US gov’t rejects Amnesty Int’l claims about human rights
by Kevin Dangoor
Amnesty International wasn’t pleased with the US’ human rights track record this past year. The US response?
“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,” said Scott McClellan.
OK, sure. The US is trying to advance freedom, democracy [and US oil interests] in the world. That’s certainly true. But to claim right now that the US is leading the way in human rights and dignitiy is absurd. From trying to find loopholes in the Geneva Convention to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo to even trying to hold *American citizens* without charges indefinitely, the US is not at all leading the charge in human rights.
“The US is trying to advance freedom, democracy [and US oil interests] in the world. That’s certainly true.”
Oh, come on… you are letting their absurd claims make the golden mean drift in their flavor. The US is not trying to advance freedom or democracy. Oil interests, sure. They clearly don’t care about freedom or democracy.
Accepting their not-as-crazy bullshit (“trying to advance…”) to seem moderate when rejecting their absurd-and-plainly-dishonest bullshit (“leading the way…”) isn’t right. What every happened to credibility, when the bigger the lie, the more *everything* claimed becomes tainted? Instead when they make bigger lies, it means they cause greater movement than small lies *in the direction of the lie, to people who know they are lies*.
This government certainly has no credibility in my eyes. However, *all* politicians put spin on things. The fact is that Afghanistan and Iraq were both under very oppressive regimes, and they now have a shot at democratic governments. Yes, yes, the whole Iraq operation was started on a lie and has been a complete fiasco. But, I won’t begrudge them their one little glimmer of goodness out of the whole mess. And, I do think that Bush truly believes that he is helping to spread freedom and peace. There was an interesting article a few months back (in Slate, I think) about the interesting reality distortion field in which Bush lives.
So, I view the “trying to advance” statement as generic spin supported by a warped worldview. I posted this entry on the basis on the “leading the way” part, which we’re both in agreement is complete BS.
However horrific the situation really is, Amnesty cannot be fully trusted either. They are just as biased as any other group – http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050602-120456-1031r.htm.
Interesting link, thanks.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for an organization to be “non-partisan” and yet still endorse one candidate over another. In fact, groups regularly do this. They support candidates that go for their particular agenda. In this case, it’s not even a question of Amnesty the group supporting Kerry, but rather some of the leadership.
Look at it like this: if you’re the type of person that believes in Amnesty’s mission enough that you make it your career, would you have supported Bush in the last election?
Sure, I guess Amnesty International has a clear bias. It’s why they exist. They are biased against people who don’t care about justice, who take other people’s death lightly, they are biased against those who don’t respect human rights.
That kind of bias is okay by me. How can you expect the individuals who make up the organization not to act on their convictions as individuals? How can you expect them not to oppose a cruel thug like Bush?
Claiming this is some incriminating bias is yet another case of the Golden Mean being valued over truth and justice. When one party doesn’t value truth and justice, you damn well should be partisan. There’s no nobility in taking the middle ground between right and wrong.
America might not be leading the charge, but I really can’t think of what country is.
Not a fun thought.
“The US is not trying to advance freedom or democracy. Oil interests, sure. They clearly don’t care about freedom or democracy.”
“That kind of bias is okay by me. How can you expect the individuals who make up the organization not to act on their convictions as individuals? How can you expect them not to oppose a cruel thug like Bush?”
Claiming those who believe the same way you do as the “middle ground” is comical. It’s ok to be biased, as long as it’s your bias, right?
Note, however, that any of the torture going on in Gitmo is wrong by any standard. My point is that breaking into an anti-Bush diatribe and making a clearly anti-American* group like Amnesty International into a saint doesn’t really prove that things are as bad as they are made out to be. Calling it a gulag (according to AI)? Please. Try doing some research to see what a gulag really is. If it were really a gulag, no one would oppose the prosecution of those involed in the whole affair.
* Yes, they are Anti-American. Try a quick search on google.
“It’s ok to be biased, as long as it’s your bias, right?”
On ethical and moral issues, sure — at least the kind of “bias” that AI was accused of. I’m not a relativist. I don’t accept opposing moral standards as valid or acceptable. I think that’s the only reasonable position to take.
Regarding Amnesty’s anti-US stance, particularly in this latest report, I think it’s a case of “should have known better”. There are ongoing human rights violations elsewhere in the world that are clearly worse than those coming from US government employees.
The US takes heat because it is on top; the world’s largest economic and military power. Thus, others will follow the US’ lead. If the military and intelligence agencies actively and consistently applied the Bill of Rights and Geneva Convention principles to prisoners and *then* Amnesty complains, I’d definitely find that to be improper on their part. (To head off any confusion: no I’m not talking about giving prisoners weapons, as per the second amendment…)
Instead, the government actively tried to circumvent the Geneva Convention and has even tried to circumvent the Bill of Rights for US citizens by inventing the “enemy combatant” designation. Some of these violations came from workers at the bottom of the chain of command, others came from near the top.
If we clean up that mess, then I would expect to see some praise from Amnesty. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for us to clean that up, however.