For those of you who think AI is anti-American...

[pax]

...take a look at this story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4714601.stm

Just goes to show that Amnesty takes on human rights abusers everywhere and is truly apolitical.

 

[Jamila]

Thank you, pax.

 

[U2democrat]

I Amnesty International

 

[verte76]

Thanks pax.

 

[deep]

For those of you who think AI is anti-American

no offense


but, thanks for nothing


Anyone who believes AI, UN, Red Cross are anti-American are probably just pin-headed conservatives

Anyone that believes AI would not condemn kidnappings and beheadings does not have a friggin clue,


Condemning Abu ghraib/GITMO torture/abuse is Pro American,
covering it up, denying it, minimizing it, is a anti-American

 

[A_Wanderer]

All depends on how you look at what America's national interest is.

 

[deep]

I hold a different view than Bolton.

 

[nbcrusader]

no offense


but, thanks for nothing


Anyone who believes AI, UN, Red Cross are anti-American are probably just pin-headed conservatives

Anyone that believes AI would not condemn kidnappings and beheadings does not have a friggin clue,


Condemning Abu ghraib/GITMO torture/abuse is Pro American,
covering it up, denying it, minimizing it, is a anti-American

Ah, yes. The don't question tact or you are a [fill in the blank]. Nice discussion point.

 

[lady luck]

Thanks! I am a member of Amnesty in my Country and I'm so hppy when people around do remember that the work we do doesn't depend on the country, but just on Human Rights.

I met extraordinary people in this organisation, and I'm so full of joy when I read that our work is appreciated!

 

[Sherry Darling]

Ah, yes. The don't question tact or you are a [fill in the blank]. Nice discussion point.

What do you think of the article Pax posted?

Cheryl

 

[MadelynIris]

Iraqi insurgents are committing war crimes that undermine any claim they may have to be fighting a legitimate cause, Amnesty International says.

What's weird about the article, is that it doesn't say anything pro-american at all. So I don't get it.

But what I do get is that it says it's wrong for the insurgency to be blowing up crowds of civilians.

 

[BonosSaint]

Not sure that I understand your post, MadelynIris. An organization doesn't have to say something pro-American to not be anti-American. Or does it? Can't it just be America neutral? And any other country neutral for that matter?

 

[pax]

Not sure that I understand your post, MadelynIris. An organization doesn't have to say something pro-American to not be anti-American. Or does it? Can't it just be America neutral? And any other country neutral for that matter?

That is precisely the point.

AI is NOT pro-American nor anti-American. They are anti-human rights abuse. They have to maintain neutrality.

 

[nbcrusader]

What do you think of the article Pax posted?

Cheryl

It was a nice, public statement supporting what many of us already recognized - that the insurgency's indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians cannot be tolerated.

I hope AI's statement will influence those groups who have been silent or support the insurgencies for nothing more than to be contrary to US policy. To that extent, the statement posed a cost to AI. And for that I am grateful and say

 

[Dreadsox]

That is precisely the point.

AI is NOT pro-American nor anti-American. They are anti-human rights abuse. They have to maintain neutrality.

If AI made consistent statements about human-rights abuses, I would agree with you.

However, the level of RHETORIC put into statements about the US leads me to think they are less then neutral when it comes to the US.

I am not saying anything about what they believe about human rights, which I generally agree with them on. Its over the top statements that turn me off.

 

[MadelynIris]

right - I meant to say, I see nothing that says they are explicitly anti-american, pro-american or whatever.

I know exactly where AI stands, and have never had a problem with them.

 

[deep]

I hope AI's statement will influence those groups who have been silent or support the insurgencies for nothing more than to be contrary to US policy. To that extent, the statement posed a cost to AI. And for that I am grateful and say

I just don't get this line of thinking

that some can think it is a risk to condemn abhorrent behavior by anyone, or group

is it in the context of "with us or against us"

that "one side" in more good, therefore

the good

in good vs. evil?