Is Amnesty International an "absurd" group of American Haters?

[opebo]

Amnesty International has been very lenient in its judgements of the thuggish Bush regime. 

[opebo]

Yes, even I as a Canadian African American can see that Amnesty International hates the United States.

Well, only in the sense that they dislike America's abuse of human rights.

[opebo]

Did you not read anything in this topic? This is based on the testimony of a bunch of former detainees. Yeah, they sure are trustworthy people. Probably a bunch of great guys, locked up by intolerant prudes and religious for visiting prostitutes at the wrong place, at the wrong time! Those crazy religious!

Well, who else are you going to get testimony from about torture, other than the tortured?  I don't imagine there are a lot of disinterested third parties in those dungeons.

[opebo]

Thanks for admitting there is no objective source for these claims, and therefore, the report is absurd.

I know nothing about the report.  But I assume that where there is secrecy, there is torture.  This seems rather obvious.  The State only refrains from such practices where openness to the press and human rights organizations prevent it.  Since this openness is not the case in Guantanamo, it is reasonable to assume that what is going on there is torture.

[opebo]

The point is, the Abu Grhaib scandal & Bush election victory proves Americans don't give a damn about any abuses of human rights as long as they occur in foreign countries.

No, I think the great majority of Americans also do not mind human rights abuses within the borders of America, so long as it happens to people different from them - hence the commonplace acceptance of abuse of blacks, poor, homosexuals, and others.

[opebo]

opebo,

You say an absence of abuse reports only exist where the media is present.  This makes your calim self justifying, like, I dare to say it, when someone says God exists because you can't prove he doesn't.  If you only charge a tree falls when no one is around to hear it, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

No, I was saying that if the State is not watched, it tortures.  What on earth do you think they're doing in there?  The only way to prevent the State from torturing is to have third parties observing.  The can do whatever they like in there.

In other words I'm saying that imprisoning people in secret, without oversight of third parties such as the press and human rights organizatoins, is in itself a human rights abuse.

[opebo]

Why should animal terrorists recieve human "rights" even if their is such a thing as human "rights"?

Oversight of the State is for our sake, not theirs, StatesRights.  They'll be disappearing and torturing you or I next.

[opebo]

Ok, they were captured in combat..fighting US troops. Obviously they are thugs, murderers or terrorists. I don't understand why liberals can't make simple calculations in their heads.

No, they aren't 'thugs, murderers, or terrorists', any more than the American invaders are.  They're just the enemy soldiers.  There is no need for all this judgemental talk and double standards.

[opebo]

Terrorists, just like murderers, rapists, etc, have no rights, and for any who may not be terrorists, tough luck. War is hell.

So, you would prefer to have no legal rights.

[opebo]

I will repeat this again, since apparently people didn't see it the first six times.  Amnesty International, and for that matter no independent organization, believes the detainees at Gitmo are innocent of the charge of being a terrorist.  I repeat, no one, not even Amnesty, has challenged the status of the enemy combatants there.

The charge of 'being a terrorist' has never been made, as there is no court.  It is also a misrepresentation or double standard, as both sides are either soldiers or terrorists. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If no third party is given access, there is nothing whatever to prevent torture.  It is reasonable to presume that where there is secrecy, there is abuse.  Why not let us monitor?  Transparency is essentially to any sort of legal rights or democratic government.

[opebo]

We're back to your same old argument.  You will need some evidencethat there is torture before you expect people to believe you.  When you say that any place where there is no evidence of torture, the lack of evidence is itself evidence is not very serious.

Evidence is impossible in a closed system.  There is no third party looking on, only the individual and the State - his torturer - in the dungeon. 

Sure maybe someday if and when the State is defeated as in Nazi Germany the bodies will be dug up, but until and unless that happens, the individual loses, and is tortured.

[opebo]

Amnesty International's current front page links to news articles that criticize the following countries:

Two criticisms:
China

One criticism:
Afghanistan
Lebanon
European Union
Mexico
Nigeria
Russia
United Kingdom
United States
Zimbabwe

More critical of the United States than of Sudan, I take it.  Impressive.

Sure tells me something.  Good to know that Syria, Iran, and North Korea are bastions of human rights.

I don't see why I should be more concerned about some foriegn lands I'll never visit violating human rights.  It makes more sense for Americans to be concerned about their own government's rampant abuses for two reasons; 1) the danger this represents to our rights, and 2) the detrimental effect on our foreign relations and security.

It doesn't effect me one bit if people are tortured in North Korea, but it certainly does if the CIA is doing it.