Amnesty have issued a report on the recent hostilities between Hizbollah and Israel

Amnesty's own website

Amnesty accuse Hizbollah of war crimes, according to the report.

In the past on these and other boards, particularly in the USA, Amnesty have been concemned as a left-wing organisation in the pockets of terrorists. Visits to the official Amnesty site indicates that this might be more a matter of skewed perception and/or reporting than distorted priorities within Amnesty itself.

Are Amnesty right to condemn both Israel and Hizbollah for human rights violations? Why, or why not?

Do you consider Amnesty to be an honourable and unbiased institution or a political organisation with an agenda? Please give justification and (where necessary) supporting evidence?

Do you think the media where you live tend to report Amnesty's condemnations of your own government more than those of others? How does this affect how you, your fellow citizens, and your government think about Amnesty in particular and Human Rights in general?

Are Amnesty right to condemn both Israel and Hizbollah for human rights violations? Why, or why not?


Amnesty International has been a paradigm of a humanitarian org with the simple goal of condemning those that would kill for political gain. It is absolutely correct in nailing both sides with human rights violations, it is pretty obvious on the face of the last conflict that both sides were pretty evil groups- as I have been saying all along- there are no "good guys" in the middle east- if a meteor hit that whole region and wiped it off the face of the map I think the world would be a better place. Especially if Jerusalem, Mecca, Medina were totally uninhabitable for about 10k years. The middle east is the sphincter of the world, were evil seems to congregate for fun and games.


Do you consider Amnesty to be an honourable and unbiased institution or a political organisation with an agenda? Please give justification and (where necessary) supporting evidence?

Honorable. Despite US right wing crying about Amnesty int. pointing out of our own human rights violations, last I looked on the site, there was about 50-1 claims of violations by terrorist orgs than the US- showing balance. It is just that right wingers in the US can't stand ANY condemnations of our behavior.

Do you think the media where you live tend to report Amnesty's condemnations of your own government more than those of others? How does this affect how you, your fellow citizens, and your government think about Amnesty in particular and Human Rights in general?

Well, yes. I mean, I can do nothing about the violations of Hezbolah, but I can fire off a letter to my senator, maybe campaign against him- in other words, what do I really care about claims of violations by other goverments, when I can only really affect any change against my own goverment?

Are Amnesty right to condemn both Israel and Hizbollah for human rights violations? Why, or why not?

This is a statement from AI's website you linked to: "This briefing does not address Israeli charges that Hizbullah used the civilian population as a cover for its military activities and that it must therefore be held responsible for the harm caused to civilians by Israeli attacks."

Until it does, this report is woefully inadequate.

Do you consider Amnesty to be an honourable and unbiased institution or a political organisation with an agenda? Please give justification and (where necessary) supporting evidence?

AI put a huge stain on its honor when it called the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo "the gulag of our times". Apart from cheapening the victims of the real gulags (as well as the modern counterparts, such as the infamous lao gai forced labor system in China for political prisoners), such a statement is so mindbogglingly hyperbolic as to betray a very vindictive anti-American attitude on its part. Far from being the worst prison center in the world, it's not even the worst prison on that island!

Are Amnesty right to condemn both Israel and Hizbollah for human rights violations? Why, or why not?

This particular report focuses on Hezbollah--specifically its rocket attacks on Northern Israel. Of course there were violations of the laws of war. Anyone paying even scant attention saw the rocket attacks on a nightly basis. Indiscriminate attacks on civilian population centers is a violation of the laws of war. Deliberately doing so is a war crime.

Hassan Nazrallah is obviously guilty of war crimes. He admits it with his own statements. I wonder why the report stopped short of stating this obvious fact and did not really call for any action except "further investigation". I wonder sometimes what the point is of such a report. It's like a year-long investigation that concludes the Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. Well, duh, we all saw it on TV.

We saw Hezbollah's war crimes on TV each night for a month as well.

Do you consider Amnesty to be an honourable and unbiased institution or a political organisation with an agenda? Please give justification and (where necessary) supporting evidence?

AI has an admirable goal. I think it is the media that is a bit misguided because they believe that influencing responsible governments (such as the US) by exerting pressure on them via AI reports is worth more coverage than a comparative look at other governments.

As far as Amnesty goes, if you look at its Middle East reports, they focus primarily on Iran, Syria and Lebanon (also mentioned are Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, and one report that mentions both Israel and Hezbollah). This is appropriate, since Iran, Syria and Lebanon are the worst violators of human rights in the area.

However, if we look at AI's earlier report on this conflict, we find there seems to be a reluctance to condemn Hezbollah:



So, in Israel's case, the death toll seems to indicate that the attacks were indiscriminate. In Hezbollah's case, it is unclear whether the attacks had a military target at all. If they were (aimed at military targets) they would be indiscriminate. Why not just say they were indiscriminate due to the targets and the types of weapons used? Why tiptoe around saying that?

Section 4 on Precautions in attack doesn't even mention Hezbollah, focusing solely on Israel. It even goes so far as to say Israel's warnings to civilians may be causing undue panic and thus be a violation.

Section 8: Using indiscriminate weapons focuses solely on Hezbollah.

All in all the report is balanced, but the Israeli violations are alleged and the Hezbollah violations have been seen by the entire world via television. However, I counted the word Israel over 55 times in the document, while Hizbullah was mentioned 19 times. Violations from past conflicts (such as land mines) were brought up in the report, and yet there has been no one asserting that land mines have been used in this conflict.

Do you think the media where you live tend to report Amnesty's condemnations of your own government more than those of others? How does this affect how you, your fellow citizens, and your government think about Amnesty in particular and Human Rights in general?

The media is bound to focus more on the local government rather than some foreign government. I think some of that is to be expected.

They have the “right” to do as they please and they usually do. IMO the Hezbollah folks should get the lions share of the condemnation.



No. Biased. They feel free to blast the US for every infraction (real or imagined) and IMO do not push hard enough on the terrorists AND the states (like Iran) who support them and without which they would not exist. CR says its 50:1 but what is the ratio of violations and their magnitude? 10,000:1? 1,000000:1?

And as mentioned above if they do not address the issue of the terrorists using civilians as shields they have not fairly judged Israel. And we KNOW the Hezbollah folks hide inside the populous and use them as shields.


The liberal media never miss a chance to use the AI claims to bash Bush.

Are Amnesty right to condemn both Israel and Hizbollah for human rights violations? Why, or why not?

I don't see how 'right' plays any part of this. Excatly what 'right' does Amnesty International actually have to judge other people?

And why does the AI report go so easily on Hezbollah anyway? Could it possibly be because the London based AI is run by Irene Khan, a Muslim? I looked to Wikipedia for some basic info and this is what I found there:

Link.
AI responds that 'all nations should aspire to absolute respect for human rights, and that the difficulties associated with monitoring 'closed' countries should not mean that 'open' countries should receive less scrutiny', which is true enough... if those countries are such bad offenders...


Do you consider Amnesty to be an honourable and unbiased institution or a political organisation with an agenda? Please give justification and (where necessary) supporting evidence?

Its a bit steep to ask for supporting evidence of ones 'considerations', surely a consideration is whan you don't really know for certain, but considering what you do know, then... Do I consider Amnesty International as honourable? Not really. If I consider AI at all it is only as a background noise to actual events. AI is often used by people with an agenda, even if AI itself doesn't share that agenda.

I have not been impressed by AI's lack of action in the trial of Saddam Hussein either. What is the point of documenting human rights violations if your not actually prepared to stand behind those documents in a court of law? If it were up to AI, then Saddam Hussein, and all those like him, would rule this planet without hinderance and there would be no AI. Thus, AI strikes me as being a loud and obnoxious back seat driver who, when asked to take the wheel, claims to have no driving license.

Under this, possibly flawed, perception I don't see the point of AI, except as being a subtle means of attacking the legitimate democratic governments of the world. I see AI as being a vanguard of the, near religious, multiculturalist agenda which accuses and judges people by its reports of crimes without any courts.


Do you think the media where you live tend to report Amnesty's condemnations of your own government more than those of others? How does this affect how you, your fellow citizens, and your government think about Amnesty in particular and Human Rights in general?

Oh easily. Denmark is usually not mentioned in AI's reports, but when it is, there is a ranting and raving fit to wake the dead. Usually the right wing is infuriated that Denmark is being slandered and the left wing are in tears at the depths we've apparently sunk to.

The truth is neither, nor anywhere in between. Denmark is a well functioning, fully open society which is more than capable of dealing with its own security forces and their lack of self control. We have a fully autonomous and independent court system and I've never heard of a criminal case, nor even the shadow of one, which wasn't given the full attention of the law... and yet AI has several times criticized Denmark, usually on matters alredy well in hand and on the background of material provided by the Danish state during the course of legal procedures.

As a consequence of this, I can't see what the AI reports on Denmark are really good for and I've always had the distinct impression that AI simply doesn't 'like' democratic nations and will report even the smallest and most ambiguous perceived infractions undertaken in a well functioning democracy whilst ignoring far greater crimes in others. In other words, 'open society's' as AI likes to term them, where AI is least needed, get a far more critical attention from AI than the 'closed countries' where AI's attentions are most needed.

Are Amnesty right to condemn both Israel and Hizbollah for human rights violations? Why, or why not?

Yes, both are to blame for large amounts of civilians causalities they both took part in inflicting.

Do you consider Amnesty to be an honourable and unbiased institution or a political organisation with an agenda? Please give justification and (where necessary) supporting evidence?


As unbiased as 1+1=2, I doubt it. Taking into account though that Hezbollah shot rockets into civilian areas and Israel bombed buildings that were occupied by civilians its easy to use the argument that military action against civilians being wrong to put both of them in a negative light in regards to that function or form of judgment.

Being that Hezbollah could have shot rockets at the border where Israelis troops were at not civilian targets, and Israel at no point was forced to drop bombs on buildings full of civilians, they both made the choice to do that, if we are going to say killing civilians is wrong, then its wrong to kill civilians then. If we say its only wrong for certain groups to kill civilians, but others can, then no one is going to pay any real attention to it ever, and moreover it would be hypocritical to charge people on war crimes for such when such groups making the charges committed the same act.

So regardless of bias this group holds, which I am sure exists simply because they are human, I cant see how that would really matter if the matter at hand happens to be the legality of targeting and knowingly killing civilians, that would be like back in the U.S and only charging some people for murder.

Are Amnesty right to condemn both Israel and Hizbollah for human rights violations? Why, or why not?

If both are guilty of human rights violations, yes.


Do you consider Amnesty to be an honourable and unbiased institution or a political organisation with an agenda? Please give justification and (where necessary) supporting evidence?

May I answer another question? Let me put it this way, by and large, or with some exceptions, I believe that those working for and with AI are trying to accomplish what they believe right and proper. I otherwise have no problem with AI's stated mission in the abstract, or as a general matter. My only disagreement with AI stems from my perception that AI simply looks at absolutes and never bothers to put things in context. And so AI seems not to understand that while we might call this, that, and the other thing, a human rights violation, there is a difference between the occasional instance of such violation and the systemic instance of such violation. And the one making the occasional moral error, while wrong in the instance, is not the same as the one systematically violating human rights. And that needs to be taken into account when AI renders judgment. A little less hyperbole would also help. To borrow from the one soul, the "gulag of our times" was not only wrong as a matter of fact and law, it was rather defamatory as well. I would have preferred, though not saying that I would agree, but I would have preferred that instead of "gulag of our times," AI had instead spoken in terms of risking all those evils associated with the practice of "internment" [those in the UK and Ireland will know what I mean, as will those familiar with the internment practiced by Her Majesty in relation to The Troubles]. Guantanamo doesn't resemble a gulag, but it does resemble internment.


Do you think the media where you live tend to report Amnesty's condemnations of your own government more than those of others? How does this affect how you, your fellow citizens, and your government think about Amnesty in particular and Human Rights in general?

Sorry, Julian, but may I again answer another question? Well, let me first say that nothing AI ever says or does will ever cause me to think less of the moral imperative of doing all within our power to ensure that none have their human rights violated. And going back to what I said immediately above, I wouldn't mind so much the more frequent local critique if there was not the accompanying failure re context, I mean, I would hope that AI would speak more to the conduct of local government since the people being spoken to ought to presumably be in the position to do something about the matter in question [as opposed to the "alien" or "foreign" hearer/reader]. Actually, maybe not another question, but just what you omitted, to wit, my concern is that although the commentary re the local government might be primarily intended for local ears and for that reason good as far it goes, it goes farther, and what with the information age and all, everybody and his sister can read it. And to that simply add that as concerns those repressive governments who need find some external enemy to feed to the populace in order to divert attention and hate, well, why need AI give some of those repressive governments the means to that end? I'm not saying that AI does not say anything bad about your more enlightened but far from perfect governments, but when some miscreant is heard relaying the report to his own oppressed, and calling us the Great Satan, in the hope that such will divert attention and hate, well, then AI needs to fire off a short line or two rejoinder about how such soul is hardly in the position to speak of respect of human rights and to condemn another in that regard, given his abysmal treatment of his own kith and kin. That I could live with.

I read AI's website continually. Moif- I don't really disagree with you- but most of the time, no one really likes to be wrong, and the west has not admitted to it's wrongdoing many times.

If you are Christian, you expect the Christians in that church to act in the code they themselves advocate- and though you may critisize the athiets lifestyle, choice of beliefs or behavior- you save your strongest critisism for those already in your church. Sure, we expect, and condemn, do not condone, but expect, that the faithless athiest, or avowed hedonist, to do things we consider immoral, and preach against them- but, the stronger condemnation is for those that already hold themselves to this code- as it should be. This strong condemnation, this appeal to thier own belief system, has a much greater effect on the true believer.

Tell the hedonist that it is wrong to sleep with whomever says yes that night- and he or she may laugh you off- but, catch your believer with that adulterous behavior- and they will feel guilt, and perhaps modify thier behavior, after begging forgiveness.

That is the way I see AI- AI constantly condemns Arabic countries for abuses, but really, how much influence do they have with a despotic goverment and an antiquated belief system? Next to none!

However, AI DOES influence the conscious of western nation citizens, who are easily offended by bad behavior of thier goverment, and may work very hard to change that bad behavior- and perhaps, even kick some bad guys out of office. And, since western nations are so powerful, they CAN effect change in other countries, occasionally (with the exception of GW Bush) actually be a positive influence in that country.

AI is very much in the right to target the west, because we give a darn!

And that is what makes us, IMHO- the "better" culture- we care about our fellow man, even when it harms ourselves.

I suppose I agree with the gist of your overall point. AI chastises democracies and "westernized" countries more because there is more hope for influence with those countries. If that is the case, they should be up front about this fact, and acknowledge it often and clearly in their reports, rather than promoting themselves as a neutral party.

Their mission statement: "to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination in the context of our work to promote all human rights, as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Ironically, they obtain funding and support from the people of countries they are most prone to criticize. Even Human Rights watch at least (nominally...let's say, vaguely) considers security issues and extenuating circumstance when it issues it reports, but not AI. Hyperbolic language like "gulag" has irreparably discredited this organization in my eyes.

Example of selection bias:

My answer to the first question is...why bother to condemn Hizbollah at all? It isn't a state, and doing so only gives the appearance of neutrality (the intention I'm sure), which is an utter sham....as even those who defend AI admit above. They assert that "difficulties associated with monitoring closed countries should not mean the open countries receive reduced scrutiny". I understand. By the same effect, difficulties with rockets and gunfire coming from civilian houses, as well as underground bunkers traversing the aforementioned areas, makes it difficult to avoid those areas. Circumstances matter, don't they?

No. They've been put into a position wherin their credibility is so low they were forced to blame Hizbollah.



No.



This question doesn't make much sense.

Well, if I've understood that argument correctly, then my answer is to point out that; A. democratic nations do not function in the same way as churches (by which I mean religions).

And B. Amnesty International doesn't have the right to decide who is guilty or not of anything. That is a matter for a court of law to decide, not a self appointed body of people who refuse to back their 'strongest critisisms' in such a court.


I'm sorry CR, but I can't accept the comparison, though I understood its a loose analogy. States act within context and the reasons and responsibilites for what happens often rests in so many different places that its impossible to blame an entire state, or even just the government, for such things without making the sort of broad generalizations that would be labelled ad hominum attacks if I were to make them here (actually they often are since I'm so clumsy).


Yes, but why? By what moral foundation should we accept the accusations of an organisation that spends so much time fussing over a lesser wrong doing than it does a greater? What sort of inept moral weakness is that?

Your argument reminds me of the example of policemen who only go after the smaller crooks because they can't touch the big ones. Its moral cowardice and we don't need it. We don't need Amnesty International to point our sins to us. We already have the law and the police and the media and the politicians and a whole host of people to do this!
What we need is people who will go after the big crooks, not cowards who won't.


And its because we 'give a darn' what non elected organisations have to say about us and how we conduct our affairs that so many people are now finding themselves confronted with violence from religious extremists for having dared to express an opposing opinion!

Are Amnesty right to condemn both Israel and Hizbollah for human rights violations?

Absolutely.

Why, or why not?

Because both are guilty of committing war crimes - duh. I don't think it's worth getting into a brawl over which faction is worse. Sure, Israel has committed more war crimes than Hezbollah, but war crime is war crime.

Do you consider Amnesty to be an honourable and unbiased institution or a political organisation with an agenda?

Yes. Amnesty International is an honorable, unbiased political institution with an agenda. That agenda is putting an end to violations of human rights.

Do you think the media where you live tend to report Amnesty's condemnations of your own government more than those of others?

Probably. The American media generally tends to report more national news than international news.

How does this affect how you, your fellow citizens, and your government think about Amnesty in particular and Human Rights in general?

It doesn't usually affect me much at all. I tend to be well aware of America's human rights abuses well before Amnesty gets around to reporting them.

As to my fellow citizens, most of them tend to be unaware of Amnesty's existence. If their reports ever trickle down into the popular consciousness, they are usually so mediated by the conservative media that a lot of people doubt their veracity. Those who are informed and concerned about human rights abuses generally revere Amnesty. Those who are informed and don't give a damn about human rights generally condemn Amnesty and charge it with bias, lack of credibility, and of being anti-[insert name of country here].

I don't think Amnesty has any impact whatsoever on my government (at least not the current one) - unless, of course, they can use the odd report to attack their opponents.

A question regarding the above, Wertz....

I must assume that this reasoning doesn't apply to all areas, in your opinion. Example, you would probably disagree with the statement: Those who are informed and concerned about US security generally revere the Republican party.

Is Amnesty in particular unbiased and credible, in your opinion, or is it simply impossible for an organization with "human rights" as its mission statement to be uncredible or biased?

That would be Amnesty International in particular. It has a long history that clearly demonstrates that it is free of the influence of any country, political ideology, economic philosophy, religion, or patronage. It has earned the respect of leaders and governments throughout the free world and has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated through well-documented reports that it is both credible and without bias (especially through such things as the "own country rule"). Any organization that can earn the criticism of the Peoples Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the Taliban, and the United States must be doing something right.

I won't take the bait on your US security example, but might I suggest that a closer parallel would be "Those who are informed and concerned about US security generally revere America's armed forces."

So pinning the label of "the gulag of our times" on Gitmo - not the other prisons on that island, not the lao gai in China, not the North Korean dungeons, and not the horrifically brutal prisons that exist elsewhere in the world - is a sign of objective thinking on their part, uninfluenced by ideology? Or are they just abysmally ignorant and incompetent?

Amnesty International has never released a report or a news release pertaining to Guantanimo Bay in which they have ever compared it to a Gulag in the Soviet Union. What you are referring to was a statement made on a Sunday FOX show by the head of Amnesty International USA.

Do you so flippantly dismiss the credibility of every organization, every time one of their representatives makes an inappropriate statement or a verbal gaffe? You must have a lower opinion of the Bush administration than I do, then! Do you think, honestly, that you would accept such a nonlogical argument from another member here?

Don't be misleading Quarkhead because that is simply not true.

Amnesty International refuses to back down from 'gulag' comments



This allegation was made by Amnesty International in their annual report.

I just perused through the Amensty International Annual Reports for 2006, 2005, and 2004, and I didn't find any reference to gulags.

Am I missing something here?

As Cyan says, that's not true. The same guy (the head of AI USA) who made the statement refused to rescind it. Amnesty International the organization has never made that claim.

I guess it's that persnickety liberal media having at us again.

For once, quarkhead, I agree with you completely.

While true, the term "gulag" has not appeared in print in AI's reports (that I know of, you must purchase them to get the full text ), the term has been used in official speeches by representatives of the organization.

Amnesty International Report 2005 Speech by Irene Khan at Foreign Press Association



This was not a verbal gaffe by a representative on a TV show expressing their personal opinion. This is obviously the opinion of the organization as this speech shows.

Here is a critique of AI being biased, such as their call for the media to cease and desist calling terrorists "terrorists".

Here is the actual page as it is right now on Amnesty International's web page concerning the Report 2005.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/message-eng

There is the report and the heading that goes along with it which is the Secretary General's message as a preface to the report.

In this heading there is the specific phrase:



So Quarkhead would you like to still assert this was a gaffe made on Fox News?

I stand corrected. I looked through the entire 2006 report, which is what I thought this was coming from. My apologies.

That being said, the 'gulag' comment really isn't the meat of this issue. The only reason I think it is unfortunate they used such terminology is because it gives the conservative punditry ammunition to do what they do best - kick at the messenger while hoping the message gets lost in the shuffle.

What is happening in Guantanamo Bay is horrific. What our country is doing and becoming is shameful.

I thank God for groups like Amnesty International. They are fair and unbiased. They have a single focus, and they are not going to pull punches because a bunch of conservative relativists want them to cut the US some special slack.

Are Amnesty right to condemn both Israel and Hizbollah for human rights violations? Why, or why not?

Do you consider Amnesty to be an honourable and unbiased institution or a political organisation with an agenda? Please give justification and (where necessary) supporting evidence?

Do you think the media where you live tend to report Amnesty's condemnations of your own government more than those of others? How does this affect how you, your fellow citizens, and your government think about Amnesty in particular and Human Rights in general?

1. Of course. An organization like AI focuses on human rights abuses. They would be betraying their main cause if they were to only condemn some countries while giving others a pass.

2. Indeed they are honourable. They are not unbiased. They are very biased towards human rights, freedom, and dignity. I would hope all of us share this bias. The evidence would be in their work. They have helped countless political prisoners, exposed many human rights abuses. They have served as a conscience where governments often have none.

3. Yes, of course. This is the nature of a national media - it is going to be concerned mostly with its own nation.

I think the use of the gulag metaphor was unfortunate because it allowed defenders of our practices in Guantanamo Bay to deflect the real criticisms. Amnesty International has addressed all of the situations you mention - and condemned them in no uncertain terms. Unless you can somehow refute the facts that we are indulging in "arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law" and "trials by military commissions [that] have made a mockery of justice and due process" at Gitmo, I'm afraid that I must stand by my assessment of AI.

Bear with this line of thought, as I believe it's pertinent to Amnesty International's creditbility and inability to see things without "partisan covered glasses".


I know that there have been incidents that raise eyebrows, but frankly it's not as if shock therapy or viscious beatings were used. The prison isn't a "gulag", internment camp, or anything otherwise terrible. Our nation has used tactics of this nature, as has every other western nature, in every conflict known.

Our nation isn't headed down some terribly slippery slope, but moreover the media portrays acts in a light that sells headlines and their agenda. Frankly, this is where Amnesty International lives. It's the same little world. Sure they're going to condemn Hizbollah (sp?). That's what they do. Does it make it meaningful? Not really.

I think realistically that the US has done things to protect its own interest that we ordinarily wouldn't have done in a perfect world. Using women and sexual overtones to harass a muslim... well... if that's what has to be done, so be it. Is it like the Hizbollah? Ummm.... no. Are we like the Chinese or Russians in that we have political camps killing thousands/millions of people? Of course not. Have we ever been wrong.?.. of course.

Which, of course, is beside the point. The point is, they consider Guantanamo worse than those other cases, which means their credibility and impartiality have basically been (unlike that mythical Quran at Gitmo) flushed down the toilet. That has implications for their assessment of the Israel/Hizballah conflict, especially when they out-and-out refuse to take Hizballah to task for deliberately using civilians as human shields, so they could blame Israel for their deaths instead.