century is absurd beyond belief, and indicative of the lack of credibility of Amnesty International.

Even if we assume the worse about Gitmo, it cannot compare to the hell holes existing in numerous nations around the world.

Pull up your socks, Buzz, your bias is showing. In this post, where might I look for the facts supporting your position. You seem the bright fellow; can you not discern that this meaning has some veracity?

Do you think that the people of AI, at least as intelligence as you, would say these things without a shred of proof?

It seems to me that it falls upon the originator of the comparison between Gitmo and the Soviet Gulag to offer up proof for such an outrageous claim.

The people who have made this claim do possess a shred of proof. That's the problem. They have taken the fact that a handful of prisoners have been, in someway, mistreated and hysterically expanded that to form a comparison with the Soviet Gulag.

I suppose it might be accurate to argue that Gitmo is the Gulag of the 21st Century, but that would require a belief that the 21st Century has moved much further along the path of Enlightenment than its predescesor.

Does AI really mean to suggest that conditions in Gitmo are more oppressive and represent greater violations of human rights than the politcal prisons of China, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Myanmar, Cuba, North Korea, or the Congo (to name but a few)?

I can appreciate that human rights organizations feel compelled (independent of political bias) to criticize the US, disproportionatly, for so-called human right violation. After all, what possible chance might they have in influencing the really bad guys if they don't ever criticize the US?

Unfortunately, it seems to me, that these "officials" are far too gleeful in criticizing the US. And why might that be?

The jackals will always be snapping at the feet of the lion. Who really cares?

Where I find myself unable to keep the issue in perspective is when US citizens join Amnesty International in condemning the US.

You need to look up 'bias' and 'hypocrisy' in a dictionary, then have a peek in the mirror. While you've got it down off the bookshelf, try the word 'perspective' too.

You seem an angry sort of fellow. I suppose that somewhere along the line I've kicked your dog or cut you off on the highway.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Where I find myself unable to keep the issue in perspective is when US citizens join Amnesty International in condemning the US.

You can't understand why an American citizen would condemn the Bush adminstration...or American treatment of suspected (read: innocent until proven guilty) criminals?
<shocked>

Joining Amnesty International in condemning the US for overseeing the Gulag of the 21st Century is not the same as condemning the Bush Administration or condemning the US for whatever limited abuse of prisoners of which it may be guilty.

You may also find this shocking, but I don't understand why any American citizen would be so readily inclined towards believing the obvious hyperbole of an International organization over their own government, and press. Do any reputable new media (including the NY Times, Newsweek, The Boston Globe etc) claim that Gitmo is anything like the Soviet Gulag?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

There is a huge difference between umbrage towards a smug national entity and outrage against an entity that engages in consistent and blatant human rights violations.

The notion that Gitmo is the Gulag of the 21st Century is absurd beyond belief, and indicative of the lack of credibility of Amnesty International.

Even if we assume the worse about Gitmo, it cannot compare to the hell holes existing in numerous nations around the world.

I can appreciate that human rights organizations feel compelled (independent of political bias) to criticize the US, disproportionatly, for so-called human right violation. After all, what possible chance might they have in influencing the really bad guys if they don't ever criticize the US?

Unfortunately, it seems to me, that these "officials" are far too gleeful in criticizing the US. And why might that be?

The jackals will always be snapping at the feet of the lion. Who really cares?

Where I find myself unable to keep the issue in perspective is when US citizens join Amnesty International in condemning the US.

I find that an odd reaction.

Firstly, as a citizen of my country I find its human rights violations way more galling than I find those of any other country.

I think there is an atavistic defensive reaction when one's country is criticised - but surely we can rise above that?

Amnesty has roundly and stingingly condemned Australia for its mandatory detention policies, for instance - and I thoroughly agree.

I don't give a damn if we are as bad as Soviet Russia or not - clearly we are not - but what the hell has that to do with it? What is wrong in my country is just plain damn wrong - and I want it condemned and I want my government to feel the sting of it, and my fellow citizens to put pressure on the overnment to right the wrongs. I do not try to shoot the messenger because the message is negative - eg I do not try to discredit Amnesty because it advocates for decent treatment for people in my country.

I think we tend to see any criticism of our countries as "gleeful" simply because we do not wish to face these things.

Frankly, as a citizen of a country that dares to considers it had the right to attack another, we had damn well better be behaving well ourselves.

I just don't get the defensiveness - well, I get it emotionally, but I do not think it ought to guide our reasoned responses.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
There is a huge difference between umbrage towards a smug national entity and outrage against an entity that engages in consistent and blatant human rights violations.

The notion that Gitmo is the Gulag of the 21st Century is absurd beyond belief, and indicative of the lack of credibility of Amnesty International.

Even if we assume the worse about Gitmo, it cannot compare to the hell holes existing in numerous nations around the world.

I can appreciate that human rights organizations feel compelled (independent of political bias) to criticize the US, disproportionatly, for so-called human right violation. After all, what possible chance might they have in influencing the really bad guys if they don't ever criticize the US?

Unfortunately, it seems to me, that these "officials" are far too gleeful in criticizing the US. And why might that be?

The jackals will always be snapping at the feet of the lion. Who really cares?

Where I find myself unable to keep the issue in perspective is when US citizens join Amnesty International in condemning the US.

I find that an odd reaction.

Firstly, as a citizen of my country I find its human rights violations way more galling than I find those of any other country.

I think there is an atavistic defensive reaction when one's country is criticized - but surely we can rise above that?

Amnesty has roundly and stingingly condemned Australia for its mandatory detention policies, for instance - and I thoroughly agree.

I don't give a damn if we are as bad as Soviet Russia or not - clearly we are not - but what the hell has that to do with it? What is wrong in my country is just plain damn wrong - and I want it condemned and I want my government to feel the sting of it, and my fellow citizens to put pressure on the overnment to right the wrongs. I do not try to shoot the messenger because the message is negative - eg I do not try to discredit Amnesty because it advocates for decent treatment for people in my country.

I think we tend to see any criticism of our countries as "gleeful" simply because we do not wish to face these things.

Frankly, as a citizen of a country that dares to considers it had the right to attack another, we had damn well better be behaving well ourselves.

I just don't get the defensiveness - well, I get it emotionally, but I do not think it ought to guide our reasoned responses.

It is possible to condemn the actions of one's country without resorting to hysterical hyperbole that lends support to a warped view of one's country.

You or I may wish our countries to be above reproach, but there is nothing to be gained by distorting the degree of their sins, and something to lose.

You may, understandably, wish to have your husband or boyfriend lower the toilet seat after he uses it, but accusing him of being a filthy pig who is trying to get you to fall into the bowl is more liable to make him discount your argument than acknowledge it.

I just don't get the hyperbole - well, I get it emotionally, but I do not think it ought to guide our reasoned responses.

0 Replies

Yeah, well, I guess we see different things as hyperbole.

Shrugs.

0 Replies

So giving prayer rugs and religious meals to prisoners is a gulag? Having soldiers written up for mishandling the Quran is a gulag?

Is it considered a gulag because they don't have cable TV and can move freely? I think someone is trying to create new meanings out of old words.

0 Replies

Buzz:
The notion that Gitmo is the Gulag of the 21st Century is absurd beyond belief, and indicative of the lack of credibility of Amnesty International.

Even if we assume the worse about Gitmo, it cannot compare to the hell holes existing in numerous nations around the world.

Pull up your socks, Buzz, your bias is showing. In this post, where might I look for the facts supporting your position. You seem the bright fellow; can you not discern that this meaning has some veracity?

Do you think that the people of AI, at least as intelligence as you, would say these things without a shred of proof?

Buzz:
It seems to me that it falls upon the originator of the comparison between Gitmo and the Soviet Gulag to offer up proof for such an outrageous claim.

That's a pretty bright assessment, Buzz. You chide others for not getting the facts but you expect AI to come here and defend their position. Confused

Buzz: The people who have made this claim do possess a shred of proof. That's the problem. They have taken the fact that a handful of prisoners have been, in someway, mistreated and hysterically expanded that to form a comparison with the Soviet Gulag.

I suppose it might be accurate to argue that Gitmo is the Gulag of the 21st Century, but that would require a belief that the 21st Century has moved much further along the path of Enlightenment than its predescesor.

It was a fair assessment. A gulag is a political prison that is not subject to the rule of law. That is precisely the case here. These prisons were set up to avoid judicial review. That's not how a democracy works.

It's astonishing that these things have to be explained to conservatives, who run around mouthing democratic platitudes but who in reality, don't understand the fundamentals of democracy.

Buzz: Does AI really mean to suggest that conditions in Gitmo are more oppressive and represent greater violations of human rights than the politcal prisons of China, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Myanmar, Cuba, North Korea, or the Congo (to name but a few)?

That would be something that someone who did a wee bit of research might find out.

Buzz: Where I find myself unable to keep the issue in perspective is when US citizens join Amnesty International in condemning the US.

See what I mean when I called you a hypocrite. You get angry when your fellow citizens express opinions that are guaranteed them under the principles of democracy.

This selective democracy is a hallmark of folks like you. You feel so insecure in your narrow little world that the only speech, the only ideas, the only differences that you can tolerate are the kind that fit your small-minded views.

Buzz: You seem an angry sort of fellow. I suppose that somewhere along the line I've kicked your dog or cut you off on the highway.

Not at all. I just hate to see someone who appears to be half ways intelligent set out such vacuous arguments.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Joining Amnesty International in condemning the US for overseeing the Gulag of the 21st Century is not the same as condemning the Bush Administration or condemning the US for whatever limited abuse of prisoners of which it may be guilty.

You may also find this shocking, but I don't understand why any American citizen would be so readily inclined towards believing the obvious hyperbole of an International organization over their own government, and press. Do any reputable new media (including the NY Times, Newsweek, The Boston Globe etc) claim that Gitmo is anything like the Soviet Gulag?

Let's get our facts straight, okay, Buzz? AI has many American members. You might want to check the dictionary for "reputable".

This is the same media that has 'missed' [a euphemism] the lies in the leadup to the war; the British memo proving the lies; the fact that a US government body has found compelling evidence that shows the 'alleged' [another euphemism, maybe framed would be a better word] scoundrels in the oil4food program were pikers compared to US interests/government.

"reputable", what a f***ing monstrous joke! But you find it surprising. Can you say hypocrite/wifull blindness/homey/the list is endless?

0 Replies

I really wish they would throw out the party lines, they are absolutely ridiculous in my book....
Our country is neither democratic or republican, its not far left, and not far right....
Our country is both!!!!! its a democratic republic...
Anyhoo...Its obvious mistreatment of prisoners is wrong. We live in a society that that strongly believes in human rights. Our military is apart of that society, our gov. is apart of that society. Our gov. even meddles in other countries affairs with human rights issues.
So, for this kinda treatment, not just about their religion, also being beaten, and humiliated with the sexually explicit, and degrading pictures, is an embarrassment to our country. It makes us look like hypocrites...
This needs to change. Its not like the whole world doesn't know about these issues anyway...I think it makes the united states look better when we actually have americans Joining Amnesty International, instead of silent protest.

0 Replies

You go Sister!

0 Replies

Gen. Richard B. Myers yesterday condemned as "absolutely irresponsible" an Amnesty International report that compared prisoner treatment at Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet gulag, adding that 100 out of 68,000 detainees held in the war against terrorism were abused.
"It's very small compared to the population of detainees we've handled," said Gen. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He also noted that many of the abuses have produced courts-martial and other punishments.
The London-based human rights organization called the U.S. facility in Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time," comparing it to the Soviet Union's slave-labor camps where millions of people died.
Amnesty International also suggested that foreign governments investigate senior U.S. officials involved in "torture scandals" and arrest and question Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, former CIA Director William Tenet, and Vice President Dick Cheney.
"I think it's irresponsible. I think it's absolutely irresponsible," Gen. Myers told "Fox News Sunday."
"I think I'd ask them to go look up the definition of gulag as commonly understood. We've had 68,000 detainees since this conflict against violent extremism started. We've had 325 investigations into alleged abuse. We've had 100 cases of substantiated abuse and there are 100 individuals that have had some sort of action taken, either court-martial or administrative action," Gen. Myers said.
Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, brushed off Amnesty's suggestion for investigations of top U.S. officials, saying "that isn't going to happen," but added that Congress needs to exercise more diligent oversight of military prison conditions and the treatment of detainees.
He told CNN's "Late Edition" that the Defense Department has adopted uniform rules for the treatment of war prisoners and said all government agencies, including the CIA, should follow suit because reports of prisoner abuse have damaged the reputation of the U.S. military.
"I think Congress has a responsibility in a mature fashion to continue to hold hearings on this issue to make sure that we're exercising our proper oversight responsibilities and those of us who have traveled in the region cannot overstate the impact that Abu Ghraib and other things that have happened have damaged the image of the United States of America in the Middle East," Mr. McCain said.
"It isn't fair. Life isn't fair. We've got to repair that damage," said Mr. McCain, who was a prisoner of war for five years during the Vietnam War.
Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident sentenced to the gulag, also criticized the Guantanamo comparison, telling Time magazine this week that the Amnesty report lacks credibility.
"I have very serious criticisms of Amnesty. There is no moral clarity. It doesn't differentiate between what I call fear societies and free societies," Mr. Sharansky said.
"In the democratic world, there are violations of human rights, but they are revealed and dealt with. In a fear society, there are no violations of human rights because human rights just don't exist," said Mr. Sharansky, who now lives in Israel and has served in its parliament and Cabinet. "Amnesty International says it doesn't support or oppose any political system, so it ends up with reports that show a moral equivalence" among regimes.
Gen. Myers says the detention facility in Guantanamo is a "model facility" in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and that the U.S. spends $2.5 million annually to provide Muslim-approved food and distributed 1,300 Korans in 13 languages.
"But here's the question that needs to be debated by everybody, and that is: How do you handle people who aren't part of a nation-state effort, that are picked up on the battlefield, that if you release them or let them go back to their home countries, they would turn right around and try to slit our throats, our children's throats?" Gen. Myers said.
"We struggle with how to handle them. But we've always handled them humanely and with the dignity that they should be accorded," Gen. Myers said.

source

0 Replies

Yeah, and the ones who have died from abuses by us, well, they were just anomalies.

Many of the Gitmo and other captives HAVE been released; apparently they were innocent of any crime or something silly like that...

Attacking Amnesty International for criticizing the US is just plain stupid; it robs us of even more of our failing credibility.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Nonsense. Even WaPo realizes AI has an agenda....Bush-bashing and America-bashing.
-----------------------------------------------------------
'American Gulag'

Thursday, May 26, 2005; Page A26

IT'S ALWAYS SAD when a solid, trustworthy institution loses its bearings and joins in the partisan fracas that nowadays passes for political discourse. It's particularly sad when the institution is Amnesty International, which for more than 40 years has been a tough, single-minded defender of political prisoners around the world and a scourge of left- and right-wing dictators alike. True, Amnesty continues to keep track of the world's political prisoners, as it has always done, and its reports remain a vital source of human rights information. But lately the organization has tended to save its most vitriolic condemnations not for the world's dictators but for the United States.

That vitriol reached a new level this week when, at a news conference held to mark the publication of Amnesty's annual report, the organization's secretary general, Irene Khan, called the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the "gulag of our times." In her written introduction to the report, Ms. Khan also mentioned only two countries at length: Sudan and the United States, the "unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power," which "thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights."

Like Amnesty, we, too, have written extensively about U.S. prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have done so not only because the phenomenon is disturbing in its own right but also because it gives undemocratic regimes around the world an excuse to justify their own use of torture and indefinite detention and because it damages the U.S. government's ability to promote human rights.

But we draw the line at the use of the word "gulag" or at the implication that the United States has somehow become the modern equivalent of Stalin's Soviet Union. Guantanamo Bay is an ad hoc creation, designed to contain captured enemy combatants in wartime. Abuses there -- including new evidence of desecrating the Koran -- have been investigated and discussed by the FBI, the press and, to a still limited extent, the military. The Soviet gulag, by contrast, was a massive forced labor complex consisting of thousands of concentration camps and hundreds of exile villages through which more than 20 million people passed during Stalin's lifetime and whose existence was not acknowledged until after his death. Its modern equivalent is not Guantanamo Bay, but the prisons of Cuba, where Amnesty itself says a new generation of prisoners of conscience reside; or the labor camps of North Korea, which were set up on Stalinist lines; or China's laogai , the true size of which isn't even known; or, until recently, the prisons of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Worrying about the use of a word may seem like mere semantics, but it is not. Turning a report on prisoner detention into another excuse for Bush-bashing or America-bashing undermines Amnesty's legitimate criticisms of U.S. policies and weakens the force of its investigations of prison systems in closed societies. It also gives the administration another excuse to dismiss valid objections to its policies as "hysterical."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501838.html

0 Replies

Amnesty International slams US

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know