Amnesty International slams US

I always thought that with all the real cases AI should be investigating that they wouldn't have time or manpower to investigate the lesser evils in the world.

It seems that AI and the media attention AI gets only like to focus on the sensational cases like Gitmo. Forget about the problems in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, N. Korea, China, Russia, Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, Tibet, Thailand, Cambodia, etc...

"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?"
---------------------------------------
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."

Maybe so, but we have an obligation to set an example.

I imagine that AI's job might be made harder when they appeal to foreign governments to change their practices and are met with "why should we, the US does it". Perhaps that is what they had in mind.

Too many Americans believe, as I do, that prisoners in Guantanamo are being treated exactly as they should be. As prisoners. Just like the hundreds of thousands of other prisoners the US holds that have not been abused and tortured.

FreeDuck wrote:

Maybe so, but we have an obligation to set an example.

I imagine that AI's job might be made harder when they appeal to foreign governments to change their practices and are met with "why should we, the US does it". Perhaps that is what they had in mind.

The US does what??? Commit genocide on our citizens?? Allow our women to have no civil rights??? Do not provide for the poor, sick and elderly???

What is it exactly that other countries use as an excuse to commit the above acts??

Leaving aside for now CJ's attempt to suggest by inference that Amnesty International is a cover for a partisan American group...

Partisan American group? That is most certainly NOT what I was suggesting.

Amnesty slams EU anti-terror lawSource

I think what I meant was fairly obvious. It shows that AI has an anti-Bush agenda.

Amnesty International's Web site states it is "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government."

How can they make that claim?

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.

Geesh, did you read the article? Back to the common sense thread...