It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Those of us in the reality-based community are not inclined to dismiss an Amnesty International report out of hand. I myself am sometimes disappointed with AI, especially when they accuse certain organizations I respect of human rights violations on a par with those of the governments they seek to topple. I think it necessary to distinguish between the violence of the oppressed and the violence of the oppressor. One is "political" whether one so distinguishes or not, and AI's politics tends towards the legitimatization of state power over the right to rebel. In any case, the organization does a lot of good work, and I support for example the programs they maintain in our high schools. Only fools would call their reports "absurd," not to be taken seriously.
But here you have the president and vice president of the United States dissing AI big time, arguing in effect that
(a) the U.S. is the biggest liberator of human beings ever, and that therefore ipso facto
(b) it can't possibly have tortured abused and humiliated prisoners from Guantanamo to Afghanistan. Isn't it simple and obvious? And
(c): those making charges are freed detainees, who hate America, and
(d) they have been trained to "disassemble," which preacher man Bush tells us means to lie.
...
William Schultz, head of Amnesty's U.S. section responds that it is "worth noting that this administration never finds it 'absurd' when we criticize Cuba or China, or when we condemned the violations in Iraq under Saddam Hussein." Indeed U.S. administrations routinely reference AI reports when they want to attack some foreign foe. But the fascistic epistemology current in ruling circles dictates that truth cannot negatively affect the USA. Facts and intelligence must be fixed around U.S. interests. So the Cheney-friendly Wall Street Journal lashes out at the "moral degradation" of Amnesty International, debased so low as to compare the U.S.'s global network of detention centers including those in allied countries that routinely employ torture, with a "gulag." Neocons David Rivkin and Lee Casey condemn AI's "extravagant and unfounded claims" in the National Review without attempting to refute any particular claim. "Groups like Amnesty persistently state that American policy at Guantanamo Bay is illegal," they declare, "even though this is simply not true." It just is, in the disassembler's words, not true.
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Originally posted by bodrul
plz tell me ur joking?
the united states has broken s**t loads of international laws
do you need it spelt out?
So have every other country in the world in one way or another, including the vaunted UN. Need to spell it out for you?
Good, they're terrorists so why aren't these prisoners brought to trial for convicting them?
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked...
In the brief years that GITMO has existed, not one prisoner has been killed or substantially harmed.
While I understand that the US must be held to a higher standard compared to those we criticize, the terms, comparisons, and tone that Amnesty International regularly use in their so-called "reports" does nothing but enable their little-remaining credibility to be lost.
It is now readily apparent that they have degenerated into nothing more than a left-wing, green party, socialist, anti-American organization of tree-hugging dirt worshippers.
Originally posted by Moretti
I'm afraid "Podoherzl"'s eminent works are in vain, since you won't find the denomination "Gulag" anywhere in the report. Fundamental debunking is good, as long as it is addressed at something the report actually contains.
Originally posted by Moretti
Torture has never been an effective interrogation tool of suspects. That's why it isnt being used in any law-abiding country. It's only purpose is to humiliate the enemy.
Originally posted by deltaboy
i dont see how giving Osama bin laden a lawyer paid by American taxpayers is gonna help the Ameircan people.
Originally posted by Odium
Here, I'll make it simple for you all to understand:
If you think they are guilty place them on trial let the courts decide.
Also there's a term called: Self Fulfilling Prophecy (Pygmalion Effect)
To be honest, those three people were probably not terrorists but after several years of being locked away and "tortured" it'd mess your head up. Which is the idea of torture. They probable came out of there hating America so much they became what they thought they were. It happens with children if you tell them they are fat over and over, it can cause weight problems and anorexia nervosa.
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Sorry, that is a fallacious comment. Amnesty Secretary General Irene Kahn stated that "Guantanamo has become the gulag of our times," as if she is comparing the GITMO to the Gulag under the Soviet system. Precisely the point she's driving home in raising "concerns" over the manners of how the US government and military are treating known al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban militants. These people were trained to kill, in capacity of unlawful activities, our government, military personnel and citizens, as they have in the past, something that you're too dense to understand.
If American government, military personnel and civilian falls into the hands of al Qaeda terrorists, they would be more likely to be broadcasted to the world/the Web, then killled/beheaded than to live as prisoners under their hands. At least the detainees at GITMO are still alive, well-fed and well care of, thanks to our "horrible" treatments. I'm somewhat miffed at the fact they are better treated than the rest of the American prisoners.
Why do you wanted to go too easy on dangerous terrorists or hardened criminals?
A friend of mine works for a NYC firm consulting the United Nations, this person's a liberal Democrat but grown disgusted at what the UN has become and knew many people who were involved in UN's and US's NGOs such as AI. This is what the person have to say about AI:
The daughter of a very famous Lakota (Sioux founder of AIM and award winning actor) worked for Amnesty. She said the organization was dispicable, irrelevant and totally political. So political that they had favorite nation status for some countries like i.e. Cuba, the then Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China along with various South American communist movements.
She said their findings/research were beyond ludicrous. As a Native American, with no love of the American government, but a tremendous love of country, she said that by the time her internship was over, she was a screaming conservative patriot. Her father said Amnesty International was a self serving organization looking for fame and notiriety and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Natan Sharansky said that in Amnesty's annual reports twenty pages of human rights violations by countries such as Israel and almost twice as many pages devoted to the United States were a definition of said reports. Because democracies have transparent and open societies with information freely given to the likes of Amnesty while totalitarian societies i.e. The People's Republic of China, Iran, Iraq under the Butcher, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Cuba along with every other country in Africa was given but a scant page or two. Why? Because Amnesty couldn't get any information therefore there must be no violations and nothing to report.
Amnesty gives a free pass to countries and nations that could qualify as sewers of human dignity while open and free societies are castigated ad nauseum.
Amnesty International have become too political, too far leaning on the left, openly criticizing democratic, transparent societies like the US, UK, etc on handling terrorists but making scant and weak criticism at the worst human rights violators such as Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea, etc.
Ad hominem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument [aimed] at the person", but usually translated as "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself or an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.
Originally posted by bodrul
is that you have to say?
people who speak out against america are anti american?
dam ur shallow minded ands ewhats with the link to that message board
is it suppose to effect us in some way?
Originally posted by devilwasp
So because they are atleast alive that means they dont get ANY rights?
Originally posted by devilwasp
Because one person says the orginisation is bad , that means its biased and "left leaning"?
Thank god no ones ever questioned my government like that