NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: How can AI any longer maintain the fiction that they are "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion?"


Amnesty leadership aided Kerry (http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,4-XX-0-DAYX20050602,00.html)


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.
Amnesty USA yesterday told The Washington Times that staff members make policy based on laws governing human rights, pointing out that the organization had criticized some of President Clinton's policies.
"We strive to do everything humanly possible to see that the personal political perspectives of our leadership have no bearing whatsoever upon the nature of our findings and the conduct of our work," a spokesman said.
Amnesty International describes itself as nonpartisan. Disclosure of the leadership's political leanings came yesterday as the Bush administration continued to lash out at the human rights group for remarks last week by Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary-general.
Mrs. Khan compared the U.S. detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members are held, to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's "gulag" prison system.
At the same time, Mr. Schulz issued a statement calling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials "architects of torture." Mr. Schulz suggested that other countries could file war-crime charges against the top officials and arrest them.
Since Sunday, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Vice President Dick Cheney; and President Bush have accused Amnesty International of irresponsible criticism.
Yesterday, it was Mr. Rumsfeld's turn.
"No force in the world has done more to liberate people that they have never met than the men and women of the United States military," Mr. Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon press conference. "That's why the recent allegation that the U.S. military is running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay is so reprehensible. Most would define a gulag as where the Soviet Union kept millions in forced labor concentration camps. ... To compare the United States and Guantanamo Bay to such atrocities cannot be excused."
Amnesty International has hit the White House for refusing to treat suspected al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists as prisoners of war subject to the Geneva Conventions; for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and for a list of largely unsubstantiated complaints from detainees at Guantanamo.
Mr. Rumsfeld said "at least a dozen" of the 200 detainees released from Guantanamo "have already been caught back on the battlefield, involved in efforts to kidnap and kill Americans."
Mr. Schulz posted a statement yesterday on Amnesty's Web site (www.amnesty.org) that said, in part, "Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration ignored or dismissed Amnesty International's reports on the abuse of detainees for years, and senior officials continue to ignore the very real plight of men detained without charge or trial."
Amnesty International's Web site states it is "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government."

Whats wrong with that?

Whats wrong with that?

Human rights organizations should be apolitical, and unaffiliated with any political party.

Whats wrong with that?
If they say they are going to be politically independent, then they can't turn around and donate money to a specific political campaign.

Simple ethics.

Why should they be apolitical? They feel that a new administration would reduse the number of human rights violations and executions by the nation that has had the most violations of human rights in the past 4 year than most middle east countries have had in their entire history.

Why should they be apolitical? They feel that a new administration would reduse the number of human rights violations and executions by the nation that has had the most violations of human rights in the past 4 year than most middle east countries have had in their entire history.

They don't have to be apolitical.

The problem is that they STATE that they most definitely ARE apolitical - then turn around and act political.

Choose. You can't say one thing and do another.

You seem to make no distinction between a man (William F. Schulz) and the organisation he works for.

So what if Mr. Schulz made political donations? That doesn't make AI a political. If I say "I hate Jews", does that make the company I work for anti-semite?

Ohhh... that makes more sense. Well, their candidate lost, so it really doesnt make a difference.

From my understanding, it was an individual near the top. The organization is apolitical; the individuals have the right to their views, neh? As long as the organization as an individual entity doesn't favor a party, where's the issue?

You seem to make no distinction between a man (William F. Schulz) and the organisation he works for.

So what if Mr. Schulz made political donations? That doesn't make AI a political. If I say "I hate Jews", does that make the company I work for anti-semite?

If you were the senior executive of that company, that charge could be made to stick.

You should read the article properly, its says that some of the leadership personally gave money to the kerry campiagn, which is their right, not amnesty international, so i dont see what the problem is.

Should we ban people who are affilitated with an apolitical organisation from making a personal donation to a political party, or any other organisation?
I think not

I thought that article said that the leader of AI made that contribution, not in the name of the organization, but in their own name. How is that any different from me sending in a donation to a political candidate that concurs with my views, or the CEO of any corporation making a contribution?

And btw - AI has taken the US government to task even when a Democrat sat in the White House.

Ewww Washington Times. :rolleyes:

You seem to make no distinction between a man (William F. Schulz) and the organisation he works for.

So what if Mr. Schulz made political donations? That doesn't make AI a political. If I say "I hate Jews", does that make the company I work for anti-semite?
There's a vast difference between being an employee of a privately owned company and being a policy-maker for a tax-exempt foundation which claims to be for "human rights" without regard to any ideology. And it wasn't just Schulz.

If you were the senior executive of that company, that charge could be made to stick.
If that harge would stick, the company could legally sue for slander and would probably win.

Unless AI has a strict policy concerning employees contributing to a political party, this is just mudslinging.

Yeah I suppose on principle alone is wrong but let's consider magnitude here. Aside from private contributions, the organization itself only gave $2,000, a drop in the bucket. Also, outside of "soft money" you can't contributed anything in the presidential campaigns, it's all financed by the government.

This is more of a Kerry above all other Dems than a Dem over a Rep thing.

There's a vast difference between being an employee of a privately owned company and being a policy-maker for a tax-exempt foundation which claims to be for "human rights" without regard to any ideology. And it wasn't just Schulz.
ok, so my my comparison is not exactly exact. It is an analogy to make a point. Please discuss the point and not the analogy.

You should read the article properly, its says that some of the leadership personally gave money to the kerry campiagn, which is their right, not amnesty international, so i dont see what the problem is.

Should we ban people who are affilitated with an apolitical organisation from making a personal donation to a political party, or any other organisation?
I think not

Then why should the Vice President put his investments into a blind trust while he performs his job as Vice President? Because his actions and words have an effect on stock prices - in fact, they could have an effect on specific stock prices - to the benefit of the Vice President.

So an executive of such an organization should stop giving money to ANY political campaign - because their actions and words have an effect on political campaigns - in fact, they could have an effect on specific elections - to the benefit of that organization.

Well... 2000 dollars. It's not much money at all. In fact, I doubt it had any influence on the election at all.

They should be apolitical, in cases where both or niether candidate/party/whatever violates their mission. But I believe they have every right to work to further their mission by opposing a candidate who will commit human rights violations.

Preventing human rights violations is what they do. If part of that means trying to keep George Bush out of office, then they gotta do what they gotta do, within the bounderies of the law.

There's a vast difference between being an employee of a privately owned company and being a policy-maker for a tax-exempt foundation which claims to be for "human rights" without regard to any ideology. And it wasn't just Schulz.

What? That's nonsense. Public and private citizens have the same rights and responcibilities. Just because public citizens are in the news more often doesn't mean they are required to be saints.

Well... 2000 dollars. It's not much money at all. In fact, I doubt it had any influence on the election at all.

They should be apolitical, in cases where both or niether candidate/party/whatever violates their mission. But I believe they have every right to work to further their mission by opposing a candidate who will commit human rights violations.

Preventing human rights violations is what they do. If part of that means trying to keep George Bush out of office, then they gotta do what they gotta do, within the bounderies of the law.

That's fine - they should stop saying that they are not a political organization.

That's fine - they should stop saying that they are not a political organization.
They are not. Amnesty Internation, the corporate citizen, gave nothing to any political party whatsoever. Individuals employed by the company did.

By donating money they hurt the organization's credibility as well as their ability to work. True they have the right to donate their own money, but in such positions as these exectuives hold they cannot do so without consequences. The consequence of their actions is that the Bush Admisinatrion distrust's the AI exectuives and that carries over to AI as a whole. Attacks by AI after the contributions are now viewed as being politically motivated by the executives rather then objective documention of human rights.
Also if you say "you hates jews" anyone who knows that and knows you work for that company will look at your company and say, "hey there is someone there who is anti-semetic, I don't trust that place."
Also your comment about Human Rights violations between the Bush Administration and Middle Eastern countries is wrong. Iraq alone has more human right violations then America has had after Japanese internments, and probably even more.

They are not. Amnesty Internation, the corporate citizen, gave nothing to any political party whatsoever. Individuals employed by the company did.
Executives of the company gave money.

OK, if that's OK with you, then we should call Dick Cheney and tell him that he doesn't have to put his stock portfolio in a blind trust while he's the VP.

An individual can donate to any candidate he/she wants. AI did not donate any money. Therefore, it is still nonpartisan under tax law. There is a difference. If you ever thought that there were many Republicans on AI, you are stupid. People working for nonprofits are people, too, and they harbor their own political beliefs. This isn't the first time that the US has come under AI scrutiny. They did take issue with the Clinton administration, despite the fact that individuals working for AI donated money to it. And, US foreign policy does hurt nonUS citizens at times. That is reality. The US isn't this special force for good 24/7, and they should be held to the same scrutiny to which every other nation is held.

Amnesty International has never had any credibility with me. Like Greenpeace, they spend more time trying to make free nations look bad, while ignoring atrocities committed in communist nations. Note how Amnesty international screams about the "rights" of some spikey haired "anarchist" who is arrested for smashing the windows of a Starbucks at a protest, or about how the prisoners at Guantanamo are not given regulation-size tennis courts, but make only passing mention about Cuban dissidents like Martha Beatriz Roque and Hector Palacios. I have not heard anything about the actions of the organisation in the 1980's when Lech Walesa was imprisoned in Poland, or anything about the Eastern Bloc. I am willing to bet that they mention Chinese labour camps and Falun Gong prisoners only because it is so hard to ignore.
Greenpeace is also guilty of this. They never criticise communist nations, which produced the worst pollution, but they rail against nuclear power and hydroelectric dams (two of the cleanest sources of power, in spite of what the press will tell you about nuclear waste and fish habitats) and nuclear testing in democratic nations (other than Sabine Herold, the destruction of the "Rainbow Warrior" is one of the reasons I actually like the French).

The US isn't this special force for good 24/7, and they should be held to the same scrutiny to which every other nation is held.

Yes, we're waiting with baited breath for the Amnesty International report on how jihadis frighten, torture, and behead unarmed civilians on international television. And are NEVER held accountable for it - especially not by AI.

Does anyone seriously believe that Amnesty International, the ACLU, etc. are apolitical? Seriously. I don't see anything different about them contributing to Kerry's campaign, than the PLA's contributions to the Gore campaign, or similar contributions by that religious nut (the guy who leads all those pickets against Evolution and Abortion) in Kansas to the RNC.
AI concerns itself primarily with taking up the banner against the U.S. and its allies-they haven't had any interest in our opponents' record since the Berlin Wall came down (and damned little interest there.)

It's natural for Amnesty International to be a Kerry supporter, just like it's natural for HCI to contribute to Barbara Boxer or CPHV to contribute to Chuck Schumer.

Remember, for a lot of American Leftists, Politics is Religion. Naturally their non-profit is going to spend money on a political campaign while claiming to be be Apolitical.

Whats wrong with that?

I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others...in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions and burned villages.

THAT is what's wrong with that.

OK, if that's OK with you, then we should call Dick Cheney and tell him that he doesn't have to put his stock portfolio in a blind trust while he's the VP.

That is a false analogy. The AI case has to do with the freedom of speech and the Cheney case has to do with the considerable power he wields as an individual, power he could use to become a yet still wealthier individual than he currently is.

Remember, for a lot of American Leftists, Politics is Religion. Naturally their non-profit is going to spend money on a political campaign while claiming to be be Apolitical.

Do you have anything to offer other than prejudice and conjecture? An arguement would be nice, but I will settle for a knock-knock joke.

Yeah I suppose on principle alone is wrong but let's consider magnitude here. Aside from private contributions, the organization itself only gave $2,000, a drop in the bucket. Also, outside of "soft money" you can't contributed anything in the presidential campaigns, it's all financed by the government.

This is more of a Kerry above all other Dems than a Dem over a Rep thing.
the organization gave nothing. certain employees did.

Another one of Eutrusca's Washington Post articles... if we wanted to read the Washington Post we'd visit their website....

It's probably not the most sensible move by the AI's head in United States. However, to say it discredits the whole organisation is a little too extreme.

AI does a fantastic job at raising the profile of the terrible human rights abuses around the world, including those in countries which call themselves free and democratic. For me this doesn't change that at all.

Executives of the company gave money.

OK, if that's OK with you, then we should call Dick Cheney and tell him that he doesn't have to put his stock portfolio in a blind trust while he's the VP.
Different kettle of fish altogether.

See Mr. Cheney could push for laws and regulations that would help his own portfolio and he would be under conflict of interest: his own against the people he represents.

An executive of a company like AI cannot effect laws or push for regulations that could be viewed as conflict of interest. The only conflict of interest that could arise is if the same executive is on a board of directors of a company that is investigated by AI.

the organization gave nothing. certain employees did.

Hmm... I got the impression that the organization contributed $2,000 and the individuals contributed more. Oh well, my mistake. And I was wondering why the article said the maximum of $2,000 when organizations can contributed $5,000 through their PACs.

So those who think that the actions of a few discredits a whole organization don't really have a leg to stand on.

im really against him donating money to the Kerry campaign as a matter of strategy not principle. whether or not he donates money to the Kerry campaign wont effect his political beliefs. if he is biased, he is biased. however, this does damage the organizations credibility to the public. In a time when human rights violations arent exactly few id rather the organizations preventing and stopping these violations be seen as credible as is possible.

Hmm... I got the impression that the organization contributed $2,000 and the individuals contributed more. Oh well, my mistake. And I was wondering why the article said the maximum of $2,000 when organizations can contributed $5,000 through their PACs.

So those who think that the actions of a few discredits a whole organization don't really have a leg to stand on.

^ Smart

original poster = sadly misguided

As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's the individual and not the company that gives, they can give whatever they like.

That is a false analogy. The AI case has to do with the freedom of speech and the Cheney case has to do with the considerable power he wields as an individual, power he could use to become a yet still wealthier individual than he currently is.



Do you have anything to offer other than prejudice and conjecture? An arguement would be nice, but I will settle for a knock-knock joke.

When was the last time that Amnesty International went after a Third-world dictator who wasn't aligned with the U.S.?

Where is their outrage at the practice of "Female Circumcision", known as the genital mutilation of young girls (cutting the clitoris off)?

Where is their outrage at the treatment of dissidents in Iran? North Korea? The North Koreans use human subjects in chemical and biological weapons testing (Testified to by a defector, but evidence was easy enough for the History Channel to find...), where's the outrage?

AI has zip to say about the situation in Zimbabwe, people are being burned out and run out of business because their ancestors happened to come from europe, and they were stupid enough to believe promises made by the Revolutionaries.

(what else...)

The People's Repubic of China, imprisonment of dissidents and forced-labour, also inhuman working conditions (Foreign Affairs magazine, Quarterly, 1996)

It's not recommended to be a dissident in Cuba-not if you like being whole and not imprisoned...

MPLA in Uganda (not a peep).

Shall I go on? Where would you like to start? We've got seven continents, plus Oceania. But... the bulk of Amnesty International's criticism is saved for the U.S. and its allies.

Heck, North Korea has over a half million people in actual gulags.

Where's the outrage from Amnesty International?

Heck, North Korea has over a half million people in actual gulags.

Where's the outrage from Amnesty International?
There is loads of outrage from AI on this subject.

Probably your media only reports their stance towards your country. The United States media is notoriously insular.

I guess you never learned how to google eh Caddy?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/prk-170104-action-eng (N Korea)

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irn/index (Iran)

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/Uga-summary-eng (http://) (Uganda)


here with Caddy we see yet another poor soul brainwashed into thinking that anythign said against a Republican administration policy is just anti-american rubbish not worth looking into. good job at providing such a good example little one.

I guess you never learned how to google eh Caddy?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/prk-170104-action-eng (N Korea)

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irn/index (Iran)

here with Caddy we see yet another poor soul brainwashed into thinking that anythign said against a Republican administration policy is just anti-american rubbish not worth looking into. good job at providing such a good example little one.

I don't see the outrage over the North Korean gulags.

After all, consider the size and scope and duration of the North Korean camps.

How can they then turn around and say that Guantanamo is the "gulag of our time"?

When was the last time that Amnesty International went after a Third-world dictator who wasn't aligned with the U.S.?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE240362005



Where is their outrage at the practice of "Female Circumcision", known as the genital mutilation of young girls (cutting the clitoris off)?

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm2.htm



Where is their outrage at the treatment of dissidents in Iran? North Korea? The North Koreans use human subjects in chemical and biological weapons testing (Testified to by a defector, but evidence was easy enough for the History Channel to find...), where's the outrage?


http://web.amnesty.org/wire/February2004/korea



AI has zip to say about the situation in Zimbabwe, people are being burned out and run out of business because their ancestors happened to come from europe, and they were stupid enough to believe promises made by the Revolutionaries.

(what else...)


http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAFR460342003



The People's Repubic of China, imprisonment of dissidents and forced-labour, also inhuman working conditions (Foreign Affairs magazine, Quarterly, 1996)

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/chn-180505-action-eng


It's not recommended to be a dissident in Cuba-not if you like being whole and not imprisoned...

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250022005



MPLA in Uganda (not a peep).

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/uga-summary-eng



Shall I go on? Where would you like to start? We've got seven continents, plus Oceania. But... the bulk of Amnesty International's criticism is saved for the U.S. and its allies.

All links taken from http://www.amnesty.org/actnow/

Try to inform yourself before you talk nonsence, it makes you look ridiculous.

OK, if that's OK with you, then we should call Dick Cheney and tell him that he doesn't have to put his stock portfolio in a blind trust while he's the VP.

No because the individuals at AI didnt directly bennifit from it, Dick would seeing as Halaburton was graciously given all its contracts. That would mean he'd profit off the blood of our soldiers even more than he currently is and that is wrong.

An individual is allowed to do what he wants and these people did what they felt was right PERSONALY. They didnt cut a big check from AI to Kerry, they donated their own money on their own. This is just more republican smokescreening to avoid being charged for their continuing abuse of power.

I don't see the outrage over the North Korean gulags.

After all, consider the size and scope and duration of the North Korean camps.

How can they then turn around and say that Guantanamo is the "gulag of our time"?
To be fair, if they make this omission it is an omission. But that doesn't discredit what they've said about Guantanamo Bay. The impact is greater as a country that claims to be democratic and free ought to have higher standards of justice and human rights. The same logic makes USA's position on the world deaths by state-endorsed murder league so shocking.

I don't see the outrage over the North Korean gulags.

After all, consider the size and scope and duration of the North Korean camps.

How can they then turn around and say that Guantanamo is the "gulag of our time"?


I picked the wrong URL

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/north_korea/reports.do

http://www.amnesty.org/

Just on the front page I see articles on Zimbabwe, China, Syria, and Lebanon.

Search a little more and I am sure they will have addressed all of the issues you are bringing up.

Just because the media in the U.S. doesn't give a flying pig's posterior about Human Rights unless we are being accused of something, doesn't mean that Amnesty is an organization that ONLY attacks the U.S.

I don't see the outrage over the North Korean gulags.

After all, consider the size and scope and duration of the North Korean camps.

How can they then turn around and say that Guantanamo is the "gulag of our time"?

I repeat.

In none of their reports on the North Korean situation do they say that North Korea is the gulag of our time.

Consider the shocking level of mistreatment, abuse, and the numbers of innocent people, and the extent of the camps in North Korea.

Now compare that in ANY way you wish to Guantanamo.

Guantanamo doesn't even come close to a thousandth of what North Korea is doing.

But Amnesty says, Guantanamo is the gulag of our time.

So, I ask again - where is the outrage from Amnesty?

Obviously, despite your links to their site, they show NONE on their site. They obviously believe that the North Korea abuses are far, far, far, far, far smaller than ANYTHING the US has not been proven to do.

If they say they are going to be politically independent, then they can't turn around and donate money to a specific political campaign.

Simple ethics.
I agree, but was this contribution a personal contribution on the part of Schulz, or did he make it in Amnesty USA's Name?

Even if the latter, I can see why he would do it. The Bush admin is committing violations of human rights in Guantanamo Bay. It's prudent to try to get rid of him to end those abuses.

Nikitas, they wont accept any of the other reports from AI as being valid until they retracts what they have said about the US. I Imagine they called Guantanamo the GUlag of our time to get a reaction. If they just say we are abusing prisoners at Guantanamo, noone will pay attention because either we all know about it already or we deny that it is even happening because our perfect administration can do no wrong sso AI must be a bunch of liars.

I repeat.

In none of their reports on the North Korean situation do they say that North Korea is the gulag of our time.

Consider the shocking level of mistreatment, abuse, and the numbers of innocent people, and the extent of the camps in North Korea.

Now compare that in ANY way you wish to Guantanamo.

Guantanamo doesn't even come close to a thousandth of what North Korea is doing.

But Amnesty says, Guantanamo is the gulag of our time.

So, I ask again - where is the outrage from Amnesty?

Obviously, despite your links to their site, they show NONE on their site. They obviously believe that the North Korea abuses are far, far, far, far, far smaller than ANYTHING the US has not been proven to do.
It's complete rubbish to argue that because you state something about a) and don't state it about b) you therefore are arguing that whatever you stated was going on in a) is not happening in b).

The Bush admin is committing violations of human rights in Guantanamo Bay.

So far, those are only allegations. There is NO proof. And no law under the Geneva Convention that would back any complaint there (See Convention I, Article 2, and you'll see why).

For the people who would say, "let us see the proof and hold fair trials for the detainees", it's remarkable that they ALWAYS take it as a given that "Bush is committing violations of human rights" - without question, without proof, and without a legal leg to stand on.

So far, those are only allegations. There is NO proof. And no law under the Geneva Convention that would back any complaint there (See Convention I, Article 2, and you'll see why).

For the people who would say, "let us see the proof and hold fair trials for the detainees", it's remarkable that they ALWAYS take it as a given that "Bush is committing violations of human rights" - without question, without proof, and without a legal leg to stand on.
There's about as much proof that human rights abuses are going on in G.B. as there is proof that the illegally held detainees are being held in conditions that are compatible with human rights standards!

All the photos I've seen show a regime that does not meet standards of human rights, i.e. cages that are exposed to the elements etc.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA240072004?open&of=ENG-PRK

Well I hope that wasn't linked before, I'm too slow for our Rapid Responce Research Team :p

But I'm afraid Sumamba Buwhan you are correct, looks to me that we are getting our panties in a knot over the "gulag of our time slogan". Hey WL, advertising is not as important as substance, clearly they have reported it and condemned it.

But what is more shaming? For a known Human Rights abuser to abuse Human Rights? Or for a developed and democratic to be abusing Human Rights? I think if we have to focus on one entity over another, we are looking in the right direction.

Obviously, despite your links to their site, they show NONE on their site. They obviously believe that the North Korea abuses are far, far, far, far, far smaller than ANYTHING the US has not been proven to do.
Do you know how hard it is to enter North Korea? Do you honestly thing that North Korea would let an Amnesty International employee look at their human rights abuse? Do you think that documentation is detailed all the time, in whatever part of the globe you want to discuss?

Besides, the bolded statement is a sweeping generalization based on your persective. It is not true.

NOTE: How can AI any longer maintain the fiction that they are "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion?"
Feh. The last AI person to hold my respect was the US chapter president from the late '60s/early'70s.

He went on the record to state that - despite his personal feelings in the matter - through research and analysis of the argument he could fing no legal or moral justification for governments to ban firearms. He doesn't like them, wishes they never existed, but understands that his feelings in the matter are irrelevant on the macro scale.

That takes intellectual honesty and balls most anti-gunners don't have.

The head of Amnesty USA, Bill Schulz said "Twenty years ago, Amnesty International was criticizing Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses at the same time Donald Rumsfeld was courting him."

Choose. You can't say one thing and do another.


There are certain institutions who can... Like the president of a nation - I won't say which one. :rolleyes:

Well... 2000 dollars. It's not much money at all. In fact, I doubt it had any influence on the election at all.

They should be apolitical, in cases where both or niether candidate/party/whatever violates their mission. But I believe they have every right to work to further their mission by opposing a candidate who will commit human rights violations.

Preventing human rights violations is what they do. If part of that means trying to keep George Bush out of office, then they gotta do what they gotta do, within the bounderies of the law.

so... they went against the guy who's detaining known terrorists/insurgents -- significance: these are the wackos who target civilians en masse -- and freeing an entire country from a dictatorial regime?

and they say they're pro-human rights?

hmmmm

maybe the title is just a front for a liberal PAC.

if Bush was truely so concerned with "freeing" Iraqis then why is he empowering islamic fanatics and ex Saddam henchmen and totally alienating Iraqi secularists?

if Bush was truely so concerned with "freeing" Iraqis then why is he empowering islamic fanatics and ex Saddam henchmen and totally alienating Iraqi secularists?

...last time I checked we (or someone...) had wounded the nut-job Iraq-division Al Qaeda chief Al Zarqawi...

seems to me the fanatics are those trying to topple the new freely elected Iraqi government.

Honestly, can we cut this out? This is pathetic.

Have enough sense to disprove the charges and not attack the critic. Doing otherwise just goes to show how indefensible your position is because you cannot find and evidence to defend it.

I'm surprised you all couldn't find AI dealing oil with Saddam.

The conservative media has trained their supporters well. Find a fact (matters not if its good or bad) about a critic, twist it to make it look like something damning and then use it 'de-saintify' a critic and count it as a counter-argument. Reprehensible and sad and I grow weary of this tactic (not to mention how quickly the like-minded parroted their approval).

Do better.

Moded

Amnesty International no longer has any credibility with me!

Oh, boohoo. How ever shall they go on?

Honestly, can we this out? This is pathetic.

Have enough sense to disprove the charges and not attack the critic. Doing otherwise just goes to show how indefensible your position is because you cannot find and evidence to defend it.

I'm surprised you all couldn't find AI dealing oil with Saddam.

The conservative media has trained their supporters well. Find a fact (matters not if its good or bad) about a critic, twist it to make it look like something damning and then use it 'de-saintify' a critic and count it as a counter-argument. Reprehensible and sad and I grow weary of this tactic (not to mention how quickly the like-minded parroted their approval).

Do better.
you just perfectly summed up the entire state of the subverted neocon mainstream media in America today

For the people who would say, "let us see the proof and hold fair trials for the detainees", it's remarkable that they ALWAYS take it as a given that "Bush is committing violations of human rights" - without question, without proof, and without a legal leg to stand on.
Oh, but WL, they are. The methods of Guantanamo Bay violate Articles 9,10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)

Um... so if a top offical gives money to a political party as a private citizen that means that their orginization is now no longer apolitical?

Kewl, I guess we can now state as a fact that News Co. and Foxs News ARE biased towards and a mouth for the GOP! Thanks for the neat and unarguable logic!

When was the last time that Amnesty International went after a Third-world dictator who wasn't aligned with the U.S.?

Where is their outrage at the practice of "Female Circumcision", known as the genital mutilation of young girls (cutting the clitoris off)?

Where is their outrage at the treatment of dissidents in Iran? North Korea? The North Koreans use human subjects in chemical and biological weapons testing (Testified to by a defector, but evidence was easy enough for the History Channel to find...), where's the outrage?

AI has zip to say about the situation in Zimbabwe, people are being burned out and run out of business because their ancestors happened to come from europe, and they were stupid enough to believe promises made by the Revolutionaries.

(what else...)

The People's Repubic of China, imprisonment of dissidents and forced-labour, also inhuman working conditions (Foreign Affairs magazine, Quarterly, 1996)

It's not recommended to be a dissident in Cuba-not if you like being whole and not imprisoned...

MPLA in Uganda (not a peep).

Shall I go on? Where would you like to start? We've got seven continents, plus Oceania. But... the bulk of Amnesty International's criticism is saved for the U.S. and its allies.
why dont you go on their website and to a search for any of the topics mentioned. It is not Amnesty International's fault that certain news papers and television stations refuse to cover every single document that is published by them.
http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng
i guarentee you will find results for every single topic you mentioned. it will only take a matter of seconds. now, get to clicking

so... they went against the guy who's detaining known terrorists/insurgents -- significance: these are the wackos who target civilians en masse -- and freeing an entire country from a dictatorial regime?

Please don't be like this. I support the Iraq war, because it liberated people from Hussein, but that does not mean that I have to think that everything Bush does is perfect. I have and use my right to criticise him when he institutes a policy that is just plain wrong. I expect the US to live up to its name as a beacon of liberty and human rights. After all, that's supposed to be why the invasion of Iraq took place.

When was the last time that Amnesty International went after a Third-world dictator who wasn't aligned with the U.S.?

Where is their outrage at the practice of "Female Circumcision", known as the genital mutilation of young girls (cutting the clitoris off)?

Where is their outrage at the treatment of dissidents in Iran? North Korea? The North Koreans use human subjects in chemical and biological weapons testing (Testified to by a defector, but evidence was easy enough for the History Channel to find...), where's the outrage?

AI has zip to say about the situation in Zimbabwe, people are being burned out and run out of business because their ancestors happened to come from europe, and they were stupid enough to believe promises made by the Revolutionaries.

(what else...)

The People's Repubic of China, imprisonment of dissidents and forced-labour, also inhuman working conditions (Foreign Affairs magazine, Quarterly, 1996)

It's not recommended to be a dissident in Cuba-not if you like being whole and not imprisoned...

MPLA in Uganda (not a peep).

Shall I go on? Where would you like to start? We've got seven continents, plus Oceania. But... the bulk of Amnesty International's criticism is saved for the U.S. and its allies.
Cadillac-Gage no longer has any credibility with me! He's willing to lie and hide the facts to save his precious leader, Bush, from criticism! (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9000745&postcount=43)

Amnesty International no longer has any credibility with me!

Oh, boohoo. How ever shall they go on?
Fass, you rock!

Fass, you rock!

You know, I get that a lot. :D

What a bunch of sheep-like liberal party hacks. The dispute is not about the critisism - it is always welcome. It is about the biased and innaccurate comparison of Gitmo to a gulag. AI has obviously chosen their own bias over their own credibility.

It would be comparable to comparing someone driving 10 mph over the speedlimit to a rapist. The comparison is so absurd that any legitimate critisism is subverted by the claim.

But meanwhile, the blind sheep-like hacks are frothing at the mouth with glee at yet another opportunity to disengage their critical thinking skills.

My older sister does a lot of work with Amnesty International, and most of it has revolved around China's horrible treatmen of Tibet.


Apparently though, Amnesty only care about destroying George Bush...

You know B0zzy, every time a conservative speaks or writes God kills a kitten.

See? I can do personal attacks too.

But here's the point you are missing. The whole "gulag" slogan is just that, a slogan meant to shock to draw attention to an issue. It may be inaccurate, but an arguement on that subject is quite nearly solely about semantics.

Is AI reporting something false about the occurances in Guantanamo? If you have evidence of that then that is something that will damage their credibility. Otherwise, this weak sauce stuff about political contributions and bitting slogans doesn't mean a darn thing in the long-run.

What a bunch of sheep-like liberal party hacks. The dispute is not about the critisism - it is always welcome. It is about the biased and innaccurate comparison of Gitmo to a gulag. AI has obviously chosen their own bias over their own credibility.

It would be comparable to comparing someone driving 10 mph over the speedlimit to a rapist. The comparison is so absurd that any legitimate critisism is subverted by the claim.

But meanwhile, the blind sheep-like hacks are frothing at the mouth with glee at yet another opportunity to disengage their critical thinking skills.

Well now.

Maybe they are smarter then you think. The use of Gulag did bring a great deal of attention to the issue.

By US standards? Well do we hold people for 3 years without charge? Deny them access to legal advice?

They may be animals but that doesn't exclude them from our laws.

Why else would they place them offshore?

What a bunch of sheep-like liberal party hacks. The dispute is not about the critisism - it is always welcome. It is about the biased and innaccurate comparison of Gitmo to a gulag. AI has obviously chosen their own bias over their own credibility.

It would be comparable to comparing someone driving 10 mph over the speedlimit to a rapist. The comparison is so absurd that any legitimate critisism is subverted by the claim.

But meanwhile, the blind sheep-like hacks are frothing at the mouth with glee at yet another opportunity to disengage their critical thinking skills.
I just love that instead of, of say actually responding to AI, the cons seem to feel that personal attacks on AI over a word will magically make the problem and issue go away.

Amnesty International no longer has any credibility with me!

Oh, boohoo. How ever shall they go on?
Exactly what I was thinking when I saw the thread title. I salute you.

How long do you think german, Japaneese, Korean, Vietnameese, or for that matter British soldiers were held before they received trial?

Until the eld of the war.

Now we have the unique situation of combatants who hail from no government or juristiction. Nobody who can or will surrender or be definitively defeated.

The result is a prisoner for life. Their tough shit. They are better than the soldiers who died capturing them.

Some have been released, others likely will. Most will not. Wah. This is not a civil matter, it is a military action. Civil courts have no juristiction. The lawyers who support the Democratic party are rabid over being cut out of such a high-profile opportunity for them to feel important. They really hate being restricted. (ever wonder why theirs is the only industry which is policed by themselves?)

I just love that instead of, of say actually responding to AI, the cons seem to feel that personal attacks on AI over a word will magically make the problem and issue go away.


And I just love how the libs think that, instead of actually offering intellectually honest critisism, they can affix a repulsive lable to something and feel they are doing anybody a sevice by it.

You now B0zzy, every time a conservative speaks or writes God kills a kitten.

See? I can do personal attacks too.


Bwahaha! That is funny! ROFLMAO! Thanks! I really mean it.

Touche, ya got me there.


but not here;

But here's the point you are missing. The whole "gulag" slogan is just that, a slogan meant to shock to draw attention to an issue. It may be inaccurate, but an arguement on that subject is quite nearly solely about semantics.
It is not constructive. It does not benefit the cause in the way you sugest. The dialogue is not about the Gitmo situation, it is about AI and their incredible ignorance of their own bias. They have created their own red herring.

Is AI reporting something false about the occurances in Guantanamo? .
You yourself just called it inaccurate.

If you have evidence of that then that is something that will damage their credibility. .
No need to, they admit themselves that they have noting except third person ancedotes from released detainees, mostly of events that hardly describe a 'gulag'. Hardly credible.

Otherwise, this weak sauce stuff about political contributions and bitting slogans doesn't mean a darn thing in the long-run.
Well, here is where you fall of the map of reasoning. It makes all the world of difference. If an umpire claims to be impartial, then shows up on Yankee Stadium field with a 'NY SUX' t-shirt... well, you should be able to get the point.

And I just love how the libs think that, instead of actually offering intellectually honest critisism, they can affix a repulsive lable to something and feel they are doing anybody a sevice by it.
Did you bother to go to AI and read the report that started this? It is quite long, quite well prepared and makes some good, well researched, points. Or did you just read the headline about the use of gulag (which was what was reported in US media, not the details) and saw red?

Is AI reporting something false about the occurances in Guantanamo?
You yourself just called it inaccurate.
No--what Nikitas said was that the use of the word "gulag" was inaccurate, not the entire report about the occurences at Guantanamo Bay. Nice try, however, at equating the entire report with one word. Rush would be proud.

AI's 2005 report lists 3 criteria for judging a nation's hunan rights record, all of them are matters of policy, not human rights.

The Death Penalty is not inconsistant with the right to life in the same way that fines are not inconsistant with property rights, and imprisonment is not consistant to the right to liberty of person. Provided due process is respected, and the sentence is applied proportionally (i.e. for the most severe commission of the most severe offences), its consistant with human rights.

ICC is NOT a human rights matter, and signing into it could be argued as a violation of the right to due process because the ICC doesn't allow the defendant to face his accusers, supoena witnesses, or have a jury trial.

The Women's Convention is a piece of paper, the nation's actual policy (regardless of signature of the convention) regarding gender equality is what should be evaluated. As a matter of principle, if I were a head of government, I would see to it that equality before the law for all was respected. I don't see what more should be asked.

It is clear that the 3 criteria are designed merely to allow conservatives to be slandered.

AI also have a anti-US bias, and it is plain for anyone to see. They claim the US commits torture, and 'prove' it by claiming they use methods of stressful interrogation that have been ruled by several courts not to be torture. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that British use of these methods (sleep deprivation, loud noise, standing for long periods, sensory deprivation) did not constitute torture under the international statutes, and were only inhumane when all used together.

They say US officials should be investigated and tried whereever they are, meanwhile they 'express concern' to Kim Jhong-il and Fidel Castro.

It is AI which has given dictators a licence to commit human rights violations because they fail to distinguish between valid US interpretations of the law to meet the needs of a war on the one hand, and real violations of human rights on the other hand.


About the donation: I find it strange that a leader of a (supposedly) non-profit left-wing advocacy group should just happen to have $2000 to throw around for political donations to John Kerry. Surely if he was committed to human rights, and had that sort of cash to throw around, he'd have donated it to charity, or even returned it to AI.

AI focuses on america because thats a place it can actually get things done. It would be a waste of effort to try to do things against nations who wont co-operate with such investigations, which america is looking to be like, now.

You don't see it, don't you.

Perhaps I need to make it simpler:

Kim Jhong-il: starves millions, operates concentration camps; test chemical and biological weapons on humans; and according to some, sells its own people into slavery to pay debts.

AI: sends a little note "expressing concern"

George W. Bush: legitimately interprets and applies international and US laws to meet the needs of a war; imprisons illegal combatants, rather than killing them; doesn't introduce a patently unconstitutional court which violates basic human rights (ICC).

AI: goes apeshit, calls for trials of anyone they can lay their hands on

So far, those are only allegations. There is NO proof. And no law under the Geneva Convention that would back any complaint there (See Convention I, Article 2, and you'll see why).

For the people who would say, "let us see the proof and hold fair trials for the detainees", it's remarkable that they ALWAYS take it as a given that "Bush is committing violations of human rights" - without question, without proof, and without a legal leg to stand on.
Amnesty International has no affiliation with the Geneva Conventions. they are against ALL human rights abuses. if you aren't against human rights abuses, then thats for you to deal with.

You don't see it, don't you.

Perhaps I need to make it simpler:

Kim Jhong-il: starves millions, operates concentration camps; test chemical and biological weapons on humans; and according to some, sells its own people into slavery to pay debts.

AI: sends a little note "expressing concern"

George W. Bush: legitimately interprets and applies international and US laws to meet the needs of a war; imprisons illegal combatants, rather than killing them; doesn't introduce a patently unconstitutional court which violates basic human rights (ICC).

AI: goes apeshit, calls for trials of anyone they can lay their hands on
Can you provide any proof that that's AI's position, you know, like quotes from the actual report, or are you, as I suspect, merely talking out of your ass?

...last time I checked we (or someone...) had wounded the nut-job Iraq-division Al Qaeda chief Al Zarqawi...

seems to me the fanatics are those trying to topple the new freely elected Iraqi government.
i feel very sad for you. it appears your only news source is a pro-islamist website. every mainstream news agency on the planet is only reporting that people are claiming he was wounded.

You don't see it, don't you.

Perhaps I need to make it simpler:

Kim Jhong-il: starves millions, operates concentration camps; test chemical and biological weapons on humans; and according to some, sells its own people into slavery to pay debts.

AI: sends a little note "expressing concern"

George W. Bush: legitimately interprets and applies international and US laws to meet the needs of a war; imprisons illegal combatants, rather than killing them; doesn't introduce a patently unconstitutional court which violates basic human rights (ICC).

AI: goes apeshit, calls for trials of anyone they can lay their hands on

And doing more toward north korea will result in? Nothing.

Doing more toward the US, a supposed democracy? Possibly getting actual trials, etc started.

Why should more effort be expended toward a goal with no possible gains? Do you want them to sabotage themselves?

Bwahaha! That is funny! ROFLMAO! Thanks! I really mean it.

Touche, ya got me there.


but not here;

It is not constructive. It does not benefit the cause in the way you sugest. The dialogue is not about the Gitmo situation, it is about AI and their incredible ignorance of their own bias. They have created their own red herring.

You yourself just called it inaccurate.

No need to, they admit themselves that they have noting except third person ancedotes from released detainees, mostly of events that hardly describe a 'gulag'. Hardly credible.

Well, here is where you fall of the map of reasoning. It makes all the world of difference. If an umpire claims to be impartial, then shows up on Yankee Stadium field with a 'NY SUX' t-shirt... well, you should be able to get the point.
how does your analogy make the real world not a Yankees Mets game?

Can you provide any proof that that's AI's position, you know, like quotes from the actual report, or are you, as I suspect, merely talking out of your ass?

In news reports they have called for the trial of US officials over so-called abuses that no one has ever proven. (http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/5/31/16440/2315)

AI Statement on North Korea (http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/ai_statement.html)

"Deeply concerned", in a little note to the Chinese.

NOTE: How can AI any longer maintain the fiction that they are "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion?"


Amnesty leadership aided Kerry (http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,4-XX-0-DAYX20050602,00.html)


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.
Amnesty USA yesterday told The Washington Times that staff members make policy based on laws governing human rights, pointing out that the organization had criticized some of President Clinton's policies.
"We strive to do everything humanly possible to see that the personal political perspectives of our leadership have no bearing whatsoever upon the nature of our findings and the conduct of our work," a spokesman said.
Amnesty International describes itself as nonpartisan. Disclosure of the leadership's political leanings came yesterday as the Bush administration continued to lash out at the human rights group for remarks last week by Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary-general.
Mrs. Khan compared the U.S. detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members are held, to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's "gulag" prison system.
At the same time, Mr. Schulz issued a statement calling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials "architects of torture." Mr. Schulz suggested that other countries could file war-crime charges against the top officials and arrest them.
Since Sunday, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Vice President Dick Cheney; and President Bush have accused Amnesty International of irresponsible criticism.
Yesterday, it was Mr. Rumsfeld's turn.
"No force in the world has done more to liberate people that they have never met than the men and women of the United States military," Mr. Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon press conference. "That's why the recent allegation that the U.S. military is running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay is so reprehensible. Most would define a gulag as where the Soviet Union kept millions in forced labor concentration camps. ... To compare the United States and Guantanamo Bay to such atrocities cannot be excused."
Amnesty International has hit the White House for refusing to treat suspected al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists as prisoners of war subject to the Geneva Conventions; for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and for a list of largely unsubstantiated complaints from detainees at Guantanamo.
Mr. Rumsfeld said "at least a dozen" of the 200 detainees released from Guantanamo "have already been caught back on the battlefield, involved in efforts to kidnap and kill Americans."
Mr. Schulz posted a statement yesterday on Amnesty's Web site (www.amnesty.org) that said, in part, "Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration ignored or dismissed Amnesty International's reports on the abuse of detainees for years, and senior officials continue to ignore the very real plight of men detained without charge or trial."
Amnesty International's Web site states it is "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government."

As an Amnesty International member, this makes me sad... :(

We ARE supposed to be anti-political, addressing only human-rights issues. That is why Amnesty USA IS NOT supposed to deal with domestic human rights issues, so we are not looked upon as favoring one side or another.

And we are most certainly NOT supposed to fund ANY political candidates!

Idiots!!! :headbang:

About the donation: I find it strange that a leader of a (supposedly) non-profit left-wing advocacy group should just happen to have $2000 to throw around for political donations to John Kerry. Surely if he was committed to human rights, and had that sort of cash to throw around, he'd have donated it to charity, or even returned it to AI.
Maybe like many of us, he felt his $2000 were going towards fighting human rights violations.

In news reports they have called for the trial of US officials over so-called abuses that no one has ever proven. (http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/5/31/16440/2315)

AI Statement on North Korea (http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/ai_statement.html)

"Deeply concerned", in a little note to the Chinese.
"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is a phrase which comes to mind...

As an Amnesty International member, this makes me sad... :(

We ARE supposed to be anti-political, addressing only human-rights issues. That is why Amnesty USA IS NOT supposed to deal with domestic human rights issues, so we are not looked upon as favoring one side or another.

And we are most certainly NOT supposed to fund ANY political candidates!

Idiots!!! :headbang:
you as a member cannot personally donate your own money?

Well, my two cents; AI have damaged their credibility a bit in the states but I don't think they really give two hoots about this. Saying you are apolitical and then having your memebers donate money to one party or the other makes you look pretty hypocritical even if you are entitled to do so legally.
Personally I don't pay any attention to AI, they are a shouting organization with little real power. Another group of world wide whiners. Yeah yeah yeah they care about everybody, they are gonna look out for all our right and stuff. Well, the only real way you look out for your rights on this planet is through the use of force. It is sad but it is the way of the world. If you have the guns to back up what you say then you get what you want.
It very, very rarely works any other way.

more power than you or me.

As an Amnesty International member, this makes me sad... :(

We ARE supposed to be anti-political, addressing only human-rights issues. That is why Amnesty USA IS NOT supposed to deal with domestic human rights issues, so we are not looked upon as favoring one side or another.

And we are most certainly NOT supposed to fund ANY political candidates!

Idiots!!! :headbang:
AI didn't fund any candidates--members of AI did. There's a massive difference between the two. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?

you as a member cannot personally donate your own money?

As a private citizen, anyone has the right to donate money to a cause. I can donate my money to any organization I wish.

The second someone slaps "Amnesty International" on the check...that's when you got problems.

In news reports they have called for the trial of US officials over so-called abuses that no one has ever proven. (http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/5/31/16440/2315)

AI Statement on North Korea (http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/ai_statement.html)

"Deeply concerned", in a little note to the Chinese.Thanks for the links, although your commentary is more than a bit one-sided. The abuses have been documented by more than one group, and just because the US government has declined to prosecute any of the higher-ups involved doesn't mean the abuses didn't happen. People are currently serving time for the Abu Ghraib abuses, I would remind you.

As to the comparative level of diction to the Chinese, all I can say is that as long as the US holds itself up as a paragon of human rights, it deserves to be called out as a hypocrite more loudly than nations which make no such claim. China has never, to my knowledge, ever made much claim as to their human rights record.

As a private citizen, anyone has the right to donate money to a cause. I can donate my money to any organization I wish.

The second someone slaps "Amnesty International" on the check...that's when you got problems.
Amnesty International didn't slap their name on the check. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Amnesty International didn't slap their name on the check. What the hell is wrong with you people?

First of all, calm down. Second of all, I am merely stating that an organization like Amnesty International (Which is self-proclaimed Non-Political) is not supposed to as an organization fund any political campaign.

As a private citizen, anyone has the right to donate money to a cause. I can donate my money to any organization I wish.

The second someone slaps "Amnesty International" on the check...that's when you got problems.
but no one did that. cons just have their panties in a bunch over nothing.

but no one did that. cons just have their panties in a bunch over nothing.

I still don't think the AI Pres made a good descision by contributing to a campaign. He should've known it would bite him in the ass and make the group look bad.

I still don't think the AI Pres made a good descision by contributing to a campaign. He should've known it would bite him in the ass and make the group look bad.
its like i said before. i think this was a strategical error, im not against it morally.

its like i said before. i think this was a strategical error, im not against it morally.

Okay...now that we have all that cleared up...Me go sleepy-bye now.

I still don't think the AI Pres made a good descision by contributing to a campaign. He should've known it would bite him in the ass and make the group look bad.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that holding a position as the head of any organization ought to preclude you from supporting a candidate, unless that organization is directly involved in vote counting. I don't care if James Dobson gave the legal limit to Bush, even though he heads a religious organization.

I will say, though, that it bothers me when the Secretary of State of an individual state, the person usually in charge of making sure an election is run fairly and openly, doubles as state campaign chairperson of a national candidate's campaign, and I feel that way regardless of the political party involved. That's a conflict of interest, and it opens up charges of fixing. But that's another discussion.

Just to pile it on -

When was the last time that Amnesty International went after a Third-world dictator who wasn't aligned with the U.S.?

Iran good enough?
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/irn-summary-eng

How about Syria?
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/syr-summary-eng

Côte d'Ivoire?
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/civ-summary-eng

Many, many more?
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/countrylist-eng

Where is their outrage at the practice of "Female Circumcision", known as the genital mutilation of young girls (cutting the clitoris off)?

Statement on Condemnation of Female Genital Mutilation (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/health-ethicsfgmstatement-eng)
Want more?
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAFR560071998

Where is their outrage at the treatment of dissidents in Iran? North Korea? The North Koreans use human subjects in chemical and biological weapons testing (Testified to by a defector, but evidence was easy enough for the History Channel to find...), where's the outrage?

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/prk-summary-eng

AI has zip to say about the situation in Zimbabwe, people are being burned out and run out of business because their ancestors happened to come from europe, and they were stupid enough to believe promises made by the Revolutionaries.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/zwe-summary-eng

The People's Repubic of China, imprisonment of dissidents and forced-labour, also inhuman working conditions (Foreign Affairs magazine, Quarterly, 1996)

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng

It's not recommended to be a dissident in Cuba-not if you like being whole and not imprisoned...

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/cub-summary-eng

MPLA in Uganda (not a peep).

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/uga-summary-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ago-summary-eng

Shall I go on? Where would you like to start? We've got seven continents, plus Oceania. But... the bulk of Amnesty International's criticism is saved for the U.S. and its allies.

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

Quantative analysis show AI's anti-American bias.

Number of pages in the .pdf of the 2005 report for each country:

# of pages Country Rank


4.00 USA 1


3.50 Iraq 3


3.50 Russia 3


3.25 China 8



3.25 Colombia 8



3.25 Israel 8



3.25 Serbia-Montenegro 8



3.25 Sudan 8


3.00 Zimbabwe 9


2.75 Brazil 16


2.75 Burundi 16


2.75 France 16


2.75 Iran 16


2.75 Liberia 16


2.75 Syria 16


2.75 Turkey 16


2.50 Bosnia Herzegovina 26



2.50 Congo - DR 26



2.50 Egypt 26



2.50 Haiti 26


2.50 Indonesia 26


2.50 Mexico 26


2.50 Romania 26


2.50 Saudi Arabia 26


2.50 UK 26


2.50 Yemen 26


2.25 Afghanistan 40



2.25 Algeria 40



2.25 Central African Republic 40



2.25 Georgia 40



2.25 India 40



2.25 Italy 40



2.25 Kenya 40



2.25 Libya 40



2.25 Myanmar 40



2.25 Nepal 40



2.25 Nigeria 40



2.25 Sierra Leone 40



2.25 South Africa 40



2.25 Spain 40


2.00 Albania 52



2.00 Angola 52



2.00 Bulgaria 52



2.00 Ethiopia 52



2.00 Greece 52



2.00 Lebanon 52



2.00 Morocco 52



2.00 Pakistan 52



2.00 Somalia 52



2.00 Switzerland 52


2.00 Tunisia 52


2.00 Uzbekistan 52


1.75 Belgium 63



1.75 Croatia 63



1.75 Eritrea 63



1.75 Korea, North 63



1.75 Macedonia 63



1.75 Malaysia 63



1.75 Mozambique 63



1.75 Palestinian Authority 63


1.75 Portugal 63


1.75 Sri Lanka 63


1.75 Turkmenistan 63


1.50 Bangladesh 84



1.50 Belarus 84



1.50 Cambodia 84



1.50 Cameroon 84



1.50 Chad 84



1.50 Chile 84



1.50 Cote d'Ivoire 84



1.50 Equatorial Guinea 84



1.50 Germany 84



1.50 Guatemala 84



1.50 Ireland 84



1.50 Laos 84



1.50 Peru 84



1.50 Philippines 84



1.50 Rwanda 84



1.50 Swaziland 84



1.50 Sweden 84


1.50 Thailand 84


1.50 Uganda 84


1.50 Ukraine 84


1.50 Vietnam 84


1.25 Armenia 102



1.25 Azerbaijan 102



1.25 Cuba 102



1.25 Czech Republic 102



1.25 El Salvador 102



1.25 Fiji 102



1.25 Honduras 102



1.25 Hungary 102



1.25 Jamaica 102



1.25 Japan 102



1.25 Korea, South 102



1.25 Kuwait 102



1.25 Malta 102



1.25 Mauritania 102



1.25 Papua New Guinea 102



1.25 Tanzania 102


1.25 Togo 102


1.25 UAE 102


1.00 Argentina 118


1.00 Australia 118


1.00 Austria 118


1.00 Bahrain 118


1.00 Congo - R 118


1.00 Guinea-Bissau 118


1.00 Guyana 118


1.00 Jordan 118


1.00 Kazakhstan 118


1.00 Maldives 118


1.00 Moldova 118


1.00 Slovakia 118


1.00 Solomon Islands 118


1.00 Timor-Leste 118


1.00 Venezuela 118


1.00 Zambia 118


0.75 Bhutan 139


0.75 Bolivia 139


0.75 Canada 139


0.75 Cyprus 139


0.75 Dominican Republic 139


0.75 Ecuador 139


0.75 Finland 139


0.75 Kyrgyzstan 139


0.75 Latvia 139


0.75 Lithuania 139


0.75 Malawi 139


0.75 Mongolia 139


0.75 Namibia 139


0.75 New Zealand 139


0.75 Paraguay 139


0.75 Poland 139


0.75 Senegal 139


0.75 Singapore 139


0.75 Taiwan 139


0.75 Tajikistan 139


0.75 Trinidad and Tobago 139


0.50 Bahamas 149


0.50 Brunei 149


0.50 Burkina Faso 149


0.50 Estonia 149


0.50 Ghana 149


0.50 Guinea 149


0.50 Nicaragua 149


0.50 Niger 149


0.50 Slovenia 149


0.50 Uruguay 149

Source: Noonshadow (http://noonshadow.blogspot.com/2005/05/amnesty-points-out-top-human-rights.html)

Here are the highlights:

North Korea (concentration camps, 3 generations of a family punished for one person disagreeing with the regime, human testing of chemical and biological weapons) comes in 63rd!

Cuba, where translating a webpage from English to Spainish, or operating a private library will get you nearly 3 decades behind bars, 102nd!

Palestinian Authority, where there is no press freedom, no economic freedom, little political freedom comes in at 63rd.

Myanmar at 40th

Saudi Arabia, where immigrants praying in the privacy of their own apartments get arrested, and where little girls are flung back into a burning building because thei didn't have their veils, 26th.

Zimbabwe, where we see racist property seizures, and violence against anyone disagreeing with the Mugabe regime, 9th

The United States, which has comprehensive political, civil, and economic freedoms, protected by all levels of government, 1st.

Disraeliland,

1) You cited a blog, do you know that?

2) Did the blogger account for the fact that many of the reports about previous nations have been reported before, that they were just summarizing the situation, and so didn't have as much of a need for an extensive report? Whereas the U.S. violations are pretty new and so require a more thorough presentation of evidence.

3) Were their any images in these files that distorted the measurement?

4) Is there really much of a differance in half a page of information? I doubt it. Especially when many of the lower ranked nations have already been reported and are known offenders.

Source: Noonshadow (http://noonshadow.blogspot.com/2005/05/amnesty-points-out-top-human-rights.html)

Here are the high lights:

North Korea (concentration camps, 3 generations of a family punished for one person disagreeing with the regime, human testing of chemical and biological weapons) comes in 63rd!

Cuba, where translating a webpage from English to Spainish, or operating a private library will get you nearly 3 decades behind bars, 102nd!

Palestinian Authority, where there is no press freedom, no economic freedom, little political freedom comes in at 63rd.

Myanmar at 40th

Saudi Arabia, where immigrants praying in the privacy of their own apartments get arrested, and where little girls are flung back into a burning building because thei didn't have their veils, 26th.

Zimbabwe, where we see racist property seizures, and violence against anyone disagreeing with the Mugabe regime, 9th

The United States, which has comprehensive political, civil, and economic freedoms, protected by all levels of government, 1st.
The US had a good year, as far as abusing human rights were concerned, exacerbated by the fact that despite all those protections you alluded to, we're still fucking torturing people and depriving them of their rights, rights our own Supreme Court has accorded them. I said it before, and I'll say it again--when you claim to be the good guys, as the US always does, then when you're shown to be a hypocrite, you come in for a bit more of a bitchslap than the countries that don't make those claims to begin with. For North Korea, that's SOP, no big surprise. For a country like the US, that claims to be a human rights leader, running places like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or Baghram is a big fucking deal, and we deserve to be smacked around for it. Or do you condone what's been happening there?

"we're still fucking torturing people and depriving them of their rights, rights our own Supreme Court has accorded them"

Prove that the US Government is ordering torture, not even your beloved AI has managed to do that. There are plenty of allegations, not suprising since terrorists are trained to make false allegations of torture, and left-wing NGO's will say anything about the US, proven true or not.

Illegal combatants have no rights under international law, and terrorists are illegal combatants. If you need to have the term illegal combatant explained to you, I and a few others in the Gitmo thread have done it, several times.

"2) Did the blogger account for the fact that many of the reports about previous nations have been reported before, that they were just summarizing the situation, and so didn't have as much of a need for an extensive report? Whereas the U.S. [alleged] violations are pretty new and so require a more thorough presentation of evidence."

The report for each country was a precis, with one or two anecdotes. Not a thorough presentation of evidence.

The criteria AI used was more to do with their own agenda than actual human rights considerations.

Supposedly, the purpose of AI is to highlight human rights abuses,if a nation had been reported before, and had done nothing to change, that is a good reason to keep reporting it. Why should long-term abuses be swept under the carpet?

"3) Were their any images in these files that distorted the measurement?"

No, just 2 columns of writing per page.

"Especially when many of the lower ranked nations have already been reported and are known offenders."

See #2

Here's a link to the report:

Intro (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_05_05_amnestyintro.pdf)

Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_05_05_amnesty.pdf)

For a country like the US, that claims to be a human rights leader, running places like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or Baghram is a big fucking deal, and we deserve to be smacked around for it. Or do you condone what's been happening there?

As they said on the Daily Show. "It doesn't matter that it's something we did. What matters is that it isn't something we would do."

Quantative analysis show AI's anti-American bias.

Number of pages in the .pdf of the 2005 report for each country:

# of pages Country Rank




Am I to understand that you think that the number of pages it takes to list America's crimes indicates a bias? That's absurd. It's like a 2 year old who thinks that 10 pennies is worth more than one quarter.

Take a look at this.

My (hypothetical) legal infractions.
Jay walking.
Speeding.
Marijuana use.
Underage drinking.
Loitering.
Running Stop Signs.
Taring tags off of matresses.
Music piracy.

Jeffrey Dahmers legal infractions.
Cannibalism.
Murder.
Necrophelia.

Do the above lists make me out to be almost 3 times the criminal Jeffrey Dahmer was? Your test of bias is invalid. It may be worse for Uzbekistan to boil 500 people alive than it is for Texas to execute the mentally retarded and juviniles who number in the single digits, but it still takes more room to list the two things that America is doing to a handful of people than it takes to say what Uzbekistan is doing to hundreds.

Not to mention, America is a huge and powerful country. We're capable of violating human rights all over the globe. Undermining governments, waging wars with huge civilian casualty counts, contributing to causes of misery all over the world in direct and indirect ways. If you were to list the crimes that the most evil countries from the, let's say, 15% least powerful, are even capable of, it would still not list the number of different crimes that the US has commited. Not because they're nicer, but because they only have so many options.

"Not to mention, America is a huge and powerful country. We're capable of violating human rights all over the globe."

Entireley irrelevant. What a country is capable of doesn't matter, what it does matters, what it allows matters, and no one has proven that the US has done, or allowed to be done, the things with which it is charged.

<snip>

Are you seriously proposing the amount of pages of the 2005 annual reports to be a valid indicator of which countries AI thinks have the worst human rights abuses?

Entireley irrelevant. What a country is capable of doesn't matter, what it does matters, what it allows matters, and no one has proven that the US has done, or allowed to be done, the things with which it is charged.
So what was the prison abuse thingie? Or are you suggesting that Al-Q somehow managed to doctor those photos in line with their directive?

And the US admits to some charges, like holding prisoners without access to the International Red Cross, without access to legal systems, without charges, and without access to their country's consulate or embassy staff (and before you state that the US didn't acknowledge the Taliban or Saddam's Iraq, I'm talking about the citizens of the UK and Australia).

"snip"



This is pathetic, you rank a country by the number of pages it is written about it?? Because that is what your blogger is doing!!! lol.
And I hope you are aware that in those reports, they don't even put just the bad things, they sometimes compliement nations.. perhaps the USA is the number one because they wrote so much compliementing it. NOT.

So what was the prison abuse thingie? Or are you suggesting that Al-Q somehow managed to doctor those photos in line with their directive?

And the US admits to some charges, like holding prisoners without access to the International Red Cross, without access to legal systems, without charges, and without access to their country's consulate or embassy staff (and before you state that the US didn't acknowledge the Taliban or Saddam's Iraq, I'm talking about the citizens of the UK and Australia).

Are you talking about the photos from that clusterfuck at Abu Ghraib? Go with the Video, it's much clearer.
It's also not Guantanamo Bay, the personnel involved are either under investigation, or indictment, and no longer in charge of guarding so much as a warm cup of piss.

As for the 'admissions'-these are unlawful combatants. The UK and Australian citizens were caught fighting for the other side. The technical term is "Mercenary", and has even fewer protections under International Law than your garden-variety insurgent.

Are you talking about the photos from that clusterfuck at Abu Ghraib? Go with the Video, it's much clearer.
It's also not Guantanamo Bay, the personnel involved are either under investigation, or indictment, and no longer in charge of guarding so much as a warm cup of piss.

As for the 'admissions'-these are unlawful combatants. The UK and Australian citizens were caught fighting for the other side. The technical term is "Mercenary", and has even fewer protections under International Law than your garden-variety insurgent.
I was responding to the change that US human rights abuses had not been proven, since the orginal decleration was so general I assumed that meant the location was also general.

The admissions were also in responce to AI's charges, some of which go beyond that set forth in International Law, again do to the generalized nature of the orginal post I was responding to.

So what was the prison abuse thingie? Or are you suggesting that Al-Q somehow managed to doctor those photos in line with their directive?

And the US admits to some charges, like holding prisoners without access to the International Red Cross, without access to legal systems, without charges, and without access to their country's consulate or embassy staff (and before you state that the US didn't acknowledge the Taliban or Saddam's Iraq, I'm talking about the citizens of the UK and Australia).

Specifics: the ICRC can access Gitmo, and has done so.

The citizenship of a enemy combatant (of any type, soldiers, guerillas, terrorists, mercenaries) caught is irrelevant (notwithstanding possible treason proceedings).

International law doesn't require consular access to captured enemy combatants, only for prisoners held by civilian authorities for criminal matters.

International law doesn't require consular access to captured enemy combatants, only for prisoners held by civilian authorities for criminal matters.
Ah, but the C-in-C hath declared that these folks are not MILITARY prisoners, because then they would fall under Geneva and that would be harmful. So if they ain't military they fall to civilian side, or are we just making it up as we go along?

People seem to forget that War isn't as clean as the video games make it out to be. The process and procedure for waging a war is not the process for governing a Civil Society. In Nations where the Army has had to also be the Government, Armies have demonstrated remarkably poor ability to handle the job long-term.

Most of the internees at GitMo are enemy Combatants. The Military knows how to handle those. The bulk of those released so far, (and there have been several) were found to be noncombatants captured by mistake.

MISTAKE.

Soldiers, in spite of our best efforts through history, still make mistakes. Untangling the Combatants from the Non-Combatants in a situation like Afghanistan or Iraq, is a time-consuming job that requires a fairly heavy hand-because the enemy is not going to admit what he is, wears no uniform, and does not behave as a Soldier, though he tries to do the work of one.

Things are further complicated, because this war is not against a fixed government, per-se, but against a Conspiracy of Individuals. Such wars are not without precedent-but the experiences of previous conflicts of this sort really don't hold up well, as Modern Soldiers are not conditioned to kill every single adult in a given geographical area until the identity of the enemy is revealed. (France, initial conquest of Indochina. British campaign against the Thugee cult in India, Soviet Re-conquest of the Ukraine in the '20s and '30s...)

This last bit is probably a good thing. I don't think I'm comfortable with the idea of American twentysomethings who're so heavily conditioned they'll open fire on unarmed peasants to draw their opponents out (British Conquest of India, several actions during the Boer War).

Nor am I keen to see the kind of policies carried out by King Leopold of Belgium's troops in the Congo-which policies were remarkably good at suppressing Native rebellions.

thus, we have a dilemna: We captured them, instead of slaughtering them as they tried to surrender after the battle. Now What?

The Army is NOT a Police Force. There are times when specific units may be useful in assisting Police Forces, but Soldiers are not Cops. Cops are specifically useful in resolving disputes with minimal bloodshed, that's their primary purpose on patrol-stopping Civilians from cutting each other up, killing one another in a rage, etc.

Soldiers are primarily trained in how to kill people, and break their stuff-imposing peace through superior firepower, as opposed to simply calming things down and maybe taking the troublemaker away.

Soldiers do not assign Guilt-that is for the National Command Authority, or Civilian Police. Soldiers fight, they kill, and they take prisoners.

What do you do with the Prisoners a Soldier takes? These are not people taken drunk, off the street, to be held pending normal charges relating to the maintenance of Civil Society. The battlefield is purely Law of the Jungle. Eat or Be Eaten, Kill, or Be Killed.

Within the Military Paradigm, you're not Crazy for bearing arms and firing at Soldiers, nor is it a matter of ignorance, or Economic Status, or any of the usual defenses used to sway a jury made up of Jerry-Springer watchers(and guests), Daytime Teevee addicts, and the occasional super-apathy case with an I.Q. averaging around 89 on a three-hundered point scale.

You are, for bearing arms and firing them, a Combatant. If that's all you did, you're going to be treated as a Prisoner of War. War is a bastard.

If you did more, you may get that Trial-and a hanging afterwards, as a War-Criminal too repulsive to keep alive.

If you did less, the Army doesn't want to keep you. Prisoners eat food, they have to be kept sheltered, this goes beyond Geneva, this has to do with the Military Ethos-I won't abuse your people, because I don't want mine abused, simple.

'abuse' is not 'relative' the way it is in Civil Society. it's actually pretty coarse, the definitions and differences, interrogation methods that leave scars are considered ineffective for a reason-the prisoner will say anything to make the pain stop, and that usually leads to lots of false-trailes and bad information, since you can't determine through torture who actually knows something useful, much less what that something is.

'Abuse' is pretty clearly defined. Note that sleep-dep is not 'abuse' under the Military definition, since Soldiers are often deprived of sleep both during the most BASIC training, and during standard deployments.

Verbal Humiliation isn't abuse after you get out of boot-camp. It's only in the last few years that it ever was.

'Abuse' means 'injuries'.

As for how long to hold them without trial? The sooner the wars (BOTH wars) are over, Trials can begin-mostly summary hearings prior to release, but in some cases, there will be more...extensive hearings. This is because, for the ones facing more extensive hearings, there may be a Gallows-man at the end of it, or at least a (theoretically) long stay at a much less pleasant penitentiary, like Pelican Bay or a nice Middle-Eastern or Turkish jail.

But, for the Duration of Combat Operations, Prisoners who can't be shown to be true noncombatants can't be released-it's a matter of practicality and survival-you let a Militant go, he'll go back and you'll be fighting him tomorrow, only he'll have more experience and know what doesn't work.

The reason to hold them at Guantanamo, is that it's outside the contiguous borders of the several states. Escapees are unlikely to blend into the Cuban population (language barriers, how many Pashtuns speak Cuban Spanish?), disappear into the hordes of unregistered residents in the U.S., and pursue operations against the U.S. from within its borders.

guam would probably work as well, but there's the matter of ready supplies of foodstuffs, and land-area to deal with.
Cuba's only 90 miles from Florida, it makes shipping chow there a lot easier than, say, several days and hundereds of miles of ocean crossing to feed three hundered people who have to be guarded against escape.

*much snipage of a well written post*And I agree. War is not fun and games, nor should it ever been considered so. My beef though is that, as it was pointed out in another post, the US makes a point of proclaming that it is the lead country on human rights, and rubbing the noses of every other country on earth in their own records.

If we make such points though and proclaim that we are a nation that follows the law and that the law applies equally to everyone, then we should follow through with that. Talk the talk and walk the walk in other words. And since I cannot fight for these ideas on the battlefield (Having been classified 4F on my 18th), I will work to keep the US honest to the ideals that others are fighting for. It's my home, it's my country.

The US has been called the great experiment, which means that it has never fully lived up to the ideals we expouse, yes. However, I fail to see why that means we should throw them all away now.

Cadillac-Gage no longer has any credibility with me! He's willing to lie and hide the facts to save his precious leader, Bush, from criticism! (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9000745&postcount=43)


Fass, you rock!

I see, so your opponents can't be "Wrong", they must be "evil". Nice. As for the Shrub being "My Leader", Swimmingpool, I've been waiting many years for the Democratic Party to put someone up that didn't make me either afraid, or nauseous. The few times they've had a Presidential Candidate that didn't trigger one of those two reactions, he was booted by the time the Primary reached Iowa-usually in favour of someone so milquetoast or Radical that only other Dems could love him.

As a matter of Policy, once things get to the point where there's fighting, it's better to have someone willing to fight, than a talker whose idea of 'military action' is tossing multimillion-dollar cruise missiles at Aspirin Factories, or sending GI's to stand around with empty rifles and blue 'shoot-me' hats.

I voted against "Papa" Bush in '92, and I voted for Browne in '96. GW is simply the best of a bad lot this decade- I sure as hell wasn't going to vote for a guy whose greatest claim to fame, is that he managed to not-duck three times, bail on his men, then turn around and denigrate them for the television audience in hanoi, and I wasn't going to vote for a guy who wants to make my life even worse in order to hug some goddamned trees and worship dirt-perhaps to soothe some lingering guilt over his namesake's support of Segregation or something.

Further, the Patriot Act is Anathema, an abomination that should never have been passed, much less renewed.

As for the War itself... it's a WAR. We're in it. The only thing worse than going to war, is going to war, then LOSING. There's actually one thing worse than that-it's going to war, then throwing the fight once it's begun-also known as Losing on Purpose.

It took twenty years to recover from the damage losing Vietnam did. This one's bigger, it's bigger, and higher-stakes. The enemy isn't just going to invade an Ally, they're after your ass, my ass, your kids, your wife, your lover, your parents... and they aren't going to be satisfied with a 'negotiated Settlement'. Appeasement has Never Worked. 'why' isn't as significant as the fact that they aren't going to ever stop unless you stop them, they aren't going to reconsider, they aren't going to give up, and they most certainly aren't going to leave you alone just because you caved to their demands.

Ah, but the C-in-C hath declared that these folks are not MILITARY prisoners, because then they would fall under Geneva and that would be harmful. So if they ain't military they fall to civilian side, or are we just making it up as we go along?

He said they weren't POW's, its not the same thing.

"Further, the Patriot Act is Anathema, an abomination that should never have been passed, much less renewed."

The Act gives law enforcement the power to do to suspected terrorists what they had been able to do for years to suspected drug dealers, or people exercising the 2nd Ammendment in ways certain people don't like.

"guam would probably work as well, but there's the matter of ready supplies of foodstuffs, and land-area to deal with."

Guam also has a civil government from which permission would have to be sought. I doubt they, or their constituients would like importing hundreds of terrorists.

So basically what the article in the original post boils down to is this:

The Bush admin, faced yet again with well-researched, heavy criticism of their actions and policies, and instead of defending and justifying themselves against this resort to their well-used tactic of digging up any sort of dirt on someone (anyone) connected with the organisation making said criticism.

They will then harp on and on about this dirt, proclaiming that this totally invalidates the criticism and that it was only made because this particular organisation hates Bush, no other reason. Various people within the admin will say this at pre-arranged and carefully co-ordinated interviews over and over again, which will be happily reported verbatim by the press which will be accepted by the masses as truth.

Having embarked on this course of action, the Bush Admin will then decide they do not need to accept the original criticism in any way whatsoever and feel that they have done nothing wrong at all.

Let's just wait for the next chapter in the tawdry tactics this current administration does in always attacking the messenger so they can ignore the message.

I never did trust them.
Mind you i havent needed them 'Yet!'.......

Amnesty International criticises almost every country at some point, it's absurd to suggest the USA is being unfairly singled out.

NOTE: How can AI any longer maintain the fiction that they are "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion?"


Amnesty leadership aided Kerry (http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,4-XX-0-DAYX20050602,00.html)


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.
Amnesty USA yesterday told The Washington Times that staff members make policy based on laws governing human rights, pointing out that the organization had criticized some of President Clinton's policies.
"We strive to do everything humanly possible to see that the personal political perspectives of our leadership have no bearing whatsoever upon the nature of our findings and the conduct of our work," a spokesman said.
Amnesty International describes itself as nonpartisan. Disclosure of the leadership's political leanings came yesterday as the Bush administration continued to lash out at the human rights group for remarks last week by Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary-general.
Mrs. Khan compared the U.S. detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members are held, to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's "gulag" prison system.
At the same time, Mr. Schulz issued a statement calling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials "architects of torture." Mr. Schulz suggested that other countries could file war-crime charges against the top officials and arrest them.
Since Sunday, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Vice President Dick Cheney; and President Bush have accused Amnesty International of irresponsible criticism.
Yesterday, it was Mr. Rumsfeld's turn.
"No force in the world has done more to liberate people that they have never met than the men and women of the United States military," Mr. Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon press conference. "That's why the recent allegation that the U.S. military is running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay is so reprehensible. Most would define a gulag as where the Soviet Union kept millions in forced labor concentration camps. ... To compare the United States and Guantanamo Bay to such atrocities cannot be excused."
Amnesty International has hit the White House for refusing to treat suspected al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists as prisoners of war subject to the Geneva Conventions; for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and for a list of largely unsubstantiated complaints from detainees at Guantanamo.
Mr. Rumsfeld said "at least a dozen" of the 200 detainees released from Guantanamo "have already been caught back on the battlefield, involved in efforts to kidnap and kill Americans."
Mr. Schulz posted a statement yesterday on Amnesty's Web site (www.amnesty.org) that said, in part, "Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration ignored or dismissed Amnesty International's reports on the abuse of detainees for years, and senior officials continue to ignore the very real plight of men detained without charge or trial."
Amnesty International's Web site states it is "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government."

Well it seems very strange if the american amnesty have critizied the american goverment either the article is confused or american amnesty have gone against the principle of amnesty and that is bad . Because if you know anything about Amnesty there national organisationd don't critize there own goverment. By the simple reason that there risk of torture or harasmnet from the goverment or in demorcatic countries avoid be accused of being bias, like in this article. Instead it is other amnesty organisation outside the USA that investigate USA roll then it comes to human rights. So the american amnesty and there leaders can be how biase they want then it comes to american politics because they should not investigate the USA.

My school has its own Amnesty International Club and no offence but I hate the dang thing, people call me "right-winger" because they know how republican I am. my school (more specificly my history teacher) are mostly liberal (thats the price I pay for living close to the beach in California) and have all these Hippie meetings. I think the United States Governament should enact "Love it or Leave it" polocies... then again I am me, but no matter what the AI organization should just be shut down & the money they have go to charity or somthing, they had a good run, but its over and they need to recognise and accept that.

NOTE: How can AI any longer maintain the fiction that they are "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion?"


Amnesty leadership aided Kerry (http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,4-XX-0-DAYX20050602,00.html)


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.
Amnesty USA yesterday told The Washington Times that staff members make policy based on laws governing human rights, pointing out that the organization had criticized some of President Clinton's policies.
"We strive to do everything humanly possible to see that the personal political perspectives of our leadership have no bearing whatsoever upon the nature of our findings and the conduct of our work," a spokesman said.
Amnesty International describes itself as nonpartisan. Disclosure of the leadership's political leanings came yesterday as the Bush administration continued to lash out at the human rights group for remarks last week by Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary-general.
Mrs. Khan compared the U.S. detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members are held, to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's "gulag" prison system.
At the same time, Mr. Schulz issued a statement calling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials "architects of torture." Mr. Schulz suggested that other countries could file war-crime charges against the top officials and arrest them.
Since Sunday, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Vice President Dick Cheney; and President Bush have accused Amnesty International of irresponsible criticism.
Yesterday, it was Mr. Rumsfeld's turn.
"No force in the world has done more to liberate people that they have never met than the men and women of the United States military," Mr. Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon press conference. "That's why the recent allegation that the U.S. military is running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay is so reprehensible. Most would define a gulag as where the Soviet Union kept millions in forced labor concentration camps. ... To compare the United States and Guantanamo Bay to such atrocities cannot be excused."
Amnesty International has hit the White House for refusing to treat suspected al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists as prisoners of war subject to the Geneva Conventions; for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and for a list of largely unsubstantiated complaints from detainees at Guantanamo.
Mr. Rumsfeld said "at least a dozen" of the 200 detainees released from Guantanamo "have already been caught back on the battlefield, involved in efforts to kidnap and kill Americans."
Mr. Schulz posted a statement yesterday on Amnesty's Web site (www.amnesty.org) that said, in part, "Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration ignored or dismissed Amnesty International's reports on the abuse of detainees for years, and senior officials continue to ignore the very real plight of men detained without charge or trial."
Amnesty International's Web site states it is "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government."

Amnesty International is not independent in the least from the ideology of human rights. And when those human rights are thrown into jeopardy, yes, the organizations responsible for watching them should involve themselves the campaigns.

You don't see it, don't you.

Perhaps I need to make it simpler:

Kim Jhong-il: starves millions, operates concentration camps; test chemical and biological weapons on humans; and according to some, sells its own people into slavery to pay debts.

AI: sends a little note "expressing concern"

George W. Bush: legitimately interprets and applies international and US laws to meet the needs of a war; imprisons illegal combatants, rather than killing them; doesn't introduce a patently unconstitutional court which violates basic human rights (ICC).

AI: goes apeshit, calls for trials of anyone they can lay their hands on
Do you have proof that Amnesty makes such a difference between the US and NK? I used to write letters for them. Their reports that I worked from mostly related to the Indonesian Army's treatment of people in Aceh, and the treatment of political prisoners in various African countries. I got the odd report regarding the US, China and other countries. I was impressed by the professionalism of their reports. Their harshness on countries is proportionate to the scale of their human rights violations, which is probably why they go after China more than any other.

The Death Penalty is not inconsistant with the right to life in the same way that fines are not inconsistant with property rights

......

About the donation: I find it strange that a leader of a (supposedly) non-profit left-wing advocacy group
The Death Penalty is inconsistent with the right to life, just as a fine is inconsistent with property rights when they are taking away everything you have.

AI are not left-wing. Yes, their executive gets paid. It's a full-time job, do you expect him to go homeless and eat at McDonalds every day?

So have Busheviks always been against Amnesty or is it just their latest enemy (they always need a new one) when France got boring?

As an Amnesty International member, this makes me sad... :(

We ARE supposed to be anti-political, addressing only human-rights issues. That is why Amnesty USA IS NOT supposed to deal with domestic human rights issues, so we are not looked upon as favoring one side or another.

And we are most certainly NOT supposed to fund ANY political candidates!

Idiots!!! :headbang:
Thanks for your honesty, but Schulz made the donation as a private citizen, not as Amnesty USA.

The United States, which has comprehensive political, civil, and economic freedoms, protected by all levels of government, 1st.
Well done, you are trying to base an argument off the number of words in their reports without even referring to the content.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9002535&postcount=108

I see, so your opponents can't be "Wrong"

*über-snip*
What are you ranting about? I already said that I supported the Iraq war for human rights reasons, and is makes me nauseous to see the power that removed the evil Hussein go around with anything less than a perfect human rights record.

My post was dedicated to proving that you were lying about Amnesty International in order to discredit them.

Amnisty International was never a credible human rights organization. They are a member of One World Network an umbrella network of 1500 leftist /marxist front groups who recieve their funding from scum such as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, John D. and Cathrine T. MacAuther Foundation and the Columbia Foundation. These are all well known money laundering operations with the purpose of enslaving the worlds population under a single socialist rule.

So have Busheviks always been against Amnesty or is it just their latest enemy (they always need a new one) when France got boring?

Thanks for your honesty, but Schulz made the donation as a private citizen, not as Amnesty USA.

Well done, you are trying to base an argument off the number of words in their reports without even referring to the content.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9002535&postcount=108

I believe that if the organization is going to be officially apolitical, its executives should refrain from political activity. If they want to have their executives be free to be political, then the organization should drop the claim that they are apolitical.

As for any impartiality Amnesty doesn't have anymore, I merely have to point to their description of Guantanamo as "the gulag of our times".

Considering that North Korea has everyone else in the world beat on the subject of gulags - larger, crueler, longer in service, more people killed, tortured, worked to death, starved - one wonders how they can say that the US has North Korea beat on the subject of gulags. To say that Guantanamo is the gulag of our times is to say that North Korea isn't that much of a problem.

I believe that there is strong political motivation to say that - not any honest belief in human rights. If they honestly believed in human rights, then they would criticize the worst offender with the largest amount of criticism.

They're not. The bias is obvious to anyone who isn't blind.

"I believe that if the organization is going to be officially apolitical, its executives should refrain from political activity. If they want to have their executives be free to be political, then the organization should drop the claim that they are apolitical."

Quite right. Anyone publicly identified with an organisation should not act in a way that brings the organisation into question.

"AI are not left-wing."

They just happen to push the left's agenda, example, their devotion to 'internationalism' (signing away key parts of soverignty to the UN).

The Left has been pushing nations into joining the ICC, and AI judges nations, partly, on whether they have joined it.

"Yes, their executive gets paid. It's a full-time job, do you expect him to go homeless and eat at McDonalds every day?"

If you are going to quote, quote all relevant comments.

I said that "I find it strange that a leader of a (supposedly) non-profit left-wing advocacy group should just happen to have $2000 to throw around for political donations to John Kerry. Surely if he was committed to human rights, and had that sort of cash to throw around, he'd have donated it to charity, or even returned it to AI."

The relevant part is not that he is a paid employee, I question why it is that someone who works for a supposedly non-profit NGO has that much cash to throw at a political campaign.

Why are we moaning about $2,000 from an AI executive, when billions and millions get throw around by corporations advocate their position in government or buy influence.

Once again... Rupert Murdoch, News Corp, Fox News, hell the whole damn GOP money list. And yet, oddly, when bias is mentioned, or noted that Fox and the Sun functions as Bush Co. mouth to the world, you get arguments about how fair and balanced these folks are and how if a buisness man wants to make a donation that is his or her own afair and does not reflect upon the company or is an indication of bias.

AI has mentioned other nations, repeadedly, over many years, and has been screaming about N Korea and other fun places to visit. However, again so oddly, you never hear anything about it in the news media and cons make noises about how libs want the US to save the world but let AI say one thing against the US and OBVIOUSLY it's 'bias'.

The only bias I've seen is the unwillingness to accept any bad mouthing of the US.

"Why are we moaning about $2,000 from an AI executive, when billions and millions get throw around by corporations advocate their position in government or buy influence."

Address the point. I don't buy misdirection.

When an organisation claims that it is non-partisan, and does not support or oppose any government, and its senior members are donating money to a political campaign, it calls the organisation's integrity into question.

AI has mentioned other nations, repeadedly, over many years, and has been screaming about N Korea and other fun places to visit.

False. They do mention them. But they say that the US, and not North Korea, is running "the gulag of our time".

Let's compare the North Korean system of gulags, with the over 500,000 captives, the millions who have been killed in them, the starvation, the torture, the killing, the slavery - let's compare that to Guantanamo, shall we?

And how, pray tell, could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that Guantanamo is far worse in every respect - nay, orders of magnitude worse - than the North Korean system?

Amnesty says that North Korea isn't as bad as Guantanamo.

I still don't think the AI Pres made a good descision by contributing to a campaign. He should've known it would bite him in the ass and make the group look bad.
It is not making him look bad...its making the Bushites look like a bunch of whiners...

just like everytime they whine about Howard Dean.

I think it is shameful that you are dismissing serious concerns of an international human rights organisation based on this.

Does working for a certain organisation mean that you are suddenly stripped of your right to political activity? If they had supported the GOP you wouldn't have heard that conservative rag rant about it. It was all done in public, it was done by people who are private persons. Amnesty has a long reputation of trying their very best to remain independent even in the most difficult of situations, and by beating the "anti-american" drum this doesn't change Really, this is conservative punditry of the lowest level and not even worthy of consideration.

What we should be worrying about is the very transparent campaign by conservatives that is now going on in the United States targetting Human Rights groups (ACLU and Amnesty becoming swearwords) Really. When the civil rights groups pointing out abuses are becoming the problem instead of the abuses themselves you are in deep, deep trouble.

The credit I give the United States as a moral nation has at this point sunk below the credit I give, say, Iran where at least people are trying to improve civil liberties instead of starting witchhunts against the people trying to put an end to wanton cruelty and torture.

Funny enough, this whole affair also shows that the conservative pundits have reached stage four of "How to discredit an unwelcome report", which really should be the last resort.

How to discredit an unwelcome report:

Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).

Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).

Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:
1. 'Not really a basis for long term decisions'.
2. 'Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment'.
3. 'No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy'.
4. 'Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice'.

Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off the record) that
1. He is harbouring a grudge against the Department.
2. He is a publicity seeker.
3. He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship.
4. He used to be a consultant to a multinational.
5. He wants to be a consultant to a multinational."

False. They do mention them. But they say that the US, and not North Korea, is running "the gulag of our time".

Let's compare the North Korean system of gulags, with the over 500,000 captives, the millions who have been killed in them, the starvation, the torture, the killing, the slavery - let's compare that to Guantanamo, shall we?

And how, pray tell, could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that Guantanamo is far worse in every respect - nay, orders of magnitude worse - than the North Korean system?

Amnesty says that North Korea isn't as bad as Guantanamo.
"The government continued to fail in its duty to uphold and protect the right to food, exacerbating the effects of the long-standing food crisis. Chronic malnutrition among children and urban populations, especially in the northern provinces, was widespread. Fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, association and movement, continued to be denied. Access by independent monitors continued to be severely restricted. There were reports of widespread political imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment, and of executions."

"In April, the UN Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution expressing deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights. A Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in North Korea was appointed in July."

"Information and access continued to be highly controlled. A three-member delegation of the CRC was allowed unprecedented access in April. However, despite repeated requests, the government continued to deny access to the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in North Korea and the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food as well as to AI and other independent human rights monitors."
etc etc etc


Do they really have to write the word "gulag" somewhere that you would be satisfied?

"The government continued to fail in its duty to uphold and protect the right to food, exacerbating the effects of the long-standing food crisis. Chronic malnutrition among children and urban populations, especially in the northern provinces, was widespread. Fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, association and movement, continued to be denied. Access by independent monitors continued to be severely restricted. There were reports of widespread political imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment, and of executions."

"In April, the UN Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution expressing deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights. A Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in North Korea was appointed in July."

"Information and access continued to be highly controlled. A three-member delegation of the CRC was allowed unprecedented access in April. However, despite repeated requests, the government continued to deny access to the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in North Korea and the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food as well as to AI and other independent human rights monitors."
etc etc etc


Do they really have to write the word "gulag" somewhere that you would be satisfied?

When they make the announcement that Guantanamo, and not North Korea, is the "gulag of our time" that's bias. And it's an outright distortion. It's calling one worse than the other, when facts are rather clear that the opposite is quite true.

Ooh, blimey. I have a number of points to make:

Cadillac-Gage -is there any chance of an apology for the arrant unfounded bullshit you spouted? Bullshit that was comprehensively rebutted by numerous posters, I might add.

There are some facts about Amnesty that are worth bearing in mind. One, AIUS have considerable leeway - like all Amnesty sections - and their actions cannot always be attributed to the organisation as a whole. This guy Schulz is, arguably, a fool for making this donation. His position is such that making contributions to political groups is liable to put the organisation in a compromising position. A lesser figure in the organisation making such a donation - no problem.

Two, Amnesty are NOT left-wing. Where do they make specific comments on capitalism vs communism? Why do they criticise authoritarian socialist regimes less than capitalist? Because they often don't have section in these countries (see below). They are a socially liberal organisation and are therefore unlikely to receive as much support from social conservatives. There are conservatives, liberals, Marxists and free marketeers in the membership. The focus is on human rights.

Three, there are reasons why North Korea and other despicable regimes receive less criticism. Primarily, Amnesty are not able to establish sections in all nations. Many nations are too dangerous for human rights activists. Yes, there are North Korean member of Amnesty, but the establishment of a section is too dangerous for them. Consequently, the organisation has less info on NK and, thus, is unable to construct reports as detailed as for, say, the US.

Four, concerning Cuba. It amuses me to see people arguing that they turn a blind eye to this country's abuses. AI is one of the organisations most loathed by the Cuban Solidarity Campaign, who resent the fact that Amnesty won't simply ignore the human rights violations going on. Again, Amnesty's influence is small there.

Five, Amnesty is not a Western organisation. The largest sections are Western, but the organisation is active in nearly 100 nations. Why does, for example, India have a section? Because Indians founded one, with assistance from AI. Amnesty's ability to get involved is dependent on its influence in each country.

Finally, Knootoss: that's brilliant. :)

Liverbreath']Amnisty International was never a credible human rights organization. They are a member of One World Network an umbrella network of 1500 leftist /marxist front groups who recieve their funding from scum such as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, John D. and Cathrine T. MacAuther Foundation and the Columbia Foundation. These are all well known money laundering operations with the purpose of enslaving the worlds population under a single socialist rule.
That's fucking hilarious!

False. They do mention them. But they say that the US, and not North Korea, is running "the gulag of our time".

Let's compare the North Korean system of gulags, with the over 500,000 captives, the millions who have been killed in them, the starvation, the torture, the killing, the slavery - let's compare that to Guantanamo, shall we?

And how, pray tell, could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that Guantanamo is far worse in every respect - nay, orders of magnitude worse - than the North Korean system?

Amnesty says that North Korea isn't as bad as Guantanamo.
How about this then, since rhetoric seems to have passed you by, here's quote from the horse's mouth. Gee, sounds like they mention them to ME.

The following are from Amnesty International, this section is the 2005 report.
Guantánamo Bay

By the end of the year, more than 500 detainees of around 35 nationalities continued to be held without charge or trial at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay on grounds of possible links to al-Qa’ida or the former Taleban government of Afghanistan. While at least 10 more detainees were transferred to the base from Afghanistan during the year, more than 100 others were transferred to their home countries for continued detention or release. At least three child detainees were among those released, but at least two other people who were under 18 at the time of their detention were believed to remain in Guantánamo by the end of the year. Neither the identities nor the precise numbers of detainees held in Guantánamo were provided by the Department of Defense, fuelling concern that individual detainees could be transferred to and from the base without appearing in official statistics.

In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in June that the US federal courts had jurisdiction over the Guantánamo detainees. However, the administration tried to keep any review of the detainees’ cases as far from a judicial process as possible. The Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), an administrative review body consisting of panels of three military officers, was established to determine whether the detainees were “enemy combatants”. The detainees were not provided with lawyers to assist them in this process and secret evidence could be used against them. Many detainees boycotted the process, which by the end of the year had determined that more than 200 detainees were “enemy combatants” and two were not and could be released. The authorities also announced that all detainees confirmed as “enemy combatants” would have a yearly review of their cases before an Administrative Review Board (ARB) to determine if they should still be held. Again, detainees would not have access to legal counsel or to secret evidence. Both the CSRT and the ARB could draw on evidence extracted under torture or other coercion. In December, the Pentagon announced that it had conducted its first ARB.

The government informed the detainees that they could file habeas corpus petitions in federal court, giving them the address of the District Court in Washington DC. However, it also argued in the same court that the detainees had no basis under constitutional or international law to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. By the end of the year, six months after the Supreme Court ruling, no detainee had had the lawfulness of his detention judicially reviewed.
The following is from a 1999 document, the 2005 report notes that conditions have gotten worse.
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
(NORTH KOREA):

CONDITIONS OF DETENTION

Amnesty International is concerned at recent reports that North Koreans held in some places of detention are given little or no food and that many die as a result of starvation and disease. Food shortages have led many people to leave their locality and seek food elsewhere in the country. Since 1997 the North Korean authorities are reported to have established makeshift detention centres to hold homeless people and those who have left their locality or tried to leave the country in order to seek food. Children are also reported to have been detained in such institutions. Most of these reports of abuses have been gathered from aid workers and foreign journalists who interviewed North Koreans in China. Although the information cannot be independently verified, the reports are consistent and suggest a pattern of human rights violations.

These detention places are reported to be located in requisitioned buildings in urban centres, close to railway stations and in areas close to the Chinese border. Although they are not officially prisons, people appear to have been detained there against their will, often in appalling conditions. According to the testimony of former inmates, some 20 to 50 people are often crammed into a small room and are given a very small amount of food each day. Many people are reported to have died of hunger and disease in such places. Security is relatively lax and many people have escaped while others secured their release when their families paid a bribe. Some are reported to have been sent repeatedly to such places. One source described how a 21-year-old said he had been sent to a detention place in Chongjin in the east of the country where the detainees were only fed once a day with cakes made out of corn stalks. They were forced to work all day and were held in such cramped conditions that they had to sleep sitting up. He said that after one week at least three of his cell-mates had died.(1)

Amnesty International does not have access to information about conditions of imprisonment in other detention places but is concerned that the famine in North Korea is likely to have led to a severe deterioration of conditions, including a lack of food, in all detention places in North Korea.

And here is the actual report on GITMO http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005, which makes for some long reading as it's well researched and guess what, gulag doesn't appear in it once.

Got any other arguments?

Forgot to say: all GOs and charities have, as far as I'm aware, paid staff. The scope and scale of duties makes voluntary work unfeasible, unfortunately.

"AI are not left-wing."

They just happen to push the left's agenda, example, their devotion to 'internationalism' (signing away key parts of soverignty to the UN).

The Left has been pushing nations into joining the ICC, and AI judges nations, partly, on whether they have joined it.
Well, if wanting to make all nations respect human rights is left-wing, then that's what they are. In that case you might want to inform libertarian capitalist (and AI member) Dastallia 2104 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9002535&postcount=108) about it.

Nations do not have the sovereign right to commit human rights abuses.

"Well, if wanting to make all nations respect human rights is left-wing,"

How does calling all nations to sign up for an unaccountable international court that fails to have even the most basic protections for the accused constitute "wanting to make all nations respect human rights"?

Are human rights advanced by getting rid of:
The right of the accused to face his accusers;
The right of the accused to supoena witnesses;
The right to trial by a jury of your peers;
No double-jeopardy rules?

Looks like AI is about wanting to make all nations abandon human rights.

And I suppose it is merely a coincidence that the ICC is a pet cause of the left?

They also judge nations by whether that have signed and ratified certain UN conventions, not whether they have reached particular human rights goals, but whether they have signed up to a UN agenda.

I suppose it is merely a coincidence that legislating through the UN, rather than national legislatures is a pet cause of the left?

Forgot to say: all GOs and charities have, as far as I'm aware, paid staff. The scope and scale of duties makes voluntary work unfeasible, unfortunately.

That's why they call a million times a day for donations. Thank God we have the no-call law here. We don't get solicitors, except we do get them from charities. I just don't answer the phone. If I do donate, I ask what percentage of my donation is going to the actual cause and not to overhead or employees... If it's 5%, forGET it!

Well, if wanting to make all nations respect human rights is left-wing, then that's what they are. In that case you might want to inform libertarian capitalist (and AI member) Daistallia 2104 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9002535&postcount=108) about it.

Nations do not have the sovereign right to commit human rights abuses.

Bingo.
Although I'm not an AI member, I do support their cause, and other similar causes (HRW being another biggie). I do have my disagreements, but they tend to minor.

So far, those are only allegations. There is NO proof.

1) There is "no proof" only if you choose to disbelieve the proof that does exist. Convenient that.

2) There is "no proof" because -- like a gulag -- Guantanamo is is shrouded in secrecy. Only slowly -- under force of court orders -- are detainees beginning to be allowed to consult attorneys, etc.

3) There is "no proof" only if you subscribe to the view that the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and some reports by the Pentagon itself are all lying.

And no law under the Geneva Convention that would back any complaint there (See Convention I, Article 2, and you'll see why).

We've been over this at length before and you were forced to back down (after changing your argument several times only to have me refute each change).

Not even the Bush Administration agrees with your interpretation of the Geneva Convention.

Nor does the International Red Cross -- or any other reputable human rights organization.

For the people who would say, "let us see the proof and hold fair trials for the detainees", it's remarkable that they ALWAYS take it as a given that "Bush is committing violations of human rights" - without question, without proof, and without a legal leg to stand on.

I did not realize those concerned about Guantanamo were advocating that President Bush be locked in a small cell for years without a trial or contact with the outside world. :rolleyes:

I agree. Before President Bush could be locked up, he should have to be convicted by a fair trial with all the trappings of due process -- and the same should be true of the "detainees" at Guantanamo!

Who were you saying was the hypocrite?

1) There is "no proof" only if you choose to disbelieve the proof that does exist. Convenient that.

2) There is "no proof" because -- like a gulag -- Guantanamo is is shrouded in secrecy. Only slowly -- under force of court orders -- are detainees beginning to be allowed to consult attorneys, etc.

3) There is "no proof" only if you subscribe to the view that the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and some reports by the Pentagon itself are all lying.

All of the reports by the Red Cross and Amnesty International involve "reports" from interviews with detainees. Detainees who have been instructed prior to their detention to claim abuse even if it isn't happenning.

There are no corroborative statements by any ICRC personnel - no eyewitness testimony by an impartial party.

The so-called "abuse of the Koran" for instance has involved "mishandling" - which to our military means picking one up without wearing gloves - which appears to be the only method of mishandling documented. They HAVE documented detainees ripping up Korans and jamming the pages into toilets - but no documented evidence of the US doing so.


We've been over this at length before and you were forced to back down (after changing your argument several times only to have me refute each change).

Not even the Bush Administration agrees with your interpretation of the Geneva Convention.

It may not be the Bush Administration's interpretation. It's mine, and I've never backed off of Convention I, Article 2 - it's crystal clear that the men in the center are not members of a High Contracting Party, nor are they members of an organization who openly stated that they would agree to abide by the provisions of the Convention - therefore they have no protection.

By the Hague Convention, I could and if I were President I would order the immediate summary execution after field court martial of every person caught as an armed combatant if not in a known uniform of a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, or not wearing a common, visible emblem identifying them as insurgents.

Under those conditions, I would be legal. I would also not have to worry about too many prisoners of war, because I doubt the insurgents would start wearing a common uniform.

That's why they call a million times a day for donations. Thank God we have the no-call law here. We don't get solicitors, except we do get them from charities. I just don't answer the phone. If I do donate, I ask what percentage of my donation is going to the actual cause and not to overhead or employees... If it's 5%, forGET it!
I don't have the figures at hand, but a good charity or NGO (note that Amnesty is assuredly NOT a charity) will keep admin costs down to 15% or less. Why so high? Well, keeping members informed is extremely costly, not to mention compliance with national and international laws, etc.

That said, I do feel wages for executives are too high in any of these organisations (though orders of magnitude less than most substantial corporations).

Are human rights advanced by getting rid of:
The right of the accused to face his accusers;
The right of the accused to supoena witnesses;
The right to trial by a jury of your peers;
No double-jeopardy rules?
Please provide evidence that AI seeks to remove the above. A question for non-US lawyers: is double jeopardy a universal right, or just an American one?

Um... so if a top offical gives money to a political party as a private citizen that means that their orginization is now no longer apolitical?

Kewl, I guess we can now state as a fact that News Co. and Foxs News ARE biased towards and a mouth for the GOP! Thanks for the neat and unarguable logic!

Bingo.

And every church with a leader that contributes to a party or candidate loses its tax exemption!

Bingo.

And every church with a leader that contributes to a party or candidate loses its tax exemption!

Sounds fair to me.

"Please provide evidence that AI seeks to remove the above. A question for non-US lawyers: is double jeopardy a universal right, or just an American one?"

AI supports the ICC.

Read the following please:

Link 1 (http://cato.org/dailys/12-27-00.html)

Link 2 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9152)

AI supports the ICC, therefore AI supports the removal of basic human rights.

Double jeopardy applies in many nations.

Please provide evidence that AI seeks to remove the above. A question for non-US lawyers: is double jeopardy a universal right, or just an American one?
Double Jeopardy is common in liberal-democratic legal system, and the ICC works by that standard. Trial by jury however is not. And wherever Mr. Pundit up here got the idea that people cannot call witnesses in the ICC I don't know. *shrug*

I don't think he was bashing amnesty anyway.

I have no problem with the ICC and think the fears expressed in these sources are considerably overblown. I'll defer to Cat-Tribe on the specifics though - I'm not a lawyer.

Bingo.

And every church with a leader that contributes to a party or candidate loses its tax exemption!
Can't do that in the US. It's unconstitutional. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Can't do that in the US. It's unconstitutional. The power to tax is the power to destroy.The Constitution can be amended

The Constitution can be amended

Let's see: 2/3rds of the Senators would have to go along with it, followed by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Ocean, considering today's political setup, what do you think the chances of that happening are? :rolleyes:

OH NOES! THEY CONTRIBUTED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS!


That also means that the weapons industry and the tobacco industry and their BILLIONS of dollars in bribes have lost credibility for me.

Don't be fucking assholes. You want to look at corruption look at the politicians, not organizations such as AI.

My school has its own Amnesty International Club and no offence but I hate the dang thing, people call me "right-winger" because they know how republican I am. my school (more specificly my history teacher) are mostly liberal (thats the price I pay for living close to the beach in California) and have all these Hippie meetings. I think the United States Governament should enact "Love it or Leave it" polocies... then again I am me, but no matter what the AI organization should just be shut down & the money they have go to charity or somthing, they had a good run, but its over and they need to recognise and accept that.

You'll find that there is an institutionalized bias against conservative viewpoints in the education system. It'll get worse in college but stay true to your beliefs. They will attempt to intimidate you into silence by threatening your grades and the students may occasionally threaten violence against you or your possessions. While it may seem overwhelming sometimes keep in mind that they are getting louder and crazier because no one is listening to them anymore. Leftists in academia are a dying breed so it's only nature they thrash about as they go.

this is little more than a distraction from the real issue: the inhuman treatment of prisoners by the united states. of course, the top people at AI donated money to and probably voted for M. Kerry, but that doesn't make the organization they work for political. they were acting as individuals, and Amnesty remains an excellent organization which will never be taken seriously by the bush administration; yet another action which makes them less respected in the world and that weakens any action against islamist subversives.

You'll find that there is an institutionalized bias against conservative viewpoints in the education system. It'll get worse in college but stay true to your beliefs. They will attempt to intimidate you into silence by threatening your grades and the students may occasionally threaten violence against you or your possessions. While it may seem overwhelming sometimes keep in mind that they are getting louder and crazier because no one is listening to them anymore. Leftists in academia are a dying breed so it's only nature they thrash about as they go.

:rolleyes:

What a load of rubbish. Next thing you'll say is that the media is liberal... :rolleyes:

Can't do that in the US. It's unconstitutional. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

In part. (Which is part of why WL's saying that is fine with him is odd.)

It would violate the First Amendment to tax religious organizations.

If an organization is political, rather than religious, then it can be taxed.

So, if the logic that you and others have put forth here is sound, then:

If a leader of a church gives money to a party or political leader, then the church is a political organization.

Thus, it looses its tax-exempt status.

I believe that logic is faulty. Don't you?

yet another action which makes them less respected in the world and that weakens any action against islamist subversives.

I'll give you a hint:

Islamist subversives hate America - no matter what we do. Osama wrote before 9-11 that no matter what America does, everyone in America must be killed. You might be overjoyed to know that he also wrote (in a paraphrase of the original by Zangi) that while it is possible to have temporary truces with the infidel (as evidenced by the events in Spain), once America is destroyed, the rest will be subjugated under dar al-Islam and the Caliphate will be restored in the world. Those who are not subjugated, and who do not become true Muslims will die.

Any sane person would see therefore that we have nothing to lose.

Oh, and if you want to appease them so they don't kill you, convert to the Wahhabi sect of Islam. Otherwise, you're as good as dead.

I'll give you a hint:

Islamist subversives hate America - no matter what we do. Osama wrote before 9-11 that no matter what America does, everyone in America must be killed. You might be overjoyed to know that he also wrote (in a paraphrase of the original by Zangi) that while it is possible to have temporary truces with the infidel (as evidenced by the events in Spain), once America is destroyed, the rest will be subjugated under dar al-Islam and the Caliphate will be restored in the world. Those who are not subjugated, and who do not become true Muslims will die.

Any sane person would see therefore that we have nothing to lose.

Oh, and if you want to appease them so they don't kill you, convert to the Wahhabi sect of Islam. Otherwise, you're as good as dead.


As you're blinded by your own ideology, you missed my point. Let me try to explain it to you in smaller words:

The struggle against radical islam can't be done by the united states alone. i agree with you, we don't need to and we shouldn't, try to appease radicals in designing our foreign policy. Instead, we should try to create an international effort to make sure that all intelligence is shared and other countries (including moderate islamic ones) understand our goals and realise that they are largely shared. maintaining a prison which has been decried by pretty much every nation in our coalition isn't helping things.

Some will hate America no matter what. Unlike you, I think that the best solution to this is quite simple: Kill them.

As you're blinded by your own ideology, you missed my point. Let me try to explain it to you in smaller words:

The struggle against radical islam can't be done by the united states alone. i agree with you, we don't need to and we shouldn't, try to appease radicals in designing our foreign policy. Instead, we should try to create an international effort to make sure that all intelligence is shared and other countries (including moderate islamic ones) understand our goals and realise that they are largely shared. maintaining a prison which has been decried by pretty much every nation in our coalition isn't helping things.

Some will hate America no matter what. Unlike you, I think that the best solution to this is quite simple: Kill them.

I'm not blinded by ideology. I'm thinking purely as someone who wants to survive.

Personally, I would never have taken them captive in the first place.

I would have held a quick court martial in the field, and then sentenced them to death as war criminals for violations of the Hague Convention.

Then I would have had them put on a transport plane bound for the US, and somewhere over the ocean, I would have them thrown out at 36,000 ft.

I'm not blinded by ideology. I'm thinking purely as someone who wants to survive.

Personally, I would never have taken them captive in the first place.

I would have held a quick court martial in the field, and then sentenced them to death as war criminals for violations of the Hague Convention.

Then I would have had them put on a transport plane bound for the US, and somewhere over the ocean, I would have them thrown out at 36,000 ft.

And you would be an international war criminal ....

Not to mention a violator of US military code ....

And you would be an international war criminal ....

Not to mention a violator of US military code ....

It's not a war crime to hold court martial for detainees.

It's not a war crime to sentence people to death for violations of the Hague Conventions - or have you forgotten the trials in the aftermath of WW II - both Germans and Japanese executed for such violations.

Also, I might add that the US military has executed people in the past.

May I remind you that when Saigon fell, there were many VC held in Saigon's jails who were placed onto C-141 aircraft, and thrown from the plane before it arrived in Guam, so that they could not reveal American sources and methods?

No one was prosecuted or investigated.

Also, JAG teaches every soldier that up until the point where you "accept" someone's surrender, you retain the right to shoot them and kill them out of hand. Only upon "accepting surrender" are you obligated to protect that person and provide food, shelter, and medical attention.

JAG teaches that often, you may be on a patrol with no ability to take prisoners - since they would compromise your mission in some way. Therefore, you would take no prisoners - you would kill everyone you found, or at your personal discretion, release people you perceived to be non-threatening (children, for instance).

Anyone under arms is perfectly legal to shoot - even if they attempt to surrender.

There is SO MUCH military case law behind this, especially through WW II, Korea, and Vietnam, that it would be a simple matter for the President to order that we not accept the surrender of anyone found under arms.

Then they would all be shot - without a trial - legally.

It's not a war crime to hold court martial for detainees.

It's not a war crime to sentence people to death for violations of the Hague Conventions

Yes it is. Well, not really, but it is in the way you put it. The trial has to be an international tribunal with judges from various nations, not a court martial by the very enemies that captured them followed by a summary execution.

Yes it is. Well, not really, but it is in the way you put it. The trial has to be an international tribunal with judges from various nations, not a court martial by the very enemies that captured them followed by a summary execution.

It doesn't have to be an international tribunal. The "judges from various nations" in the trials of German and Japanese war criminals were only from the victorious nations - in essence, only from the very allies that captured the enemy soldiers - followed (especially in the case of some Japanese) by a summary execution.

Please go back and read the history of the Nuremburg trials, and the trials of the Japanese war criminals.

You'll note that for some of the early trials of Japanese war criminals, MacArthur had NO other judges other than three American military officers, and that sentence was almost immediately carried out.

How can this be!!
AI have political affiliations?
It's as disheartening as hearing the truth about Santa.

No offense, but my official comment on this is
DUH!

Hmmm... throwing people from planes... shooting people on the spot... no boring trials for filthy foreigners.

I suggests that Whispering Legs vote Pinochet at the next general election in Jesusland. And have Amnesty International write a critical report.

This thread has had all the important ideas thrown out. It's time to go back and discuss the definitions again.

Courtest of IMAO (http://www.imao.us/archives/003261.html), the differences between gulags and Gitmo are defined.

Though both Guantanamo and gulag start with a 'g', there are in fact numerous differences between the Soviet prison camps and our detention of terrorists. Actually, there are apparently ten differences, so...

THE TOP TEN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GITMO AND A GULAG

10. Beatings at Gitmo are done as felt necessary, instead of following strict Soviet beating schedule.

9. Fancy new Korans for all Gitmo detainees, while nearly no free Korans under Stalin.

8. Gulag inmates were exploited to help the Soviet economy, while we can't even get wallets out of Gitmo detainees.

7. Gulag's had a high fatality rate, while Gitmo detainees don't die until we're done with them.

6. Sibera was not a hot spot for Canadian tourists.

5. Gitmo detainees are allowed to pray towards Mecca five times a day, while Gulag inmates were forced to bow down towards Stalin's mustache five times a day.

4. Many people were placed in gulag's simply for their political views, while many were put in Gitmo because they wouldn't stop shooting at us, gosh darnit.

3. Gulag is an abbreviation for Russian for "The Chief Directorate of Corrective Labor Camps" while Guantanamo is simply Spanish for "hell-hole."

2. While neither the inmates of the gulag or the Gitmo detainees bathe, the Gitmo detainees do have the option.

And the number one difference between Gitmo and a gulag...

We're pretty sure all the people at Gitmo deserve it.

Whoa. What a thread. I was on the edge of my seat a couple of times reading that. Now. We are back to the basics, if I understood it correctly... what should I, as a member of the Finnish Amnesty to do now? Can I still vote for anybody I like in our elections? Or does my AI membership make me a lefty now?... I'm an amnesty member, mind..(sorry). Should I stop paying my membership fee to be able to vote/spend my money as I please? You tell me.

OH! Please add the 'why' in there. I like to know why/why not I'm doing things.

Whoa. What a thread. I was on the edge of my seat a couple of times reading that. Now. We are back to the basics, if I understood it correctly... what should I, as a member of the Finnish Amnesty to do now? Can I still vote for anybody I like in our elections? Or does my AI membership make me a lefty now?... I'm an amnesty member, mind..(sorry). Should I stop paying my membership fee to be able to vote/spend my money as I please? You tell me.

OH! Please add the 'why' in there. I like to know why/why not I'm doing things.

If you're just a member, continue as you are doing.

If you are the executive in charge of Finnish Amnesty, you have a choice to make:

a) announce that Finnish Amnesty is not apolitical

OR

b) stop donating to politicians or political parties

OR

c) recognise that people can do whatever the heck they want in their private life, like - you know - free individuals, and judge people by how they do their job.

OR

c) recognise that people can do whatever the heck they want in their private life, like - you know - free individuals, and judge people by how they do their job.

Can't do that.

By definition, an executive of an organization REPRESENTS that organization in body.

If you're just a member, continue as you are doing.

If you are the executive in charge of Finnish Amnesty, you have a choice to make:

a) announce that Finnish Amnesty is not apolitical

OR

b) stop donating to politicians or political parties
a+b) I don't know how I could do that...
Amnesty IS not apolitical! How could it be?!? It is 'political' cos it works in the political domain. It is on the side of people of ANY side who are persecuted or treated wrongly. It is not taking sides... but isn't 'apolitical' something else?

Can't do that.

By definition, an executive of an organization REPRESENTS that organization in body.
So a gay executive endorses homosexual behaviour... an executive with sweaty toes thinks this is a-ok, an executive who believes in capital punishment wants the organisation to promote capital punishment... ah, thanks for the info. I guess my idea that people have a personal sphere and a life outside of work was wrong. *shrug*

By definition, an executive of an organization REPRESENTS that organization in body.

Yes when acting as an executive. But that executive isn't on the job all day every day. As a individual he/she does one thing. As an executive he/she does another.

It was said best early in the thread, can't remember who now, this isn't unethical just poor strategy.

a+b) I don't know how I could do that...
Amnesty IS not apolitical! How could it be?!? It is 'political' cos it works in the political domain. It is on the side of people of ANY side who are persecuted or treated wrongly. It is not taking sides... but isn't 'apolitical' something else?

When they speak in the US, they constantly remind everyone that they are apolitical.

I don't care if they are political - I just want them to be honest about it. They can say "We hate Bush" as much as they like, and support candidates against him.

Just stop saying they are apolitical. Because they are not.

Oh, I will, as soon as you explain this difference in our languages.... to me, 'apolitical' means having nothing to do with politics... to you it must mean something else.

If it means 'not taking sides', i'd guess AI would be a good example.

It means the same here.

It means that if you are an executive, by definition you represent that company 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. What you say and what you support is what your organization says and what your organization supports.

So if your organization is apolitical, if you are the senior executive, you must be apolitical as well. You cannot speak in favor of a candidate. You cannot donate money to a political campaign.

lol... i managed to delete my last message...well...

It was something about 'apolitical' meaning 'nothing to do/not interested in' politics...

What does that mean to you? 'neutral'?

It means that if you are an executive, by definition you represent that company 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. What you say and what you support is what your organization says and what your organization supports.

That is most certainly not intrinsic to executives. Organizations are structured differantly. In some the executive sets policy, in others differant parts of the organization do.

So if your organization is apolitical, if you are the senior executive, you must be apolitical as well. You cannot speak in favor of a candidate. You cannot donate money to a political campaign.
Ahh! Now I see. In here private citizens can do what they want. When they do it in the name of the organisation they are part of, it's a different thing. As a private citizen I can pretty much do whatever I want, and my university is left out of it. Cool thing that.

It means the same here.

It means that if you are an executive, by definition you represent that company 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. What you say and what you support is what your organization says and what your organization supports.

So if your organization is apolitical, if you are the senior executive, you must be apolitical as well. You cannot speak in favor of a candidate. You cannot donate money to a political campaign.
From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=executive)

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive)

Now, pray tell, where in the blue sky did you pull that by definition you represent that company 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
schtick?

Where, oh where, is it written or even implied that an executive is an executive 24/7?

Your definition and arguments are based on a wrong definition of the term "executive". Heck, even the law make a distinction between an executive and the company he works for.

Now, pray tell, where in the blue sky did you pull that
schtick?

Hey! Find your own thing to play with!

Now I have to bid you and Mr. Legs good night.

I'm sure we see later when I'm more mature. Sorry all.

In part. (Which is part of why WL's saying that is fine with him is odd.)

It would violate the First Amendment to tax religious organizations.

If an organization is political, rather than religious, then it can be taxed.

So, if the logic that you and others have put forth here is sound, then:

If a leader of a church gives money to a party or political leader, then the church is a political organization.

Thus, it looses its tax-exempt status.

I believe that logic is faulty. Don't you?

Nope. I believe they should lose their tax-exempt status. Politics has no place soiling the Cloth, and the Cloth has no place trying to interfere directly in the political process.
"Render unto Ceasar" and all.

Of course, this should be applied universally... should be, but isn't.

How can this be!!
AI have political affiliations?
It's as disheartening as hearing the truth about Santa.

No offense, but my official comment on this is
DUH!


All of the posts like this one remind me of a time, not long ago, when Michael McCarthy, Wally O'Dell, W.H. Timken, Admiral Bill Owens, and Robert Gates were also vilified for having political opinions. I suppose only bias you agree with is acceptable - even if it does show up in your work.

That Duh seems even more apropriate now.

Go ahead, I dare you to discuss these people and their circumstance in light of what has been said so far regarding AI.

It can be a big pot and kettle party in here.

This seems something to take account to. (bozzy:Michael McCarthy, Wally O'Dell, W.H. Timken, Admiral Bill Owens, and Robert Gates). I'm sorry mate, I don't know who these people are. Please tell me how they are relevant here in this thread. Former leaders of AI America?

This seems something to take account to. (bozzy:Michael McCarthy, Wally O'Dell, W.H. Timken, Admiral Bill Owens, and Robert Gates). I'm sorry mate, I don't know who these people are. Please tell me how they are relevant here in this thread. Former leaders of AI America?
Nope, they are executives who were denegrated for supporting conservative causes by the same people now defending AI executives for supporting liberal causes. Google a few of the names and see what you find. I bet you could even do a jolt forum search of their names and find a thriving hypocracy. If I had time I'd do it now.

I googled them all. I couldn't tell what you were trying to say regarding this thread. They all have had hard times. Having to do with Amnesty International...what?

Edit: Not trying to say AI wouldn't have tried to help them if they happened to end up in , say, Cuba?

Nope, they are executives who were denegrated for supporting conservative causes by the same people now defending AI executives for supporting liberal causes. Google a few of the names and see what you find. I bet you could even do a jolt forum search of their names and find a thriving hypocracy. If I had time I'd do it now.

IIRC, didn't these executives head up non-Exempt corporations? AI is legally a tax-exempt org, with donations being good for the Charitable donations on your taxes.

There's a difference between a for-profit outfit, and a Tax-exempt non-profit.

Nope, they are executives who were denegrated for supporting conservative causes by the same people now defending AI executives for supporting liberal causes. Google a few of the names and see what you find. I bet you could even do a jolt forum search of their names and find a thriving hypocracy. If I had time I'd do it now.

They don't ring a bell with me.

Why don't you show a couple examples of how they were "denigrated"

Got em.

Michael McCarthy: http://www.michaelmccarthy.net/ Seems to be doing fine.

Wally O'Dell: well, how can AI help him? http://www.diebold.com/nyse.htm

I'm not going to go further... it's obvious these guys are being used. Observe that NYSE guy... he is suffering! I'm sorry, I can't see how they are mistreated (and I know I must have the wrong guys).

LOL
Is it 'admiral' or 'governor' Bill? Them both seem to be village idiots...

AI would have tried to to take care of both.

Human rights organizations should be apolitical, and unaffiliated with any political party.

Yeah, but how would want a gun-slinging xenophobic Texan for president of one of the most powerful countries in the world... I reckon (even though I distrust democracy) that Kerry would be a better president than Bush and anyway everyone has to have some sort of political affiation because of course they are a bit of a political power in themselves(Amnesty)

My older sister does a lot of work with Amnesty International, and most of it has revolved around China's horrible treatmen of Tibet.


Apparently though, Amnesty only care about destroying George Bush...
if the truth can destroy George Bush then he deserves to be destroyed

Can't do that.

By definition, an executive of an organization REPRESENTS that organization in body.

So, if an executive is seen buying chocolate body paint in a kinky adult shop, then that organisation obviously endorses the purchase and use of flavoured body paint?

If a senior executive of AI donated $100 to a kitty shelter, would you assume the whole organisation believes that saving the kitties is a really important cause?

Yes, once you become an executive of anything you are not allowed to have a personal life. Because if you do anything whatsoever, it becomes the organization doing it, not the individual. At least in the eyes of the right wingers who feel that their definition of anything is the only definition.

Can't do that.

By definition, an executive of an organization REPRESENTS that organization in body.

Ridiculous.

I know you hold this belief that no group involved in any way with anything political cannot by definition be apolitical. You've argued that before.

So, if these AI executives had not made these donations, would you consider AI to be politically neutral?

Or are you just exploiting this set of facts?

By your new test of attributing private donations of members of organizations to that organization, your orginal view that there are no apolitical organization likely comes true. Fancy that.

Pastors are allowed to make political donations as individuals. That does not make their church a political entity.

CEOs are allowed to make political donations as individuals. That does not make their company a political entity.

It is a simple proposition. One or two leaders of the American branch of Amnesty International may make political donations to whomever they choose and that does not effect the political leanings or lack thereof of the entire international organization.

All of the posts like this one remind me of a time, not long ago, when Michael McCarthy, Wally O'Dell, W.H. Timken, Admiral Bill Owens, and Robert Gates were also vilified for having political opinions. I suppose only bias you agree with is acceptable - even if it does show up in your work.

That Duh seems even more apropriate now.

Go ahead, I dare you to discuss these people and their circumstance in light of what has been said so far regarding AI.

It can be a big pot and kettle party in here.

I'll call your bluff.

Explain how each of these individuals was villified for having political opinions.

I dare you to discuss these people and their circumstances in light of what has been said so far regarding AI.

the head of Amnesty International, Irene Khan, called on the United States to open its detention centers at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere to human rights investigators if it wants to dispute allegations of abuse. Khan was responding to the Bush administration's dismissal of the group's allegation that the US was running a gulag and she defended the use of that word, gulag, in particular. Here is Irene Khan, speaking yesterday: "What we wanted to do is to send a strong message that Guantanamo, Bagram and this sort of network of prison, detention centres that have been created as part of this war on terror is actually undermining human rights in a dramatic way, can only evoke some of the worst features of human rights scandals of the past."

Feh.

That takes intellectual honesty and balls most anti-gunners don't have.

thank you, guns have mannaged to be banned in Australia but this guy sounds nice. I was in AI at my school, basically all we did was write a couple of letters and collect money on AI day. (as the youngest i collected the most) though the eniviroment group was even worse.

Can't do that in the US. It's unconstitutional. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

my mum went to america, and apparentli if you go to a supposedli 'free-entry' museum you HAVE to give a donation. its not a 'fee' because otherwise it would be taxed.

I'll call your bluff.

Explain how each of these individuals was villified for having political opinions.

I dare you to discuss these people and their circumstances in light of what has been said so far regarding AI.

Is everyones memory here so short? I didn't have much trouble finding this on google. I am disappointed nobody here remembers.

Each of these folks served in an executive capacity for an electronic ballot company and had mande contributions to the republican party at some point in their career.

It is hypocracy to defend AI execs from the same accusations of bias as many of these same people accused these gentlemen of doing.

So who wants to be the pot and who wants to be the kettle?

If an umpire claims to be impartial, then shows up on Yankee Stadium field with a 'NY SUX' t-shirt... well, you should be able to get the point.

he likes wearing t-shirts?

I actually responded to this thread last night, but Jolt ate another one of my damn posts, and I was just too tuckered out to re-write it.

I'll try my best to recapture a little of what I wrote last night:

Eutrusca,

C'mon now. I don't believe for a minute that Amnesty International really ever had any credibility with you to begin with. I think you're just upset with AI because they, a universally-lauded champion for human rights on this lil' blue mudball we call home, delivered a solid slap upside the head of the Bush administration.

As far as members of AI making, as individuals, political campaign contributions, so what? Big smegging deal. Everyone is entitled to contribute money, time or effort to political parties in that capacity. At least they are in a democracy.

If you don't like it, well... big deal! Tough-o, Eutrusca! Learn to cope with it.

Sorry!

I actually responded to this thread last night, but Jolt ate another one of my damn posts, and I was just too tuckered out to re-write it.

I'll try my best to recapture a little of what I wrote last night:

Eutrusca,

C'mon now. I don't believe for a minute that Amnesty International really ever had any credibility with you to begin with. I think you're just upset with AI because they, a universally-lauded champion for human rights on this lil' blue mudball we call home, delivered a solid slap upside the head of the Bush administration.

As far as members of AI making, as individuals, political campaign contributions, so what? Big smegging deal. Everyone is entitled to contribute money, time or effort to political parties in that capacity. At least they are in a democracy.

If you don't like it, well... big deal! Tough-o, Eutrusca! Learn to cope with it.

Sorry!


No, if it's any consolation, and no surprise to you of course Dobbs, but Eutrusca and I probably never cared what Amnesty said - even back during the Cold War.

No, if it's any consolation, and no surprise to you of course Dobbs, but Eutrusca and I probably never cared what Amnesty said - even back during the Cold War.

Interesting in that back in the bad old days of the Cold War, AI had some pretty ungenerous things to say about human rights violations in the Eastern Bloc nations.

Just makes ya think, don't it Legs? Unpleasant thoughts, to be sure, but it's AI's job to turn over big rocks and look underneath. Especially when a whole lotta people simply refuse to look under their own rocks, that's when AI is frankly duty-bound to do so. You know, to make sure things are on the level. Which clearly, they aren't, and haven't been for some time.

Truth hurts. Yep. Hey, even Canada didn't do super-amazingly well in AI's estimation. Our government hasn't dismissed the criticism out of hand, though.

Truth hurts. Atonement is the ointment.

No, if it's any consolation, and no surprise to you of course Dobbs, but Eutrusca and I probably never cared what Amnesty said - even back during the Cold War. Interesting piece that WL. You clearly have no clue when AI was established, do you?

Is everyones memory here so short? I didn't have much trouble finding this on google. I am disappointed nobody here remembers.

Each of these folks served in an executive capacity for an electronic ballot company and had mande contributions to the republican party at some point in their career.

It is hypocracy to defend AI execs from the same accusations of bias as many of these same people accused these gentlemen of doing.

So who wants to be the pot and who wants to be the kettle?

Well now. Then I guess your claims are baseless as you can't produce evidence to back them up.

So is the report titled?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Human dignity denied
Torture and accountability in the ‘war on terror’

I am going to do some reading this weekend......

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Human dignity denied
Torture and accountability in the ‘war on terror’

[QUOTE]

I like those Amnesty Guys, they tell us what we don't wan't to see, the bare truth, simple as that. They acted against the USSR, China, and other communist regimes like they acted against US friend Pinochet. Why are they wrong now: because US people are not critical about their own regime. It is as simple as that.

Is everyones memory here so short? I didn't have much trouble finding this on google. I am disappointed nobody here remembers.

Each of these folks served in an executive capacity for an electronic ballot company and had mande contributions to the republican party at some point in their career.

It is hypocracy to defend AI execs from the same accusations of bias as many of these same people accused these gentlemen of doing.

So who wants to be the pot and who wants to be the kettle?

All sound and fury signifying nothing.

If you found it so easily on Google, you can provide links.

Then we can judge whether the cases are similar or disimilar.

But you've already highlighted a significant difference -- did you catch it?

And, BTW, Mr. Pot, you originally joined in on the castigation of the AI executives. Are you now calling yourself a hypocrite?

No, if it's any consolation, and no surprise to you of course Dobbs, but Eutrusca and I probably never cared what Amnesty said - even back during the Cold War.

What I find ironic is those that are up in arms against AI because they dared criticize the US.

In justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush waved around AI reports of human rights abuses in those countries.

President Reagan and others through the years used AI reports to criticize communist countries.

I guess the reliability of AI depends on whose ox is being gored.

My school has its own Amnesty International Club and no offence but I hate the dang thing, people call me "right-winger" because they know how republican I am. my school (more specificly my history teacher) are mostly liberal (thats the price I pay for living close to the beach in California) and have all these Hippie meetings. I think the United States Governament should enact "Love it or Leave it" polocies... then again I am me, but no matter what the AI organization should just be shut down & the money they have go to charity or somthing, they had a good run, but its over and they need to recognise and accept that.
how about we change the bill of rights to say "Congress shall make no law protecting the freedom of speech."

Liverbreath']Amnisty International was never a credible human rights organization. They are a member of One World Network an umbrella network of 1500 leftist /marxist front groups who recieve their funding from scum such as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, John D. and Cathrine T. MacAuther Foundation and the Columbia Foundation. These are all well known money laundering operations with the purpose of enslaving the worlds population under a single socialist rule.
thats why they never criticize any of those leftist or marxist countries right?

"Why are we moaning about $2,000 from an AI executive, when billions and millions get throw around by corporations advocate their position in government or buy influence."

Address the point. I don't buy misdirection.

When an organisation claims that it is non-partisan, and does not support or oppose any government, and its senior members are donating money to a political campaign, it calls the organisation's integrity into question.
like FOX NEWS which is "Fair and Balanced?"

The right of the accused to face his accusers;
The right of the accused to supoena witnesses;
The right to trial by a jury of your peers;
No double-jeopardy rules?

so the prisonors at Gitmo have all these rights?

Is everyones memory here so short? I didn't have much trouble finding this on google. I am disappointed nobody here remembers.

Each of these folks served in an executive capacity for an electronic ballot company and had mande contributions to the republican party at some point in their career.

It is hypocracy to defend AI execs from the same accusations of bias as many of these same people accused these gentlemen of doing.

So who wants to be the pot and who wants to be the kettle?
If I understand you properly, you're talking about Walden O'Dell of Diebold systems, correct? The guy who wrote either the Bush campaign or the RNC a letter that said he was committed to delivering Ohio's electoral votes on election day?

Here's my take. I personally believe that the guy was talking about simply donating money and campaigning, not that he was going to try to rig election machines (although the potential for that worries me greatly, and I'm even more bothered by the lack of interest from the Republican party, but that's another thread). But there is a major difference between the people who work for AI, or, to name a right-wing group while not saying that AI is left wing, Focus on the Family, and the people who are either in charge of elections for a state (like the Secretary of State) or people who run companies that make vote-counting machinery. That second group can physically change the outcome of an election--the first group can only hope to influence it, and all politics is influence.

Get the difference? There's something inherently wrong with the person responsible for overseeing a state's elections openly campaigning and even running a candidate's campaign--that's a clear conflict of interest. In the case of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, that's exactly what you had, and it doesn't take much of a stretch to believe that that conflict could have made the difference in the outcome, even assuming that the elections were trouble-free (which they certainly weren't). And as far as voting machine manufacture is concerned, I'd be much more satisfied if they were open-source machines built to government specs by a company that opened every facet of its innerworkings to the public, if only to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

You'll find that there is an institutionalized bias against conservative viewpoints in the education system. It'll get worse in college but stay true to your beliefs. They will attempt to intimidate you into silence by threatening your grades and the students may occasionally threaten violence against you or your possessions. While it may seem overwhelming sometimes keep in mind that they are getting louder and crazier because no one is listening to them anymore. Leftists in academia are a dying breed so it's only nature they thrash about as they go.
"Convert now, or fall!"
-Chronicles of Riddick

In part. (Which is part of why WL's saying that is fine with him is odd.)

It would violate the First Amendment to tax religious organizations.

If an organization is political, rather than religious, then it can be taxed.

So, if the logic that you and others have put forth here is sound, then:

If a leader of a church gives money to a party or political leader, then the church is a political organization.

Thus, it looses its tax-exempt status.

I believe that logic is faulty. Don't you?
your sarcasm was a little to subtle for me, care to explain again? ahhhh.. the good ole' days when people didn't need it spelled out for them.

I'll give you a hint:

Islamist subversives hate America - no matter what we do. Osama wrote before 9-11 that no matter what America does, everyone in America must be killed. You might be overjoyed to know that he also wrote (in a paraphrase of the original by Zangi) that while it is possible to have temporary truces with the infidel (as evidenced by the events in Spain), once America is destroyed, the rest will be subjugated under dar al-Islam and the Caliphate will be restored in the world. Those who are not subjugated, and who do not become true Muslims will die.

Any sane person would see therefore that we have nothing to lose.

Oh, and if you want to appease them so they don't kill you, convert to the Wahhabi sect of Islam. Otherwise, you're as good as dead.
America is trying to bring rights like free speech to Iraq and yet what Osama did in your post would be protected in the United States as free speech under current law.

If I understand you properly, you're talking about Walden O'Dell of Diebold systems, correct? The guy who wrote either the Bush campaign or the RNC a letter that said he was committed to delivering Ohio's electoral votes on election day?

Here's my take. I personally believe that the guy was talking about simply donating money and campaigning, not that he was going to try to rig election machines (although the potential for that worries me greatly, and I'm even more bothered by the lack of interest from the Republican party, but that's another thread). But there is a major difference between the people who work for AI, or, to name a right-wing group while not saying that AI is left wing, Focus on the Family, and the people who are either in charge of elections for a state (like the Secretary of State) or people who run companies that make vote-counting machinery. That second group can physically change the outcome of an election--the first group can only hope to influence it, and all politics is influence.

Get the difference? There's something inherently wrong with the person responsible for overseeing a state's elections openly campaigning and even running a candidate's campaign--that's a clear conflict of interest. In the case of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, that's exactly what you had, and it doesn't take much of a stretch to believe that that conflict could have made the difference in the outcome, even assuming that the elections were trouble-free (which they certainly weren't). And as far as voting machine manufacture is concerned, I'd be much more satisfied if they were open-source machines built to government specs by a company that opened every facet of its innerworkings to the public, if only to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Ahhh Thank you!

Sorry Bozzy this guy hardly compares to the AI exec.....

No, if it's any consolation, and no surprise to you of course Dobbs, but Eutrusca and I probably never cared what Amnesty said - even back during the Cold War.
This conversation is obvioulsy going nowhere but I felt that I had to answer to this one.

I thought that you of all the people in NS would be interested of the work of Amnesty. Did you know that their last main campaign was (is) "Stop violence against women"? Amnesty says that it's the greatest human rights scandal of our times.

Here's the link to the American campaign site
http://www.amnestyusa.org/stopviolence/index.do

It's quite clear to me that you know next to nothing about Amnesty.

No where on the page did I see words like "self-defence", or "Ladies, if a man accosts you in a dark alley, draw your .357 Magnum, and blow his bollocks off"

Their campaign seems to be about flannel, publicity, and getting funds.

Well now. Then I guess your claims are baseless as you can't produce evidence to back them up.

Dont be a tard, just because I didn't provide a link does not affect the reality of the facts. This is not something that is hard to confirm. If I mentioned WW2 and didn't provide a link it would not evidence that it never occurred.

If you want a link because thie truly is something you are unfamiliar with then I am glad to oblige, but blasting an attitude is unwarranted and demonstrates only unflattering things about you.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Wally+O%27Dell%22++%22W.H.+Timken%22+%22Admiral+Bill+Owens%22+%22Robert+Gates%22&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.stanley2002.org/stories/100903/100903113.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0211/S00048.htm

If you want more than that there is plenty out there. Most if it is very fringe, but still many in the core believe it.

Point is, - If it is acceptable for non-partisian AI execs to be politically active with partisian politics, then it is acceptable for all non-partisan entities execs to be politically active with partisian politics. It is either or - not "yes, but."

There's something inherently wrong with the person responsible for overseeing a state's elections openly campaigning and even running a candidate's campaign--that's a clear conflict of interest.

Versus someone who has voluntrarily takes the yolk of accountability for Global Human Rights openly campaigning....

And as far as voting machine manufacture is concerned, I'd be much more satisfied if they were open-source machines built to government specs by a company that opened every facet of its innerworkings to the public, if only to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Open source = much easier to hack. Surely you can see that. Government specs? WTF - is there a code-writing dept of the government now?

Accusing them of vote fraud would be like accusing Microsoft for Enron - Afterall, it was Microsoft's accounting software.

Though I disagree, I found your post thoughtful and interesting. Thanks for not succumbing to the lower denominator found here.

America is trying to bring rights like free speech to Iraq and yet what Osama did in your post would be protected in the United States as free speech under current law.
Publicly advocating the violent overthrow of the Government of the United States is a treasonable act punishable under the law.

Publicly advocating the violent overthrow of the Government of the United States is a treasonable act punishable under the law.
Shit, guess if I ever go to america then ill be labelled a terrorist. That sucks

No where on the page did I see words like "self-defence", or "Ladies, if a man accosts you in a dark alley, draw your .357 Magnum, and blow his bollocks off"

Their campaign seems to be about flannel, publicity, and getting funds.
Oh, for heaven's sake.

Versus someone who has voluntrarily takes the yolk of accountability for Global Human Rights openly campaigning....
It's a matter of authority. The head of AI, or Focus on the Family, or the International Red Cross, for instance, cannot personally make decisions that affect the outcome of an election. They can't use the power of their organizations to, for instance, determine which precincts get more voting machines than others, or decide what level of training precinct workers receive, or even what sort of voting machines are available to use. The secretary of state of most states has that power, and I don't think it's too much to ask that the person in that position of power at least refrain from being the campaign chair of a person running for office. I'm not suggesting that the person not be able to contribute to other campaigns, or even campaign for others--although I wouldn't disagree with someone who made that argument--but simply that they shouldn't head up the state campaign for someone else. That ought to go for all parties, major or otherwise--no more of the uproar over Katherine Harris or Kenneth Blackwell.

Open source = much easier to hack. Surely you can see that. Government specs? WTF - is there a code-writing dept of the government now?

Accusing them of vote fraud would be like accusing Microsoft for Enron - Afterall, it was Microsoft's accounting software.

Though I disagree, I found your post thoughtful and interesting. Thanks for not succumbing to the lower denominator found here.
Here's the problem with your argument--there's no way of knowing that opensource is easier to hack because we haven't officially seen the code for the voting machines currently in use. The makers say it's proprietary software and won't release it. The code that has come out--that Bev Harris and the people at Black Box Voting have looked at (which includes experts from Stanford, MIT and elsewhere) have said it's riddled with security flaws. I don't see how open-source code could be any worse. And when I said to government specs, what I meant was that the government would set certain rules as to the security level necessary for a machine to be usable, not specific code written by government scientists--the government would set the acceptable standard and the people hired to do the job would have to meet that standard, and since it would be open-source, the debate would be in public, open for all to see any concerns. Better open than secret, as far as I'm concerned.

Personally, I favor optical scan voting machines, because there's still the human element of hand marking a ballot that can be physically recounted in the case of any disputes.

Here's the problem with your argument--there's no way of knowing that opensource is easier to hack because we haven't officially seen the code for the voting machines currently in use. .

Since you don't seem to know much about open source I'll simply point out it is sort of like publishing a list of your bank account numners, credit card numbers, social security number, address, DOB and name on the internet. A hacker can get these things if they want, but by making it public you make it vastly easier on the hacker.

The benefit of open source is that it allows anyone the ability to modify a program, so it is constantly being altered by the creativity and ingenuirty of users on the net. When it comes to innovation that has it's advantages, but when it comes to security, that's not exactly optimal.

Since you don't seem to know much about open source I'll simply point out it is sort of like publishing a list of your bank account numners, credit card numbers, social security number, address, DOB and name on the internet. A hacker can get these things if they want, but by making it public you make it vastly easier on the hacker.

The benefit of open source is that it allows anyone the ability to modify a program, so it is constantly being altered by the creativity and ingenuirty of users on the net. When it comes to innovation that has it's advantages, but when it comes to security, that's not exactly optimal.
When it comes right down to it, I don't like computerized voting, because no system is failsafe. You have to to trade off between security and openness, and I'm not willing to trade.

I'm moving to Florida in a week, and I believe I'll be living in a county with touch-screen voting. I won't do it--I'll ask for an absentee vote or another option because I don't trust those machines--why? Because the companies that make them are more concerned with their software secrets than they are with my peace of mind, and because there's no way for me to know that once I've pressed that spot on the touch-screen, that my vote has been counted the way I wanted it to be. I want something I can mark by hand, that can be counted by another human if necessary. So I'll never be satisfied with touch-screen voting, open-source or otherwise.

The benefit of open source is that it allows anyone the ability to modify a program, so it is constantly being altered by the creativity and ingenuirty of users on the net. When it comes to innovation that has it's advantages, but when it comes to security, that's not exactly optimal.
If that is so, why, then, is Linux and other open source programs FAR more secure than Microsoft?

When it comes right down to it, I don't like computerized voting, because no system is failsafe. You have to to trade off between security and openness, and I'm not willing to trade.
Move to Nevada then, our Sec of State insisted, and got, machines that produced paper copies as back ups, and you get to see the copy so that it can be verified by you as correct.

The funny thing was that the companies that made Nevada's machines insisted that it would take too long and wouldn't be worth it, but he stuck to his guns and Nevada had one of its most trouble free elections.

Move to Nevada then, our Sec of State insisted, and got, machines that produced paper copies as back ups, and you get to see the copy so that it can be verified by you as correct.

The funny thing was that the companies that made Nevada's machines insisted that it would take too long and wouldn't be worth it, but he stuck to his guns and Nevada had one of its most trouble free elections.
Can't--Florida it is. But I did read recently that Dade county is seriously considering replacing their brand new touch screen machines with optical scan machines--because they're not only more accurate, they're cheaper. Now, I just have to work on Broward, since that's where I'll be.

Publicly advocating the violent overthrow of the Government of the United States is a treasonable act punishable under the law.
not since the Cold War. check Brandenberg v. Ohio http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=444 and the 2003 (i think) Virginia case about the KKK (to confirm that the current judges still uphold these findings). notice, both of them are the supreme court. although they dont say they outright overturn the Smith Act or the Internal Securities act (forgot the actual name) they significantly change them.
Ill summarize: unless a reasonable person believes that a threat to overthrow United States government can be frightening to the government, that threat means jack shit. OR someone can advocate the overthrow of the US government but not conspire with, make an attempt to, or aid anyone trying to overthrow the government. so if you hand a sniper rifle to someone and tell them to shoot the president at x time at y place, thats treason if there are two witnesses.
i could go into more detail (my dads a lawyer) and get better sources, and quote actual texts, but im too lazy and you could google it yourself if you werent so lazy.
I was actually taught in high school exactly what you said. i posted what you said online, and someone said no, thats wrong. so i asked my dad (him being a lawyer and all). he showed me the actual cases and laws (thank you lexis) and the history of the whole thing.

[QUOTE=Ill summarize: unless a reasonable person believes that a threat to overturn United States government can frightening to the government, that threat means jack shit.[/QUOTE]


Dad's a lawyer huh? Nuff said, case dismissed.

When it comes right down to it, I don't like computerized voting, because no system is failsafe. You have to to trade off between security and openness, and I'm not willing to trade.

I'm moving to Florida in a week, and I believe I'll be living in a county with touch-screen voting. I won't do it--I'll ask for an absentee vote or another option because I don't trust those machines--why? Because the companies that make them are more concerned with their software secrets than they are with my peace of mind, and because there's no way for me to know that once I've pressed that spot on the touch-screen, that my vote has been counted the way I wanted it to be. I want something I can mark by hand, that can be counted by another human if necessary. So I'll never be satisfied with touch-screen voting, open-source or otherwise.

I also am in FL. There is one thing we do agree on - the need for a verifiable print out from the computer. I have no issue with the coumpeter entry or even counting, but I do think it would be prudent for the computer to spit out a complted printed ballot after you vote for you to view and verify, which would then go into a ballot box in case of the need for a recount or other problems. I do agree with you about that needing to be part of the process.

I wouldn't get too caught up in absentee voting ballots. If everyone elses vote is screwed then your correct one really does not count for much. A better option would be to volunteeer with the local election board and be a force for getting the system changed.

Come to think of it, I recognized many of my friends working at the polls, maybe I'll do that next time to. A friend of mine even ran for election commissioner and nearly won. He was the first democrat I've voted for in over a decade!

If that is so, why, then, is Linux and other open source programs FAR more secure than Microsoft?

Do you really have to ask? I'd suggest you visit some LINUX websites and check there. They will tell you that M$ weakness is primarily because it is on over 90% of machines. Why write a linux hack that has less than a 10% chance of ever getting on a Linux machine?

Now, if you KNOW the machine you are trying to crack is a Linux the task of authoring a cracking program is considerably easier...

Luckily most crackers don't want to expend the effort of writing code, they just download other peoples work. The vast majority of them are really not code-monkeys anyway.


i think you just pwned him nervun
Club House, here is a thread more suitable for someone of your maturity;
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423755


.