Amnesty International

[belboid]

Amnesty calls for an arms embargo on the Palestinians but not on the United States - you couldn't make it up!

will you ever reply to anyone Udo? Or will you just repeat your one daft comment?

 

[danny la rouge]

Amnesty calls for an arms embargo on the Palestinians but not on the United States - you couldn't make it up!

Well, you kind of did.

Amnesty have called on the US to stop supplying Israel with arms, and furthermore have been campaigning on Global Principles for Arms Transfers.

Are they a liberal organisation? Yes, that was conceded early on in the thread.

 

[butchersapron]

CND are the real scum.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The evidence of Amnesty hypocrisy and servitude to the powerful is so overwhelming that I'm surprised it needs pointing out.

It has often been said that Amnesty International's agenda tends to fit nicely with the political needs of the United States and Great Britain. Around the world, supporters of the Nicaraguan people's struggle for self-determination were outraged by the timing of a 1986 Amnesty report critical of the Sandinista government, which helped Reagan push another Contra Aid appropriation through a reluctant congress, at exactly the moment when the anti-Contra movement was beginning to get serious political traction.

With regard to South Africa's apartheid regime, AI was critical of the human rights record of the South African government. However, as you will see below, AI never condemned apartheid per se. By the time Amnesty endorsed the Hill & Knowlton nursery tale concerning Kuwaiti infants pulled from incubators by Iraqi soldiers, many otherwise sympathetic observers of Amnesty's work became increasingly alarmed.

More than a decade of grassroots organization within Amnesty's membership base finally succeeded just two years ago in moving the organization to take a position critical of the genocidal sanctions against the people of Iraq, sanctions which have killed approximately a million and a half Iraqis, one third of them children. According to Dr. Boyle, this was political, and it clearly served the interests of the U.S. and Britain, the two governments on the Security Council preventing the lifting of the sanctions.

A recent search of internet shows that AI Venezuela very quickly took up the U.S. line by charging President Chavez with crimes against humanity for the bloodshed during the recent failed coup attempt against his administration. Amnesty's performance on the April massacre at Jenin is another blot on its frequently laudable record. As our readers are aware, the United Nations attempted to investigate the Jenin massacre, but was prevented from doing so by Sharon and Bush. The announcement on May 3[, 2002] by Human Rights Watch of “no massacre at Jenin” effectively killed the story, although there was a lot of argument about what constitutes a massacre. No such arguments were heard when a suicide bomber turned a Passover dinner into a tragedy.

How Amnesty sabotaged a UN investigation into the 2002 massacre in Jenin:
http://www.doublestandards.org/boyle1.html

 

[belboid]

so, you DO refuse to actually reply to what anyone has actually said.

Utterly pathetic, but what can one expect from a member of an organsiation that urges its members to vote for supporters of nuclear power, the third runway, pfi & new labour?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

What is being argued is not that Amnesty is a liberal organisation but that they have a conscious bias towards the powerful, that far from being impartial they tailor their reports to reflect the interests of the powerful..

Amnesty never condemned Apartheid per se. Most liberals did.

Amnesty are more likely to accused Hugo Chavez, the Palestinians or Iraqis of crimes against humanity than the US, Israel or Britain.

Does anybody find it strange to accuse a democratically elected leader who faced a military coup of committing 'crimes against humanity'? That's what Amnesty have accused Hugo Chavez of in his response to the coup in April 2002. But when the powerful commit war crimes, Amnesty will only ever use the most evasive and qualified language - 'actions that might constitute war crimes' etc

 

[danny la rouge]

What is being argued is not that Amnesty is a liberal organisation but that they have a conscious bias towards the powerful, that far from being impartial they tailor their reports to reflect the interests of the powerful..

Do you understand what being liberal, in this context, means?

The powerful are not a monolithic bloc with the same hymnal; some are conservative and have the 1662 Common Book of Prayer, and some are liberal and use Common Worship.

Amnesty uses Common Worship.

Anyone with any sense reads their reports with that in mind.

 

[frogwoman]

Do you understand what being liberal, in this context, means?

The powerful are not a monolithic bloc with the same hymnal; some are conservative and have the 1662 Common Book of Prayer, and some are liberal and use Common Worship.

Amnesty uses Common Worship.

Anyone with any sense reads their reports with that in mind.

this basically

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Utterly pathetic, but what can one expect from a member of an organsiation that urges its members to vote for supporters of nuclear power, the third runway, pfi & new labour?

Just on an aside, I am not a member of any political organisation, I would consider myself a libertarian marxist. Now how about addressing the real points?


"Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns. To be sure, if you are dealing with a human rights situation in a country that is at odds with the United States or Britain, it gets an awful lot of attention, resources, man and womanpower, publicity, you name it, they can throw whatever they want at that. But if it's dealing with violations of human rights by the United States, Britain, Israel, then it's like pulling teeth to get them to really do something on the situation. They might, very reluctantly and after an enormous amount of internal fightings and battles and pressures, you name it. But you know, it's not like the official enemies list." - Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law, Univ. of Illinois, Former member of the board of Amnesty International USA

 

[frogwoman]

Its worth mentioning though that the Israeli government really dislike amnesty international ...

 

[butchersapron]

Its worth mentioning though that the Israeli government really dislike amnesty international ...

...and in the current climate to side with the zionists is to be objectively anti-palestinian.

 

[danny la rouge]

Udo, you are labouring under a misapprehension if you think anyone is arguing Amnesty shouldn't be critiqued.

(Here's one, for example).

The organisation has its issues. But that isn't the same as "zero credibility"; it has its uses and functions.

 

[belboid]

oh dear, poor Udo doesn't actusally understand what Amnesty is about, does he? Well, either that or he is being deliberately dishonest.

The ANC thanjked Amnesty for its work on many occasions. Amnesty HAS critcised the US government on rather strong terms on many occasions.

As for Venezuela and 'crimes gainst humanity', Amnesty has this to say:

"The 1999 Venezuelan Constitution has introduced a ground-breaking safeguard against impunity in its article 29 which states that ''human rights violations and offences against humanity shall be investigated and tried by ordinary courts'' (9). This provision is reiterated and extended in article 261 of the Constitution which stipulates that ''common law offences, human rights violations and crimes against humanity shall be prosecuted by ordinary courts''(10). Furthermore, the sole derogation clause contained in the Venezuelan Constitution states that ''the legal system shall remain in effect in all matters which do not contradict this Constitution''."

Which is actually praising Chavez!

 

[belboid]

Now how about addressing the real points?

Just as soon as you do, you hypocritical tosspot

 

[frogwoman]

...and in the current climate to side with the zionists is to be objectively anti-palestinian.

Well, yeah, but Amnesty don't do that do they. If they went around making political anti-zionist speeches, however right they might be it wouldn't do much for their credibility both among the general public (rightly or wrongly) or anyone else.

The Israeli government/lackeys are constantly criticising amnesty, accusing them of being anti-semitic, etc. there are plenty of criticisms to be made of them, but the non political stance is integral to their whole model imo, and i agree it could be better and it definitely has it issues, but they dont have "zero credibility" ffs

 

[butchersapron]

Well, yeah, but Amnesty don't do that do they. If they went around making political anti-zionist speeches, however right they might be it wouldn't do much for their credibility both among the general public (rightly or wrongly) or anyone else.

The Israeli government/lackeys are constantly criticising amnesty, accusing them of being anti-semitic, etc. there are plenty of criticisms to be made of them, but the non political stance is integral to their whole model imo, and i agree it could be better and it definitely has it issues, but they dont have "zero credibility" ffs

I was using udo's daft robot-voiced montone logic against him - i wasn't serious!

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Well, yeah, but Amnesty don't do that do they. If they went around making political anti-zionist speeches, however right they might be it wouldn't do much for their credibility both among the general public (rightly or wrongly) or anyone else.

Is anybody actually arguing that they make anti-Zionist speeches or become a pro-Palestinian organisation? Or is it just being suggested that they adopt a rigorous framework based on international law.

As stated, Amnesty call for an arms embargo on a people subject to the longest military occupation in modern times, but don't call for an arms embargo on weapons being sold to Britain which is involved in occupying two countries etc.

If Amnesty operated within the framework of international law, they might well criticise indiscriminate targetting of Israeli civilians by Palestinian resistance groups, but they would also recognise that any people under occupation have the right of armed struggle.

After 1300 people were slaughtered in Gaza most normal people would think that the Palestinians were entitled to all the weapons that they can get to defend themselves against a military armed with F16s, nuclear bombs, helicopter gunships etc.

Amnesty's call for an arms embargo on a people under occupation cannot be seen as anything other than obscene.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Just on an aside, I am not a member of any political organisation, I would consider myself a libertarian marxist. Now how about addressing the real points?

Hmm, I always had you down as a card-carrying SWP supporter.

 

[danny la rouge]

As stated, Amnesty call for an arms embargo on a people subject to the longest military occupation in modern times, but don't call for an arms embargo on weapons being sold to Britain which is involved in occupying two countries etc.

I feel you've changed the details of your complaint here...

 

[belboid]

changed the details, and ignored everyone else's points!

A class act

 

[Udo Erasmus]

changed the details, and ignored everyone else's points!

A class act

No, I think I mentioned this issue right on my first post on this thread.

Have you actually made any points Belboid? Do you actually have anything to say about anything?

 

[belboid]

oh dear, is poor lickly Udo feeling got at, because he can't actually defend his original stupid post. Diddums.

I've made several points Udo, here are a couple just for you:

1 - only an idiot would think that because something IS in need of critiquing on some issues that that means it has 'zero credibility'

2 - you're comments re Venezuela, South Africa, and the US do not actually hold up upon even the most cursory of investiagations.

 

[danny la rouge]

Amnesty International has zero credibility since called for an arms embargo on ALL parties involved in the Gaza conflict.

Amnesty calls for an arms embargo on the Palestinians but not on the United States - you couldn't make it up!

“As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights. The Obama Administration should immediately suspend US military aid to Israel,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty Director for the Middle East.

We want a global ATT based on our “5 Golden Rules” to help stop those international transfers of conventional arms that are likely to be used for serious human rights violations, and fuel conflict and poverty:

States shall not authorise international transfers of conventional arms or ammunition where they will:

(i) be used or are likely to be used for gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law.

(ii) have an impact that would clearly undermine sustainable development or involve corrupt practices;

(iii) provoke or exacerbate armed conflict in violation of their obligations under the UN Charter and existing treaties.

(iv) contribute to an existing pattern of violent crime.

(v) risk being diverted for one of the above outcomes or for acts of terrorism.

So, to be clear, this applies to Britain, the US, Israel, everyone. And with particular reference to Israel, Amnesty says: "The Obama Administration should immediately suspend US military aid to Israel".

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I'm not sure what your point is Danny?

Amnesty International UK explicitly call for an arms embargo on the Palestinians. To call for a people under occupation to be disarmed contradicts the right to resist under international law and human rights of an occupied people.

Do they explicitly call for arms not to be sold to Britain on the basis that Britain occupies two countries where it has carried out human rights abuses?

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not sure what your point is Danny?

That they have called upon the US and Britain to desist what they call arms transfer, and have outlined the principles, which they apply to everyone. You said it does not apply to the US, but it does, and they have made specific mention of the US supplying Israel.

 

[belboid]

calling for an arms embargo is not the same as calling for them to be disarmed, you dishonest prat

 

[Udo Erasmus]

That they have called upon the US and Britain to desist what they call arms transfer, and have outlined the principles, which they apply to everyone. You said it does not apply to the US, but it does, and they have made specific mention of the US supplying Israel.

Amnesty call for an arms embargo on Palestinians, they are not calling for an arms embargo on the US, but rather for the US to observe their arms embargo's on other states.

The US is involved in far more human rights violations than the people of Gaza.

They don't want people arming Palestinians, they are not calling for people not to arm the United States, but rather that the US shouldn't arms some people that it has decided shouldn't have weapons.

They call for the US not to transfer weapons to other states, but have no problems with the US having weapons, but do with the Palestinians.

Furthermore, my original point was criticising Amnesty calling for an arms embargo on ALL parties involved in the Middle East.

 

[danny la rouge]

You're getting very mixed up here. It's really quite easy. Amnesty, a liberal campaigning organisation, wants to stop all "international transfers of conventional arms that are likely to be used for serious human rights violations, and fuel conflict and poverty". All. That applies to the US, in all their dealings, anywhere that arms "are likely to be used for serious human rights violations, and fuel conflict and poverty".

 

[Udo Erasmus]

You're getting very mixed up here. It's really quite easy. Amnesty, a liberal campaigning organisation, wants to stop all "international transfers of conventional arms that are likely to be used for serious human rights violations, and fuel conflict and poverty". All. That applies to the US, in all their dealings, anywhere that arms "are likely to be used for serious human rights violations, and fuel conflict and poverty".

So do Amnesty call for an end to arms sales to Britain?
I don't think so!

Look, international law is straightforward, if you are under occupation you have the right to resist - conflict is fueled by occupation not by those who resist.

 

[danny la rouge]

So do Amnesty call for an end to arms sales to Britain?
I don't think so!

And arms sales to America, which you worried about earlier. Is the US a major importer, btw? Or is it their exports that are more the problem? Like ours.

Look, international law is straightforward, if you are under occupation you have the right to resist - conflict is fueled by occupation not by those who resist.

Do you imagine anyone here is disagreeing?